or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Redesigned iPhone 5, expanded iPad lineup anticipated from Apple in 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Redesigned iPhone 5, expanded iPad lineup anticipated from Apple in 2012

post #1 of 98
Thread Starter 
Apple's growth next year and beyond is expected to be driven by a redesigned iPhone, as well as a potential expansion of the iPad lineup into both lower and higher price points, according to a new analysis.

Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray said in a note to investors on Wednesday that because Apple did not redesign any major hardware products in 2011, he believes significant changes could arrive in 2012. Chief among those would be a redesigned "iPhone 5," which he predicts will debut in mid-2012.

The launch of a so-called "iPhone 5" in 2012 would set the stage for outperformance in 2013, in Munster's eyes. He offered two scenarios for Apple's products in 2013: a "base case" and a "bull case."

In his base estimate, Munster sees Apple selling 142 million iPhone units, good for an 18 percent increase in revenue. In the bull case scenario, Apple sells 162 million iPhone units throughout 2013, amounting to a 35 percent increase in revenue.

Munster admitted his projected 14 percent total revenue growth for Apple in calendar 2013 is conservative. That would be a significant reduction from the 56 percent revenue growth he sees Apple earning in calendar 2011. The bull case sees Apple growing revenue 28 percent in calendar 2013.

Beyond the iPhone, Munster's model assumes Apple will just release one third-generation iPad to replace the current iPad 2. But if Apple decides to expand the iPad lineup beyond its current models and price points, he sees the company growing well beyond his current estimates.

Munster's calendar 2013 base estimate calls for 66 million iPads to be sold, representing an 11 percent increase in revenue from the estimates for 2012. But in his bull case, Apple would sell 77.5 million iPads and grow its revenue by 30 percent.

Apple could achieve those higher numbers if the company decides to expand the iPad lineup into both lower and higher price points, he believes. Currently, the iPad comes in three capacities of 16GB, 32GB and 64GB, with two different variations: Wi-Fi-only and 3G-capable.



Rumors and speculation of an expanded iPad lineup are not new, though Apple has yet to adjust its strategy. Last month, another analyst predicted that Apple will sell a third-generation iPad with a high-resolution Retina Display alongside a faster "iPad 2S" with the same screen resolution as the current iPad 2, but with a faster processor and Siri integration. He also predicted that Apple will continue to sell the iPad 2 at a lower price, much like the company already does with the iPhone 3GS.

Finally, Munster also believes that Apple could drive growth in the Mac platform with new form factors and a broader range of prices in calendar years 2012 and 2013. Reports have suggested Apple plans to redesign its MacBook Pro lineup in 2012, and also expand the MacBook Air line with a new 15-inch model.

Munster's base forecast calls for Apple to sell 24 million Macs in calendar 2013, a 15 percent increase from his estimates for 2012. The bull case sees Apple selling another 2 million Macs to reach 26 million, good for 20 percent growth in revenue.
post #2 of 98
The phrase "no shit" comes to mind with these so called predictions. What on earth do these people get paid for?!
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #3 of 98
iPhone 5, next year? NO WAY!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #4 of 98
if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!
post #5 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!

apple is doomed!
post #6 of 98
I swear Munster publishes this crap just to let it resonate in teh internets echo chamber. These statements are the equivalent of "Pope blesses people gather in Vatican Square", or "The President flew on Airforce 1".

Does he get additional revenue for publishing this stuff? He must because his predictions are accurate at a rate only slightly above flipping a coin...
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #7 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!

Hahaha!

Merry Christmas.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #8 of 98
Useless speculation. I think these analysts just like to hear themselves talk. How is this speculation helping Apple or investors? Apple will sell as many products as consumers are willing or able to buy. Investors are already wary of Apple with Wall Street giving it such low growth potential so these numbers are not going to entice potential investors who think this guy is just making up numbers in his head and he probably is.
post #9 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Last month, another analyst predicted that Apple will sell a third-generation iPad with a high-resolution Retina Display alongside a faster "iPad 2S" with the same screen resolution as the current iPad 2, but with a faster processor and Siri integration. He also predicted that Apple will continue to sell the iPad 2 at a lower price, much like the company already does with the iPhone 3GS.

I think they will do it exactly like they did originally with the 3gs. They keep the two 16 gig wifi only models of the iPad 2 on sale and knock $100 off them, targeting kids and such. If you want the better, faster, Siri etc you get the iPad 3 which could step up to 32GB as the base model
post #10 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

I swear Munster publishes this crap just to let it resonate in teh internets echo chamber.

This is the job of an analyst. They are supposed to predict how well a stock will do so investors know if they should buy, sell etc.

The trouble is that Apple does what Apple wants and that includes designing, announcing, selling and yes stock performance. So folks can't really predict as well and have to just repeat the rumors that are out there to have something to say. Even if the rumors don't make any sense to those that have a clue about tech
post #11 of 98
I think analysts vastly overestimate the importance of novelty to Apple's success. This comes from seeing Apple as a company driven by fashion. The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix. But overall Apple tends to be conservative with design. They only do a major redesign when there's a reason to do it. There are either major functional changes (i.e., original iMac to LCD iMacs), or there are new manufacturing possibilities (i..e, plastic to machined aluminium), or they screwed up and need to correct a misstep (sunflower iMac, iPod nano fatty, buttonless iPod shuffle, etc). To think Apple has to do a major redesign every year (or every other year) is to completely misunderstand Apple and why they're successful. For Apple, form generally follows function (the exceptions are notable because they're exceptions).

So the question is, What reason is there for a major redesign for the iPhone or iPad? It seems unlikely that new manufacturing processes will cause a shift to new materials (i.e., mass market carbon fibre doesn't seem to be possible yet) and there are no major functional changes on the horizon. Apple doesn't appear to think either the iPhone 4 or the iPad 2 is a major design misstep either. So I find it unlikely that either will see major redesigns. iPad is on an obvious trend of getting thinner and lighter and the display will probably see an upgrade, but none of that requires a major rethink of the design. iPhone could potentially have a larger screen but the same size due a smaller bezel (which may have been a manufacturing constraint; on the other hand, Apple may feel that 3.5" is the best size for usability reasons), but again, there's no reason to think it needs a major redesign. One thing that could prompt a major redesign of the iPhone is a different antenna system (we could file that under correcting a misstep; Antennagate was overblown but an external antenna might still not be the best choice going forward).

But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.
post #12 of 98
His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.

So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?

I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.

Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?
post #13 of 98
iPhone SIX. For goodness' sakes when will these people learn to count!!

"We didn't get our precious number 5 after the name so we better get it next year."

It's moronic.
post #14 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

I swear Munster publishes this crap just to let it resonate in teh internets echo chamber. These statements are the equivalent of "Pope blesses people gather in Vatican Square", or "The President flew on Airforce 1".

Does he get additional revenue for publishing this stuff? He must because his predictions are accurate at a rate only slightly above flipping a coin...

I predict that we will have to hear Munster's crap again in 2012.
post #15 of 98
It seems highly unlikely Apple will call the next iPhone the iPhone 5, it is the 6th iPhone, and could potentially drop the number scheme, but calling it 5 when it is iphone #6 doesn't really strike me as apple's way of doing things.
post #16 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!

The iPhone4S already has 1080p video recording.
And its absolutely excellent.

J.
post #17 of 98
Hey, AI? Could we not perpetuate the "iPhone 5" name? It's nonsensical.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 98
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.

But not iPhone 5. Nope.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #19 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

The phrase "no shit" comes to mind with these so called predictions. What on earth do these people get paid for?!

To read this site.
post #20 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.

Overall, there is precedent with the iPod. Over time, Apple diversified the iPod product line greatly.

Even then, not every enhancement was necessarily rolled out from top to bottom. For instance, the click wheel showed up first in the iPod mini, while the original iPod still had the more awkward arrangement of the touch wheel with four touch buttons across the top.

But I agree, I did think that Apple would more likely put the fastest hardware together with the highest resolution screen. I had not considered they might do anything else.

For me, reading analysts isn't so much about them being completely correct, it's about thinking about future possibilities I had not considered, but which analysts sometimes bring up.
post #21 of 98
People need to chill out. Gene puts out his AAPL research to grab headlines and get on Bloomberg TV/CNBC. If you want more in-depth research from Gene, he will come to your office or talk to you on the phone. Then again you have to be a PAYING customer of Piper Jaffreys, thats how it works folks.
It reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker of all-time. "Cash, grass or ass - Nobody rides for free"
post #22 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

iPhone 5, next year? NO WAY!

Nooooo, a 'redesigned' iPhone 5!
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #23 of 98
The idea that Apple isn't flexible with its product lines is total BS. Look at what they have done with the iPods and laptops over the years. I believe at one time Apple had 4 different iPods for sale each dramatically different. If you look at the AIRs they effectively replaced the Mac Book with two models with rumors of three coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.

IOS is extremely successful right now. It would be extremely foolish of Apple not to capitalize on that fact. Now there are so many possibilities I will not even try to guess at what may be coming but Apple has a cow to be milked and needs to get at it.
Quote:
So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?

That isn't what he was saying in the least. By default the high resolution iPad would have a faster processor, if for nothing else to keep up speed wise on that screen.
Quote:
I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.

That is one possible play on the iPad3. I could see iPad 2 being upgraded though. IPads still suffer from poor CPU/GPU performance so a bump there would help iPad keep the lead. Plus they might want to market Siri on the upgraded unit.
Quote:
Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?

I'm not too sure you want to be working for those sorts.
post #24 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

iPhone 5, next year? NO WAY!

Exactly. I was sure we were gonna see the iPhone 4S2. This guy has blown my mind.
post #25 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.

But not iPhone 5. Nope.

Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
post #26 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.

But not iPhone 5. Nope.

Let's see, IPhones 1, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S; seems like 5 would fit in there. Note the jump from the original to the 3G which indicated a technology not a sequence number. What is notable is the move from the 3G to the 3GS was minor. Contrary to the article the move from the 4 to the 4S was a major overhaul. So if you are looking at it that way there have been 4 iPhone models to date.

Of course if you are one to believe the fairy tails about iPhone 4S being insignificant then this likely goes over your head.
post #27 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Smiley View Post

Exactly.

Exactly exactly.

Quote:
And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?

They're complete idiots. I'm not trying to be funny; that's the only reason I can think of.

Seriously, when faced with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me at some point in the past

Code:

iPhone 3G: [ ] 2nd phone, [X] telephony, [ ] Processor name, [ ] iPhone OS version
iPhone 4: [X] 4th iPhone, [ ] telephony, [X] Processor name, [X] iOS version


So with the 6th gen iPhone, I applied the same logic.

It's not the 5th iPhone. It won't have an A5 chip. It won't run iOS 5. It won't have 5G telephony.

It WILL, however, be the 6th iPhone, have an A6 chip, run iOS 6, and likely have 4G telephony.

That's 3 for iPhone 6 and 0 for iPhone 5.

How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #28 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

I think analysts vastly overestimate the importance of novelty to Apple's success. This comes from seeing Apple as a company driven by fashion. The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix. But overall Apple tends to be conservative with design. They only do a major redesign when there's a reason to do it. There are either major functional changes (i.e., original iMac to LCD iMacs), or there are new manufacturing possibilities (i..e, plastic to machined aluminium), or they screwed up and need to correct a misstep (sunflower iMac, iPod nano fatty, buttonless iPod shuffle, etc). To think Apple has to do a major redesign every year (or every other year) is to completely misunderstand Apple and why they're successful. For Apple, form generally follows function (the exceptions are notable because they're exceptions).

So the question is, What reason is there for a major redesign for the iPhone or iPad? It seems unlikely that new manufacturing processes will cause a shift to new materials (i.e., mass market carbon fibre doesn't seem to be possible yet) and there are no major functional changes on the horizon. Apple doesn't appear to think either the iPhone 4 or the iPad 2 is a major design misstep either. So I find it unlikely that either will see major redesigns. iPad is on an obvious trend of getting thinner and lighter and the display will probably see an upgrade, but none of that requires a major rethink of the design. iPhone could potentially have a larger screen but the same size due a smaller bezel (which may have been a manufacturing constraint; on the other hand, Apple may feel that 3.5" is the best size for usability reasons), but again, there's no reason to think it needs a major redesign. One thing that could prompt a major redesign of the iPhone is a different antenna system (we could file that under correcting a misstep; Antennagate was overblown but an external antenna might still not be the best choice going forward).

But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.



You labor under a false impression. Apple changes designs in order to maximize profits. That is the reason they change designs. They keep the same design if it would yield the highest profits. They change designs if it would yield the highest profits. That is the one and only reason Apple does anything.
post #29 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Smiley View Post

Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?

The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.

Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
post #30 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.

Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.

The next version will be iPhone AK47

(Android Killer versions 4 through 7)
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #31 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?



Because it is marketing-speak. You think that Apple's target customers know the info you presented? You think that the majority of them care?

It is marketing-speak. The next iPhone will be the 5. Otherwise, the vast majority of people will wonder why Apple skipped a number when they go in to buy.

"The i6 is $200, the i4S is $100."

"But what about the i5?!?!?"




Nope. Calling it the i6 is just foolish.
post #32 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix.

Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.
post #33 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.

Good thoughts, but the only way they could call it the 4G is if they kept the same form factor with the tiny screen and glass back.

Maybe the 4G will be the value line, keeping the same design, with a deluxe i5 released at the same time?
post #34 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.

Not going to happen. S comes after G in the alphabet. Among the other reason (the one stated by Apple themselves) that they wouldn't be doing it.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.

Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.

Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). Apple even went out of the way to mention that 4G isn't well defined at this point (partially due to marketing and disagreements about the spec itself). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.

Consider:

1st: iPhone

2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)

3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')

4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)

5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)

6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)

Any thoughts?
post #36 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.

So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?

I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.

Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?

I don't know why analysts think that Apple will expand the iPad line, to most non-tech consumers, it's confusing enough. When I visit my Apple store I see throngs of people pondering what memory size and color and if they need 3G service. Then their head starts smoking.

I especially like the conversations where the customer is asking why there are no 4G iPads. They obviously have no idea what 4G is but they know it's one more than 3G. It's like an updated version of Spinal Tap. "This one goes to 11". By then I see the specialist sighing and try to explain it. Then the customer asks the dumbest question of all: "When is the (insert next generation Apple product here) coming out?"
post #37 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMF View Post

Why not iPhone LTE?

One word: Sprint.

Not saying it won't HAVE LTE, just that it wouldn't be called that.

A few more words: Apple didn't release the "iPhone HSPA" or the "iPhone HSDPA". Apple chooses the broad term for a level of telephony, not a branch of it (LTE, for example).

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #38 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!

1080p, no way I'd shell out for that crap, it'll need to have at least a 2K camera, and pref a 4K cam at least as good as a current RED.

Probably they'll revive some NeXT (and porsche) names and produce the iPhone 4S Turbo, and there will be rumors of a Nitro.
post #39 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMF View Post

Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.

Consider:

1st: iPhone

2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)

3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')

4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)

5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)

6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)

Any thoughts?

I think an LTE iPhone is going to take more time to solve the heavy battery requirements for the 4g network. Location services is killing the battery right now on the 4S, so imagine if you were on an LTE network. Just ask the guys at Engadget who reviewed the Galaxy Nexus on Verizon. This is what they said about battery life:

And then there's the battery life. It's well known that LTE can put a real hurting on phone longevity and that appears to be the case here as well, our Nexus struggling to hold on to a charge in day-to-day use with all antennas firing. We've as of yet had very limited time with the thing, but in our 24 hours of intensive testing we had to reach for the charger multiple times. Using Google Navigation with LTE enabled? The battery drained so fast our in-car charger couldn't keep up, leaving us unsure of which exit to take off the 101.
post #40 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMF View Post

Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.

Too many idiots bought them and lost the headphones that came with them, or wanted to use other headphones that didn't support the controls for the shuffle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Redesigned iPhone 5, expanded iPad lineup anticipated from Apple in 2012