Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
Although it's a long shot, they could release it separately on Sprint at some point when they have enough capacity, but that takes the idea of 1 phone for everyone off the table.
It wouldn't solve everyone's needs, but Sprint is the last carrier I'd be worried about, given their size. The demand on AT&T and Verizon is much greater from what I can tell.
People will bring up the issues around the 3G's launch, but having gone through that experience personally, I think everyone was more frustrated about the tight supply of iPhones and activation issues than a lack of 3G coverage.
I guess you missed the news about Sprint rolling out their LTE network. Sprint actually has far more towers than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that it was divided between IDEN use for Netxtel and those for Sprint. With network vision, all towers will be repurposed to use the former 800Mhz IDEN band for Sprint LTE. This will result in decreasing the total number of towers, but vastly increasing the native Sprint towers and coverage map.
Clearwire, their old WiMax partner, will also be building out LTE as well. If Lightsquared can get approval, that would further supplement Sprint's LTE coverage. But Sprint does have a solid plan for transitioning to LTE. It really is not far behind AT&T.
For those of you that think WiMax was a mistake, please remember that Clear and Sprint would have lost that spectrum if it wasn't used. The FCC put certain conditions on the sale. There was no LTE ready equipment at the time so they really didn't have any other choice. If they didn't deploy WiMax equipment they would have lost it completely. Spectrum and bandwidth will extremely important in the future and Sprint has a lot of room to grow.
I heard that they were transitioning to LTE from WiMax, but hadn't seen any details on it until now. My concern about Sprint throughout this entire conversation has been that it will take time (perhaps a year or more) to enable much of the infrastructure that LTE needs (having towers already built helps, but as you said, frequency changes need to be made). With that said, regardless of what the name of the next phone is, I can't think of a good alternative for Apple given the different stages of LTE that each carrier has. Waiting it out for another year isn't really a feasible option at this point either.
For all we know, it may well end up as iPhone 5, but the naming scheme undoubtedly presents a problem, at least from a marketing standpoint. Consumers may not really care what it's called, but they're expecting '5' so Apple may have to go with it.
I think they will do it exactly like they did originally with the 3gs. They keep the two 16 gig wifi only models of the iPad 2 on sale and knock $100 off them, targeting kids and such. If you want the better, faster, Siri etc you get the iPad 3 which could step up to 32GB as the base model
Although I'll contine to buy the top of the line model no matter what, I'd love for that to be a 128GB model. My 64 is always full.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle?
It was totally not consonant with the Apple "it just works" mantra - an opaque device controlled by an arbitrary series of click gestures which had to be memorized. About as intuitive as memorizing keyboard commands for early DOS productivity programs like Wordstar! And like a sick baby. If it wasn't happy with your input, it couldn't tell you why. I called it a flop and a dead-end the day it came out.
For that matter, Apple's lucky there are alternatives to its 2, 3 and 4 finger trackpad swipe gestures. I have friends who love Macs and have been using them for years. And who, until I informed them were blithely unaware these things even existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
I think Apple will have to eventually settle on a better naming scheme. What about calling the next one iPhone 12, for the year? At least with the year in the name it makes things a lot less confusing. You could even add the storage number to be even more precise like the iPhone 1264 for an iPhone released in 2012 with 64GB of storage.
Nooo! Not the year naming thing. Even MS has recognized the folly of that, except in its Office line where real advances have gotten harder, so planned obsolescence by ancient sounding years is a marketing tool. I'm glad my car is a Camry XLE - it's in perfect visual condition - and I'd be most unhappy if it had badging that said Camry 04.....
..and I'll buy you the first "iPhone 1264" that comes out. Speaking of non-Applish naming conventions. (tho PS, the iPhone's 12th iteration, if it's not implanted, may be more measured in TB's of storage rather than GB's) (But hey, that would be a good name for a retro/hi tech club in NYC - "TBGB's"!)(You get it or you don't, so don't worry if that's a head scratcher.)
..and in other news, I'm amazed at the passion of people claiming there will be no iPhone 5 because it's illogical for this reason or that. Once you go from "phone" to "3" then 3GS, 4, 4S you're not exactly counting in numbers (or numerology to read some of the more over-the-top comments) at all. As long as it's not named after fattening junk food treats I'll be happy.....
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
I don't see people asking where the iPhone 2 went.
That's my point. Thanks for making it for me. Normal people don't care what it's called. Just is it the new one. They know iPhone 4 was used. So they see 4 as new to 3 and 4S as an extension of 4 and will see 5 as an all new phone, particularly if Apple redesigns it.
That's my point. Thanks for making it for me. Normal people don't care what it's called. Just is it the new one. They know iPhone 4 was used. So they see 4 as new to 3 and 4S as an extension of 4 and will see 5 as an all new phone, particularly if Apple redesigns it.
No, MY point is that they couldn't care less what number it is as long as the number is later. So they'll have no problem accepting iPhone 6.
I think calling it the iPhone 5 has a very good chance simply because they have followed this for four phones in a row. 3G to 3GS, the 4 to 4S. Maybe that is a precedent they want to stick with. If so it would likely be called the iPhone 5 then 5GS or something similar. That is probably more likely than calling it an iPhone 6.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, people will just call it an iPhone and buy the latest iteration. Apple will call it whatever they like and who really cares? I am more interested in what it will include. I just pray that it has at least a 4" screen. That one change alone would get me to upgrade. 3.5" is just too small. If I had never used a 4.3" screen maybe I wouldn't care so much, but once you get used to it the iPhone screen really feels small. That is really my only complaint with making the switch.
I agree with your naming convention thoughts. As for a larger screen, for me I hope not. I'd rather it get smaller or remain the same. I think the iPhone is too big as a phone now. I don't watch movies or play games on it, and I don't use the browser much. I miss the smallness of the flip phone style. That's just me though. If I was actually going to use the iPhone as a smart phone, then I can see the 3.5 size work. But as a phone, it's just too big in my pocket now, particularly when you add a security type case. Then it's not only heftier but heavy too.
Comments
The 4S was primarily put out to capitalize on the Christmas sales
Not the case.
and unless there's a new phone in 2012
Like there won't be.
US sales will steadily decline throughout the year.
No, they've been increasing.
A new phone in June
Way too early. We're on an October cycle now.
Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
Although it's a long shot, they could release it separately on Sprint at some point when they have enough capacity, but that takes the idea of 1 phone for everyone off the table.
It wouldn't solve everyone's needs, but Sprint is the last carrier I'd be worried about, given their size. The demand on AT&T and Verizon is much greater from what I can tell.
People will bring up the issues around the 3G's launch, but having gone through that experience personally, I think everyone was more frustrated about the tight supply of iPhones and activation issues than a lack of 3G coverage.
I guess you missed the news about Sprint rolling out their LTE network. Sprint actually has far more towers than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that it was divided between IDEN use for Netxtel and those for Sprint. With network vision, all towers will be repurposed to use the former 800Mhz IDEN band for Sprint LTE. This will result in decreasing the total number of towers, but vastly increasing the native Sprint towers and coverage map.
Clearwire, their old WiMax partner, will also be building out LTE as well. If Lightsquared can get approval, that would further supplement Sprint's LTE coverage. But Sprint does have a solid plan for transitioning to LTE. It really is not far behind AT&T.
For those of you that think WiMax was a mistake, please remember that Clear and Sprint would have lost that spectrum if it wasn't used. The FCC put certain conditions on the sale. There was no LTE ready equipment at the time so they really didn't have any other choice. If they didn't deploy WiMax equipment they would have lost it completely. Spectrum and bandwidth will extremely important in the future and Sprint has a lot of room to grow.
This articles gives more details.
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/New-Networ...today/blog.htm
I heard that they were transitioning to LTE from WiMax, but hadn't seen any details on it until now. My concern about Sprint throughout this entire conversation has been that it will take time (perhaps a year or more) to enable much of the infrastructure that LTE needs (having towers already built helps, but as you said, frequency changes need to be made). With that said, regardless of what the name of the next phone is, I can't think of a good alternative for Apple given the different stages of LTE that each carrier has. Waiting it out for another year isn't really a feasible option at this point either.
For all we know, it may well end up as iPhone 5, but the naming scheme undoubtedly presents a problem, at least from a marketing standpoint. Consumers may not really care what it's called, but they're expecting '5' so Apple may have to go with it.
I think they will do it exactly like they did originally with the 3gs. They keep the two 16 gig wifi only models of the iPad 2 on sale and knock $100 off them, targeting kids and such. If you want the better, faster, Siri etc you get the iPad 3 which could step up to 32GB as the base model
Although I'll contine to buy the top of the line model no matter what, I'd love for that to be a 128GB model. My 64 is always full.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle?
It was totally not consonant with the Apple "it just works" mantra - an opaque device controlled by an arbitrary series of click gestures which had to be memorized. About as intuitive as memorizing keyboard commands for early DOS productivity programs like Wordstar! And like a sick baby. If it wasn't happy with your input, it couldn't tell you why. I called it a flop and a dead-end the day it came out.
For that matter, Apple's lucky there are alternatives to its 2, 3 and 4 finger trackpad swipe gestures. I have friends who love Macs and have been using them for years. And who, until I informed them were blithely unaware these things even existed.
I think Apple will have to eventually settle on a better naming scheme. What about calling the next one iPhone 12, for the year? At least with the year in the name it makes things a lot less confusing. You could even add the storage number to be even more precise like the iPhone 1264 for an iPhone released in 2012 with 64GB of storage.
Nooo! Not the year naming thing. Even MS has recognized the folly of that, except in its Office line where real advances have gotten harder, so planned obsolescence by ancient sounding years is a marketing tool. I'm glad my car is a Camry XLE - it's in perfect visual condition - and I'd be most unhappy if it had badging that said Camry 04.....
..and I'll buy you the first "iPhone 1264" that comes out. Speaking of non-Applish naming conventions. (tho PS, the iPhone's 12th iteration, if it's not implanted, may be more measured in TB's of storage rather than GB's) (But hey, that would be a good name for a retro/hi tech club in NYC - "TBGB's"!)(You get it or you don't, so don't worry if that's a head scratcher.)
..and in other news, I'm amazed at the passion of people claiming there will be no iPhone 5 because it's illogical for this reason or that. Once you go from "phone" to "3" then 3GS, 4, 4S you're not exactly counting in numbers (or numerology to read some of the more over-the-top comments) at all. As long as it's not named after fattening junk food treats I'll be happy.....
Way too early. We're on an October cycle now.
I surely hope not. This year Apple did a minor upgrade, and Google a major one.
This year Apple did a minor upgrade?
No, that's not the case.
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
But not iPhone 5. Nope.
iPhone 5S
Get back to me when Apple decides to expand the desktop line up.
Phones and tablets.
Get back to me when Apple decides to expand the desktop line up.
Desktop now is a second class citizen. They actually considering getting rid of Mac Pro.
Just pitch it into the circular file, where it deserves to be.
The phrase "no shit" comes to mind with these so called predictions.
Not exactly...
They predicted the iPhone 5 last time... and all we got was the iPhone 4S
Desktop now is a second class citizen. They actually considering getting rid of Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is more of a "workstation" anyway... starting at $2500.
If Apple does kill the Mac Pro... I'm fairly certain the iMac will still be around.
While laptops rule the roost... desktops are still in demand. Somebody must be buying them.
I don't see people asking where the iPhone 2 went.
That's my point. Thanks for making it for me. Normal people don't care what it's called. Just is it the new one. They know iPhone 4 was used. So they see 4 as new to 3 and 4S as an extension of 4 and will see 5 as an all new phone, particularly if Apple redesigns it.
That's my point. Thanks for making it for me. Normal people don't care what it's called. Just is it the new one. They know iPhone 4 was used. So they see 4 as new to 3 and 4S as an extension of 4 and will see 5 as an all new phone, particularly if Apple redesigns it.
No, MY point is that they couldn't care less what number it is as long as the number is later. So they'll have no problem accepting iPhone 6.
I think calling it the iPhone 5 has a very good chance simply because they have followed this for four phones in a row. 3G to 3GS, the 4 to 4S. Maybe that is a precedent they want to stick with. If so it would likely be called the iPhone 5 then 5GS or something similar. That is probably more likely than calling it an iPhone 6.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, people will just call it an iPhone and buy the latest iteration. Apple will call it whatever they like and who really cares? I am more interested in what it will include. I just pray that it has at least a 4" screen. That one change alone would get me to upgrade. 3.5" is just too small. If I had never used a 4.3" screen maybe I wouldn't care so much, but once you get used to it the iPhone screen really feels small. That is really my only complaint with making the switch.
I agree with your naming convention thoughts. As for a larger screen, for me I hope not. I'd rather it get smaller or remain the same. I think the iPhone is too big as a phone now. I don't watch movies or play games on it, and I don't use the browser much. I miss the smallness of the flip phone style. That's just me though. If I was actually going to use the iPhone as a smart phone, then I can see the 3.5 size work. But as a phone, it's just too big in my pocket now, particularly when you add a security type case. Then it's not only heftier but heavy too.
US sales will steadily decline throughout the year.
No, they've been increasing.
Talk about taking what he said out of context. The year 2012 hasn't even started yet for the sales of any new phone.