Originally Posted by addabox
Not buying it. Apple likes to keep things neat and tidy, and historically have not shied away from forcing their customer's hands by eliminating hardware and software that lags behind their vision.
Keeping a 3, 4 or 5 year old phone on the market to hit a price point isn't very Apple-like, and keeping the case design to save a few bucks while updating the internals doesn't either.
The 3,4, or 5 year old phone is a straw man
. I continually have to point out that the 3GS, ( or whatever it is renamed to ) will the lower end model.
. So see my argument as this : Apple will have a lower end model, probably based on the 3GS chassis, and screen. If you feel they won't have a lower end model, you are wrong. If you think they will have a lower end model - and I mean one which, off contract, is lower than $375 by $100+ - then state why they would build a different design, this one being so cheap?
And like other lower end models - like the iBook, or MacBook - all that matters is that it has lesser components than the higher or middle models. A lesser screen. Less memory. A slower processor. Whatever.
It really seems a lot more likely that the iPhwillone 4 be slotted into the current 3gs position when the iPhone 5 is released, which gives Apple the same range of products as they have now but all of which will be on the same page tech wise. All retina displays in the lineup mean fewer developer headaches, more consistent app behavior, and cleaner path to transitioning apps to the iPad.
The people making this claim are the people who poo-pooed the idea of the 3GS would even continue, because Apple always had 2 models before and will always have 2 models for ever and ever. And ever and ever. Because Apple are a conservative company doing the same thing sine 1692, apparently.
an entry level phone. It might produce a new lower end model. It probably will keep the chassis of the 3GS. Easier to build.
(also your technical understanding is shite: retina does not help with the iPad, as retina graphics are not used when you pixel double on the iPad - Apple does this so that people redesign their apps for the iPad, and the "problems" with retina and non-retina displays have been solved. )
Your main argument seems to be that Apple needs an even cheaper phone off contract and that selling something without a Retina screen gives them the opportunity to do so, but you have to assume the unit costs of Retina displays are dropping every quarter and will give Apple sufficient headroom to make pricing adjustments anyway. I mean, Apple could sell a really cheap phone if they only included 4GB of flash memory, a 500 GHz processor, an actually shitty screen, etc., but they're obviously not going to that, so I'm not seeing where they hang on to a device that the relentless advancements in the state of the art will presently render grossly substandard, just so they have something inexpensive to sell. When has Apple ever done that?
Not equivalent. A 400Ghz processor will be retrograde, as is a 4GB flash memory model. Why? Because no competitor is going so low spec. On the other hand the retina display is as it stands, a high end feature. In terms of PPI I think one Android phone ( maybe two) comes close, so the vast majority of smart phones are non-retina. Apple would hardly be shaming it's brand by having the 3GS screen as it's low end model going forward. There is no need for retina across the Apple line, no more than there is need for high end graphic cards in the Mac Book.
The 3GS is selling. It is sold out. It will be selling next year at $100 less, and will probably become the higher selling model of iPhones; the market is becoming commodified.