Alleged next-gen iPhone part shows aluminum back, smaller dock connector - Page 4

Go back to the basics. Read Liquidmetal's web site - they actually do a pretty good job of describing it.

You can not have a liquidmetal product made from a single element. You need an alloy of different metals chosen in such a way the the different sizes of the metal atoms prevent crystallization. Zirconium can be one of the metals, but there must be others.


Zirconium is not liquid metal for the reasons given above. However, some liquidmetal alloys contain zirconium. In fact, I think the most common one contains a lot of zirconium.

Exactly. The advantage of Liquidmetal products is that you can form them in near-net shape. Look at the speaker holes of the alleged prototype. To make that part out of a conventional metal, you need to drill each of those holes separately. With LM, you simply build them into the mold. Same with all the other fine features and ports. Even with LM material being somewhat more expensive than aluminum, the total cost for production might be much lower. This is exactly the kind of product that LM is suited for.

In addition, LM has stated that they have started commercial sales to several companies whose name they can not provide. Obviously, that doesn't prove anything, but it would be consistent.

First, Intel has already approved Apple's use of Thunderbolt. They don't need to approve every single application.

As for the cables, you don't think that the cost would come down if Apple purchased 100 million of them?

I don't think it's likely, either, but neither of your reasons is that compelling.

I don't know if this leak is legitimate, but all of those complaints can be explained pretty easily. Let's not forget, when people saw the iPhone 4 leak, they all exclaimed "look at those un-Apple-like seams!". Now it's considered a classic that will have served Apple for 2 generations. 

 

1) People pretty much accept scratches as incidental damage. When a glass back shatters, they go running to the nearest Apple Store. 

 

2) Aluminum blocks electromagnetic signals (AKA reception). That's why the original iPhone and 3G/4G iPads have plastic bands. 

 

3) Seams? Meh. All Apple products have seams, including the iPhone 4/S. From front to back, it's glass, steel, glass. Even the unibody MacBook has a removable bottom.

 

4) Moving the headphone jack to the bottom is quite logical - When held in the hand, the headphone wire leads directly to the user, rather than arcing up and bending back down. It also makes it easier to slip the phone into your pocket upside down, with the wire leading upwards and out of the pocket. Then when you remove it from your pocket, it's already facing you. The iPod Touch is designed like this.

Regarding the speaker grilles, I dunno if I like them either (I'd prefer tiny, MBP-style laser-perforated ones myself). But the effect is probably exaggerated since the body of the phone is empty and letting light through. The final product may very well have a fine speaker mesh underneath, or simply be blacked out.

Yep, that's been the pattern. iOS announced, beta released nearly immediately. iPhone announced 3 months later, along with iOS release date. iOS released, iPhone released 2-3 days later. iOS releases and iPhone releases are in sync within a half a week or so.

No. It's much more important to have a radically new design so your friends will instantly know how cool you are. :)

Of course they do, Sony couldn't implement it first according to the standard and then not and get away with it. Intel has to approve every implementation of Thunderbolt and certify it, otherwise it can't use the Thunderbolt brand.

Why would they do that when not even 100 million people have a Thunderbolt port? It arrived Feb 2011 only on Apple computers. Apple sells 5 million Macs per quarter. That makes the upper bound on Thunderbolt port ownership 25 million people.

USB on the other hand, is owned by pretty much everyone that owns a computer.

The next iPhone will come with a USB cable for IO and only a USB cable.

If it's not fake that back is ugly.

Well, there was the Cube - and we all know how that turned out.

Care to provide a link to that? Everything I can find says that Apple has a license for any products they make.

OK, so 25 million cables will bring the price down if you want to be pedantic. But by the time the next iPhone comes out, the number will be much closer to 100 M considering more time for Mac sales plus some non-Apple systems that support Thunderbolt.

More importantly, much of the cost of the current Thunderbolt cables is in the electronics in the cable. It is entirely possible for Apple to put the electronics into the phone and make the cable a simple passive bundle of wires.

I already said that it is unlikely that Apple will offer only Thunderbolt. It is not, however, impossible for them to offer it as an option.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/20/thunderbolt_trademark_rights_will_be_transferred_from_apple_to_intel.html

Some notes of interest using some crude Photoshop guestimating:

 

1) It looks like this case is about the same width as the iPhone 4S.

Using the headphone jack as a scale, the backplate is about 11.5 ports wide. Assuming they didn't radically redesign the headphone jack (5 mm diameter), this means that the backplate is about 58 mm wide. Nearly exactly the same as the 4S. If the new iPhone is any wider than the 4S, this backplate doesn't demonstrate it. 

 

2) The smaller port is also consistent with what we've been hearing about the "Micro Dock Connector". Using the same scale, the Micro Dock in this photo looks about 10 mm x 3.3 mm. This is a hair larger than Mini USB (about 3 mm x 7 mm).

 

3) As a previous commenter pointed out, the arrangement of the headphone jack (bottom left corner) is consistent with the supposed headphone/usb ribbon that came out awhile ago.

 

In short, it is pretty consistent with rumors we've been hearing. Same width, rearranged headphone, small dock connector. Either it's real, or a very elaborate, detailed hoax.

well said. +1

I honestly don't see how they can improve on the design aesthetics of the iPhone 4.  Like the current iMac, it's Apple's best work, and with all the time that's passed since these products have debuted, I have yet to see a more attractive product in either category.  

Sadly STILL no dedicated Direct Connect PTT button.  :(  

 

Android has it, I want it on iPhone!:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-127-sprint-direct-connecttheres-an-app-for-that/

 

After coming from an Nextel i90C to the iPhone in 2007 -- I STILL WANT DIRECT CONNECT FOR IPHONE!!!

 

The problem is they don't just make the phone for you and they don't just make the phone just for Americans either.  They make it for the whole world.  Quite a concept, eh?  :)

 

Maybe if you looked further than your own interests and your own country once in a while you'd realise this. 

Looks beautiful to me

Look at the dock connector holes for screws, how they align with the nuts in the frame

  

Look at the dock connector holes for screws, how they align with the nuts in the frame

  

It also offers audio and video out, audio input with some docks and cords. It has Serial I/O too.

 

Or that the design team feels they have a design that doesn't need radical changes. 

 

Better looking maybe but better working. Maybe not. And you may be shocked to find out that some folks would rather have better working over looking when the look isn't total fugly. They don't need a major change up every year or two on the look if the working is always improving

Where does that say that Intel has to approve any products using Thunderbolt? It says that Intel will control the trademark, but doesn't say anything about Intel approving products.

Furthermore, Apple is already using the trademark. Where does that article say that Apple's license to the trademark doesn't allow them to release new products? Oh, it doesn't.

The prototypes will be machined aluminum to simulate the finished form, as the LiquidMetal molds will be one of the most difficult, most expensive and certainly one of the last components to be finalized.

 

I think you are just reading the article incorrectly.  The one link you posted is from 2009 and doesn't actually say what you say it does anyway (that the micro USB has to be on the device end).  As Solipsism has already pointed out, it's about the chargers, not the cables and as long as the cable ends in a micro USB at the charger, it's compliant.  

 

Apple was also one of the first out of the gate to use a USB cable to attach to the charger instead of a proprietary hardwired charger.  

Just to expand on that.

Once the design is complete, a liquidmetal back won't be horrendously expensive. Given all the machining required to make the part from a solid block of aluminum (as shown in this 'prototype'), all the extra machining required might easily cost more than the added material cost for Liquidmetal, resulting for a lower part cost for LM, even though materials are higher.

The problem is that Liquidmetal components are made by a molding process. You have to produce a very expensive mold in order to make the parts. And not only is the mold expensive, but it often requires multiple iterations to get it just right. The fact that LM doesn't shrink much helps, but there will still likely be multiple iterations of the final mold - and these are very expensive. So you don't want to be designing or producing your mold until the component design is completely finalized - you need to know the location of every screw and every hole in order to do it right.

These things keep getting uglier and uglier by the release.

Fake. Apple wouldn't use black edges around the glass of a white phone.

 

They used chrome edges around the glass of a black iPhone.

There are other reasons to be suspicious, this isn't one of them. I think you're misinterpreting the image, which is understandable if you only go on this sites's images. Linked in the story, see the fourth image:

http://www.engadget.com/photos/iphone-2012-back-plate-leak/#5051857

I don't see any black edges, except around the camera. The rest is just a property of shiny metal, making it look like there is black when the light is away from reflecting angle.

 

Answer these honestly-

 

Was the iPhone 3G (solid black all around) better looking than the original iPhone (Silver scratched back)?

Was the iPhone 4 better looking that the iPhone 3G?

 

I would have a hard time hearing from anyone those two changes were uglier.  I can understand not liking a glass back due to breakage, but as far as appearance is concerned- each iteration has been better looking in most people's eyes I would think.  Some long phone might be worse- we'll see.  But I would wait for the final product before making a judgement on appearance.

I guess I have trouble understanding the focus on "ugly". Even if there were a universal standard, my phone sits in a belt case all the time except when I'm using it. And when I use it, the only thing I'm looking at is the screen - so the back wouldn't matter, anyway.

Isn't it interesting that the Apple haters accuse Mac fans of caring only about appearance, yet it's the haters who are so focused on the physical appearance of the phone?

Just trying to be helpful and point you to news you seemed to not have read yet.

The plastic backs got scratched too. I haven't seen the original model after it's been used for a couple years, but anodized aluminum is considerably more scratch resistant than most plastics.

Maybe you're thinking of the iPods with the scuff-prone shiny backs? Or did you mean it is a brush finish?

The general assumption I've seen was that the plastic back was done for cost reasons. I don't know if that's true or not. However, plastic parts are usually less expensive to make than metal. My 3G held up pretty well, but the back started looking bad before I upgraded it.

What makes you think I hadn't read that?

It was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so there was no reason to bring it up.

To recap:

1. Someone says that Intel must approve anything Apple makes with Thunderbolt.
2. I said that's not the way I understood it and asked for evidence.
3. Gatorguy throws out an article that is completely irrelevant to that question and totally useless in terms of the discussion.

In short, as usual, you haven't added anything to the discussion.

Intel certified Thunderbolt motherboard:

http://www.techpowerup.com/166399/ASUS-Launches-First-Intel-Thunderbolt-Certified-Motherboard.html

It's kinda obvious that they'd have to certify products using their brand to ensure they adhere to the spec. It's not the only certification process Apple products go through either. They have to be certified for proper wireless operation and they have to meet guidelines for the Energy Star certification. They can't stamp these on their own products.

Thunderbolt requires PCI and displayport merged to go through a Thunderbolt controller. I think the new iPhone will support displayport but it will use USB like in the diagram:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/05/apple-dock-connector-to-support-displayport-usb-3-0-thunderbolt/

There's no room inside the iPhone for another chip like an unnecessary Thunderbolt Controller. The port in the image looked closer to a standard micro-USB 3 port than a custom port but they can make whatever shape of connector they want.

Edited by Gatorguy - 5/31/12 at 8:17am

Ah, the day wouldn't be complete without an insult from Jr... as usual. Now I can rest easy tonite. 

 

If you have some evidence that Intel is not responsible for certifying Thunderbolt components, since "that's not the way you understand it" please do share. Otherwise perhaps you have some other reason for thinking Intel as the rights holder wouldn't ultimately certify products using their technology and confirm the products meet all the specs? As Marvin mentioned it's common sense, at least for most of us. You can't have two different certification authorities with the possibility of having different views on the specifications. Either you didn't know/remember the rights were held by Intel, or there's something amiss in your reasoning IMO.

None of which answers the question. The fact that Intel might certify some motherboards does not establish that Intel MUST certify ALL TB devices.

More importantly, it does not establish that Apple doesn't have blanket approval since Apple helped with TB's development.

I'm sure Apple and Intel trust each other but Apple doesn't have carte blanche to develop whatever they want with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt certified products have to work with them. Are you going to be able to run a Lacie hard drive from your iPad or connect to gigabit ethernet by plugging it into a Thunderbolt Cinema Display? No. If Thunderbolt products don't work with it then it's not certifiable. If it's regarded as a slave device then yeah but it can't be because if you have a Thunderbolt to USB connector, the iOS device has to be the master device as the protocol is run from Thunderbolt to USB.

Requiring a Thunderbolt to USB cable negates the whole thing anyway. Remember, Thunderbolt cables have processing chips in them which adds to the cost. USB cables are just a bunch of wires.

One nice thing that could happen if they use standard mini USB3 is that they wouldn't need a camera kit any more. They might even be able to support USB pens using a cable.

 

Well, why change the 1st gen, 3G/3GS iPhones? As technology improves, better ways can be found to design something. I don't mind the tapered edges at all- Steve Jobs had an obsession with making things small and thin and maintaining functionality and battery life. They can do it.

Still waiting for you to show anything that says that Intel has to approve any Thunderbolt devices.

And there's also no evidence that it's impossible to make a Thunderbolt cable without processing chips. That's true for current devices, but there's no reason why they couldn't build the electronics into the device (and that's probably the way they'll go when they get to optical Thunderbolt, anyway). And, of course, the price of TB cables is huge now, but that doesn't mean it can't drop. If Apple were to release a TB-enabled iPhone which would require tens of millions of cables, the price would come down. Adding a $0.10 chip to the cable doesn't have to add a huge cost.