Strong sales of iPhone 4S a precursor to 'monster' launch of redesigned 'iPhone 5' - Page 6

Operationally, we don't need it anymore. I haven't used the Home Button on my iPad ONCE since 4.2.3 gave me gestures and they were kept in iOS 5. It's just not needed, and it's the opposite of intuitive once you start using the gestures.

BUT we DO need a hardware 'out'. We will always need a hardware 'out'. I wonder if the Power button could somehow be repurposed to serve as a Home Button as well, though that would require a fundamental change in how we use said button. For example, all I can think of is tap to return to the Home Screen (if an app is unresponsive; though since they're sandboxed, the gestures still work around the frozen app anyway) and hold for a second to sleep, holding for a longer time (the current time works) to power off.

I don't know. I don't feel good about changing its purpose like that, but we really don't need a Home Button anymore for operation.

Of course because they are entirely separate components with their own roadmaps. It's convenient when the numbers all line up but there's no reason they would go out of their way to confuse people to keep the numbers matched.


If it's done intelligently yes, as it could help balance the network load and it would artificially boost a carrier's coverage (AT&T sorely need it). The hopping would be transparent and encrypted.


Every major product revision gets a major revision number increment because that's what those numbers represent.


That happened with OS X up until 10.3 and then they switched to every 2nd year. Once an OS reaches a feature-rich state, it's better to go for stability and give developers a solid platform to work on. I feel iOS 5 has reached that feature-rich state such that iOS 6 can wait until 2013 when the iPhone 5S arrives.


The name needed to be an increment of the previous one, iPhone 3 would have been a decrement by removing 'GS'.


The sequence beyond the first phone follows the rule that the newer revision name is a single increment higher than the last whether that increment is the addition of a letter or the increment of a digit. 4S -> 6 increments two digits.


I meant the CPU/GPU chipset not the data standard but if it used 4G, I'd expect them to use iPhone 4GS as it doesn't decrement the label and only if it had the same design as the iPhone 4.


Let's say you scream at 4 squirrels and a 5th squirrel comes along holding 6 nuts and sporting a 6" tail. If you were to give that squirrel an identifier such that it could be distinguished among the group of squirrels, realising that nobody readily identifies squirrels by the length of their tail nor the number of nuts they hold, what number would you assign?

Squirrel number _?

Other than the first new model. That jumped by two digits.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's not the "iPhone 1". So it jumped by THREE digits, since it's the iPhone 0, apparently.


You're actually perfectly fine with that, aren't you? You're just completely ignoring your original argument, that of people complaining, "Where's the iPhone 5?" when you say this, you know. People will be saying, "Where's the iPhone 4G? We expected iPhone 4G and then 4GS." You're just grasping at straws now, but since you work at McDonald's and aren't a customer, you can't take as many straws as you want and now you're fired*.


Get it through your heads: THIS IS NOT THE FIFTH SQUIRREL. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN THE FIFTH SQUIRREL. ONLY A COMPLETE LUNATIC OR AN ANTI-APPLE TROLL WOULD CONSIDER THE IPHONE THAT IS GOING TO BE RELEASED THIS YEAR TO BE THE FIFTH IPHONE.

We've had five years. We've had five models. It's time for a sixth squirrel.

*Obscure reference to when an old friend worked at McDonald's; he related to me the tale of how customers can't be stopped from taking all the straws in the dispenser but employees can't take more than one.

The original iPhone didn't really count because they only called it iPhone. After the first one, they had to think of ways to identify the new one from the old one.

first one is just iPhone (maybe they didn't think they'd have to make any improvements)
the biggest change in the next one was the addition of 3G so append '3G'
the next one was much faster so speed was the differentiating factor so append 'S' to get 3GS
the next one was a complete redesign with a retina display so what you would refer to as a different generation - different tooling - so iPhone 4
the next one was just faster really so append 'S'

To get to the next one, you only have to follow the same sequence - find out what features will differentiate the next iPhone from the 4S. I think it will be a generation jump with a new design so both 5 and 6 qualify but while 6 matches the internals and its position in the timeline, I don't think it will work for consumers.

At the end of the day, we're not talking about technical revision numbers here, it's a marketing label. You're honestly telling me that an average consumer wouldn't be confused if the number jumped from 4 to 6?


I don't think so because 4G is a decrement of 4S. To increment, you have to append to the defining features of the 4S:

4S + 4G = 4GS
4G = 4S - S + G


The iPhone 5 is anti-Apple now? Ok, it's not the 5th phone (just the 5th revision of the original) but I think in the group of other phones, it would look like there's a gap. There's nothing wrong with this sort of lineup:



If you put 6 at the end instead while the 4S and 4, possibly even 3GS are on sale, when buyers look at the numbers, they will see a gap between the 4S and 6 because they're not going to remember that there has been 6 models. The next Galaxy will be the S3, the next Playstation will be Playstation 4. Consecutive numbers just make sense. I'm personally waiting for the XBox 361.

You and others are claiming if 5 doesn't come after 4S but 4G is fine? How many letters less than S is that? By the rationale most are using it should be called iPhone 4T or iPhone 5T because if we don't increment up then it's confusing¡

Personally I think iPhone 4G makes sense from a marketing standpoint even though many markets won't get access to the LTE chips. TS made a good argument why Apple won't do that. For that reason I think iPhone LTE is off the table, but think iPhone 4G could still happen.


But there is nothing right or logical about it either since it doesn't follow previously used patterns.

No. This isn't an explanation. This is worming around an explanation nebulously, coming to a vague mish-mash of stuff and then writing the actual name next to it.

I want your REAL explanation for why the 4th generation iPhone with an A4 chip running iOS 4 was called the 'iPhone 4'.

Everything else about your naming stuff? Absolutely correct.


Exactly. So six. Next step?


The A6 chip, iOS 6, and it being the 6th generation of device. Okay, got that. Now what?


Okay, we're getting there, we're getting there almost there now we culminate in the pièce de résistanceÂ


NO.

Explain to me how "5" qualifies for the 6th generation iPhone. Explain.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Since it didn't happen when they went from iPhone to iPhone 3G, I have 100% historic proof to back what I'm saying.


I agree.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAÂ

Note that I didn't read your post before hitting reply. I'm reading it as I go along so that my reactions can be as immediate and pure as possible.

And that was my reaction to reading that.


Oh, you missed my reference. I was referring to the people who claim the iPhone 4S isn't a new phone because the case looks the same. Or how the 3GS wasn't a new phone because the case looked the same. To think 'iPhone 5' for the 6th iPhone, you'd have to believe that about one of those devices, and since only anti-Apple folk actually spew that nonsense, I brought it back around.


Because, as we all know, people start counting at two and not one.

What other blatantly wrong reasons will people come up with? We now have "5th revision of the original design" as an explanation for the name, but when the rational of us try to rebut that "logic" by saying that the next iPhone will be called the iPhone 4 because it's the 4th case design, they laugh it off as being nonsensical.

What's next, in three more years we'll have the iPhone 4 released again because it's the 4th time we've changed cellular telephony generations (2G, 3G, 4G, and then 5G). Oh, no, I'm sorry, excuse me, the 8th iPhone will be called the iPhone 3, because it will have been the "3rd revision of the original cellular telephony".


Gap, gap Hmm Oh, speaking of which:




So, what, Apple's going to be paying people to take the 3GS off their hands? There's no way a FOUR year old phone (that won't be able to run iOS 6, I might add) will still be sold.


Never seemed to bother iPhone 3G buyers.

"But they weren't sold at the same timeÂ"

IT ADDED A THREE. You can't selectively use that as your argument.


Now you're just mocking me.

Almost but 5 on its own is an increment of 4S.


For the same reason that 4S qualified for the 5th generation iPhone running iOS 5 and A5.


But why do you think consumers refer to the original as the iPhone 2G? Apple didn't assign this label, consumers did to avoid confusion.


I don't see how you reach that conclusion. The 3GS and 4S didn't have new case designs so didn't merit a major name change. If you put the 4S and 4 side by side, there would be no reason to call the 4S the iPhone 5 because that name doesn't describe why it's different, the name 4S does.

Under the assumption that the next phone has a new case design, it only needs to be called iPhone 5 to describe why it differs from the 4S. The name doesn't have to match any specification, it just needs to let you know it's newer and what's different.

What will be your reaction if Tim Cook introduces the next one as the iPhone 5?

"If we don't make any sense at all or even so much as try to follow any past conventions, we can do whatever we want."

Fine, the next iPhone will be the "iPhone Dead Baby".


Consumers don't. Tech people do. Consumers don't know or care that the original had 2G telephony. You don't see that unless it's from someone who knows what he's talking about. People just say iPhone. I also fail to see how that's a rebuttal to the point I made. Unless you want to pretend that people were saying "2G" because it was the "second generation" iPhone.


Again, iPhone Dead Baby. Because there's zero reason for it to be called that, absolutely no one with any actual grasp of the situation would think to call it that, and because what the frick does it matter anyway.


What will be YOUR reaction when he doesn't?

I think the point of the iPhone and the iPhone 3G not being sold at the same time is valid. The original iPhone is the only one that wasn't sold at the same time as its successor.

This is why I think it'll be iPhone 5. Apple will sell the new phone along with the 4S (8 GB, $99) and 4 (8 GB, $0). On Apple's site http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare-iphones/ they let you compare currently selling models. So they will likely go from this:



...to this:



I think that will be better than this:



Of course they can go either way with this. They can name it iPhone SJ. They can name it iPhone TC (Tim's first as CEO). They can name it iPhone 4G, iPhone LTE, iPhone 12, iPhone EOW (End of World). But from a marketing standpoint when selling multiple items at the same time it'll be easier for people to see that 5 comes after 4 rather than 6 comes after 4.

Whatever they name it people are going to buy it. That's the only thing that really matters.

So, again, no real reason, then.


So you're saying 6 doesn't come after 4? I'm confused.

Also, explain why the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4.

Whatever it'll be called, the statements and reasoning that are being made still make sense, are founded. I cannot understand why not everyone sees that...

Forget that 2 comes after 1, the picture is larger than that.

I did give my reasons. Because they will be selling the new phone at the same time as the predecessor with a revision change. So going from 4 to 5 is better than going from 4 to 6 from a marketing standpoint.


Of course it does. So does 10 and 100. But usually you increase the number of your named device by 1. With the revision from original to 3G no they did not increase by one. But they weren't selling them at the same time. I think that's the biggest caveat. Plus they were highlighting the 3G tech. With the revision from the 3GS to the 4 they did increase the number by 1 and they were sold concurrently. If the new one is a revision change being sold with its predecessor recent history is that they will increase the number by 1 and go from 4S to 5.


Nobody knows and no one outside of Apple's walls will ever know. In their marketing video, specifically, and their marketing materials, generally, they didn't highlight that it was the 4th phone using the A4 chip using iOS4. They highlighted Facetime, Retina Display, and HD Video Recording before their mention of the A4. With the 4S they didn't highlight that it was the 5th phone using the A5 chip using iOS5. They highlighted increased speed, better camera, and Siri. They didn't call it the 5, either.

The competing opinions are whether the successive phone will go with a generation-chip-iOS naming scheme (done once out of four chances):

iPhone - original
iPhone 3G - no "A2" chip name but

iPhone OS 2 and 2nd Generation - 2 out of 3
iPhone 3GS - no "A3" chip name but iPhone OS 3 and 3rd Generation - 2 out of 3
iPhone 4 - "A4" chip, iOS4, 4th Generation - 3 out of 3 - called iPhone 4
iPhone 4S - "A5" chip, iOS5, 5th Generation - 0 out of 3 - not called iPhone 5 ..or a revision-increase-to-next-number naming scheme (done once out of two chances):

iPhone to iPhone 3G - no number increase as original didn't have a number..new wasn't even called iPhone 2
iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 - number increase from 3 to 4 to signify revision
iPhone 4S to ?

Skil you're banking on it not being iPhone 5 based on your opinion that they'll either name it after the generation/chip/iOS or name it iPhone 4G or iPhone LTE.

I'm banking on it being iPhone 5 based on my opinion that they'll either increase the number by 1 to signify the revision change or name it iPhone 4G or iPhone LTE.

That's all it is. At the end of the day Apple picked the name well before we even knew there was anything to disagree on. And we won't know until Tim Cook says it. And then no one will care anymore.

That is until the next day where everyone wonders whether the 2013 phone will be named iPhone 5/6/4GS/5S/6S

More is better. That's the marketing standpoint.


Telephony generation + 1 ≠ hardware generation.


Explain. To. Me. Why. They. Named. The. iPhone. 4. The. iPhone. 4.





Then guess what? That ship has sailed. Its time has passed. They had their chance.

As for your chart,

iPhone: [X] 1st generation [ ] A1 chip, [X] iPhone OS 1, [ ] 2G telephony
iPhone 3G: [ ] 2nd generation [ ] A2 chip, [ ] iPhone OS 2, [X] 3G telephony
iPhone 3GS: [ ] 3rd generation [ ] A3 chip, [ ] iPhone OS 3, [X] 3G telephony
iPhone 4: [X] 4th generation [X] A4 chip, [X] iOS 4, [ ] 3G telephony
iPhone 4S: [ ] 5th generation [ ] A5 chip, [ ] iOS 5, [ ] 3G telephony
iPhone ?: [X] 6th generation [X] A6 chip, [X] iOS 6, [ ] 4G telephony

iPhone: generation
iPhone 3G: telephony
iPhone 3GS: speed
iPhone 4: generation
iPhone 4S: speed
iPhone ?:

So what could it possibly be? It could be generation. Easy as pie. We KNOW that is going to change. It could be telephony. We expect 4G telephony. But NOOOO, marketers can't have a letter EARLIER in the alphabet, so "iPhone 4G" is out. iPhone LTE doesn't conform to any previous naming convention and LTE's not available everywhere the iPhone will be sold, so that's false advertising. It could also be speed. If it gets an A6 chip, it's going to be faster. But as we've seen, generation names and telephony names supersede "speed" suffixes.


Explain what about the 6th generation iPhone will make it be the "iPhone 5".

People. Aren't. Idiots. We've had five iPhones already.

i already gave that explanation. It was a marketing term. It had nothing to do with it being the 4th "generation" of the device, or the OS, or any other rot. By your incredibly idiosyncratic view the iPhones should have been called.

iPhone
iPhone 2
iPhone 3
iPhone 4
iPhone 5

and we would not be awaiting iPhone 6, because - in the view you hold with yourself and nobody else on the internet - Apple is counting it's hardware releases. Well, if that were the naming scheme nobody would disagree with you. However it isn't.

Now to explain an even simpler remedial point to you.


The iPhone 4 was not called the iPhone 3 because the iPhone 3G ( and 3GS) already had 3 in their names, even though neither was a count. So - as good marketing people - Apple decided to move to 4 for the big case design, rather than 3 - 3 would seem like the same phone. Thats obvious. It was obvious at the time that the next phone would be a 4.

And then Apple moved to the 4S ( not the 5) when the design did not change. And next to the iPhone 5 ( or 4G). But definitely NOT the iPhone 6. When the design changes.

The only thing you have going for your utterly ridiculous argument is that the iPhone 4 was - happend to be - the 4th phone. It could have been the 5th phone had there been 3 iterations of the iPhone 3G design. ( Quoting this and being appalled is not an answer).

You are the only person on the internet who believes in their clearly non-existant counting system. There is only so much remedialism we can help you with though - but look at the list above. No counting. None at all. IPhone 4 is a fluke the rest are clearly not counts.

Give it up. Its getting embarrassing for ya.

I'm sure. Just like how iLife '11 was a marketing term for the version of iLife that came out in 1999. And how


I wish I could tell people to just stop being wrong. Sadly, that power isn't transferred at any level.


No it wasn't. 4 is a "marketing term". It had nothing to do with any sort of common sense or obviousness about anything.


THERE IT IS. The "coincidence" argument again. So according to you, the first iPhone was called "iPhone" out of coincidence. And iLife '06 was called that out of COINCIDENCE.


But guess what? In the physical universe that we occupy, on the 5-dimensional strand of probability that we both sit, right now, on this date, looking back at the history that we both know, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. Therefore the argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Yes. It "could have been". But, again, guess what? IT. WASN'T. You can't change history because it's convenient for your argument. You can't ignore the truth because you want a certain outcome.


Again, sure I am.


If you were a scientist, you'd be fired for that. If you were an accountant, you'd be fired for that. If you were in product testing, you'd be fired for that. Getting the picture?


I'd imagine that to a third party, the group of people who can't figure out how to count look a little more embarrassing than the one who can.

You are assuming here that your suggestion is following a convention because of a single data point?

Going by this convention that only 1 out of the past 5 devices follows, what would the next again phone be called? iPhone 7? iPhone 6S?


iPhone Abortion surely:

Sandra: Hey I got a new iPhone, it's a 4S.
Jean: So did I, I got an Abortion though.
Sandra: You got a what? That's terrible.
Jean: No, the new iPhone Abortion, I got one of the red ones from Bono. It has an updated Siri where they don't censor where you can get an abortion.

I wonder why they don't make red iPhones.


Consumers call it 2G among other things:

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Apple-iPhone...ction=1&_sop=1

Only tech people would know that "we've had five iPhones already".


If Tim Cook introduces the iPhone 6, I would be concerned about his leadership in the company and I would assume that Phil had gone a bit cuckoo (in all fairness, the early warning signs about Phil have already shown up).


How is the fact that the current one is called '4', '5' comes directly after '4' and the next iPhone will follow a phone called '4' not a real reason?

'Next again' meaning the one after the one coming out this year, yeah?

Then yes, either iPhone 7 or iPhone 6S. If the latter, the one after that would be iPhone 8.


Not the case.


And they've already blown their chance to call an iPhone "5".

I left this thread because it was getting just a bit too wonky. I can't believe people are still arguing these same issues!

I'm surprised, as well. There's no issue to argue, really. iPhone 5 makes absolutely no sense, and therefore it shouldn't ever have been put in the running, even back when the rumor of "two phones" was going around.

iPhone 6, while possibly not the next name, at least makes sense.

Ha! You really can't let go!

Just trying to breath a little sanity back into the world. I know I'm right. I refuse to let go of that. My signature summarizes it best.

We can all dream!

NO. Please stop behaving like a child. I've torn apart absolutely every argument you've had for 'iPhone 5'. There is no instance under which it makes sense. How can you operate in daily life allowing delusions of this magnitude to seep through? Stop pretending it's a valid option.

Give it up already. You haven't torn apart anything. I really don't know why you are thinking this is such a big deal. Do you have money riding on this? Seriously, this is getting sillier on your part. Just let it go.

ooohhhh mod fight!

Hope he doesn't tag-team with Marvin again. Becoming a regular WWE match here

Look, to recap, I've covered why iPhone 5 doesn't work based on any of Apple's past naming conventions. I've also covered why it doesn't work as an "oh, the people think it will be called that so we have to call it that" standpoint. It just doesn't make sense. All we have to go on is the past, and nothing in Apple's past makes it look like this will happen.

It could be the iPhone 5 simply because it is impossible for us currently to collapse the dimension of probability with respect to time to see what will have actually occurred. If that happens, however, I would advise people to get rid of their stock in Apple, both physical and mental. I say that it won't because I have too much faith in Apple to believe that they'd do that.

@ Tallest Skil,

You should let it go. You've stated your argument from every possible angle. You've noted the many precedence of Apple either skipping a model number to maintain something that fits into the generation of the device or cellular chip. There is nothing more you can say on the topic to change anyone's mind or convince them that they should look at it from more rational PoV. To continue in this thread (or others) does you or anyone else no good.

I'm bothered by the fact that people refuse to see reason. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Of course, I read the thread on MacRumors about it and was surprised the guy didn't commit suicide afterward. They acted as though he didn't deserve to live anymore for so much as suggesting the 6th iPhone wouldn't be called the iPhone 5.

That place has gone so far downhill that I'm actually fine with my unexplained ban now.

That forum was always inline with Digg.com's forum posters. Of all the tech forums I frequent AI's forum members are the best. You can have in-depth conversations about many diverse topics. I learn a lot from this site. Not just from other people informing me, but wanting to pass on information so choosing to do research to progress the conversation. This site, among all others, has honed my ability to search, research, organize, write and argue effectively in ways that I didn't think an internet forum could do.

We can all see that suggesting the public is so utterly stupid that they won't understand the 6 row table Tim Cook will display showing 2012's phone will be the sixth phone is patronising in the extreme.

We can all see that the moment Apple say 'guys, we give you iPhone 6' (if they decide to stick with a number) the press will go 'oh yeah, I guess it does make sense, being the sixth iPhone and all...' and nobody will think any more of it.

We can all see that even if it throws some people, anyone wanting one will still buy it, whatever they call it, so Apple can call it anything they like, and they like generational naming. iPhone 4 made that utterly clear. Since when did Apple give a damn what Joe Public was expecting to hear from them?

We can all see that those arguing for 'iPhone 5' seem to have their heads stuck firmly in the ground and are refusing to open up their minds to the clear and exhaustive explanations that have been given to them as to why that name makes absolutely no sense.

Once an debate has reached the point where neither side is adding any new point to their argument any longer, it has become petty and pointless. We'll see in the summer.

Well I went from a 3G to a 4S after 2 1/2 years so it was pretty major upgrade for me. But to go from a 4S to a 5 6-8 mos later?? Dunno...it either better be a true killer smartphone or at least gold plated. I'm the type that lets his contract run for 2 years and then upgrades to the latest. Usually they have all the bugs worked out by then.

About the only thing that bugs me is having to baby the battery in the 4S, so I'm kinda reluctant to jump right into the 5 if it immeadiately becomes available. I'm inclined to wait wait for 6 mos to see how it goes rather than jump in.

But if it is a true 4G/LTE capable iPhone with a bigger screen (and some other improvements)...yeah I can see jumping in before my contract expires but not immediately.

Would be great of you to read the thread before posting your first post. iPhone6 you mean. Welcome to the forum.

He was a spambot. You shouldn't expect much from them.

Haha and I fell for it. Stupid me

Edit: because of this naming convention I am now in heavy discussion with friends and colleagues who state it will be iPhone5. So big thanks for all your posts because I can now answer them so much quicker and transparent. Thanks!

Regarding the naming conventions, I think it's pretty clear that only hardware updates warrant renaming the phone to the next sequential number, and mere internal software/processor/camera updates mean the phone keeps the 3 or the 4 or whatever the case may be. Maybe I'm underthinking it though.

Nonetheless, the marketing department names the phones, not some techie with OCD who demands that the name and version match the arbitrary A6 on the chip.

And from a marketing standpoint, skipping the name iPhone 5 would be really, really stupid. I can't imagine Apple relegating marketing, of all things, to the back burner just so they can name the phone after the A6 stamp on an internal chip.

Nah, that's about right. Same case, different internals = the "speed" designation.

New case gets a new number, corresponding either to the telephony or phone generation. We have seen nothing else.


And from a marketing standpoint, "iPhone 5" doesn't make any sense at all and cannot be tied into any aspect of the phone's features whatsoever, so it would just sit there on the website.

Whereas iPhone 6 can be tied to the generation, the processor and the version of iOS.

Of course, you could use that same argument to argue that Apple should never drop any model of iPhone ever, and eventually be selling a dozen phones, with the oldest models simply being tossed from trucks into consumer's hands.

But in the real world OS updates and features require better hardware, and keeping 3 year old models hanging around just makes it harder for Apple to migrate their customer base to the latest and greatest. Already, the (clearly important to Apple as a UI paradigm) Siri party is somewhat compromised, you can bet Apple will want to get everyone using Siri ASAP.

Selling the latest iPhone while keeping the 4S and 4 to cover price points is reasonable. 4 owners don't get every bit of whatever the latest iteration of iOS entails, and probably there will be a few things that even the 4S can't do, but generally you get everybody up to Retina displays and reasonably speedy processors, and 2/3 of your models Siri-capable (with that going to 100% in a year, when the 4 gets dropped and the 4S becomes the entry level model).

We'll know this fall, but I'd be willing to bet you money the 3GS goes bye-bye.

I agree - it's the only one without a retina and IPS display, the only one with 256MB RAM and the only one still built with a plastic casing.

Depending on what they do with the iPhone 5, I'd say it would be a good idea to get rid of the iPhone 4 too and just keep the 4S and 5 going so that every new buyer gets Siri.

On the other hand, the 3GS does hit the cheap end of the market, which is very high volume.

Does the 3GS sell more than I've heard about?

I remember seeing a pie chart where the 4S was the VAST majority of sales and the 3GS had a low single digit percentage. Was that U.S. only or all sales?

There aren't official numbers but you may be right. The total was 37 million iPhones and this article suggests the 3GS might only account for under 2 million (< 5%):

http://www.cultofmac.com/134401/ipho...d-in-december/

Even though the 4S sold 4 million in the first weekend, I wouldn't have expected such a huge difference between a $200 phone and a free/$0.99 phone in favour of the expensive one but I guess since some countries won't have affordable pre-pay options, if you're going to tie yourself to a 2 year contract, you may as well get the higher priced phone.

If the lower units only sell in such small numbers, it justifies getting rid of at least one of the lower models. I personally think they should only sell two models - the latest one and the previous one.