Very interesting... For myself, I am frankly a bit confused about the need for "large" storage:
Not long ago the need was clear: If you used your phone for music you stored entire libraries on it. And, it you took pictures, you either stored them on your phone or made an effort to archive them onto a PC or other storage (or both).
But, Apple Music and iCloud have changed that equation: You can get all the music you want and more from Apple Music with storing even a single song on your device and store all of your picture on iCloud instead of the phone.
While the article is correct that the OS & apps are taking more storage making 16Gb simply too small to be viable, there remains a question over the need for storage greater than 32Gb or 64Gb: Is it a trade-off of initial purchase cost vs ongoing costs to maintain subscriptions to Apple Music and (large) iCloud storage?
But, all that aside, just a comment from an old-fart: for years now 512Gb was and still is the standard size for harddrives in my home computers -- and I have never filled one up. Now that size is becoming available in an iPhone? Wow! Or, another analogy: when I entered IT in 1983 we were using IBM 3350 disks that were later upgraded to double density 3380's that could hold a wopping 5 whole Gb's! (and we ran entire Fortune 100 corporations on those drives!) Some will remember the year 2000 crunch where most computer enterprise level software could not handle the year '00' and that was the reason: storing a 4 digit year was simply not feasible on disk drives that could only hold (the case or early 3350's one-third of a gigabyte. We scrutinized every single bit and byte of data that we stored.
I am sure Apple considers their customer's use cases pretty thoroughly. First, I, for one do not pay monthly to rent music and prefer to keep my photos local until I offload them to my computer and then its back up hard drive. Second, I do not want to be at the mercy of a public WiFi or cell network that determines how quickly (if at all) I can access my current files. I will probably opt for the 256GB version of whichever phone I decide to get.
Could a 32 GB handle if you have 256 GB data in the iCloud?
Probably not because the apps themselves are getting pretty bulky. 64GB, maybe. However, as I mentioned, I can not rely on getting files/apps/photos from the cloud when I am traveling. Just not practical. Too many areas with lousy cell coverage and public WiFi is usually slow, unsecured and unreliable.
Yep I can already hear Schiller now: for only $100 more you get 4x the storage!
I don't think so... Of course, it is my personal opinion and you can disagree with me. Upselling requires Apple to remove the configuration which would be useful to "most" of the users (what is called as "sweet spot") at the time of launch year. In this year 2017, it is 64GB option which would suit needs of "most" users. The fact that Apple has retained it (instead of launching a 32GB model)
as "base" model clearly indicates upsell is not the main criteria for iPhone Pro. There is a good possibility that 64GB to 256GB would cost more than $100 (more like $150) and going to 512GB would cost another $200.
In 2014 Apple doubled the mid and high end storage options without increasing the price. They kept the low end at 16GB as a way to upsell people (4x the storage for only $100 more) knowing once people went into a higher storage bracket they were unlikely to ever downgrade. This was also a way to raise iPhone ASPs. With the iPhone 7 they finally doubled the low end storage too, I suppose because enough people had complained about running out of storage (I know several who have) and because they upsold enough people into the mid/high end. My guess is this is where Apple will stay now. They’ll never offer a “sweet spot” if they can get people to fork over more $$ or live with less.
Yep I can already hear Schiller now: for only $100 more you get 4x the storage!
How is this wrong? Why do you feel you’re entitled to more value without paying for it? If paying more for more value is offensive to you, surely there is a competitor product that gives value away for free that is more compelling? If not surely you could found your own company that gives away value for free if it makes so much sense?
But some are getting more value without paying more. It’s just the people at the low end because Apple wants to get as many into the mid to high end knowing most will never downgrade. The only reason Apple’s storage goes from 32 > 128 instead of 64 > 128 is because if they offered the latter that’s what most people would choose. Not offering it is a way to upsell people and raise ASPs. Hence the 4x more storage for only $100 more.
But that's 4x more storage for only $100 more. That's value being added in exchange for money. Still not seeing the problem here. Do you want 4x more storage? If so, great, there's your option. My parents certainly don't need 4x more storage, and are quite happy w/ the entry-level configurations. Great, that's their option.
I don't think so... Of course, it is my personal opinion and you can disagree with me. Upselling requires Apple to remove the configuration which would be useful to "most" of the users (what is called as "sweet spot") at the time of launch year. In this year 2017, it is 64GB option which would suit needs of "most" users. The fact that Apple has retained it (instead of launching a 32GB model)
as "base" model clearly indicates upsell is not the main criteria for iPhone Pro. There is a good possibility that 64GB to 256GB would cost more than $100 (more like $150) and going to 512GB would cost another $200.
Your forgetting there was no iPhone 7 64GB option, so people going from the iPhone 6S 64GB went the iPhone 7 128GB option (not the 32gb). Now there is no 128GB option, so they will need to go to the 256GB option because they use more than 64gb now.
I only talked about iPhone Pro, not about iPhone 7s or 7s plus. Of course, Apple would launch them with (relatively crippled) 32 GB as base storage with the "upsell" as key objective for higher storage tiers. Not so with iPhone Pro, it seems.
If you are implying that Apple had already got people used to 128GB and hence ALL of them would definitely need 256GB iPhone Pro, I am not so sure about it. Some of them would go with non-pro models with same memory configuration. Of those who upgrade to iPhone Pro, I am fairly confident people would re-evaluate their needs when they buy a new phone. Some of them would settle with 64GB option and some of them would go for 256GB option depending on their needs. And nothing wrong with that.
Yep I can already hear Schiller now: for only $100 more you get 4x the storage!
I don't think so... Of course, it is my personal opinion and you can disagree with me. Upselling requires Apple to remove the configuration which would be useful to "most" of the users (what is called as "sweet spot") at the time of launch year. In this year 2017, it is 64GB option which would suit needs of "most" users. The fact that Apple has retained it (instead of launching a 32GB model)
as "base" model clearly indicates upsell is not the main criteria for iPhone Pro. There is a good possibility that 64GB to 256GB would cost more than $100 (more like $150) and going to 512GB would cost another $200.
In 2014 Apple doubled the mid and high end storage options without increasing the price. They kept the low end at 16GB as a way to upsell people (4x the storage for only $100 more) knowing once people went into a higher storage bracket they were unlikely to ever downgrade.
What you're overlooking is that if people don't downgrade to a lesser capacity device, it's because they're actually, you know, using the higher capacity storage. That is to say, it offers value to them. This is obvious. Few people spend money on things they don't use. It isn't the arcane dark arts that keep people on a bigger phone, it's the functional value they get from it. They aren't lemmings, Apple doesn't have mind control, and nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head.
BTW, the most expensive factory configuration of MacBook Pro costs $4200, BTW.
Seriously, a $969 iPhone 7 Plus is already plenty expensive. What happens when you cross the imaginary line between $969 and $1000? That's just $31, isn't it?
Add AppleCare and sales tax and that "imaginary line" has already been crossed ($1,144). Two year contract = $48 per month, which is about the same as a tank of gas, half the cost of a carton of cigarettes, less than dinner and a movie with your wife/girlfriend, etc. Trade in a 2 year old iPhone and the monthly cost drops to $35.
Most people WILL NOT be buying the most expensive model. Therefore, all the angst about a RUMORED $1200 iPhone is unwarranted.
I am not sure why all this attention keeps getting heaped on the price of the most expensive configuration of the iPhone. Do most people choose 256GB of storage for their phone? Do most people buy the most expensive configuration of the MacBook Pro?
Because they want to convince people iPhone is very expensive. Despite the fact that iPhone SE is much better than the cheapest smartphones sold by Samsung and Huawei.
"They" being Samsung and Google. I readily believe there is a FUD campaign (pushed by Samsung/Google) going on right now. Samsung is a "price for market share" hound. The problem with this kind of campaign is that iOS shoppers are not price conscious to the same extent that Android shoppers are.
This sounds right. iPhone 8 64/256/512 and iphone 7s 32/128/256.About price, a day will come when I need to buy a full config high-end smartphone, I will have to sell one of my kidney on black market.
I don't think so... Of course, it is my personal opinion and you can disagree with me. Upselling requires Apple to remove the configuration which would be useful to "most" of the users (what is called as "sweet spot") at the time of launch year. In this year 2017, it is 64GB option which would suit needs of "most" users. The fact that Apple has retained it (instead of launching a 32GB model)
as "base" model clearly indicates upsell is not the main criteria for iPhone Pro. There is a good possibility that 64GB to 256GB would cost more than $100 (more like $150) and going to 512GB would cost another $200.
Your forgetting there was no iPhone 7 64GB option, so people going from the iPhone 6S 64GB went the iPhone 7 128GB option (not the 32gb). Now there is no 128GB option, so they will need to go to the 256GB option because they use more than 64gb now.
Yep. That's exactly what I did last year. The 64GB would have been perfect for me. It wasn't perfect enough to exist, though. Also, jet black and ultimately red were only available on the 128GB and 256GB versions. I could go back to 64GB pretty easily, though. It will depend on whether there are premium colors or features that make it worthwhile to go with the 256GB.
512GB is really getting excessive. How many charges would it take to watch or record that much video? I recognize that some have a need, whether perceived or actual, but that is a pretty small percentage of customers.
When I buy a non-upgradable device I typically get the maximum memory that is available in the device at the time of purchase. The rationale for me is that it will buy me a year or two more of useful service life for the device before I feel compelled to upgrade to a new device. Whether this is a valid strategy or not really depends on how the other performance & capacity factors in the device also hold up over time and o course the cost of additional memory at the time of purchase. Sometimes this strategy seems to work, like my maxed out iPad Air and iPhone 6+, but sometimes it's probably kept me hanging on to an outdated device for a year or so too long, like my iPad Mini (original). Also, when traveling with intermittent connectivity I do like having as much of my content and media on my device as I can fit so I have less reliance on cloud storage.
However, I am coming around to tolerating the still somewhat buggy music storage optimization feature on iOS that allows you to specify the amount of on-device storage to allocate to music, up to 50% of the device's storage capacity. This guarantees that even when totally disconnected you'll still have a sizable chunk of your music still on your device to listen to when you're offline. Activating this feature on my iOS devices greatly reduced the storage burden on said devices to the point of allowing me the option of purchasing devices with less onboard storage capacity. With the optimization feature turned on, as long as you're connected (online) via WiFi or cellular the impact on music playback that includes a mix of songs on the device and in the cloud, e.g., in shuffle mode, is minimal - at least with the current iOS 11 beta. When a song in the playlist is not on the device it is automatically streamed via your WiFi or cellular connection.
The buggy part: In earlier iOS versions the music playback would sometimes skip over songs in a playlist that were not physically on the device, even when an online connection was available. This created uncomfortably long pauses, often a minute or more, during playback. Of course you can also restrict your playlist to include only songs physically on the device, although the user experience involved with doing this is somewhat nonintuitive. The music player should be smarter and faster about dealing with connected vs. unconnected playback scenarios and dynamically handle any situation. The storage optimization features seem to be getting better with iOS 11, so if you can live within the limitations of these features the rationale for maxing out the device storage may be less convincing. For me, prior to using the optimization my music alone was consuming ⅔ to ¾ of my device storage and I was sometimes running out of memory when taking photos. This was after reducing the bit-rate of songs when transferred to the iOS device from iTunes for devices with less than 128 GB storage. With the music optimization turned on the music storage burden is always below 50% of the device's total storage capacity. Sure, I end up with fewer songs to playback when I'm totally disconnected, but having some music (still in the 1000s) is far better than having no music. Not having to play around with bitrates, manually pick & choose what music gets download from iTunes, or running out of storage at the least optimal time is worth the limitations imposed by music storage optimization. It's still not clear to me how the optimization feature chooses what music gets bumped once you reach your selected limit and you continue to download music to the device.
I am not sure why all this attention keeps getting heaped on the price of the most expensive configuration of the iPhone. Do most people choose 256GB of storage for their phone? Do most people buy the most expensive configuration of the MacBook Pro?
256GB will not be the most expensive configuration of the new iPhone.
I'm probably an odd-ball, but I frequently work in parts of the world with very limited 3G/4G coverage and ADSL is the typical internet access. Cloud options & streaming do not work well for me in these instances. I and many of my colleagues have medial libraries in the 2-6 TB range. I'll buy the largest capacity I can find of any device. Cost is seldom a consideration. The pluses and minuses of working in the armpits of the planet.
The $1,000+ iPhone has been rumored for most of 2017. If Samsung announces a $1,000+ Note 8 today, will Apple be considered a follower, a copy cat, a non-innovative company, etc? And, will Samsung be considered a leader, a trendsetter, an innovative company, etc?
Apple will be considered a follower/copycat with iPhone Pro launch for "other" reasons, not for pricetag!!! OLED display AND less bezel design are the aspects of iPhone Pro that would give the follower/copycat criticisms. Sharp (the original company which launched less bezel screen 3 years back) would be considered as the "trend setter"/"Leader" in this case, not the copycats Xiaomi/LG/Samsung who already copied Sharp. And by that same definition, Apple should NOT be considered as "leader"/"trendsetter" for less bezel design in future, even if 100 new Chinese phones pop-up with less bezel design right after iPhone Pro.
Having said all of that, I have a feeling Apple would incorporate TouchID successfully under the screen for iPhone Pro and would be the innovator in this aspect. In the display department, 120Hz refresh rate would be another aspect of innovation (implemented already in iPad Pros, carry over to iPhones as next logical step). Another less talked about topic - Battery life. I have a feeling iPhone Pro/7s plus with A11 would become battery endurance champions (due to optimizations both in SoC and iOS) even with smaller battery while being more powerful than ANY competing phone in the planet. That would be an innovation on its own.
Not selling anything doesn't make you a trend setter.
The $1,000+ iPhone has been rumored for most of 2017. If Samsung announces a $1,000+ Note 8 today, will Apple be considered a follower, a copy cat, a non-innovative company, etc? And, will Samsung be considered a leader, a trendsetter, an innovative company, etc?
Apple will be considered a follower/copycat with iPhone Pro launch for "other" reasons, not for pricetag!!! OLED display AND less bezel design are the aspects of iPhone Pro that would give the follower/copycat criticisms. Sharp (the original company which launched less bezel screen 3 years back) would be considered as the "trend setter"/"Leader" in this case, not the copycats Xiaomi/LG/Samsung who already copied Sharp. And by that same definition, Apple should NOT be considered as "leader"/"trendsetter" for less bezel design in future, even if 100 new Chinese phones pop-up with less bezel design right after iPhone Pro.
Having said all of that, I have a feeling Apple would incorporate TouchID successfully under the screen for iPhone Pro and would be the innovator in this aspect. In the display department, 120Hz refresh rate would be another aspect of innovation (implemented already in iPad Pros, carry over to iPhones as next logical step). Another less talked about topic - Battery life. I have a feeling iPhone Pro/7s plus with A11 would become battery endurance champions (due to optimizations both in SoC and iOS) even with smaller battery while being more powerful than ANY competing phone in the planet. That would be an innovation on its own.
Not selling anything doesn't make you a trend setter.
By your definition, Apple can copy all they want and should be considered as "Leader/TrendSetter" as long as they have ability to sell in large numbers. Once Samsung or any other copycat (say Xiaomi) reach similar levels of iPhones for a single device like Apple does, they would become "Leader/TrendSetter" automatically even if those are copies of iPhones or any other phones (Sony/HTC who still do their own designs) !!! Great logic, keep it up!!!
So in the mac line, Apple charges $200 from a 256 GB to 512 GB upgrade, is it safe to say they will do the same on the iPhone?(Yes they use different SSDS types, but they're still shrinking it down for the iPhone)
It's an important psychological barrier in the case of smartphones. People are used to paying over $1,000 for a laptop or desktop, not the thing in their pocket.
So… don’t pay it. Buy the cheaper model. The existence of a $2,800 MacBook Pro doesn’t turn people off buying them; they just by the cheaper ones. How is that ANY different?
Comments
In 2014 Apple doubled the mid and high end storage options without increasing the price. They kept the low end at 16GB as a way to upsell people (4x the storage for only $100 more) knowing once people went into a higher storage bracket they were unlikely to ever downgrade. This was also a way to raise iPhone ASPs. With the iPhone 7 they finally doubled the low end storage too, I suppose because enough people had complained about running out of storage (I know several who have) and because they upsold enough people into the mid/high end. My guess is this is where Apple will stay now. They’ll never offer a “sweet spot” if they can get people to fork over more $$ or live with less.
I only talked about iPhone Pro, not about iPhone 7s or 7s plus. Of course, Apple would launch them with (relatively crippled) 32 GB as base storage with the "upsell" as key objective for higher storage tiers. Not so with iPhone Pro, it seems.
If you are implying that Apple had already got people used to 128GB and hence ALL of them would definitely need 256GB iPhone Pro, I am not so sure about it. Some of them would go with non-pro models with same memory configuration. Of those who upgrade to iPhone Pro, I am fairly confident people would re-evaluate their needs when they buy a new phone. Some of them would settle with 64GB option and some of them would go for 256GB option depending on their needs. And nothing wrong with that.
Most people WILL NOT be buying the most expensive model. Therefore, all the angst about a RUMORED $1200 iPhone is unwarranted.
"They" being Samsung and Google. I readily believe there is a FUD campaign (pushed by Samsung/Google) going on right now. Samsung is a "price for market share" hound. The problem with this kind of campaign is that iOS shoppers are not price conscious to the same extent that Android shoppers are.
512GB is really getting excessive. How many charges would it take to watch or record that much video? I recognize that some have a need, whether perceived or actual, but that is a pretty small percentage of customers.
However, I am coming around to tolerating the still somewhat buggy music storage optimization feature on iOS that allows you to specify the amount of on-device storage to allocate to music, up to 50% of the device's storage capacity. This guarantees that even when totally disconnected you'll still have a sizable chunk of your music still on your device to listen to when you're offline. Activating this feature on my iOS devices greatly reduced the storage burden on said devices to the point of allowing me the option of purchasing devices with less onboard storage capacity. With the optimization feature turned on, as long as you're connected (online) via WiFi or cellular the impact on music playback that includes a mix of songs on the device and in the cloud, e.g., in shuffle mode, is minimal - at least with the current iOS 11 beta. When a song in the playlist is not on the device it is automatically streamed via your WiFi or cellular connection.
The buggy part: In earlier iOS versions the music playback would sometimes skip over songs in a playlist that were not physically on the device, even when an online connection was available. This created uncomfortably long pauses, often a minute or more, during playback. Of course you can also restrict your playlist to include only songs physically on the device, although the user experience involved with doing this is somewhat nonintuitive. The music player should be smarter and faster about dealing with connected vs. unconnected playback scenarios and dynamically handle any situation. The storage optimization features seem to be getting better with iOS 11, so if you can live within the limitations of these features the rationale for maxing out the device storage may be less convincing. For me, prior to using the optimization my music alone was consuming ⅔ to ¾ of my device storage and I was sometimes running out of memory when taking photos. This was after reducing the bit-rate of songs when transferred to the iOS device from iTunes for devices with less than 128 GB storage. With the music optimization turned on the music storage burden is always below 50% of the device's total storage capacity. Sure, I end up with fewer songs to playback when I'm totally disconnected, but having some music (still in the 1000s) is far better than having no music. Not having to play around with bitrates, manually pick & choose what music gets download from iTunes, or running out of storage at the least optimal time is worth the limitations imposed by music storage optimization. It's still not clear to me how the optimization feature chooses what music gets bumped once you reach your selected limit and you continue to download music to the device.
By your definition, Apple can copy all they want and should be considered as "Leader/TrendSetter" as long as they have ability to sell in large numbers. Once Samsung or any other copycat (say Xiaomi) reach similar levels of iPhones for a single device like Apple does, they would become "Leader/TrendSetter" automatically even if those are copies of iPhones or any other phones (Sony/HTC who still do their own designs) !!! Great logic, keep it up!!!
256 GB - $1069
512 GB - $1169 or $1269.
I'll happily get the 256 GB, which is what I already have in the 7 Plus.