Redesigned iPhone 5, expanded iPad lineup anticipated from Apple in 2012 - Page 3

Talk about taking what he said out of context. The year 2012 hasn't even started yet for the sales of any new phone.

Fiscal year is the only thing that is counted/matters.

Regardless of whether calendar or fiscal year was intended I don't see the justification for doom and gloom prediction of "sales steadily declining".

I just object to the idea that Apple isn't in a position to be flexible with phone naming. They could start naming them after tropical islands if the wanted. For example iPhone St. Martin or iPhone SXM.

How do you know? Do you work in Apple marketing?







I said next year. Maybe not at the beginning, but as the year progresses... Again, that's US sales.



Why October? Is that for Christmas sales? Might be good marketing. Hmmm...

And I'm talking about "next year". FY2012 has already started, and that's all that matters because that's the only thing counted.


Because it's a year away from the last release

I see now you're intentionally trying to antagonize people with your alleged omniscience. Took me a couple of posts to catch on, but now I can comfortably ignore your posts. Kinda funny, mostly annoying... Merry Christmas!

No.


No.


So you've decided to not prove any of your points or show any numbers from direct calendar months or attempt to show anything that says those numbers have anything to do with anything.

That's fine.

Bringing back the cube sans SD makes sense to me.\

So we have arguments about what Apple should call the next gen iPhone. The arguments for calling it the "5" and the "6" are basically the same.

Yes, its the 6th iPhone, but there was no 2 (or really even a 1) so since the 4 was the 4th phone and the 4S is the 5th phone, it should be called the iPhone 6.

Ok, but...

Since there was no 2 (or again even a 1) and Apple seems to be sticking with 3 and 4 as a sequential naming (numbering) convention, why can't they just call the 6th phone the iPhone 5?

Who cares? As long as they don't give it a stupid and uselessly grandiose "Android-like" name like Hero, Thunderbolt, Amaze and Incredible or any of the other millions of names that make those phones sound absolutely mind-blowingly fantastic only to be deemed obsolete months later, then who cares? Apple usually tries to up the ante with their hardware (sometimes just incrementally) without giving you the impression that the current phone or device is the best they'll ever make. They like to say things like "this is the best iPhone YET."

And please, lets not do more numbers than necessary. Do we really need an iPhone 660AV? Numbering like that is arbitrary and meaningless and only serves to confuse. Apple might have done that in the 90s like every Wintel manufacturer but that isn't their cup of tea anymore. Lets keep it that way. Apple likes simple...and simple has been very good to them.

So if they come out with an iPhone 5 or an iPhone 6...it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it will likely make bank for Apple and after a day or so the analysts can start the rumor mill going on the iPhone 7 which will probably have Microsoft getting the lawyers on standby stating that it confuses the WinPhone 7 customers. "Give us the 'App Store' name and we'll let you off the hook."

Frankly a Cube with a dock connector would be nice, sort of like the Mini that was rumored to have such a connector. (see how I tied that into this thread). Extend that cube with a door with fast access to the storage modules to give Apple a server capable machine that isn't an embarrassment.

That brings up another point, sometime soon I'd expect Apple to transition to a new dock connector standard. There is a need for support of Thunderbolt some how on the iPad.

The thunderbolt chips basically use pci bandwidth. I guess it's a matter of if the chip used in the Airs can be integrated into the ipad, as it's the lighter of the two options from intel. Before anyone else suggests this, it does not have to be routed through integrated graphics (instead that's just how it has appeared thus far).

I would not be surprised at all to find out that Apple has licensed the TB technology. Beyond that they would also need to add PCI-E logic to the chip but IP for that already exists.


No it doesn't have to route the graphics but it would be nice if it did. Think routing to a projector for mirroring or other graphical devices. Yeah I know many would rather do that over WiFi, but alternatives are always nice. I would imagine that the GPU technology would allow for the implementation of alternative physical interfaces.

It's Intel's tech and the mDP port utilizing TB is part of the VESA standard and a free license. That's the only license I can think Apple would be a part of in any regard and it's free.

I don't like Wifi. I would prefer to see advancement in short range wireless bus standards.

In other words the crossbar switching and signal conditioning logic. Apple was or is a partner with Intel here so it should be easy for them to license that IP. Or maybe it is shared IP I really don't know. I just looking at what would be required for Apple to be free to implement that tech on the SoC.

I suppose Apple could do a ground up clean room design. That just seems a bit expensive. I suspect that both Intel and Apple realize that success with respect to TB requires alternative sources for compatible hardware. You would think that is the case but there seems to be little happenIng on that front. Kinda makes one think that TB is a flop in the making.

WiFi can certainly be a pain at times. I'm thinking that taking the hub out of the equation and allowing peer to peer communications would give you the convience of a short range RF link.

I see what you're getting at now. Intel has used Apple's position in the market before to demo new technologies I could see them doing that with TB to get it adopted. It worked well for speeding up the adoption of USB.

As for it being a flop it's only been on the market for under a year. I would expect to see many new TB capable devices at CES. Remember, it was stated Apple has an exclusivity on it until 2012 so there is a reason why we haven't seen it added to other PCs at this point.

I've been an advocate for adding it to iDevices but I'd think Intel would try to prevent that from happening so it can be a feature exclusive to their new ARM competitor launching in 2012.

[reposted]
I'm calling BS on this post because anyone who calls the 6th iPhone the iPhone 5 is just repeating rumors. We all know that's what he's doing in any case because he's just saying the exact same thing but he'll keep pushing the date back. An "iPad 2S" prediction is pathetic. He's assuming that 4->4S means that it'll be 2->2S. Never mind the fact that the iPad 2S was supposed to be released this October. A ten inch Retina Display would be insanely expensive. Apple's not going to release two iPads at the same time. It's FRAGMENTATION, you pathetic excuse for an analyst. That's why Apple didn't release two iPhones this year.
And guess what? This is the same idiot who's been flooding the Internet with speculations about the Apple TV (a TV, not the box). And here's what he said about the new iPhone: "We expect Apple to continue with a lead device (iPhone 5) that carriers sell subsidized for $199/$299 along with a previous generation device (iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S) for $99." Funny how Apple did the exact same thing for the past two-three years, but hey, this is big news! They'll release a new one and keep the old one! Oh, and look. He got the names wrong and he thought there'd only be two new models.
Analyst? Give me a break.

I could see an iPad 2S like device as a simple enhancement over the current model to buffer a retina display based iPad 3.

I don't think so. It appears that he means a 2S will be a low end device with a significant production capacity already in place. A contingency if you will. Apple wont go with absolutely new technology 100% because the risk is to great. Instead they will want to have something to sell customers if production problems crop up for the retina display.

Remember Apple needs a capacity in the area of millions per month. That is a though thing to do no matter how much money you have in the bank.

It doesn't have to be expensive. If Apple engaged the supplier in a joint venture they will save money right there. Beyond that each technology advancement in displays finds new efficiencies. I suspect that the road to high res displays is built on technologies easy to move forward with. In other words they won't go with a screen diffupicult to manufacture.

Beyond that LCD manufactures have been shopping around high resolution display technology for a couple of years now. I don't believe the displays are an issue. Driving the displays might be though. If we get retina displays in the iPad then I suspect a radically different A6. I have a real question in my mind that Apple will have a SoC powerful enough to actually drive the display.

By going with retina they fragment the market anyways. However you seem to grossly over estimate just how bad that will be on the iPad. Due to resolution independence the impact will be less than you think.

At least in the case of TVs Steveo gave us a little hint that something is coming. However what that is could be almost anything. I for one would love to have an iPad that could also tune broadcast TV. It would be great for travel, RVs, boats & etc. Such a beast would be easy to do except for one thing, the antenna. Ideally the aspect ratio would be suitable for HDTV, so this product would be distinct from iPad. It would also run iOS apps. In effect a portable TV / iPad combo. However I suspect that Apples goals are focused on the other end of the size spectrum.

In any event it is Christmas - chill out.