MacNN says there's a small possibility Apple may be unveiling iOS 4 for the iPad early. I sure hope so. I'm running out of space and need folders. Multitasking would sure be nice, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolcat
Why did you change his post? He said he doesn't foresee a refresh or a second/smaller form factor IPOD until spring. NOT IPAD....
Read it again. Tac22 edited his own post to say "iPod" a couple of minutes after Porchland replied.
i'm sure the new ipod touch will get the A4 processor, too. this is following the past trend of iphone in spring, ipod touch with specs to match in fall.
i'm more interested to see if apple is doing anything with the rest of the ipod lineup. my dream device would be an ipod nano with an edge to edge screen running a modified iOS build. this is probably a few years off though.
who the hell knows what Apple has up their sleeves...I was surprised by how elegant my MagicPad is and I love their battery charger.
With my iPhone 4....not sure I'm in the market for an iPod....don't want another device to maintain, charge, connect, etc.
I'm in the process of really reducing my tech to a 27" iMac to replace my current 20" iMac, AppleTV, DVD player, my Flat Screen TV and canceling my cable once and for all. If Apple isn't going to make a Flat Screen TV....I'll just use my 27" iMac as a TV!
Once I receive my iPhone 4, I will sell my Casio Exilim. Hell I'm even thinking of scanning all my personal docs and selling my desk, chair and file cabinet.
Put my Brother wireless all-in-one printer in a closet b/c I only use it once a week or so.
Wipe and sell my ext. HD and use the cloud, iDisk and DropBox.
End up with an iPhone 4, an iPad 3Gs, an MBA and a 27" iMac and I'm good to go!
One thing is for sure though, whatever iPods Apple comes out with they will be cool and elegant! And they will sell a butt load!
I'm eager to see what comes next. The sooner it happens the sooner I'll know what I want to purchase.
I don't own an mp3 player of any kind. For years I've been streaming music via the internet and playing it with speakers attached to the computer. I want to save the energy used by the computer and put the music on an iPod that uses much less energy. When I'm not using the computer I'll still have music. I'm beginning to record tunes from the internet (legally) and will load them on an iPod.
It will be for home use only. Listening to music while riding my bicycle or even driving a car hasn't always been important to me. I even had a car without a radio for a couple of years.
Apple should offer multiple colors on all of their iPod lineup. Doing that on their Mac Book line would really be cool. Mac Books deserve to show some style and flare too.
While the Touch may still have a future, the traditional iPod has certainly fallen out of the limelight.
My 160 g ipod is a work horse.I hail way back from the rio diamond 20 song days . NOW i have an ipod that hold movies photos songs tv shows pod casts address books contacts , i have 8 g left open .
I will one day buy a touch as a 2 nd machine B ut for me and for millions of over loaded content users the ipod will forever shine.
And as hundreds of millions of young people come of age.. >>many will choose a nano or classic ipod or touch .. The ipod halo and glory will never really die . Old cowboys fade into the sunset .. <<well sometimes they do . >>
I'm eager to see what comes next. The sooner it happens the sooner I'll know what I want to purchase.
I don't own an mp3 player of any kind. For years I've been streaming music via the internet and playing it with speakers attached to the computer. I want to save the energy used by the computer and put the music on an iPod that uses much less energy. When I'm not using the computer I'll still have music. I'm beginning to record tunes from the internet (legally) and will load them on an iPod.
It will be for home use only. Listening to music while riding my bicycle or even driving a car hasn't always been important to me. I even had a car without a radio for a couple of years.
Apple should offer multiple colors on all of their iPod lineup. Doing that on their Mac Book line would really be cool. Mac Books deserve to show some style and flare too.
Not too interested in new ipod ... but hoping that a new iLife is going to be something special.
iPhoto is easy to use but Iphoto 09 seems so sluggish for some reason, the maps are slow to load and the photo integration to other sites is not perfect so it's really lost whatever it was that made it good. I mean Picassa is free and though I haven't looked at it lately it's got quite a few of the same features released in iPhoto 09.
If this is true, it may be another case of Apple rearranging its product announce/release/upgrade schedule.
You have to wonder why!
If they announce a new iPod Touch with similar features and components as the iPhone 4, wouldn't that just add to the current iPhone 4 shortages, and create instant shortages for the new iPod Touch?
Though... It is possible that Apple has been reserving components (and production lines) for the new iPod Touch 4 (kind of a dual production facility).
So, what's to be gained by moving the iPod update ahead?
Couple that with highly-agressive projections for the September quarter (Q4) at Apple's last earnings call.
Sure, the shortages show that Apple has a large backlog of iPhones and iPads -- but it isn't like Apple to be so aggressive about products already in the pipeline. And those shortages look like they may remain through the end of the year.
This leads me to think that some new product, or products, are behind Apple's aggressive forecast.
What could they be?
1) A smaller 7" iPad-- Nah! Fragmentation, with little added value.
2) A new AppleTV-- possibly, but not a big enough seller to justify the forecasts.
3) Apple branded TV sets-- I don't think that's a business in which Apple wants to be.
4) Game Console-- possibly, especially if combined with new AppleTV. Though, better suited to XMAS quarter.
5) Portable Game Player-- possibly, good revenue generator! But, competes with games on iPhone and iPod Touch.
So, What's it to be?
What gives Apple an immediate sales boost?
What enhances Apples long term goals?
... my "Magic™ Eight Ball" tells me that, yes, Apple has been reserving iPhone components and production lines-- but not only for a new iPod Touch! It's "Bet the Farm" time! Apple will announce a dual CDMA/GSM iPhone 4, available immediately! Any backlog of existing iPhone 4 orders will ship immediately as iPhone 4 Duals.
They could also announce that the existing stock (if any) at retailers or in transit are already dual iPhones!
If Apple announces this on Aug 15, there will be 44 calendar days left in the Sept quarter!
If they did this right, Apple can immediately ship all its 3 weeks of backlogged orders, have stock available at all its retail stores and resellers. Further, Apple would prime the pump at new carriers, domestic and world-wide, who offer CDMA networks.
I won't bother to run the numbers, but I think that iP4 Dual, alone, could justify the aggressive forecast for the September quarter.
I know, I know-- there's this FCC approval thing! I suspect the Dual has been in existence for some time and that that Apple could have already received approval for the new CDMA (in addition to the GSM).
Finally, I think that Apple wanted to do this all along, but just couldn't make it happen in time for the iP4 announcement.
I don’t think you’re allowed to use the word Magic without Apple’s permission.
Quote:
It's "Bet the Farm" time! Apple will announce a dual CDMA/GSM iPhone 4, available immediately! Any backlog of existing iPhone 4 orders will ship immediately as iPhone 4 Duals.
I don’t think that is even a remote possibility. Look at all the phones that use these “world mode” chips. They are large, expensive, and are worse on power efficiency than their network-specific brethren. If these were viable then I’d think companies that do make both CDMA and GSM phones would have included these chips in all their products, at least in the US, so they could make and support one device instead of many. Even RiM’s new BB Torch is GSM.
I also have yet to see one that would actually work on all major carriers of the world. For example, the “world mode” BBs Verizon sold did not have the UMTS/3GSM bands for operating in North America. It was designed to be locked to Verizon with an option to be used in Europe and some other countries. I’d bet Apple and Nokia’s quad-band GSM and penta-band UMTS phones cover more of the world’s networks and land mass than the “world mode” phones I’ve seen.
However, this wouldn’t be a bad time to announce a CDMA iPhone if they have their supply issues sorted out. If they don’t then announcing it just after the holidays would be best. In either case, I can’t see them doing it with a 3 months of the normal iPhone release as supply still seems constricted and they still have about 40(?) more countries to release to before the end of September.
I don?t think you?re allowed to use the word Magic without Apple?s permission.
I don?t think that is even a remote possibility. Look at all the phones that use these ?world mode? chips. They are large, expensive, and are worse on power efficiency than their network-specific brethren. If these were viable then I?d think companies that do make both CDMA and GSM phones would have included these chips in all their products, at least in the US, so they could make and support one device instead of many. Even RiM?s new BB Torch is GSM.
I also have yet to see one that would actually work on all major carriers of the world. For example, the ?world mode? BBs Verizon sold did not have the UMTS/3GSM bands for operating in North America. It was designed to be locked to Verizon with an option to be used in Europe and some other countries. I?d bet Apple and Nokia?s quad-band GSM and penta-band UMTS phones cover more of the world?s networks and land mass than the ?world mode? phones I?ve seen.
I keep anticipating (hoping) that Apple and some chip mfgrs. have had some special Dual cell chips in development that will meet Apple's requirements for cost, battery, size, etc.
Sadly, you are, likely, correct-- "No iP4 Dual for you".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
However, this wouldn?t be a bad time to announce a CDMA iPhone if they have their supply issues sorted out. If they don?t then announcing it just after the holidays would be best. In either case, I can?t see them doing it with a 3 months of the normal iPhone release as supply still seems constricted and they still have about 40(?) more countries to release to before the end of September.
The other alternative is to offer two phones: 1 GSM; 1 CDMA.
I think that is less than optimum-- 4 Apple SKUs instead of 2.
But, CDMA is a market that is currently unaddressed by Apple.
From what I read, LTE will not completely replace CDMA for 4 years minimum... and, during that 4 years, LTE phones will need to handoff to CDMA, just as 3G currently handsoff to Edge on a GSM network.
Given that choice, Apple cannot afford to ignore the CDMA market for the next 4 years-- so, the sooner they adress the CDMA market, the better!
For those, who need Dual network support, they can do what they do now: buy 2 phones-- this time though, they both can be iPhones!
Sigh!
If you look at Andy Zacky's forecast for the September quarter:
He has a higher forecast than Apple: $19.1 billion vs $18 billion.
If Apple forecasts $18 billion, I believe they expect to attain $20 billion.
Where does that extra $2 billion revenue come from?
Looking at the chart, I think the estimates for the iPad are low-- rather, more like 6 - 7 million units. But that won't get them [all the way to] an extra $2 billion,
That leaves the iPhones. Zacky's forecast is reasonably correct considering the published supply constraints.
But, If those shortages are caused by building a Dual iP4 or (sadly, more likely) a iP4 CDMA on a shadow manufacturing line-- then there could be a significant bump in iPhone sales and revenue for the September quarter.
Let's say Apple has an initial inventory of CDMA iP4s and a running production line!
How many iP4 CDMA iPhones could Apple sell, world-wide, in the 7 weeks remaining in the quarter (after an Aug 15 announce)?
! million? 2 million? 5 million?
Asked in a different way: If Google is currently activating 200,000 Android phones per day * how many CDMA iP4s could Apple activate per day for the next 44 days (after the Aug 15 announce)?
I think the mystery app will be a HTML 5 editor/content creator.
That kind of makes good sense. On the other hand, it could be an app for iWork, and a 4th iWork app for the iPad. Either way, will they call it i5, or would Intel have to sue them!?
This leads me to think that some new product, or products, are behind Apple's aggressive forecast.
What could they be?
1) A smaller 7" iPad-- Nah! Fragmentation, with little added value.
.
.
To me the better route would be a 5" Touch. The Touch could easily get a larger screen and still remain portable. You could retain the resolution of the iPhone retina display and it would still be a step up in resolution on a 5" device compared to the current Touch.
I agree with you regarding fragmentation which is why it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad.
The key is to give the Touch the largest screen you can while still allowing for a device small enough to be pocketed. You can go larger than the current unit and not lose portability. As far as I'm concerned, any boost in screen size would be welcome, again provided the device doesn't become so large that it can no longer be comfortably pocketed.
To compensate, the Nano could also receive a larger screen. Go touch screen and you could accomplish that with a very minimal increase in the Nano's size. And of course there's the iPhone.
This could easily be achieved with no price increase because all Apple would have to do is not double the memory, hence lowering cost to compensate for the costlier screen. If the Touch went Retina Display, it would be expensive in any event.
Best part is, no one has predicted this will happen. We've had rumors of a 7" iPad, of a camera added to the Touch, and so on and so on. But enhancing the Touch with a larger screen would be much more in keeping with how Apple operates. The Touch has morphed into a pocket computer. Who doesn't want the maximum screen real estate possible on a computer, portable or otherwise. More screen has always been a good thing. It's not cast in stone that a pocket computer has to be no larger than the current Touch. The Touch is sized as it is because up to this point Apple was taking advantage of economies of scale by having the Touch and iPhone share a lot of components. But these devices sell in such large numbers now that it would be justifiable to have each one employ the technology that makes sense given what the device is used for. An iPhone makes sense being the size it is. The Touch should be somewhat larger because making calls on it is not one of its functions.
I think a 7" iPad, with the Touch remaining in its current size, would be problematic. That 7" iPad would be so close in price to the Touch that it would be bound to cannibalize sales. A few iPad sales in the 9.7" configuration would also be cannibalized. On the other hand, a 5" Touch would stand apart from the iPad but help in competing against any slates competitors introduced in sizes below that of the iPad. A 5" Touch would also compete well against E-Readers.
Makes more sense than adding a 7" iPad but I'm not calling the shots, so we'll see how Apple plays this.
To me the better route would be a 5" Touch. The Touch could easily get a larger screen and still remain portable. You could retain the resolution of the iPhone retina display and it would still be a step up in resolution on a 5" device compared to the current Touch.
I agree with you regarding fragmentation which is why it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad.
The key is to give the Touch the largest screen you can while still allowing for a device small enough to be pocketed. You can go larger than the current unit and not lose portability. As far as I'm concerned, any boost in screen size would be welcome, again provided the device doesn't become so large that it can no longer be comfortably pocketed.
To compensate, the Nano could also receive a larger screen. Go touch screen and you could accomplish that with a very minimal increase in the Nano's size. And of course there's the iPhone.
This could easily be achieved with no price increase because all Apple would have to do is not double the memory, hence lowering cost to compensate for the costlier screen. If the Touch went Retina Display, it would be expensive in any event.
Best part is, no one has predicted this will happen. We've had rumors of a 7" iPad, of a camera added to the Touch, and so on and so on. But enhancing the Touch with a larger screen would be much more in keeping with how Apple operates. The Touch has morphed into a pocket computer. Who doesn't want the maximum screen real estate possible on a computer, portable or otherwise. More screen has always been a good thing. It's not cast in stone that a pocket computer has to be no larger than the current Touch. The Touch is sized as it is because up to this point Apple was taking advantage of economies of scale by having the Touch and iPhone share a lot of components. But these devices sell in such large numbers now that it would be justifiable to have each one employ the technology that makes sense given what the device is used for. An iPhone makes sense being the size it is. The Touch should be somewhat larger because making calls on it is not one of its functions.
I think a 7" iPad, with the Touch remaining in its current size, would be problematic. That 7" iPad would be so close in price to the Touch that it would be bound to cannibalize sales. A few iPad sales in the 9.7" configuration would also be cannibalized. On the other hand, a 5" Touch would stand apart from the iPad but help in competing against any slates competitors introduced in sizes below that of the iPad. A 5" Touch would also compete well against E-Readers.
Makes more sense than adding a 7" iPad but I'm not calling the shots, so we'll see how Apple plays this.
i think both things will happen
a 5" touch
a dual iphone
large screen nano
yet i am still amazed at the ipad and iphones that have just arrived
yet i am still amazed at the ipad and iphones that have just arrived
we need time to breathe
9
Apple needs to stay ahead of the competition. It would be a serious mistake for Apple to stop pushing forward because that would open the door for competitors to close the gap.
Don't think in terms of August 2010 but rather August 2011 because Apple will be selling whatever it releases in the next few weeks likely right through to August 2011.
Sure the competition is a couple of steps behind but the incredible success of the iPad will no doubt serve as a big-time motivator.
I see competition coming at both ends of the spectrum, i.e. in the 5" touchscreen end and with devices sized like the current iPad. Now is the time to deal a preemptive blow with the smaller form factor and the iPad, which they can't build fast enough, will no doubt get an upgrade early next year.
By bringing out a 5" Touch now, Apple can challenge competitors' e-readers, and be offering a hard-to-beat 5" touchscreen device long before such devices flood the market. Meanwhile, the second generation of the iPad is going to be here long before the summer of 2011. Hence Apple will maintain its lead.
On the other hand, release a Touch based on iPhone dimensions and if a need presents itself in the next few months to offer a touchscreen unit in the 5" range, Apple would have to bring out a separate device and that would not be a smart move. As soon as the 5" touchscreen model came to market, the Touch would take a hit. So you would devote time and effort to creating an iPhone-based Touch and then undermine the device by bringing out an alternative with a similar price a few months later. Right now the base iPad here in Canada costs $499. A 32GB Touch checks in at $329. The 5" Touch as a separate unit would have to come in at a minimum of $100 less than the iPad. So let's say it retailed for $379. If you have a choice between a device with a 3.5" screen and one with a 5" screen, if the price difference is something like $50, the 5" model clearly has the advantage.
I could imagine Apple continuing the sell a Touch model with minimal changes to the current version, much as it still sells the iPod Classic. Priced low enough, such a device would fill a niche. But introducing a heavily revised Touch including a 5" screen would be a no-brainer.
... it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad. ...
I disagree 100%.
The purpose of the iPod touch is to mirror the iPhone for the rather large part of the market (youth basically), that don't/can't have a cell phone contract. It seems rather obvious to me that as long as there is an iPhone, there will be an almost identical iPod touch model offered four months later. They have been doing this since day one, I'm not sure why that would change.
The reason why Apple *has* to make different form factors for the iPad, is that the current form factor is really only good for consumption of media. A slightly smaller version would be just as easy to read, but would be much much easier to actually type on and of course, much more portable. A 5" screen is just not that different from the current 3.5" one. 7" would be the sweet spot and make the device about the same size as a standard paperback novel.
I think for these reasons and others, that what we will see eventually is a sort of "iPad Pro" in a slightly smaller form factor.
The whole idea that this is all supposed to be announced in a couple of weeks though is purest bunkum. Apple has rarely if ever put out an iteration of a popular product on anything less than a yearly cycle and they are still having absolutely horrendous problems producing and distributing the things they announced several months ago. IPads are very rare in my country and I have yet to see an iPhone 4 at all.
I don't see a new iPhone or a new iPad coming out until at least a full year after the current models arrived. If I'm wrong, it will only be because Apple did something it's never done before.
Comments
Why did you change his post? He said he doesn't foresee a refresh or a second/smaller form factor IPOD until spring. NOT IPAD....
Read it again. Tac22 edited his own post to say "iPod" a couple of minutes after Porchland replied.
Previous iPod events:
September 9, 2009.
September 9, 2008.
September 5, 2007.
September 12, 2006.
September 7, 2005.
AUGUST seems very possible as this year the Jewish High Holy Days come out on SEPT 9, &10
Also announcement doesn't mean release date would be moved up.
i'm sure the new ipod touch will get the A4 processor, too. this is following the past trend of iphone in spring, ipod touch with specs to match in fall.
i'm more interested to see if apple is doing anything with the rest of the ipod lineup. my dream device would be an ipod nano with an edge to edge screen running a modified iOS build. this is probably a few years off though.
With my iPhone 4....not sure I'm in the market for an iPod....don't want another device to maintain, charge, connect, etc.
I'm in the process of really reducing my tech to a 27" iMac to replace my current 20" iMac, AppleTV, DVD player, my Flat Screen TV and canceling my cable once and for all. If Apple isn't going to make a Flat Screen TV....I'll just use my 27" iMac as a TV!
Once I receive my iPhone 4, I will sell my Casio Exilim. Hell I'm even thinking of scanning all my personal docs and selling my desk, chair and file cabinet.
Put my Brother wireless all-in-one printer in a closet b/c I only use it once a week or so.
Wipe and sell my ext. HD and use the cloud, iDisk and DropBox.
End up with an iPhone 4, an iPad 3Gs, an MBA and a 27" iMac and I'm good to go!
One thing is for sure though, whatever iPods Apple comes out with they will be cool and elegant! And they will sell a butt load!
I don't own an mp3 player of any kind. For years I've been streaming music via the internet and playing it with speakers attached to the computer. I want to save the energy used by the computer and put the music on an iPod that uses much less energy. When I'm not using the computer I'll still have music. I'm beginning to record tunes from the internet (legally) and will load them on an iPod.
It will be for home use only. Listening to music while riding my bicycle or even driving a car hasn't always been important to me. I even had a car without a radio for a couple of years.
Apple should offer multiple colors on all of their iPod lineup. Doing that on their Mac Book line would really be cool. Mac Books deserve to show some style and flare too.
Apple still sells iPods?
While the Touch may still have a future, the traditional iPod has certainly fallen out of the limelight.
My 160 g ipod is a work horse.I hail way back from the rio diamond 20 song days . NOW i have an ipod that hold movies photos songs tv shows pod casts address books contacts , i have 8 g left open .
I will one day buy a touch as a 2 nd machine B ut for me and for millions of over loaded content users the ipod will forever shine.
And as hundreds of millions of young people come of age.. >>many will choose a nano or classic ipod or touch .. The ipod halo and glory will never really die . Old cowboys fade into the sunset .. <<well sometimes they do . >>
go apple
go ipod
9
I'm eager to see what comes next. The sooner it happens the sooner I'll know what I want to purchase.
I don't own an mp3 player of any kind. For years I've been streaming music via the internet and playing it with speakers attached to the computer. I want to save the energy used by the computer and put the music on an iPod that uses much less energy. When I'm not using the computer I'll still have music. I'm beginning to record tunes from the internet (legally) and will load them on an iPod.
It will be for home use only. Listening to music while riding my bicycle or even driving a car hasn't always been important to me. I even had a car without a radio for a couple of years.
Apple should offer multiple colors on all of their iPod lineup. Doing that on their Mac Book line would really be cool. Mac Books deserve to show some style and flare too.
thin >> transparent >>
translucent << machine tooled aluminum..
9
iPhoto is easy to use but Iphoto 09 seems so sluggish for some reason, the maps are slow to load and the photo integration to other sites is not perfect so it's really lost whatever it was that made it good. I mean Picassa is free and though I haven't looked at it lately it's got quite a few of the same features released in iPhoto 09.
Mmmm....
If this is true, it may be another case of Apple rearranging its product announce/release/upgrade schedule.
You have to wonder why!
If they announce a new iPod Touch with similar features and components as the iPhone 4, wouldn't that just add to the current iPhone 4 shortages, and create instant shortages for the new iPod Touch?
Though... It is possible that Apple has been reserving components (and production lines) for the new iPod Touch 4 (kind of a dual production facility).
So, what's to be gained by moving the iPod update ahead?
Couple that with highly-agressive projections for the September quarter (Q4) at Apple's last earnings call.
Sure, the shortages show that Apple has a large backlog of iPhones and iPads -- but it isn't like Apple to be so aggressive about products already in the pipeline. And those shortages look like they may remain through the end of the year.
This leads me to think that some new product, or products, are behind Apple's aggressive forecast.
What could they be?
1) A smaller 7" iPad-- Nah! Fragmentation, with little added value.
2) A new AppleTV-- possibly, but not a big enough seller to justify the forecasts.
3) Apple branded TV sets-- I don't think that's a business in which Apple wants to be.
4) Game Console-- possibly, especially if combined with new AppleTV. Though, better suited to XMAS quarter.
5) Portable Game Player-- possibly, good revenue generator! But, competes with games on iPhone and iPod Touch.
So, What's it to be?
What gives Apple an immediate sales boost?
What enhances Apples long term goals?
... my "Magic™ Eight Ball" tells me that, yes, Apple has been reserving iPhone components and production lines-- but not only for a new iPod Touch! It's "Bet the Farm" time! Apple will announce a dual CDMA/GSM iPhone 4, available immediately! Any backlog of existing iPhone 4 orders will ship immediately as iPhone 4 Duals.
They could also announce that the existing stock (if any) at retailers or in transit are already dual iPhones!
If Apple announces this on Aug 15, there will be 44 calendar days left in the Sept quarter!
If they did this right, Apple can immediately ship all its 3 weeks of backlogged orders, have stock available at all its retail stores and resellers. Further, Apple would prime the pump at new carriers, domestic and world-wide, who offer CDMA networks.
I won't bother to run the numbers, but I think that iP4 Dual, alone, could justify the aggressive forecast for the September quarter.
I know, I know-- there's this FCC approval thing! I suspect the Dual has been in existence for some time and that that Apple could have already received approval for the new CDMA (in addition to the GSM).
Finally, I think that Apple wanted to do this all along, but just couldn't make it happen in time for the iP4 announcement.
.
.
... my "Magic Eight Ball" tells me that, yes, ...
I don’t think you’re allowed to use the word Magic without Apple’s permission.
It's "Bet the Farm" time! Apple will announce a dual CDMA/GSM iPhone 4, available immediately! Any backlog of existing iPhone 4 orders will ship immediately as iPhone 4 Duals.
I don’t think that is even a remote possibility. Look at all the phones that use these “world mode” chips. They are large, expensive, and are worse on power efficiency than their network-specific brethren. If these were viable then I’d think companies that do make both CDMA and GSM phones would have included these chips in all their products, at least in the US, so they could make and support one device instead of many. Even RiM’s new BB Torch is GSM.
I also have yet to see one that would actually work on all major carriers of the world. For example, the “world mode” BBs Verizon sold did not have the UMTS/3GSM bands for operating in North America. It was designed to be locked to Verizon with an option to be used in Europe and some other countries. I’d bet Apple and Nokia’s quad-band GSM and penta-band UMTS phones cover more of the world’s networks and land mass than the “world mode” phones I’ve seen.
However, this wouldn’t be a bad time to announce a CDMA iPhone if they have their supply issues sorted out. If they don’t then announcing it just after the holidays would be best. In either case, I can’t see them doing it with a 3 months of the normal iPhone release as supply still seems constricted and they still have about 40(?) more countries to release to before the end of September.
I don?t think you?re allowed to use the word Magic without Apple?s permission.
Sorry!
Apple is Magic?
.
I don?t think you?re allowed to use the word Magic without Apple?s permission.
I don?t think that is even a remote possibility. Look at all the phones that use these ?world mode? chips. They are large, expensive, and are worse on power efficiency than their network-specific brethren. If these were viable then I?d think companies that do make both CDMA and GSM phones would have included these chips in all their products, at least in the US, so they could make and support one device instead of many. Even RiM?s new BB Torch is GSM.
I also have yet to see one that would actually work on all major carriers of the world. For example, the ?world mode? BBs Verizon sold did not have the UMTS/3GSM bands for operating in North America. It was designed to be locked to Verizon with an option to be used in Europe and some other countries. I?d bet Apple and Nokia?s quad-band GSM and penta-band UMTS phones cover more of the world?s networks and land mass than the ?world mode? phones I?ve seen.
I keep anticipating (hoping) that Apple and some chip mfgrs. have had some special Dual cell chips in development that will meet Apple's requirements for cost, battery, size, etc.
Sadly, you are, likely, correct-- "No iP4 Dual for you".
However, this wouldn?t be a bad time to announce a CDMA iPhone if they have their supply issues sorted out. If they don?t then announcing it just after the holidays would be best. In either case, I can?t see them doing it with a 3 months of the normal iPhone release as supply still seems constricted and they still have about 40(?) more countries to release to before the end of September.
The other alternative is to offer two phones: 1 GSM; 1 CDMA.
I think that is less than optimum-- 4 Apple SKUs instead of 2.
But, CDMA is a market that is currently unaddressed by Apple.
From what I read, LTE will not completely replace CDMA for 4 years minimum... and, during that 4 years, LTE phones will need to handoff to CDMA, just as 3G currently handsoff to Edge on a GSM network.
Given that choice, Apple cannot afford to ignore the CDMA market for the next 4 years-- so, the sooner they adress the CDMA market, the better!
For those, who need Dual network support, they can do what they do now: buy 2 phones-- this time though, they both can be iPhones!
Sigh!
If you look at Andy Zacky's forecast for the September quarter:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2191...r?source=yahoo
He has a higher forecast than Apple: $19.1 billion vs $18 billion.
If Apple forecasts $18 billion, I believe they expect to attain $20 billion.
Where does that extra $2 billion revenue come from?
Looking at the chart, I think the estimates for the iPad are low-- rather, more like 6 - 7 million units. But that won't get them [all the way to] an extra $2 billion,
That leaves the iPhones. Zacky's forecast is reasonably correct considering the published supply constraints.
But, If those shortages are caused by building a Dual iP4 or (sadly, more likely) a iP4 CDMA on a shadow manufacturing line-- then there could be a significant bump in iPhone sales and revenue for the September quarter.
Let's say Apple has an initial inventory of CDMA iP4s and a running production line!
How many iP4 CDMA iPhones could Apple sell, world-wide, in the 7 weeks remaining in the quarter (after an Aug 15 announce)?
! million? 2 million? 5 million?
Asked in a different way: If Google is currently activating 200,000 Android phones per day * how many CDMA iP4s could Apple activate per day for the next 44 days (after the Aug 15 announce)?
* http://www.mediapost.com/publication...art_aid=133348
.
I think the mystery app will be a HTML 5 editor/content creator.
That kind of makes good sense. On the other hand, it could be an app for iWork, and a 4th iWork app for the iPad. Either way, will they call it i5, or would Intel have to sue them!?
.
This leads me to think that some new product, or products, are behind Apple's aggressive forecast.
What could they be?
1) A smaller 7" iPad-- Nah! Fragmentation, with little added value.
.
.
To me the better route would be a 5" Touch. The Touch could easily get a larger screen and still remain portable. You could retain the resolution of the iPhone retina display and it would still be a step up in resolution on a 5" device compared to the current Touch.
I agree with you regarding fragmentation which is why it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad.
The key is to give the Touch the largest screen you can while still allowing for a device small enough to be pocketed. You can go larger than the current unit and not lose portability. As far as I'm concerned, any boost in screen size would be welcome, again provided the device doesn't become so large that it can no longer be comfortably pocketed.
To compensate, the Nano could also receive a larger screen. Go touch screen and you could accomplish that with a very minimal increase in the Nano's size. And of course there's the iPhone.
This could easily be achieved with no price increase because all Apple would have to do is not double the memory, hence lowering cost to compensate for the costlier screen. If the Touch went Retina Display, it would be expensive in any event.
Best part is, no one has predicted this will happen. We've had rumors of a 7" iPad, of a camera added to the Touch, and so on and so on. But enhancing the Touch with a larger screen would be much more in keeping with how Apple operates. The Touch has morphed into a pocket computer. Who doesn't want the maximum screen real estate possible on a computer, portable or otherwise. More screen has always been a good thing. It's not cast in stone that a pocket computer has to be no larger than the current Touch. The Touch is sized as it is because up to this point Apple was taking advantage of economies of scale by having the Touch and iPhone share a lot of components. But these devices sell in such large numbers now that it would be justifiable to have each one employ the technology that makes sense given what the device is used for. An iPhone makes sense being the size it is. The Touch should be somewhat larger because making calls on it is not one of its functions.
I think a 7" iPad, with the Touch remaining in its current size, would be problematic. That 7" iPad would be so close in price to the Touch that it would be bound to cannibalize sales. A few iPad sales in the 9.7" configuration would also be cannibalized. On the other hand, a 5" Touch would stand apart from the iPad but help in competing against any slates competitors introduced in sizes below that of the iPad. A 5" Touch would also compete well against E-Readers.
Makes more sense than adding a 7" iPad but I'm not calling the shots, so we'll see how Apple plays this.
To me the better route would be a 5" Touch. The Touch could easily get a larger screen and still remain portable. You could retain the resolution of the iPhone retina display and it would still be a step up in resolution on a 5" device compared to the current Touch.
I agree with you regarding fragmentation which is why it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad.
The key is to give the Touch the largest screen you can while still allowing for a device small enough to be pocketed. You can go larger than the current unit and not lose portability. As far as I'm concerned, any boost in screen size would be welcome, again provided the device doesn't become so large that it can no longer be comfortably pocketed.
To compensate, the Nano could also receive a larger screen. Go touch screen and you could accomplish that with a very minimal increase in the Nano's size. And of course there's the iPhone.
This could easily be achieved with no price increase because all Apple would have to do is not double the memory, hence lowering cost to compensate for the costlier screen. If the Touch went Retina Display, it would be expensive in any event.
Best part is, no one has predicted this will happen. We've had rumors of a 7" iPad, of a camera added to the Touch, and so on and so on. But enhancing the Touch with a larger screen would be much more in keeping with how Apple operates. The Touch has morphed into a pocket computer. Who doesn't want the maximum screen real estate possible on a computer, portable or otherwise. More screen has always been a good thing. It's not cast in stone that a pocket computer has to be no larger than the current Touch. The Touch is sized as it is because up to this point Apple was taking advantage of economies of scale by having the Touch and iPhone share a lot of components. But these devices sell in such large numbers now that it would be justifiable to have each one employ the technology that makes sense given what the device is used for. An iPhone makes sense being the size it is. The Touch should be somewhat larger because making calls on it is not one of its functions.
I think a 7" iPad, with the Touch remaining in its current size, would be problematic. That 7" iPad would be so close in price to the Touch that it would be bound to cannibalize sales. A few iPad sales in the 9.7" configuration would also be cannibalized. On the other hand, a 5" Touch would stand apart from the iPad but help in competing against any slates competitors introduced in sizes below that of the iPad. A 5" Touch would also compete well against E-Readers.
Makes more sense than adding a 7" iPad but I'm not calling the shots, so we'll see how Apple plays this.
i think both things will happen
a 5" touch
a dual iphone
large screen nano
yet i am still amazed at the ipad and iphones that have just arrived
we need time to breathe
9
i think both things will happen
a 5" touch
a dual iphone
large screen nano
yet i am still amazed at the ipad and iphones that have just arrived
we need time to breathe
9
Apple needs to stay ahead of the competition. It would be a serious mistake for Apple to stop pushing forward because that would open the door for competitors to close the gap.
Don't think in terms of August 2010 but rather August 2011 because Apple will be selling whatever it releases in the next few weeks likely right through to August 2011.
Sure the competition is a couple of steps behind but the incredible success of the iPad will no doubt serve as a big-time motivator.
I see competition coming at both ends of the spectrum, i.e. in the 5" touchscreen end and with devices sized like the current iPad. Now is the time to deal a preemptive blow with the smaller form factor and the iPad, which they can't build fast enough, will no doubt get an upgrade early next year.
By bringing out a 5" Touch now, Apple can challenge competitors' e-readers, and be offering a hard-to-beat 5" touchscreen device long before such devices flood the market. Meanwhile, the second generation of the iPad is going to be here long before the summer of 2011. Hence Apple will maintain its lead.
On the other hand, release a Touch based on iPhone dimensions and if a need presents itself in the next few months to offer a touchscreen unit in the 5" range, Apple would have to bring out a separate device and that would not be a smart move. As soon as the 5" touchscreen model came to market, the Touch would take a hit. So you would devote time and effort to creating an iPhone-based Touch and then undermine the device by bringing out an alternative with a similar price a few months later. Right now the base iPad here in Canada costs $499. A 32GB Touch checks in at $329. The 5" Touch as a separate unit would have to come in at a minimum of $100 less than the iPad. So let's say it retailed for $379. If you have a choice between a device with a 3.5" screen and one with a 5" screen, if the price difference is something like $50, the 5" model clearly has the advantage.
I could imagine Apple continuing the sell a Touch model with minimal changes to the current version, much as it still sells the iPod Classic. Priced low enough, such a device would fill a niche. But introducing a heavily revised Touch including a 5" screen would be a no-brainer.
... it would seem more logical to increase the size of the Touch than it would be to keep the Touch and add a 7" iPad. ...
I disagree 100%.
The purpose of the iPod touch is to mirror the iPhone for the rather large part of the market (youth basically), that don't/can't have a cell phone contract. It seems rather obvious to me that as long as there is an iPhone, there will be an almost identical iPod touch model offered four months later. They have been doing this since day one, I'm not sure why that would change.
The reason why Apple *has* to make different form factors for the iPad, is that the current form factor is really only good for consumption of media. A slightly smaller version would be just as easy to read, but would be much much easier to actually type on and of course, much more portable. A 5" screen is just not that different from the current 3.5" one. 7" would be the sweet spot and make the device about the same size as a standard paperback novel.
I think for these reasons and others, that what we will see eventually is a sort of "iPad Pro" in a slightly smaller form factor.
The whole idea that this is all supposed to be announced in a couple of weeks though is purest bunkum. Apple has rarely if ever put out an iteration of a popular product on anything less than a yearly cycle and they are still having absolutely horrendous problems producing and distributing the things they announced several months ago. IPads are very rare in my country and I have yet to see an iPhone 4 at all.
I don't see a new iPhone or a new iPad coming out until at least a full year after the current models arrived. If I'm wrong, it will only be because Apple did something it's never done before.