Apple, Google, and Amazon accused of overcharging for tablet storage
posted by Michael H. / Nov 21, 2013, 12:00 PM
As we all know, each storage tier on iOS products bumps the price by $100. The price difference isn't as bad with other tablets, but even so Amazon charges $40 more for each storage tier on smaller tablets and $50 on larger tablets. Google has followed the same structure as Amazon for its Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 tablets.
Well, a new report is saying that as far as component costs go, Apple pays less than $10 more for the 32GB storage module compared to the 16GB, meaning it is charging over a 1,000% markup on that upgrade. The markup isn't quite as bad on Amazon and Google tablets, but we're still talking about close to a 400-500% markup on those tablets.
And, worst of all is that these figures don't even take into account how much actual usable storage a customer will get when buying a new tablet. Apple and Google tend to be good about keeping system sizes smaller, but if you go for a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 there will be about 6GB of storage lost just for Samsung's software.
Of course, all of this is from the standpoint of consumer rage. While we agree that Apple overcharges for storage upgrades, we would say that $40 to $50 difference makes sense. If the cost to the consumer were less than that, manufacturers would end up cannibalizing their own sales because no one would bother with lower capacity storage options.
Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012
That's where they make the real profit, and off network antennas so it's not gonna change. Of course it would only take one company to make a gesture and release a product flat out having 128GB on board (would cost them like $25 extra), and guess what, ppl. would buy the crap out of it and others would follow. But right now the best you can get is not starting at 16GB but 32GB (select $600+ devices) so winter is coming... well who knows when.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:08 PM 4
Posts: 2036; Member since: May 29, 2013
If some company did $600 for a 128gb with LTE the storage bs would be done.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:37 PM 3
Posts: 718; Member since: Nov 23, 2012
True. Just set 32GB as the minimum. That would be good for a couple more years. Then when everybody is filling up their phones with 30mb+ pics shot from 20MP cameras with RAW support and videos captured in 4K and 1080p in 60fps let's move to 64GB and 128GB.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:55 PM 3
Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011
Even if 64 gb phones at ~200 (500 off) on contract were released, I would no longer feel compelled to b!tch about a lack of SD cards. Don't get me wrong, I would rather just take my SIM and SD card and swap devices, but I would deal with phones without removable storage if they had 64gb or >.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 6:59 PM 2
Posts: 2137; Member since: Oct 18, 2011
Apple is evil company when it comes to pricing of device - iphone5s Nexus5 16gb $649 $349 32gb $749 $399 Google charging extra for more storage is justified as their device is already priced low...but apple devices are priced higher upfront they should sell 64gb iphone5s at $649.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:19 PM 8
Posts: 2933; Member since: Oct 08, 2012
So the other companies being accused are not evil? Are they LESS evil? Is it fine for them to steal $50 because another company takes $150? Am I understanding that?
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:40 PM 5
Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012
Most of the others offer a MicroSD slot at least so you can go around their back and put in a 64GB card like a champ. Of course NAND flash is much faster, but at least you have options. Google doesn't offer that, but charges half the price.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:57 PM 0
Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013
Not really fair to be honest, comparing iphone 5s to a nexus 5... Why not nexus 5 to Galaxy s4? 16gb and costs $627? Or note 3? 32gb for $703 Also if I am not mistaken, the 5s has a 64bit processor and also a 64bit memory controller as well. Sure they over charge but....look at the specs a little more and they are in line with Galaxy s4 and note 3
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 1:26 PM 2
Posts: 396; Member since: Nov 13, 2012
might i point out that its not just amazon, apple and google. Samsung charge £325 for a 16GB Galaxy Note 10.1 but charge £400 if you want a 32GB version. All the OEMs do it. Also, Google doesnt actually make any tablets. Google just puts vanilla Android on them.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:38 PM 2
Posts: 11; Member since: Jun 14, 2012
This is called Capitalism and Supply & Demand. As long as you're willing to pay it, the prices won't significantly change. Maybe people should stop whining and speak with their wallets instead. "Evil" has nothing to do with this....
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:56 PM 7
Posts: 2120; Member since: Apr 30, 2012
In other shocking news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and Andy d**k is gay. All manufacturers are guilty, but Apple is by far the worst. A class 10 microSD card from Sandisk costs ~$50. So why does the increase from a 16gb to a 32gb model cost $100? For the same reason they refuse to include a microSD slot on their devices.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 12:58 PM 2
Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010
"Of course, all of this is from the standpoint of consumer rage. While we agree that Apple overcharges for storage upgrades, we would say that $40 to $50 difference makes sense. If the cost to the consumer were less than that, manufacturers would end up cannibalizing their own sales because no one would bother with lower capacity storage options." So here's a quirky thought, rather than worry about giving consumers multiple storage options, and in turn have to worry about cannibalizing sales from lower storage models, how about just making one storage option available and be the highest currently available. If there was only one size chip to buy and they buy in bulk for all their models, the device cost would probably be in the middle of the low & high end. Problem solved. Even if they never go down that road, a 15% markup doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There are always going to be people who say "This is all the space I need" and won't spend the extra for more storage. And those that want/need the extra storage won't get raped in the process. Also, why not give the ACTUAL storage capacity that's available to the user. When they ship these phones, they know what they'll have for storage, so put that in the specs rather than the gross capacity that the end user will never see. It would also shine a light on how much space the OS, any skin, and bloatware are eating from the advertised storage capacity. I'm surprised no one mentioned phones in this scenario as well. Most companies are just as bad when moving up in storage for phones as they are for tablets.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 1:05 PM 1
Posts: 117; Member since: Jan 03, 2012
Everywhere else does this too. Hopefully people know that a HDMI cable doesn't cost $100 like bestbuy prices them. Bestbuy actually sells a 6.5ft HDMI cable for $1500http://www.bestbuy.com/site/di
1000% Markup is nothing 42&skuId=2383319&st=categoryid $abcat0107020&cp=1&lp=4
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 1:08 PM 1
Posts: 307; Member since: Jan 16, 2012
"If the cost to the consumer were less than that, manufacturers would end up cannibalizing their own sales because no one would bother with lower capacity storage options. " This is why I understand the $50.00 price gap. But..a $100.00 gap is a little too much. I personally would be fine with a 16 GB internal and a SD card slot standard on every phone and let me expand my storage as I see fit.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 1:10 PM 0
Posts: 6025; Member since: Aug 06, 2013
If a phone manufacturer is going to charge $100 between model phones then they better take notes from Motorola and double the memory, increase the battery size, throw in wireless charging, and a kevlar finish.
posted on Nov 21, 2013, 1:25 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):