Only one gig of RAM and base storage still at 16 gigs really annoys me. I may end up with a Moto X and wait for the 6s.
RAM matters a lot more on an Android, and even with more cores, running faster, with more RAM, it will be objectively slower at most things than an iPhone 5C (and that much slower than an iPhone 6 I'm sure). Plus actually using it will eat through battery quicker (it wasn't a 36-hour device for me like the iPhone 5C was, despite similar usage) and (this one surprised me) eats more data.
Not to mention if you have kids, the lack of iMessage and the inability to forward an HD video over to your spouse of the kids is almost a deal-breaker all by itself.
Anecdotal, my 2c, etc. But I owned a Nexus One, every iPhone except the 3GS and 5S, a Samsung Galaxy S2, Moto X, Palm Pre, Palm Veer (loved that little guy, just too buggy) and most recently an LG G2.
Discounting Apple on the basis of hardware and perceived performance would be a big mistake IMO. They're head and shoulders above everything else on those counts IME, and age so much better.
I got so tired of the quirky G2 (I swear there was a 1 in 3 chance that just unlocking the phone would launch the Alarms app for no reason, and that forced Menu button... GRRRR) I swapped my SIM into an old iPhone 4S I had lying around yesterday. It's not quite as snappy. But it's not half bad either. From a perceived performance perspective (say that three times fast!), the G2, a flag-ship Android phone released only 12 months ago, is slower in every way than an iPhone 5, a phone twice it's age (and yup, the G2 has 2GB of RAM, the iPhone 5 had 1GB).
If you prefer Android more power to ya. But if you're a long time iPhone user... Maybe I'll convince you to save some heart-ache (and $$$). ;-)
Among Android devices I did like the Moto X the best...
Apple fixing Safari's bad behavior and letting it sleep its state to flash would work too, but 6 iOS versions later it looks like they're incapable of that.
Funny, I'd say the same thing about the people who've been repeating the "overpriced/underpowered" trope ever since it stopped being true over a decade ago.
They also pointed out that iOS already artificially limits the amount of RAM a single process can use, so adding RAM wouldn't even really do anything besides make it take longer for background apps to be evicted.
Personally, I want a MicroSD slot because that way we both win.
It is pretty silly but also annoying as the iPhone has a strong following due to its "it just works" design. Girls in particular love it for the camera but 16gb just isn't enough space to get my SO and her friends past a few months of photo-frenzy.
The 128GB internal option is the one which'd make me actually consider an iphone 6.
Not starting with 32 gigs seems like a bean counter somewhere trying to be clever and force more people to opt for the higher storage (read: more expensive) versions. Might just be my tinfoil hat talking.
Why does this matter? Apps run great as is. If the phone was slow I could understand but it isn't.
>> base storage still at 16 gigs really annoys me.
They pay a little extra for the larger models... It would have been nice to have a 32gb base model and it's a little strange they didn't do it but it's not like they don't offer larger storage versions.
Safari doesn't play well at all with multitasking. I have to cross my fingers whenever I want to copy something into a form from another app because chances are the page will reload when I come back to Safari since it ran out of RAM. I also often get into the situation where I can't even tab between just 2 pages since Safari runs out of RAM and reloads each page.
Apple fixing Safari's bad behavior and letting it sleep its state to flash would work too, but 6 iOS versions later it looks like they're incapable of that.
Exactly. It smacks of someone at Apple saying "Hey, if we keep the base at 16 gigs it will make more people upgrade to the 64, which will be more money".