Illogical storage capacity options?

[Futurist]

It's time to change my Macbook and my phone.

I find I can get 2TB of storage on a new iPhone 17 Pro Max from Sky. Quite why anyone wouls need that mch storage on a phone is beyond my comprehension, but it's an option.

I find I can't get more than 512Mb on most Macbooks on offer. The maximum is 1TB, and that's not available on most models.

Forgive my old-fashioned thinking, but when I'm working with BIG FILES, the iPhone is not my first choice of tool. They live on my Macbook, and that's where I create them, edit them, and store them. 

Where is the logic in Sky's - and even in Apple's - thinking here? 

I cannot replace my current Macbook and transfer its 1.6TB of programs and data to a newer Macbook with only 512Gb of storage. Therefore I cannot select a Macbook from Sky. I would, if I could. And no, dangling an external USB drive off the new one won't help. Mac to Mac transfer requires the same disk configuration, a single disk setup can't be split between drives.

Does anyone else find this to be rather a stupid and unneccessary problem for Apple and Sky to create?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Futurist wrote:

Where is the logic in Sky's - and even in Apple's - thinking here? 

---

I doubt any thoughts Sky Mobile might have on the subject would even register with a global operation on the scale of Apple.

It could be that the more sensible options are by definition harder to keep in stock.

[Futurist]

Actually, the more sensible options are just that - options. I can get them from Apple, but not from Sky.

Sky has to decide which options to offer, and doesn't offer the larger capacities on Macs - if they did, they would show up on the product but be greyed out when stock isn't available. It's illogical to offer higher capacities on iPhones than on Macs., that's my point.