[classicmacs01]

The storage sizes of the iPad are a joke. 3rd Generation device and they are still at 16, 32, and 64? Even the 2nd Gen iPod doubled in capacity from 5GB to 10GB, then shortly thereafter to 20GB, quadrupling the size of the original model. Apple could have easily done a 128GB and 256GB model without charging an arm and a leg for the device. But Apple knows they will sell millions of these things at 16GB, so why not continue to bring in a 50%+ profit on each one, using a paltry amount of memory. Even a MacBook Air with 64GB is a joke. When people like the idea of the Air, they quickly change their mind to a MacBook Pro when they realize it only has 64GB compared to the Pro starting with 500GB. Not many people care about solid state vs. a real hard drive. The increase in app size can really do some damage with only 14GB on an iPad.

[pdjudd]

classicmacs01, on 09 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The storage sizes of the iPad are a joke. 3rd Generation device and they are still at 16, 32, and 64? Even the 2nd Gen iPod doubled in capacity from 5GB to 10GB, then shortly thereafter to 20GB, quadrupling the size of the original model. Apple could have easily done a 128GB and 256GB model without charging an arm and a leg for the device. But Apple knows they will sell millions of these things at 16GB, so why not continue to bring in a 50%+ profit on each one, using a paltry amount of memory. Even a MacBook Air with 64GB is a joke. When people like the idea of the Air, they quickly change their mind to a MacBook Pro when they realize it only has 64GB compared to the Pro starting with 500GB. Not many people care about solid state vs. a real hard drive. The increase in app size can really do some damage with only 14GB on an iPad.

You can’t compare the iPod - the iPod’s used a completely different storage system where the price per gigabyte is much cheaper than the flash memory that Apple uses. When Apple doubles the space, they literally need a chip that is twice as big as before at a much higher cost.

The simple fact is that the price of Flash memory isn’t cheap. The iPhone 64 gig is really expensive for one big reason - they are using 1 64 gig chip. Putting 2 of those into an iPad brings it way to close to the cost of a laptop. THe economies just aren’t’ there.

[jowie]

I know I've said it elsewhere, but Apple really need to sort out some kind of 'delta' downloads that only download the assets for the app you need. An iPhone 3GS 8GB will receive the same Universal app update as a 3rd gen iPad 64GB. That amounts to a hell of a lot of wasted space on a small device.

I've got an iPhone 4S 16GB and I'm a bit miffed that I'm getting a load of updates to my apps simply to install a huge bunch of graphics that are never going to be seen on my device. It kind of makes me wish I'd bought the 32GB now.

Please sort this out Apple!

[NikoNikorocksComxfn3]

I was furiously upset by the lack of storage upgrade for this model. 16GB isn't enough for anyone anymore. I have 16GB thumb drives. Am I to believe that this "amazing" device can do so much, except for perhaps store a few fun things? For shame. I love you Apple, but this was the silliest thing ever. Let's up that storage! The sucker should be starting over 100GB. What's the point of making money off of an App Store if no one can use the apps?

If I bought an iPad (which I haven't yet for storage reasons) I'd want more. I was hoping the new model would have some sort of memory expansion slot. 3rd generation, 3rd disappointment.

Let's fill up my imaginary iPad, shall we? I'm a teacher and a web designer. So let's start…

I need most of my 80GB of music that's on my computer. I suppose I may want to put a movie or 2 on, those suckers take up a phenomenal amount of space. But I use videos to demo stuff for my students. So put them on… next? Umm… Ah yes, some photos; And I'll be taking more when my spiffy new HD camera that's built into the iPad. Okay, that takes care of the basic media. Now for my files… I want my books, PDF files, and iWork documents on there. I have plenty! All are work related. I use Numbers for everything from important data managing/calculating spread sheets to basic info lists. Okay, are we ready to install apps yet? Nope, because I just ran out of space on the 64GB (largest) iPad. Now what do I do? I guess it's time to delete stuff. Darn! What a let down. I have to pick favorites… but I don't want to, I like my files!!

[macguy90]

This article honestly leaves out one major concept: You can absolutely still enjoy a 16GB iPad and just control what content you store on the device. Yes...I am suggesting that owners should take time to manage their apps/content by deleting what they never use. If they do this maybe twice a year, they'll find that the 16GB iPad is a fine choice. I think of it like this analogy- If you have a large-enough home but too much furniture, would you get rid of some furniture or by a new home?

[Inkling]

I opted for the new 16 GB iPad, promising myself I'd be careful about what I install. I see that $100 for 16 GB more as absurd, particularly when another $100 buys an additional 32 GB. That first 16 GB should be $50.

Apple needs to also offer more robust support for external flash drives. From what I've read, what support they currently have through the camera dongle is pretty iffy and mostly for photos. If Apple doesn't find a way to add external storage, they may find people deciding they don't need Apple's over-sized apps.

[hypercube]

I have an iPad-1, 64 GB, which I have filled up…

Actually I am constantly having to manage it carefully, unloading things so that I can load new things…
Mostly it's got lots of videos on it (biggest memory slice), then applications, then photos.

I am thinking of getting an iPad-3 (iPad), and would have bought 128 GB model - If one was available…

But since 64 GB is maximum, I'll have to stick to that…

64 GB is enough for most people, though not for some…

[Grapho]

This will only be true for bitmap graphics. Certain games for sure, but a lot of graphics, like the type on a book are not bitmap, they are resolution independent, so having them on a retina display, a 70" TV screen or a 50 ft billboard will make no difference on the size of the file.

[Mystakill]

Re: "The problem is that flash storage isn’t free—hence the $100 difference in price between the current 16GB and 32GB iPad, and the 32GB and 64GB iPad."

Flash storage isn't as costly as what Apple's currently charging for it. A quick search of Newegg shows the retail price differential between 16GB and 32GB to be a whopping $15, although the 32GB to 64GB delta increases to a whopping $49. The ability to buy in bulk, and the lack of plastic case and gold-plated pins, significantly reduces Apple's actual cost. Everything beyond that is essentially pure profit (there's little/no R&D cost required for off-the-shelf memory).

Without an easy way to transfer just the necessary app components required for a given destination device through iTunes/App Store, this problem will likely get worse before Apple deems it necessary to address it. How they will accomplish that will be interesting to see.


This discussion would be moot if Apple would just provide users with a memory card slot, allowing users to swap cards as they deem necessary to accommodate their various apps or storage requirements.

[cobez]

That never really dawned on me until now - the fact that Universal apps that include support for a retina iPad will increase the size of the app even if you only use it on the iPhone.

Then I thought, hey why doesn't Apple allow users to select what graphics of an app are synced to your phone through iTunes. Is this technically possible? Or even more of an Apple thing to do is to remove customer input and just do it behind the scenes.

Developers can still make Universal apps in that they charge one price for their app(s) regardless of what iOS device it's used on, but if I'm browsing the app store on my iPhone and decide to download a Universal app, instead of downloading the whole app to my iPhone it downloads only what my device is capable of displaying. If in the future, I download the same app on a retina iPad it would download the app with iPad retina graphics only (without charging me again obviously). On the server side of things, this might mean 2 apps each (one that has 320x480, 960x640, 1024x768 graphics and the other with 2048x1536 graphics) but on the consumer end it will just show a universal app. I don't develop apps so I don't know how much more work it takes to create the same app that differs only by resolution but in the interests of their customers, the lack of larger memory storage, and the introduction of a 2048x1536 display, I think it would be a good thing to do especially for those with 8 & 16GB devices.

[snookasnoo25km]

classicmacs01, on 09 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The storage sizes of the iPad are a joke. 3rd Generation device and they are still at 16, 32, and 64? Even the 2nd Gen iPod doubled in capacity from 5GB to 10GB, then shortly thereafter to 20GB, quadrupling the size of the original model. Apple could have easily done a 128GB and 256GB model without charging an arm and a leg for the device. But Apple knows they will sell millions of these things at 16GB, so why not continue to bring in a 50%+ profit on each one, using a paltry amount of memory. Even a MacBook Air with 64GB is a joke. When people like the idea of the Air, they quickly change their mind to a MacBook Pro when they realize it only has 64GB compared to the Pro starting with 500GB. Not many people care about solid state vs. a real hard drive. The increase in app size can really do some damage with only 14GB on an iPad.

Pretty much everything you said is wrong not helped by this inaccurate MacWorld article.
Apple is already losing margin keeping the prices the same with the addition of the Retina display and LTE and no they don't make 50% margin. Thats ridiculous.
This article is wrong about many things including how they measure how much memory an app takes up.
Also the memory used by the iPad is not the same as desktop memory found on New Egg as others are saying here. People really don't know that?
Finally you can get an Air with 64, 128, or 256GB SSD. Just like every other laptop out there. It is somehow Apple's fault that SSD's cost more than spinning disk hard drives? People who use Air's or SSD's have made a decision that the speed of SSD's i worth the space and cost tradeoffs whether they use Macs or PC's.
I ordered a 16GB iPad and know it will be enough for me. I use iCloud/iTunes Match and only keep apps that I use regularly. if I wanted more space I would buy more.
SD card slots is not a solution and most people don't want them or will ever use them.

This post has been edited by snookasnoo25km: 11 March 2012 - 10:34 AM

[bpeacock22]

Wow, I knew, of course, that apps would be bigger, but 2.5-3X bigger? Glad I got the 32 GB version but maybe I'm wishing to have gotten the 64 GB...

[EustacioBenitez]

cobez, on 10 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

That never really dawned on me until now - the fact that Universal apps that include support for a retina iPad will increase the size of the app even if you only use it on the iPhone.

Then I thought, hey why doesn't Apple allow users to select what graphics of an app are synced to your phone through iTunes. Is this technically possible? Or even more of an Apple thing to do is to remove customer input and just do it behind the scenes.

Developers can still make Universal apps in that they charge one price for their app(s) regardless of what iOS device it's used on, but if I'm browsing the app store on my iPhone and decide to download a Universal app, instead of downloading the whole app to my iPhone it downloads only what my device is capable of displaying. If in the future, I download the same app on a retina iPad it would download the app with iPad retina graphics only (without charging me again obviously). On the server side of things, this might mean 2 apps each (one that has 320x480, 960x640, 1024x768 graphics and the other with 2048x1536 graphics) but on the consumer end it will just show a universal app. I don't develop apps so I don't know how much more work it takes to create the same app that differs only by resolution but in the interests of their customers, the lack of larger memory storage, and the introduction of a 2048x1536 display, I think it would be a good thing to do especially for those with 8 & 16GB devices.

Actually, some apps that I've used have had the retina graphics in a separate, in-app download, free of charge. So yeah. It's completely possible. You just get the hassle of an extra step.

This post has been edited by EustacioBenitez: 11 March 2012 - 05:35 PM

[blecch]

Exactly right - I already have a number of games which weigh in at the the 600+ MB range with low-resolution art, meaning that I have to be careful which ones I load into my bursting-to-the-gills 64MB iPad!

Apple should definitely figure out a scheme to enable using low-resolution versions of an app the same way you can use low-bit rate versions of songs in your iTunes library.

One thing that always alarms me is when you delete an app it warns you that it's deleting the app's data as well, which is worrisome if you have game saves that you want to continue playing later. ;-/

Overall it's an interesting problem that gives me pause - should I wait for a 128GB (or larger!) iPad, considering I've already filled up 64 GB and things are going to expand by up to 4x?

This post has been edited by blecch: 12 March 2012 - 12:57 AM