So you're saying because the iPod costs less it should have less storage capacity than the iPhone, without any regard for all the components and licensing in the iPhone that makes it cost more? Really?!
His point is that storage costs so little nowadays! It costs Apple around $8 to put a 32GB chip in there vs. 16GB. I don't care about who wants it or not! Put it in there because the market costs are low! Look at Samsung! The S6 has 32GB standard and costs the same as the 16GB S4 and S5 did!
His point is that storage costs so little nowadays! It costs Apple around $8 to put a 32GB chip in there vs. 16GB. I don't care about who wants it or not! Put it in there because the market costs are low! Look at Samsung! The S6 has 32GB standard and costs the same as the 16GB S4 and S5 did!
And? You think the $100 different in the tiers is priced solely because of the NAND? Funny that you don't mention that Apple doubled the NAND last year for the same price, only that they didn't do it at the lowest possible tier, even though that would effectively result in less for your money across the entire product line if margins were to stay where Apple wants them to stay. Or are you arguing that for-profit companies shouldn't price their products for the market, but instead follow the "competitors" who may have to sell their product for a loss just to even get someone to buy them?
64 GB iPhone = 3 Bedroom Home with 1-car garage, 1800 Sqaare Feet
128 GB iPhone = 5 Bedroom Home with 3-car garage, 4000 Square Feet
Businesses prefer the 16 GB iPhone for their employees. Their employees won’t fill up their iPhones with data, unnecessary information, personal apps or photos, or worse – information that compromises the business if the iPhone was stolen. Businesses generally use only a few apps - and certainly not multigigabyte games.
Many people, such as Android Phone Users, just need a 1 bedroom condo iPhone. The vast majority of Android Phone Users simply use it for the phone calls and text messages. The smartphone isn’t their primary personal computer or center of their life. It is a PHONE.
If you buy a 1 bedroom condo, you cannot expect to house visitors nor raise a family in such a small place. You cannot even put a lot of belongings in such a home. Often, you have to keep belongings in an external storage unit. If you need more room, then simply move out and buy a bigger home.
?
Total BS.. this is the real reason:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
And? You think the $100 different in the tiers is priced solely because of the NAND? Funny that you don't mention that Apple doubled the NAND last year for the same price, only that they didn't do it at the lowest possible tier, even though that would effectively result in less for your money across the entire product line if margins were to stay where Apple wants them to stay. Or are you arguing that for-profit companies shouldn't price their products for the market, but instead follow the "competitors" who may have to sell their product for a loss just to even get someone to buy them?
are you kidding me? Does Apple pay you to make those kind of ridiculous explanations? It's 2015! I really don't care about profit margins. Those who want 64 or 128 will still get those even if 32GB is standard! It's about principle here! Apple wouldn't lose a penny if they made 32GB standard. It would just benefit the mainstream consumer to get more for their money based on market price.
are you kidding me? Does Apple pay you to make those kind of ridiculous explanations? It's 2015! I really don't care about profit margins. Those who want 64 or 128 will still get those even if 32GB is standard! It's about principle here! Apple wouldn't lose a penny if they made 32GB standard. It would just benefit the mainstream consumer to get more for their money based on market price.
This does take a little thinking and some basic understanding of economics, business, and maths, but it's all still rudimentary stuff. You write, "I really don't care about profit margins." That's your problem. You're looking at this from what you want, not from what the seller wants. Remember, it's their desire, their idea, their investment, their risk, and their product long before you ever got a whiff of it… yet you want to cry foul for a company choosing to make a profit and not, instead, selling you a completed and warrantied item in which they made — not you! — at the component. That's just fucking stupid on every level. If you want a product and it's within an agreeable price range then buy it; if those two things don't meet up then you don't buy it. It's really that fucking simple. There is no need for you to stomp your feet because a for-profit company is choosing to make an actual profit, and all this "but blah blah charges less," then buy from them, but the fact that you're bitching about it means there is a reason why you don't want to buy from blah blah, and your ridiculous implication that blah blah is doing it for some altruistic reason and not because their products are considered inferior.
You also need to make the very small hop to look the iPhone product line and not each individual phone. You keep talking about how much NAND costs. So? As I stated, the pricing has nothing to do with the actual cost of the component, but about creating a Good-Better-Best model. Consider the following silly scenarios that I'd except you want to put in place if you got to run Apple. Each iPhone has your invented $8 difference in NAND doubling . OK, great, now the **** isn't going to buy the Best model when the highest to lowest price is such a small percentage of the total cost of the device. You just tanked Apple! Now lets use your "fair" desire to have the components for each tier be $100 more than the next model. The entry level gets no front facing camera, not Touch ID, a TN panel, a plastic screen instead of glass, a 1 year old processor with only one core. Way to go¡ You just killed Apple.
No matter what you want, it's not your fucking product. All you get is the say whether you're going to buy that product or it, and based on your bellyaching you're going to, you just don't want to pay $100 for an additional 48GB. You want Apple to cater to your specific needs without any consideration for their business. Companies don't work that way. They work for themselves, not for you. You're a means to an end, and the sooner you accept that the better off you'll be. Of course, the flip side is that if they aren't serving their customers in an appropriate way they won't have business, which is where your choice comes in. If you don't want to understand even the most basic aspects of business and how a company balances profit margins across a product line, that's fine, but I suggest you go live in a cabin in the woods so you're less distressed by the normal going-ons in the world.
PS: Moore's Law has nothing to do with NAND capacity. The storage doesn't follow some 2-bit doubling scheme on your devices. Besides the 16GB just means it comes with 16,000,000,000 bytes, not 17,179,869,184 (16 Gibibytes). actually, it's slightly over 16^9 bytes dye to the chips, but not much. Apple could use any scaling they wanted to. The fact is going from 16 to 64 is more fair for the price compared to 64 to 128 because it's a difference of 48GB and 64GB, respectively, instead of 16GB and 64GB. Those buying the 128GB iPhone are still getting a better deal in terms of cost per GB over the 64GB, but it's considerably better than the previous model of 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB at the same price points.
OK, great, now the **** isn't going to buy the Best model when the highest to lowest price is such a small percentage of the total cost of the device. You just tanked Apple! Now lets use your "fair" desire to have the components for each tier be $100 more than the next model. The entry level gets no front facing camera, not Touch ID, a TN panel, a plastic screen instead of glass, a 1 year old processor with only one core. Way to go¡ You just killed Apple.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
This does take a little thinking and some basic understanding of economics, business, and maths, but it's all still rudimentary stuff. You write, "I really don't care about profit margins." That's your problem. You're looking at this from what you want, not from what the seller wants. Remember, it's their desire, their idea, their investment, their risk, and their product long before you ever got a whiff of it… yet you want to cry foul for a company choosing to make a profit and not, instead, selling you a completed and warrantied item in which they made — not you! — at the component. That's just fucking stupid on every level. If you want a product and it's within an agreeable price range then buy it; if those two things don't meet up then you don't buy it. It's really that fucking simple. There is no need for you to stomp your feet because a for-profit company is choosing to make an actual profit, and all this "but blah blah charges less," then buy from them, but the fact that you're bitching about it means there is a reason why you don't want to buy from blah blah, and your ridiculous implication that blah blah is doing it for some altruistic reason and not because their products are considered inferior.
You also need to make the very small hop to look the iPhone product line and not each individual phone. You keep talking about how much NAND costs. So? As I stated, the pricing has nothing to do with the actual cost of the component, but about creating a Good-Better-Best model. Consider the following silly scenarios that I'd except you want to put in place if you got to run Apple. Each iPhone has your invented $8 difference in NAND doubling . OK, great, now the **** isn't going to buy the Best model when the highest to lowest price is such a small percentage of the total cost of the device. You just tanked Apple! Now lets use your "fair" desire to have the components for each tier be $100 more than the next model. The entry level gets no front facing camera, not Touch ID, a TN panel, a plastic screen instead of glass, a 1 year old processor with only one core. Way to go¡ You just killed Apple.
No matter what you want, it's not your fucking product. All you get is the say whether you're going to buy that product or it, and based on your bellyaching you're going to, you just don't want to pay $100 for an additional 48GB. You want Apple to cater to your specific needs without any consideration for their business. Companies don't work that way. They work for themselves, not for you. You're a means to an end, and the sooner you accept that the better off you'll be. Of course, the flip side is that if they aren't serving their customers in an appropriate way they won't have business, which is where your choice comes in. If you don't want to understand even the most basic aspects of business and how a company balances profit margins across a product line, that's fine, but I suggest you go live in a cabin in the woods so you're less distressed by the normal going-ons in the world.
PS: Moore's Law has nothing to do with NAND capacity. The storage doesn't follow some 2-bit doubling scheme on your devices. Besides the 16GB just means it comes with 16,000,000,000 bytes, not 17,179,869,184 (16 Gibibytes). actually, it's slightly over 16^9 bytes dye to the chips, but not much. Apple could use any scaling they wanted to. The fact is going from 16 to 64 is more fair for the price compared to 64 to 128 because it's a difference of 48GB and 64GB, respectively, instead of 16GB and 64GB. Those buying the 128GB iPhone are still getting a better deal in terms of cost per GB over the 64GB, but it's considerably better than the previous model of 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB at the same price points.
Apple can afford to make 32gb standard. Bottom line. You writing me an essay didn't make you correct.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
1) I never said that the phone shouldn't have a larger display. I even argued that even with a larger diplay have a larger display and still have a lower volume and weight than older iPhones… which is the important aspect to consider.
2) The fact remains that this is Apple's product and it's up to them to do what they wish. We agree or disagree with their direction when we decide to buy or not buy their products. There is no "shoulda" comments unless we're talking about violating warranty and/or safety considerations and/or otherwise making false claims to sell their wares.
You're pushing for Apple to be a socialist company know? Is this just Apple or do you want the entire structure of capitalism brought to its knees with your "Apple can afford it so they should do it" argument.
Bottom line.
The bottom line is you're arguments are selfish and lacking zero comprehension of how markets work, hence your frustration and anger. There is the old adage that ignorance is bliss, but it's those people that are ignorant to the basic mechanics of society that are constantly making mistakes for which the only resolutions are additional wasted time and money in their already wasted lives
You writing me an essay didn't make you correct.
Not because it's "an essay" but because it's correct make me correct. You can call me a Apple fanboy for standing up for the free market against your "Apple should do it because I want it and they can afford it" yammering, because I also believe in free speech, but that doesn't mean I'm not also going to exert my right to call you out on your unthinking and self-absorbed statements.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
Well, for one, those "apologists" by and large actually forked out extra money for the extra capacity (I seriously doubt that anybody actually just refused to buy one just because they started at 16 GB), thus proving Apple right, and for another, this particular "apologist" will be buying a 6s, but as any product I ever buy is a set of compromises, I will be grumbling about the size of the phone for a while, even while enjoying the larger screen.
It's 2015! I really don't care about profit margins.
Apple, surprisingly enough, does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepen03
Those who want 64 or 128 will still get those even if 32GB is standard!
But if those who want 32 GB will ALSO get 64 GB, that's a lot of extra money to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepen03
Apple wouldn't lose a penny if they made 32GB standard. It would just benefit the mainstream consumer to get more for their money based on market price.
You live in some kind of fantasy world where because YOU don't care about margins, corporations magically don't, either, and where doubling the amount of a component in tens of millions of products somehow doesn't cost anything.
You live at your parents' home and have never had to balance a budget in your life?
1) I never said that the phone shouldn't have a larger display. I even argued that even with a larger diplay have a larger display and still have a lower volume and weight than older iPhones… which is the important aspect to consider.
2) The fact remains that this is Apple's product and it's up to them to do what they wish. We agree or disagree with their direction when we decide to buy or not buy their products. There is "shoulda" comments unless we're talking about violating warranty and/or safety considerations and/or otherwise making false claims to sell their wares.
Fair enough, we agree to disagree and thanks for the civil response. I will add that the 16GB iPhone SKUs exist primarily as an unsell SKU and are all but useless to consumers except for the most basic of users, maybe corporate and kids; other than the groups mentioned, no one in their right mind buy 16GB iPhone. It's kind of like buying a VW GTI with no power windows, manual door locks and no air conditioning and AM/FM radio, and 14 inch wheels. It's just a ridiculous SKU.
Fair enough, we agree to disagree and thanks for the civil response.
My point was that a company has the right to sell their wares they way we decide. My comment where I said "we agree or disagree" was referencing an agreement to do business with that company if their products and prices suit our needs over a competitor's product and prices. You're disagreeing with that? You're onboard with companies being forced to do what the "the People want" simply because that company has the money to do it? [@]deepen03[/@] doesn't believe in a free market but I would have sworn you did. :???:
I will add that the 16GB iPhone SKUs exist primarily as an unsell SKU and are all but useless to consumers except for the most basic of users, maybe corporate and kids; other than the groups mentioned, no one in their right mind buy 16GB iPhone.
As I stated previously, over 80% of the people I help with new devices I recommend getting the lowest capacity device. I measure this by looking at their current usage, and then comparing their current device to the new to see if there may be something in their usage pattern that may cause them to use a lot more storage capacity with the new device. These "most basic of users" are the majority. These are not you and me. These are not people who illegally download music and then want 400 days of continuous music playback on their devices. These are not people that want the latest 4GiB 3D game that pushes the latest iDevice to its limits. These are not people trying to run massive productivity apps on their phones. These are normal users. These are users that will have little to no local music. No local movies or TV shows, and then use some small apps, Mail, Safari and Phone. The other side of that the companies that only need to run a couple in-house apps with the rest of the device locked down. If you want the minimum to be 32GB (great!) that will happen on day, and I'm guessing then we'll get complaints that the minimum should be 64GB because 32GB isn't enough for anyone.
My point was that a company has the right to sell their wares they way we decide. My comment where I said "we agree or disagree" was referencing an agreement to do business with that company if their products and prices suit our needs over a competitor's product and prices. You're disagreeing with that? You're onboard with companies being forced to do what the "the People want" simply because that company has the money to do it? @deepen03 doesn't believe in a free market but I would have sworn you did.
As I stated previously, over 80% of the people I help with new devices I recommend getting the lowest capacity device. I measure this by looking at their current usage, and then comparing their current device to the new to see if there may be something in their usage pattern that may cause them to use a lot more storage capacity with the new device. These "most basic of users" are the majority. These are not you and me. These are not people who illegally download music and then want 400 days of continuous music playback on their devices. These are not people that want the latest 4GiB 3D game that pushes the latest iDevice to its limits. These are not people trying to run massive productivity apps on their phones. These are normal users. These are users that will have little to no local music. No local movies or TV shows, and then use some small apps, Mail, Safari and Phone. The other side of that the companies that only need to run a couple in-house apps with the rest of the device locked down. If you want the minimum to be 32GB (great!) that will happen on day, and I'm guessing then we'll get complaints that the minimum should be 64GB because 32GB isn't enough for anyone.
I'm fully onboard with Apple doing what they need to do to move iPhones. Apple knows how to market consumer electronics, particularly mobile, better than anybody, but I don't have to like their 16GB configuration based on my notion of value and use case.
Tech specs are a moving target, Apple tends to defy the convention of the spec-wars which more is better, instead, Apple tends to make products which are greater than the sum of the parts through innovative engineering of software, hardware and design. The 16GB iPhone just may be just that and I don't see it.
Tech specs are a moving target, Apple tends to defy the convention of the spec-wars which more is better, instead, Apple tends to make products which are greater than the sum of the parts through innovative engineering of software, hardware and design. The 16GB iPhone just may be just that and I don't see it.
1) If you want an unbalanced device that puts "more" into aspects that fit well on a spec sheet, then don't go with Apple. Apple didn't build a quad-channel (128-bit) memory controller into the 2012 iPad A5X chip because they wanted to advertise that to the world. We needed ChipWorks to x-ray the chip and for AnandTech to analyze the x-ray. What they wanted was a Retina display, thus they also made the rest functional for that task. That how Apple works. It's really that simple.
2) So you want them to spend more money on the storage component (so you can buy the least expensive model so you can feel like you're sticking it to Apple?), fine, now what other components do you want removed now that they've increased the NAND on every device they own so that its higher than every… single… competitor on the planet, because, as you stated "more is better"? Do you want the display to now be TN instead of IPS? How about no Touch ID or no Force Touch? How about going back to cheap plastic cases or less fit and finish? How about a 2MPx camera component? This is what you're asking for and since, as we discussed, Apple's not going to alter their margins simply because of [@]deepen03[/@] wants them to not make a profit.
Comments
So you're saying because the iPod costs less it should have less storage capacity than the iPhone, without any regard for all the components and licensing in the iPhone that makes it cost more? Really?!
His point is that storage costs so little nowadays! It costs Apple around $8 to put a 32GB chip in there vs. 16GB. I don't care about who wants it or not! Put it in there because the market costs are low! Look at Samsung! The S6 has 32GB standard and costs the same as the 16GB S4 and S5 did!
And? You think the $100 different in the tiers is priced solely because of the NAND? Funny that you don't mention that Apple doubled the NAND last year for the same price, only that they didn't do it at the lowest possible tier, even though that would effectively result in less for your money across the entire product line if margins were to stay where Apple wants them to stay. Or are you arguing that for-profit companies shouldn't price their products for the market, but instead follow the "competitors" who may have to sell their product for a loss just to even get someone to buy them?
Apple is entirely right to sell a 16 GB iPhone.
Consumers simply need to choose the iPhone best for their needs.
They need to realize that they cannot stuff all of their belongings into a small storage iPhone if they choose the 16 GB model.
ANALOGIES:
16GB iPhone = 1 Bedroom Condominium, 600 Square Feet
64 GB iPhone = 3 Bedroom Home with 1-car garage, 1800 Sqaare Feet
128 GB iPhone = 5 Bedroom Home with 3-car garage, 4000 Square Feet
Businesses prefer the 16 GB iPhone for their employees. Their employees won’t fill up their iPhones with data, unnecessary information, personal apps or photos, or worse – information that compromises the business if the iPhone was stolen. Businesses generally use only a few apps - and certainly not multigigabyte games.
Many people, such as Android Phone Users, just need a 1 bedroom condo iPhone. The vast majority of Android Phone Users simply use it for the phone calls and text messages. The smartphone isn’t their primary personal computer or center of their life. It is a PHONE.
If you buy a 1 bedroom condo, you cannot expect to house visitors nor raise a family in such a small place. You cannot even put a lot of belongings in such a home. Often, you have to keep belongings in an external storage unit. If you need more room, then simply move out and buy a bigger home.
?
Total BS.. this is the real reason:
And? You think the $100 different in the tiers is priced solely because of the NAND? Funny that you don't mention that Apple doubled the NAND last year for the same price, only that they didn't do it at the lowest possible tier, even though that would effectively result in less for your money across the entire product line if margins were to stay where Apple wants them to stay. Or are you arguing that for-profit companies shouldn't price their products for the market, but instead follow the "competitors" who may have to sell their product for a loss just to even get someone to buy them?
are you kidding me? Does Apple pay you to make those kind of ridiculous explanations? It's 2015! I really don't care about profit margins. Those who want 64 or 128 will still get those even if 32GB is standard! It's about principle here! Apple wouldn't lose a penny if they made 32GB standard. It would just benefit the mainstream consumer to get more for their money based on market price.
This does take a little thinking and some basic understanding of economics, business, and maths, but it's all still rudimentary stuff. You write, "I really don't care about profit margins." That's your problem. You're looking at this from what you want, not from what the seller wants. Remember, it's their desire, their idea, their investment, their risk, and their product long before you ever got a whiff of it… yet you want to cry foul for a company choosing to make a profit and not, instead, selling you a completed and warrantied item in which they made — not you! — at the component. That's just fucking stupid on every level. If you want a product and it's within an agreeable price range then buy it; if those two things don't meet up then you don't buy it. It's really that fucking simple. There is no need for you to stomp your feet because a for-profit company is choosing to make an actual profit, and all this "but blah blah charges less," then buy from them, but the fact that you're bitching about it means there is a reason why you don't want to buy from blah blah, and your ridiculous implication that blah blah is doing it for some altruistic reason and not because their products are considered inferior.
You also need to make the very small hop to look the iPhone product line and not each individual phone. You keep talking about how much NAND costs. So? As I stated, the pricing has nothing to do with the actual cost of the component, but about creating a Good-Better-Best model. Consider the following silly scenarios that I'd except you want to put in place if you got to run Apple. Each iPhone has your invented $8 difference in NAND doubling . OK, great, now the **** isn't going to buy the Best model when the highest to lowest price is such a small percentage of the total cost of the device. You just tanked Apple! Now lets use your "fair" desire to have the components for each tier be $100 more than the next model. The entry level gets no front facing camera, not Touch ID, a TN panel, a plastic screen instead of glass, a 1 year old processor with only one core. Way to go¡ You just killed Apple.
No matter what you want, it's not your fucking product. All you get is the say whether you're going to buy that product or it, and based on your bellyaching you're going to, you just don't want to pay $100 for an additional 48GB. You want Apple to cater to your specific needs without any consideration for their business. Companies don't work that way. They work for themselves, not for you. You're a means to an end, and the sooner you accept that the better off you'll be. Of course, the flip side is that if they aren't serving their customers in an appropriate way they won't have business, which is where your choice comes in. If you don't want to understand even the most basic aspects of business and how a company balances profit margins across a product line, that's fine, but I suggest you go live in a cabin in the woods so you're less distressed by the normal going-ons in the world.
PS: Moore's Law has nothing to do with NAND capacity. The storage doesn't follow some 2-bit doubling scheme on your devices. Besides the 16GB just means it comes with 16,000,000,000 bytes, not 17,179,869,184 (16 Gibibytes). actually, it's slightly over 16^9 bytes dye to the chips, but not much. Apple could use any scaling they wanted to. The fact is going from 16 to 64 is more fair for the price compared to 64 to 128 because it's a difference of 48GB and 64GB, respectively, instead of 16GB and 64GB. Those buying the 128GB iPhone are still getting a better deal in terms of cost per GB over the 64GB, but it's considerably better than the previous model of 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB at the same price points.
OK, great, now the **** isn't going to buy the Best model when the highest to lowest price is such a small percentage of the total cost of the device. You just tanked Apple! Now lets use your "fair" desire to have the components for each tier be $100 more than the next model. The entry level gets no front facing camera, not Touch ID, a TN panel, a plastic screen instead of glass, a 1 year old processor with only one core. Way to go¡ You just killed Apple.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
Apple can afford to make 32gb standard. Bottom line. You writing me an essay didn't make you correct.
Thank you!
1) I never said that the phone shouldn't have a larger display. I even argued that even with a larger diplay have a larger display and still have a lower volume and weight than older iPhones… which is the important aspect to consider.
2) The fact remains that this is Apple's product and it's up to them to do what they wish. We agree or disagree with their direction when we decide to buy or not buy their products. There is no "shoulda" comments unless we're talking about violating warranty and/or safety considerations and/or otherwise making false claims to sell their wares.
You're pushing for Apple to be a socialist company know? Is this just Apple or do you want the entire structure of capitalism brought to its knees with your "Apple can afford it so they should do it" argument.
The bottom line is you're arguments are selfish and lacking zero comprehension of how markets work, hence your frustration and anger. There is the old adage that ignorance is bliss, but it's those people that are ignorant to the basic mechanics of society that are constantly making mistakes for which the only resolutions are additional wasted time and money in their already wasted lives
Not because it's "an essay" but because it's correct make me correct. You can call me a Apple fanboy for standing up for the free market against your "Apple should do it because I want it and they can afford it" yammering, because I also believe in free speech, but that doesn't mean I'm not also going to exert my right to call you out on your unthinking and self-absorbed statements.
AppleCustomer - "I'd like Apple to do this"
AppleFan - "Socialist!"
Apple can afford to make 32gb standard. Bottom line. You writing me an essay didn't make you correct.
Thank you!
Apple can "afford" to throw in a free Tesla for every iPhone customer. Bottom line. They have the money.
Sorry, those assertions just made me laugh. Apple needs to gets their techhead out of their proverbial e-ass and provide a no compromise entry level iPhone 6. This reminds of the time when Apple lagged in display size and Apple apologists were out in force saying that no phone ever needs to be larger than the iPhone 5s. Well, the iPhone 6 comes out and those same apologists went out and bought iPhone 6/6+.
Well, for one, those "apologists" by and large actually forked out extra money for the extra capacity (I seriously doubt that anybody actually just refused to buy one just because they started at 16 GB), thus proving Apple right, and for another, this particular "apologist" will be buying a 6s, but as any product I ever buy is a set of compromises, I will be grumbling about the size of the phone for a while, even while enjoying the larger screen.
It's 2015! I really don't care about profit margins.
Apple, surprisingly enough, does.
Those who want 64 or 128 will still get those even if 32GB is standard!
But if those who want 32 GB will ALSO get 64 GB, that's a lot of extra money to be made.
Apple wouldn't lose a penny if they made 32GB standard. It would just benefit the mainstream consumer to get more for their money based on market price.
You live in some kind of fantasy world where because YOU don't care about margins, corporations magically don't, either, and where doubling the amount of a component in tens of millions of products somehow doesn't cost anything.
You live at your parents' home and have never had to balance a budget in your life?
1) I never said that the phone shouldn't have a larger display. I even argued that even with a larger diplay have a larger display and still have a lower volume and weight than older iPhones… which is the important aspect to consider.
2) The fact remains that this is Apple's product and it's up to them to do what they wish. We agree or disagree with their direction when we decide to buy or not buy their products. There is "shoulda" comments unless we're talking about violating warranty and/or safety considerations and/or otherwise making false claims to sell their wares.
Fair enough, we agree to disagree and thanks for the civil response. I will add that the 16GB iPhone SKUs exist primarily as an unsell SKU and are all but useless to consumers except for the most basic of users, maybe corporate and kids; other than the groups mentioned, no one in their right mind buy 16GB iPhone. It's kind of like buying a VW GTI with no power windows, manual door locks and no air conditioning and AM/FM radio, and 14 inch wheels. It's just a ridiculous SKU.
My point was that a company has the right to sell their wares they way we decide. My comment where I said "we agree or disagree" was referencing an agreement to do business with that company if their products and prices suit our needs over a competitor's product and prices. You're disagreeing with that? You're onboard with companies being forced to do what the "the People want" simply because that company has the money to do it? [@]deepen03[/@] doesn't believe in a free market but I would have sworn you did. :???:
As I stated previously, over 80% of the people I help with new devices I recommend getting the lowest capacity device. I measure this by looking at their current usage, and then comparing their current device to the new to see if there may be something in their usage pattern that may cause them to use a lot more storage capacity with the new device. These "most basic of users" are the majority. These are not you and me. These are not people who illegally download music and then want 400 days of continuous music playback on their devices. These are not people that want the latest 4GiB 3D game that pushes the latest iDevice to its limits. These are not people trying to run massive productivity apps on their phones. These are normal users. These are users that will have little to no local music. No local movies or TV shows, and then use some small apps, Mail, Safari and Phone. The other side of that the companies that only need to run a couple in-house apps with the rest of the device locked down. If you want the minimum to be 32GB (great!) that will happen on day, and I'm guessing then we'll get complaints that the minimum should be 64GB because 32GB isn't enough for anyone.
My point was that a company has the right to sell their wares they way we decide. My comment where I said "we agree or disagree" was referencing an agreement to do business with that company if their products and prices suit our needs over a competitor's product and prices. You're disagreeing with that? You're onboard with companies being forced to do what the "the People want" simply because that company has the money to do it? @deepen03 doesn't believe in a free market but I would have sworn you did.
As I stated previously, over 80% of the people I help with new devices I recommend getting the lowest capacity device. I measure this by looking at their current usage, and then comparing their current device to the new to see if there may be something in their usage pattern that may cause them to use a lot more storage capacity with the new device. These "most basic of users" are the majority. These are not you and me. These are not people who illegally download music and then want 400 days of continuous music playback on their devices. These are not people that want the latest 4GiB 3D game that pushes the latest iDevice to its limits. These are not people trying to run massive productivity apps on their phones. These are normal users. These are users that will have little to no local music. No local movies or TV shows, and then use some small apps, Mail, Safari and Phone. The other side of that the companies that only need to run a couple in-house apps with the rest of the device locked down. If you want the minimum to be 32GB (great!) that will happen on day, and I'm guessing then we'll get complaints that the minimum should be 64GB because 32GB isn't enough for anyone.
I'm fully onboard with Apple doing what they need to do to move iPhones. Apple knows how to market consumer electronics, particularly mobile, better than anybody, but I don't have to like their 16GB configuration based on my notion of value and use case.
Tech specs are a moving target, Apple tends to defy the convention of the spec-wars which more is better, instead, Apple tends to make products which are greater than the sum of the parts through innovative engineering of software, hardware and design. The 16GB iPhone just may be just that and I don't see it.
1) If you want an unbalanced device that puts "more" into aspects that fit well on a spec sheet, then don't go with Apple. Apple didn't build a quad-channel (128-bit) memory controller into the 2012 iPad A5X chip because they wanted to advertise that to the world. We needed ChipWorks to x-ray the chip and for AnandTech to analyze the x-ray. What they wanted was a Retina display, thus they also made the rest functional for that task. That how Apple works. It's really that simple.
2) So you want them to spend more money on the storage component (so you can buy the least expensive model so you can feel like you're sticking it to Apple?), fine, now what other components do you want removed now that they've increased the NAND on every device they own so that its higher than every… single… competitor on the planet, because, as you stated "more is better"? Do you want the display to now be TN instead of IPS? How about no Touch ID or no Force Touch? How about going back to cheap plastic cases or less fit and finish? How about a 2MPx camera component? This is what you're asking for and since, as we discussed, Apple's not going to alter their margins simply because of [@]deepen03[/@] wants them to not make a profit.