or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › More pictures of purported 'iPhone Lite' shell surface with new blue color
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More pictures of purported 'iPhone Lite' shell surface with new blue color - Page 2

post #41 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault View Post


I agree, this is the "5S" as it's been termed, essentially a 5 re-engineered in a less expensive casing and probably a few other places to cut some costs. Considering how obviously scalable iOS 7's UI is, I would expect these leaks are being controlled to hide the existence of a larger, next-gen iPhone "6" which will launch simultaneously. Then the lineup would consist of a 4.x"* high-end iPhone in black and white with a 4" mid-range available in a spectrum of colours.

* For some math, 720p at the existing 326 ppi would make a 4.5" screen.

 

Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this: 

 

This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone.  It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.  

 

This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).  

 

This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether.  Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro.  The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door.  The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product.  That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be. 

 

So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.  

post #42 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.

If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.

So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price.  Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?  

Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility.  Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility? 

Thoughts?

Those cases are hideous. In any case, if Apple releases a new low cost iPhone, it'll probably use the 4/4S internals in a new case. Cost will lie between 300-400, off contract.
post #43 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela View Post

 

You wouldn't and that's fine, but I guarantee to you that these will in fact fly off the shelves. These will sell like crazy and Tim Cook will get to keep his full pay.

Assuming all these rumors are true and the low-cost phone is this candy-shell thing.

Yes, they will sell well if the price is right.

 

However, in the price range of the category of smartphone Apple would need to get into to make any kind of dent in market share...they won't go that low.  And I fear the stock price will probably drop again pretty big if that happens.

 

Now I could be wrong.  Looking at the iPod & iPod Mini and the Nano when it first came out...ended up being the best selling iPod to date.  And the difference in price was really not that much.  At first around a $50 difference, then lower over the years.  Personally, that's what needs to happen but at the start.

 

If Apple makes a lower-cost iPhone, contract free and sells it for $450 it won't sell that well.  So the real question should be not how well it's going to sell, it'll be how much will it sell for?  For me, a $299 iPhone with 16GB would be the absolute minimum I think Apple would do off-contract.  Then $399 for 32GB and $499 for 64GB.

post #44 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.

 

If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.

 

So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price.  Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?  

 

Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility.  Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility? 

 

Thoughts?

 

I've postulated that they may use a non-Retina screen in order to get the price down and retain margins.

 

If they use a non-Retina screen, then the GPU only has to push around a fraction of the pixels (they can use a cheaper processor), the screen wouldn't consume as much power (they can use a smaller battery), and the 5S is more desirable (higher upscale means higher profits). All of those factor into major cost savings on this device, and I could see it priced at $299-$349 easy at that point, and the device may be able to receive value adding features that the current iPhone 4 doesn't have such as Siri and Voice guided Maps.

post #45 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela View Post

Easy. It's called economy of scale. The first time around, components must be sold at a certain price to recoop engineering and tooling costs, after that they can lower the costs and still make the same amount of profits. Milling of the aluminum cases on the other hand will cost just the same though. Time and materials do not go down and the milling process is a lot more costly and time consuming than casting plastic. Plus, the return rates on the aluminum bodied iPhonesfor minor issues must have take a huge toll on margins.

 

Any way you cut it, it is a smart move, and Apple will sell tons of these suckers.

 

I agree economy of scale could be a factor in the lower price, but I don't think that alone would result in a nearly 50% selling price reduction.

post #46 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.

 

If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.

 

So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price.  Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?  

 

Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility.  Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility? 

 

Thoughts?

I think you hit all the big cost-saving measures.  Display, Battery and Memory are usually the highest cost features.

 

Also, this might be a stretch but...since we've heard recently that Apple has sealed a deal with Taiwuan Semi, I think that will get us some cost-saving since Apple wouldn't have to rely on Samsung as much for the chips, and pay Samsung's Apple-tax to build them.  That same logic could also be adapted to Display Tech and other components that Apple probably pay's a premium for since they're purchasing those components from competing Tech companies.

post #47 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this: 

 

This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone.  It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.  

 

This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).  

 

This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether.  Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro.  The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door.  The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product.  That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be. 

 

So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.  

 

That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.

 

If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."

 

Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?

post #48 of 155

Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:

 

 

 

post #49 of 155
For all we know, there will be several different color schemes available based upon the region or country. A "low cost" iPhone is all about getting people who couldn't afford the standard phone into the Apple experience and ecosystem...this includes hundreds of million potential ne customers in China, India, Russia, Brazil and other "emerging markets"! It may not even be for sale in the US for all we know.
post #50 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

 

That doesnt mean anything imo. All it says is they didnt do it in the past for quality reasons. Not to mention those arguments are pretty BS, they can make a good quality 4", 7.9" and 10" screens but they cant solve the problem for a 5" screen? I dont think Apple can afford to spit on a larger screen for very long without losing a good chunck of the high end market.

I think the real argument would be resolution on Apple's side.  Cook probably just doesn't want to show his deficiency in talking tech lingo so he looks at the whole picture in more general terms.  Which he should since he's CEO and not head of Technology.

 

Sure, they made amazing 4" and 9.7" retina screens.  But the 9.7" 'retina' is a lower pixel density, which is a "trade-off" since you don't hold the device as close to your eyes.  It's yet to be seen if 4.8" and/or 7.9" retina screens are possible.  And the reason being resolution issues.

 

So let's say we see a retina iPad mini in the future.  What would that resolution be?  Double the current display, matching the 9.7"?  I hardly think so.  That would make the Mini's density equal to the iPhone 4 & 5 and that would be really expensive, however totally possible.

 

Now, with a 4.8" iPhone, it's a different story.  If you increase the screen but keep the same display resolution as the iPhone 5, you end up with lower pixel density, and then you have a lower quality display.  If you keep the same pixel density but just make a bigger display, you'll have to tell your dev's to support two different screen resolutions and that will make no one happy.

 

So the real problem to overcome is resolution dependence, which we've heard Apple might be hinting at independence with iOS 7.  And if that's the case, then there's no reason for Apple not to make a 4.8" iPhone with a different screen res.  But to me, resolution independence add so much more complexity to iOS and to dev apps that would bloat the software and create slower devices using much bigger program sizes.  To me, the resolution dependent model is more efficient and probably creates a much faster UX.

post #51 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

They look fine to me, not that I'm in the market for a budget iPhone.
Who is this really?
post #52 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:

Ugh!!!  Please get rid of those damn White Bezels!  I know it will make me and John Siracusa happier.

post #53 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Ugh!!!  Please get rid of those damn White Bezels!  I know it will make me and John Siracusa happier.

 

Ughh, what color would you suggest? Black would look horrible, and having everything the same color would be puketastic.

post #54 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post

For all we know, there will be several different color schemes available based upon the region or country. A "low cost" iPhone is all about getting people who couldn't afford the standard phone into the Apple experience and ecosystem...this includes hundreds of million potential ne customers in China, India, Russia, Brazil and other "emerging markets"! It may not even be for sale in the US for all we know.

When has Apple ever done something like this?

That makes absolutely no sense from a budgetary, manufacturing and cost-effectiveness POV.  Especially if this iPhone is supposed to be a low-cost or budget model.

 

Yes, we've seen the Auto industry does this, but now they even realize how much more money that costs.  Ford is going back to the "world-car" model rather than catering to the EU, Asian and others markets.  Now, the Ford Focus is the same in any country, save for engines and minor tweaks to get through reg's.  The Ford Fusion is soon to be the platform for the new Mondeo in most countries.  Just makes so much more sense when you look at manufacturing efficiencies.  And that's Tim Cook's strong suit.  He would never let what you are suggesting happen.

post #55 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

Black would look horrible

Apple didn't think so.  

iPhone 3G & 3GS

Current budget iPod Touch

 

Sure, White bezel on white body would look better, but in many opinions the black bezel on colored (including silver) bodies just looks better.


Edited by antkm1 - 7/3/13 at 7:29am
post #56 of 155
The one thing that I struggle with regarding a cheaper iPhone is the ability to run iOS 7. They can't cheap out on the specs too much if they want a smooth experience using it. Whereas everyone expects some type of slowdown with 2 year old phones, it would be unacceptable on a new phone regardless of the internals. Given how much Apple touts the majority of users using the latest operating system, I doubt Apple wants a new phone running an older operating system.
post #57 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

 

That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.

 

If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."

 

Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?

I can see the iPhone and iPhone Pro argument.

I think he's referring to the polycarbonate Macbook.  That would actually be cool if even the front bezel was plastic.

post #58 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These have a more metallic sheen that I like. Hopefully the finish is something like this instead of flat candy shell. The other unknown is feel. As trivial as it sounds, the feel of the iPhone 4 was very satisfying. If took me longer to warm to the iPhone 5, but I like it now. Slippery smooth would be a mistake. I hope it feels mildly grippy, while still allowing smooth repositioning in the hand.

post #59 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Ugh!!!  Please get rid of those damn White Bezels!  I know it will make me and John Siracusa happier.

Casey Liss would likely enjoy the all-white however.
post #60 of 155

Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.

post #61 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I can see the iPhone and iPhone Pro argument.

I think he's referring to the polycarbonate Macbook.  That would actually be cool if even the front bezel was plastic.

 

I understand where he was coming from, but Apple doesn't sell the plain plastic MacBook anymore, and they haven't for 2 years. There would be no continuity in Apple selling a plastic iPhone as simply "iPhone."

post #62 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

 

That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.

 

If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."

 

Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?

 

I dunno.  My thinking was that this phone is like the white plastic MacBook and that the iPhone "pro" would be aluminium like the current iPhone and the MacBook Pro.  

 

It seems to me that this phone answers problems that "regular" (non-Mac-faithful) people have with the current iPhone since it appears to have much more room for battery, and looks more durable, easier to fit in the hand, more "chuckable" and less precious overall.  

 

I would call it "iPhone plebeian."  1smile.gif

 

All just speculation of course. 

post #63 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.

 

1smile.gif

post #64 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

These have a more metallic sheen that I like. 

 

The reason the renders don't look bad is because they look like metal, not plastic. The metallic shine on these renders looks like that of the iPod Touch, nothing like the plastic case leaks we keep seeing. So don't get your hopes up.

post #65 of 155

Those are assuming that the material is metal though.  Plastic would not look like that.  

The same colours in plastic would look very much like the spy shot. 

post #66 of 155
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
post #67 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Apple didn't think so.  

iPhone 3G & 3GS

Current budget iPod Touch

 

Sure, White bezel on white body would look better, but in many opinions the black bezel on colored (including silver) bodies just looks better.

 

Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.

Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.

post #68 of 155
I still think there may be a missing piece of the puzzle that when it all comes together it will make more sense. I still have a hard time believing Apple's low cost option will go from glass and stainless steel to candy colored plastic. While the flagship model is aluminum and glass. If you look at Apple's other product lines everything seems to work/fit together. When Apple updated the nano last year they also updated the colors on the shuffle. The touch, nano and shuffle all work together, all look like they're part of the same family. Same with the MacBook Air and Pros. And the iPads. But candy colore plastic and aluminum and glass? I don't get it.
post #69 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.

yeah, they kind of remind me of late 1980's Swatches.

Now I can dust off my old '89 Swatch! 1tongue.gif

post #70 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I want to see Android companies and other companies going out of business, dropping like flies. I want to see many thousands of people lose their jobs.

I know you've always acted like kind of a d1ck, but really? You actually want thousands of people unemployed simply because they make a competing product? (And yes, I do believe you were serious with your comment.)
Quote:
Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone? Very few people (mostly hardcore Fandroids and the mentally insane) would choose the former.

I know quite a few people with the means to purchase any phone they wish who purchased an Android phone instead of an iPhone. And they're all much more mentally stable than I am (who owns an iPhone). Of course they're all IT people with the ability to judge tech products better than the average consumer (or rabid Apple fan).
post #71 of 155
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
post #72 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault View Post


Casey Liss would likely enjoy the all-white however.

lol.gif


Edited by antkm1 - 7/3/13 at 7:45am
post #73 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.

Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.

that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

post #74 of 155
Come on lets see the Samsung watch too eh? Bright purple, how about it, with lime green spots.
post #75 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.

Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.

 

 

Black with colors would also look like the Zune and Nokia smartphones.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo View Post

Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo View Post

Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)

 

 

No.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I still think there may be a missing piece of the puzzle that when it all comes together it will make more sense. I still have a hard time believing Apple's low cost option will go from glass and stainless steel to candy colored plastic. While the flagship model is aluminum and glass. If you look at Apple's other product lines everything seems to work/fit together. When Apple updated the nano last year they also updated the colors on the shuffle. The touch, nano and shuffle all work together, all look like they're part of the same family. Same with the MacBook Air and Pros. And the iPads. But candy colore plastic and aluminum and glass? I don't get it.

 

 

I honestly don't think this is the finished product, let alone the product we will see in a few months. I think Apple has many surprises up their sleeve with the so called low cost iPhone.

post #76 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

 

True, but Apple has set a recent precedent with a white face/bezel and colored back:

 

post #77 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

They look fine to me, not that I'm in the market for a budget iPhone.

 

Even though I'm not crazy about the idea of Apple making budget versions of devices, I am not going to argue that there is not a huge market of cheap people out there, so I'm not going to blame Apple for making such a device. It's almost impossible to read a single thread about Apple anywhere on the internet without at least a few cheapskates eventually chiming in and whining about the cost of something, so maybe this will shut those people up, but probably not.

 

If Apple has decided to release a version of the iPhone for more budget minded people, then it would be pretty dumb to expect the same quality materials found in the regular iPhone to be present in the budget iPhone. And there will no doubt be other compromises made, but if anybody has any complaints at all about this budget iPhone, then you can simply pay more and buy the regular iPhone and quit your whining.

 

I think that these budget iPhones will actually sell rather well. I can see kids having these (or rather, parents buying them for their kids) and we all know that there are plenty of people out there who would love to have an iPhone, but don't yet because of the cost, and this cheaper model would enable many of those people to finally join the premiere ecosystem on the planet and step up from the miserable existence that they currently find themselves in. I'm looking at you Fandroids and other people who are not Fandroids, but simply ended up with a crappy Android phone because it was cheap. Many of those people are surely regretting their decision.

 

The thing that is most interesting about these phones that we don't know yet, is the price. And even though I've always argued against cheap devices and cheap people in general, if Apple is first going to do it, then they should do it proper. Price it pretty cheap and destroy everybody else. I want to see Android companies and other companies going out of business, dropping like flies. I want to see many thousands of people lose their jobs. Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone? Very few people (mostly hardcore Fandroids and the mentally insane) would choose the former.

 

Such a dangerous mentality.  Despite your bong clouded assessment, there will always be a large group of people that will continue buying non-Apple devices regardless of what "cheap" stuff Apple can throw at them.  You should be more thankful for competition, otherwise there would have been no advancement in the software and hardware for the past several years.

 

As for your reaction to the rumored casing: obviously biased.  You'd be blasting the hell out of it were any other company's.  I'm guessing the Kool-Aid is preventing some people from seeing that this design is a blast from the distant past.

post #78 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post


These have a more metallic sheen that I like. Hopefully the finish is something like this instead of flat candy shell. The other unknown is feel. As trivial as it sounds, the feel of the iPhone 4 was very satisfying. If took me longer to warm to the iPhone 5, but I like it now. Slippery smooth would be a mistake. I hope it feels mildly grippy, while still allowing smooth repositioning in the hand.

It does not sound trivial at all that you say this. How a portable device feels in the hand is maybe more important than how it looks to the eye, when it comes to the final unconscious emotional decision that says "I want one." And how it feels has two aspects, shape and texture.

You only speak of texture. I also hope Apple will go for some matte rather than Samsung's greasy/glossy.

But there's also shape, and here Apple is way ahead, because Ive and crew have been focussing on the flat back with rounded edges that started with the iPad. They moved to square sides/round shoulders in aluminum with the iPad mini and the iPod touch, which elevated those two devices into seriously desirable instruments. Now it looks they're going to do the same square sides with round shoulders in plastic, which will give the devices an entirely different feel from the slippery shape of the iPhone 3G. A phone with this shape in colors will trigger deep centers in the brain, because it will "look good enough to eat."

Jobs and Ive have already long worked with this pleasant sensory confusion with other of their devices and with the "lickable" Aqua interface. It's actually a kind of synesthesia involving look, feel and taste. Apple seems to understand this kind of quasi-erotic design better than anybody in technology, so I would trust them to hit the mark, which lies somewhere deep in the reptilian brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.

Nah, more like Japan and China.
post #79 of 155
Not lovin' those colors. Hope they came out of intensive third-world focus group testing and will sell like hotcakes there. Sure wouldn't want to see them here.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #80 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

True, but Apple has set a recent precedent with a white face/bezel and colored back:

 

Yes, and I don't like them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • More pictures of purported 'iPhone Lite' shell surface with new blue color
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › More pictures of purported 'iPhone Lite' shell surface with new blue color