[stouset]

As always, implementing features is a matter of priorities. If the overwhelming majority of users aren't using cables to transfer data, spending resources on improving data transfer rates isn't a great way to allocate engineering effort.

Meanwhile, flagship Android phones can't match the CPU and GPU speeds nor the battery life of even years-old iPhones. I'd wager that's a much, much more important feature for most users.

> That's assuming you pay a not insignificant sum to have more than a paltry 5GB of iCloud space.

$0.99/mo is "not insignificant"?

[Dylan16807]

> $0.99/mo is "not insignificant"?

I'm pretty sure they didn't mean the 50GB tier. That amount is also basically useless. The 200GB tier might work, and that's an extra hundred bucks over the life of a phone. If you want to backup a phone and offload a reasonable chunk of photos, you're at the $10 tier and that's a lot of money over multiple years of ownership.

[stouset]

The entirety of my iCloud backups and Photos storage is about 175GB, and I have photos going back to 2008. I think 200GB is probably fine for way more people than you realize.

[Dylan16807]

Many people, but that's still an extra hundred dollars per phone if you keep it for three years. And it would only take another 1-2 photos per day to push you into the $360 per phone tier.