Spreadsheet reportedly reveals that the Apple iPhone 7 will be available with 256GB of flash memory

Spreadsheet reportedly reveals that the Apple iPhone 7 will be available with 256GB of flash memory
Get the salt ready, because you are going to need at least a grain of it to take with this story. A tweet disseminated by @the_malignant shows what is claimed to be a spreadsheet belonging to an Apple supplier. While the Apple iPhone name isn't mentioned anywhere on the spreadsheet, the document supposedly shows that the Apple iPhone 7's base model will feature 32GB of internal storage. That would be double the 16GB of memory that has been the lowest amount of internal storage on the iPhone since the Apple iPhone 5.

According to the image, it appears that after 32GB, the iPhone 7 will be available with 128GB of native storage, followed by a version with 256GB of internal memory. And the flash memory chip will be provided by Toshiba, if this spreadsheet is legitimate. Because Apple has never included a microSD slot on the iPhone, that means that those buying the device need to have a good idea about how much memory they need. 

Apple is expected to introduce its new phones on September 7th, with pre-orders starting two days later. The Apple iPhone 7 and Apple iPhone 7 Plus could launch on September 23rd.

source: @the_malignant

Related phones

iPhone 7
  • Display 4.7" 750 x 1334 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 7 MP front
  • Processor Apple A10 Fusion, Quad-core, 2340 MHz
  • Storage 256 GB
  • Battery 1960 mAh(14h 3G talk time)
iPhone 7 Plus
  • Display 5.5" 1080 x 1920 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 7 MP front
  • Processor Apple A10 Fusion, Quad-core, 2340 MHz
  • Storage 256 GB
  • Battery 2900 mAh(21h 3G talk time)



1. Barney_stinson

Posts: 672; Member since: May 30, 2016

not a new thing! just wait for the price though! hi5

2. Barney_stinson

Posts: 672; Member since: May 30, 2016

just watch zuk z2 pro128 GB storage for 450$ ! no phone worth more than 500$

6. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

iPhones usually use a much more sophisticated storage solution than most android phones use. The SLC cache usage on the iPhone 6S made it the fastest phone ever. If you have seen any speed tests, you must have noticed how fast the iPhone launches apps. That's all due to the SLC based storage. Android phones on the other hand use MLC cache which makes them about 2x slower in I/O and hence they load games and heavy apps much slower than iPhones. I am not saying the cost of the iPhone is justified. But don't compare a chinese phone with iPhone just based on specs. iPhones really use very high quality components, and not the cheap generic components android manufacturers use.

9. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Any link for your information? What we learn is Apple using TLC storage, the cheapest NAND to keep its profits margin high. http://www.technobuffalo.com/2016/04/20/iphone-samsung-nand-flash-storage/ http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/11/07/apple-said-to-replace-iphone-6-and-iphone-6-plus-nand-flash/

11. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

if you read correctly, you would have noticed that I wrote SLC cache, not SLC storage. The total solution is an SLC/TLC hybrid. Also they are using NVMe based solution which is way better for high speed NAND than AHCI. The main storage is TLC, yes. But there is an SLC cache. So if you do small amount of transfers, for example opening an app, then the SLC cache will be used. Obviously the speed will drop substantially when you do large transfers since the buffer will fill up and the slow TLC flash will be used. The iPhones will have a faster storage for regular tasks like opening and installing apps. From anandtech note 7 review: "Looking at the test results it performs exactly as quickly as you’d expect from this MLC solution as we’ve tested it in the Galaxy S6, S6 edge, S6 edge+, Note5, S7, S7 edge, and now the Note7 as well as the LG G5. The performance here is acceptable but obviously if you look at burst performance the iPhone 6s has a faster solution due to the hybrid SLC/TLC storage solution. The main benefit of pure MLC NAND is that performance is more consistent as there’s no precipitous drop when the SLC buffer fills. There’s always room to improve but I don’t really see how it’s going to happen unless Samsung moves to V-NAND for the next generation."

19. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

only get highscore on sequential read-write.. still lose when it come to random read-write, which is more matter in daily usage

22. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

Yet it's faster in daily usage.

21. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

If you read through my links you would notice that Apple is having quality issue with the use of TLC NAND. iPhone fail rate is higher than MLC NAND base phone not like the picture you like to paint for us. It's is humorous that you are the one that brought up Apple weakest link in the first place to stroke your ego.

36. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

Dude, I don't even own an iPhone. So I won't use that argument to stroke my ego. And whatever you say, that SLC cache does work giving the 6s fastest storage ever on a phone.

37. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

What is the point of speed when reliability is compromise?

12. Deelron

Posts: 22; Member since: Aug 22, 2016

Per Anandtech's review of the 6s "Here, we can really see the enormous performance improvements that result from a combination of TLC NAND with an SLC cache, along with the new NVMe protocol which allows for low CPU overhead and removes architectural bottlenecks to storage performance." SLC cache is indeed correct.

17. Barney_stinson

Posts: 672; Member since: May 30, 2016

its UFS and its justified! price of iPhone ! oh don't justify it

25. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Do you even try to make sense anymore?

33. zeeBomb

Posts: 2318; Member since: Aug 14, 2014

How does it go again? from slowest to fastest: MLC, TLC, SLC?

35. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

SLC -> Single Layer Cell. It means one cell only stores one bit. MLC -> Multi Layer Cell. It can store multiple bits per cell. Generally 2 though. Yet to see an MLC solution with more than 2 bits per cell. TLC -> Trple layer Cell -> 3 bits per cell. SLC is the fastest since each cell stores only one bit and if you need to access it, it's instantly there. It also means it's the most expensive. You will only see SLC in really expensive SSDs like the Samsung pro series or kingston extreme. MLC comes second since it has two bits per cell. And TLC is the slowest and the cheapest.

26. SmartFix

Posts: 32; Member since: Aug 05, 2016

Yeah and it will cost 1500 dollars.. Ppl clap to applee

31. nctx77

Posts: 2540; Member since: Sep 03, 2013

iPhone prices haven't changed much over the years if at all. The plus was new in 2014 so it had a different price model. Outside of that, I have no idea what you're talking about. These three variants will simply replace the current 16,64,128 phones at the same price.

3. Unordinary unregistered

Cool. Im good with 64 gb though

10. JC557

Posts: 1925; Member since: Dec 07, 2011

In this day and age and for the prices Apple is asking, 64GB should be the base model... I know a pipe dream and 32GB would be more likely.

13. Deelron

Posts: 22; Member since: Aug 22, 2016

Honestly that should go for any phone north of $500 in my book.

28. JC557

Posts: 1925; Member since: Dec 07, 2011

I can kinda excuse it for most other phones on the market since they come with a microSD slot and with some it's integrated with the system storage, but yeah 32 or 64GB should be base for most flagships and Nexus devices.

15. NoToFanboys

Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Same here, specially with Apple's awesome way of backuping apps on a computer, also I really wish other OEMs use NVMe on their phones too

18. Unordinary unregistered

And dont forget Google Photos!

4. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

Why do they always omit the standard storage! Last year they omitted 32GB storage and they are omitting 64GB this year. Really happy at the demise of 16GB though :)

5. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1185; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

So it's 649 for 32GB, 749 for 128GB while 849 for 256GB ? Seems ok I guess, the 7 plus would probably sell for 849 for 128GB, to compete with note 7 which cost 879 unlocked, I guess we will have a battle of the Titans pretty soon.

8. dimas

Posts: 3422; Member since: Jul 22, 2014

I don't remember apple leveling their price tags lower than samsung's but hey, miracles might happen on september.

34. AmashAziz

Posts: 2934; Member since: Jun 30, 2014

Don't forget the note 7 is about 849$ for just 64 gb. Although it has a microsd card, the extra storage won't be as fast as the ufs 2.0. So if apple keeps 749$ for 32, 849 for 128, and 949 for 256gb, then yeah! It's the battle of the titans.

7. dimas

Posts: 3422; Member since: Jul 22, 2014

And the usable storage for these models will be? Ok let's all just wait for september.

14. AlikMalix unregistered

iOS leaves the smallest footprint of any mobile OS.

20. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

because it have the fewest feature among all mobile OS

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless