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

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 241
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    T





    What? Sounds like you are implying that the iPhone nomenclature can't have a letter after it or that there was no 3G iPhone. Either way both exist.



    the 3G was a marketing term, marketing a faster radio. It has a number, but thats conincidental, the number does not mean anything about a generation or count.



    Therefore people who are suggesting that this is a "skipped generation" are talking through their asses.



    The iPhone 4 is also a marketing term. It came as the 4th phone by coincidence, only. If they had skipped the 3GS - and moved to a new design - the 3G would have been followed by the iPhone 4, not the 3GS. If, instead, they had an iPhone 3GS+ as the 4th phone, the 5th phone would be the iPhone 4.



    when a new design comes out it will, therefore be the iPhone 5, or possibly the 4G - if they keep numbers. Apple's marketing department are not counting, and nor should you.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 182 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Therefore people who are suggesting that this is a "skipped generation" are talking through their asses.



    Good, so you also think it's ludicrous that going to "iPhone 6" could be considered "skipping a generation".



    Quote:

    The iPhone 4 is also a marketing term. It came as the 4th phone by coincidence, only.







    No intelligent person could possibly believe that the 4th generation iPhone with an A4 chip running iOS 4 was COINCIDENTALLY called the "iPhone 4".



    Quote:

    If they had skipped the 3GS - and moved to a new design - the 3G would have been followed by the iPhone 4,



    YEAH. BECAUSE WHAT BETTER THING TO NAME YOUR THIRD GENERATION PHONE THAN IPHONE 4.



    Quote:

    not the 3GS. If, instead, they had an iPhone 3GS+ as the 4th phone, the 5th phone would be the iPhone 4.



    You're all trolls. You're all doing this on purpose. That's the only possible explanation. Are you listening to yourselves?!



    Quote:

    when a new design comes out it will, therefore be the iPhone 5



    I'm sorry, I missed the part where your 'therefore' made any sense whatsoever.



    Could you make a chart explaining this? Or at least a list.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 183 of 241
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Could you make a chart explaining this? Or at least a list.



    Lol. I actually think you are a troll. You are, pretty much, in a minority of one in the world.



    No matter how often it is explained to you that the numbers are marketing terms and not counting anything, no matter how much the universe disagrees - and absolutely no one in the wider universe, or internet, thinks that the iPhone will be an iPhone 6 ( try find an article which agrees with you), you refuse to succumb to obvious logic.



    THEY ARE NOT COUNTING RELEASES. The numbers change with a change to the outside design, or the radio chip. That's it. That's all.



    That trivial truth is recognised by everybody in the world except you, and possibly, one other poster on AI.



    Give it up.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 184 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    THEY ARE NOT COUNTING RELEASES.



    Must be nice to be able to call everything a coincidence if you don't care about the truth.



    "Oh, it was just a coincidence that hundreds of people lost their jobs when that plant closed down. It has nothing to do with the closing."



    Quote:

    The numbers change with a change to the outside design, or the radio chip. That's it. That's all.



    So explain how iPhone 5 makes sense. Do it. You've yet to. It's not the fifth redesign. It's not 5G telephony. Explain how the name makes any sense.



    Quote:

    Give it up.



    Again, no. I'd rather be the last sane man in the room than succumb to a lie.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 185 of 241
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    the 3G was a marketing term, marketing a faster radio. It has a number, but thats conincidental, the number does not mean anything about a generation or count.



    Now you're claiming that the iPhone 3G had nothing to do with a generation count despite the fact that it had 3rd generation cellular tech.





    Quote:

    Therefore people who are suggesting that this is a "skipped generation" are talking through their asses.



    You suggesting that the iPhone has skipped a generation is the first mention of it. The rational people have clearly noted the generation has been obviously sequential, but the marketing terminology has not.



    Quote:

    The iPhone 4 is also a marketing term. It came as the 4th phone by coincidence, only.



    It was the 4th generation iPhone. It's pretty fucking simple. There is no coincidence nor prior history of Apple adding a lone number after the iPhone that was not directly related to it's generation.



    Quote:

    If they had skipped the 3GS - and moved to a new design - the 3G would have been followed by the iPhone 4, not the 3GS. If, instead, they had an iPhone 3GS+ as the 4th phone, the 5th phone would be the iPhone 4.



    Let's examine what you just said...



    You're now claiming the 3ed generation iPhone would have been called the iPhone 4 because the 2nd generation was called iPhone 3G.



    Again, you're claiming that '4' follows '3G'?



    Quote:

    Apple's marketing department are not counting, and nor should you.



    iPhone 3G (Apple's marketing is counting the well known cellular radio generation).

    iPhone 3GS (Apple's market is still counting the cellular generation but are adding 'S' for speed as noted by Steve Jobs).

    iPhone 4 (Apple's marketing is counting the generation of the device. Let's recap: The iPhone 4 is the 4th generation iPhone).



    So we have determined that Apple has skipped consecutive numbers when they don't match up to generational releases yet you think it has to be iPhone 5 because of a scenario that has no precedence with iPhone nomenclature. You might want to leave a trail if you're going to venture further into Narnia.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 186 of 241
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    THEY ARE NOT COUNTING RELEASES. The numbers change with a change to the outside design, or the radio chip. That's it. That's all.



    So that means that by your reckoning if they change the case and add LTE they have no choice but to call it iPhone 4 because "That's it. That's all." Awesome¡
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 187 of 241
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    So that means that by your reckoning if they change the case and add LTE they have no choice but to call it iPhone 4 because "That's it. That's all." Awesome¡



    FFS. The idiocy continues.



    Lets do it remedially.



    1) iPhone- not a count.

    2) iPhone 3G - not a count. Named after the change of radio chip.

    3) iPhone 3GS - not a count. Added an s.

    4) iPhone 4 - change of design so a marketing change of name. Not a count.

    5) iPhone 4S - not a count.



    I cant really try any harder than this. Nobody outside two people, two lone people, on this site only think that the next generation iPhone will be called anything other than the iPhone 5 ( or possibly the 4G). The rest of the internet says 5. The rest of the internet is right, and your insane logic is wrong. Even if the counting were correct, it would be a marketing nightmare to go from 4 to 6.



    If they want to advertise the chip, it will be called the iPhone 4G. Then the next phone will be the iPhone 5, even though it is the 7th phone.



    If they keep a number system.



    Give it up. It was hilarious once, but it is tiresome now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 188 of 241
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    FFS. The idiocy continues.



    Lets do it remedially.



    1) iPhone- not a count.

    2) iPhone 3G - not a count. Named after the change of radio chip.

    3) iPhone 3GS - not a count. Added an s.

    4) iPhone 4 - change of design so a marketing change of name. Not a count.

    5) iPhone 4S - not a count.



    I cant really try any harder than this. Nobody outside two people, two lone people, on this site only think that the next generation iPhone will be called anything other than the iPhone 5 ( or possibly the 4G). The rest of the internet says 5. The rest of the internet is right, and your insane logic is wrong. Even if the counting were correct, it would be a marketing nightmare to go from 4 to 6.



    If they want to advertise the chip, it will be called the iPhone 4G. Then the next phone will be the iPhone 5, even though it is the 7th phone.



    If they keep a number system.



    Give it up. It was hilarious once, but it is tiresome now.



    So you now admit the iPhone 3G was named after the 3rd generation cellular being used. And you admit that the iPhone 4 was named because it was the 4th generation iPhone being sold.



    So how do you get iPhone 5 when their is nothing 5th generation about any of it. The iPhone will be 6th generation. The case design, if they change it, will be 4th generation*. The cellular tech, if they add LTE, will be 4th generation. iOS will be 6.0. The Apple PoP will A6.



    There is absolutely nothing 5th generation about the device the claim has to be marketed as iPhone 5. Maybe they will because they have to keep it simple for the simpletons but nothing you've stated logically defends that position.





    * Is TS correct? Do yo think the 4th gen iPhone with the A4 chip running iOS 4.0 was coincidentally called iPhone 4.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 189 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    And you admit that the iPhone 4 was named because it was the 4th generation iPhone being sold.



    Sadly, I don't see where he admitted that. He said it was marketing, which means whatever he wants it to mean. He's still on the 'coincidence' kick.



    To him, the 6th iPhone could just as easily be called "iPhone 7" as "iPhone 5", seeing as their numbering scheme is a coincidence.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 190 of 241
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    To him, the 6th iPhone could just as easily be called "iPhone 7" as "iPhone 5", seeing as their numbering scheme is a coincidence.



    Their internal numbering suggests the marketing term certainly could be anything but going from 4S to 6 doesn't look right:



    Original - iPhone1,1

    3G - iPhone1,2

    3GS - iPhone2,1

    4 - iPhone3,1

    4/CDMA - iPhone3,3

    4S - iPhone4,1



    The next internal revision will most likely be the iPhone5,1:



    5 - iPhone5,1

    6 - iPhone 5,1??



    They might try on some 5G WiMax:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G



    It's not all that important tbh but the OS version and chip version have no relation to the numbering - the iPad 2 is the second iPad with a 10" screen, 3G, an A5, running iOS 5. Nothing besides it being the second version relates to the number.



    Once you exclude iOS6 (there may not even be an iOS 6 next year) and the A6, nothing about the next device will suggest it should be called iPhone 6.



    The next iPad might not be iPad3 but iPad 2S and use the A6 chip but we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly hope the next iPhone gets a new design so it warrants a number other than 4.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 191 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Their internal numbering suggests the marketing term certainly could be anything but going from 4S to 6 doesn't look right:



    It "looks" no different than going from nothing to three. Aht-dat-dat, remember… the argument against me is one of 'public perception'. The man on the street looks at an iPhone 3G and only sees the 3.



    Quote:

    They might try on some 5G WiMax:



    How could they try something that doesn't exist beyond a few technical documentation papers and has no standardization, no chips made, and certainly no networks set up?!



    Quote:

    It's not all that important tbh but the OS version and chip version have no relation to the numbering



    All right, so why was the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4?



    Quote:

    Nothing besides it being the second version relates to the number.



    We're talking about iPhones. The iPad, the iPod, and any Macs have nothing to do with this argument.



    Quote:

    Once you exclude iOS6 (there may not even be an iOS 6 next year) and the A6, nothing about the next device will suggest it should be called iPhone 6.



    So you're just blatantly ignoring how it's the 6th iPhone. Got it. Again, why was the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4?



    Quote:

    The next iPad might not be iPad3 but iPad 2S and use the A6 chip but we'll just have to wait and see.



    So if there is an A6 chip this year (because come on, there has to be), will you concede my point?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 192 of 241
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The next internal revision will most likely be the iPhone5,1:



    5 - iPhone5,1

    6 - iPhone 5,1??



    I give you credit for finding one thing about the next iPhone that might have 5 in it but I wonder if it might not be 4,2. The 2nd generation change the casing and added 3G cellular HW and it only jumped to 1,2 from 1,1,
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 193 of 241
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    How could they try something that doesn't exist beyond a few technical documentation papers and has no standardization, no chips made, and certainly no networks set up?!



    It doesn't have to be a 3rd party standard. Apple can do something like making call reception higher by using other iPhones as repeaters. Instead of you sending data direct to a cell tower 1 mile away, you may only have to send data to the nearest iPhone half a mile away, which subsequently sends the data to the tower.



    They can do this for open wifi networks too e.g your iPhone down the street might be in range of someone's iPhone sitting in Starbucks in range of wifi so it can do a passthrough to the wifi. There would have to be strict controls to prevent significant battery drain but even if it boosted a few data requests, it would be an advantage e.g no more than 1-2 hops to the cell tower or wifi spot, no more than a certain amount shared per phone per day (up to say 10% battery life).



    They should use 4G networking too though so it becomes 4G + 1 cool feature = 5G.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    All right, so why was the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4?



    Because it was a new design so had to have a major number revision to identify it unlike the 4S and 3GS. If the next iPhone keeps the same design, there's no reason to call it either an iPhone 5 or 6.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    So you're just blatantly ignoring how it's the 6th iPhone.



    Nope, I dismissed it because the number of phone it is doesn't determine the label as the iPhone 3G (2nd) and 4S (5th) would show.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    So if there is an A6 chip this year (because come on, there has to be), will you concede my point?



    Which point? I think there will be an A6 chip but that it won't influence the naming convention in any way. I don't see much reason for them to make an iOS 6 next year.



    I can see where you're coming from with the iPhone 4 being the only single numbered phone that had an A4 running iOS 4 in a 4th version product and so a 6th version product running iOS 6 and an A6 chip would follow being the iPhone 6 but I think it would have been called the iPhone 4 solely based on the design change regardless of OS, chip and product revision to follow the numbering sequence after the 3GS.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX


    I give you credit for finding one thing about the next iPhone that might have 5 in it but I wonder if it might not be 4,2. The 2nd generation change the casing and added 3G cellular HW and it only jumped to 1,2 from 1,1,



    It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.



    I think the major revision number will refer to the chipset. The iPhone Original and 3G had almost the exact same CPU/GPU performance and RAM. The 3GS made a big jump so new major revision number. Every other one has had major internal upgrades. But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 194 of 241
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.



    That brings the argument to "it will be called iPhone 5 because the current iPhone has a '4' in the name." That's a valid argument from a purely marketing standpoint with no consideration for anything outside that very limited window. The arguments that aren't valid are calling it an iPhone 5 because it's any way the 5th generation iPhone.



    I don't think iPhone 6 is great but I think iPhone 5 is worse. Does Apple advertise "Announcing the iPhone 5 4G with iOS 6.0?" I don't think so.



    Quote:

    But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .



    That isn't how those valued are counted. It wold mean the values chronologically are 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 195 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    It doesn't have to be a 3rd party standard. Apple can do something like making call reception higher by using other iPhones as repeaters. Instead of you sending data direct to a cell tower 1 mile away, you may only have to send data to the nearest iPhone half a mile away, which subsequently sends the data to the tower.



    Would the carriers be happy with that? I certainly don't feel okay with other people hopping off of my iPhone.



    Quote:

    Because it was a new design so had to have a major number revision…



    Whoa, whoa, whoa, "had"? "Had"? According to whom? That's the shakiest argument yet.



    Quote:

    If the next iPhone keeps the same design, there's no reason to call it either an iPhone 5 or 6.



    I don't think there's a single rumor that says it will. And there's also no established name to give it if it keeps the same body a third time, but why am I even mentioning that? The iPhone 5 crowd doesn't care about established names.



    Quote:

    Nope, I dismissed it because the number of phone it is doesn't determine the label as the iPhone 3G (2nd) and 4S (5th) would show.



    SO WHAT ABOUT THE IPHONE FOUR. For the love of humanity, are you all purposely ignoring what I'm saying? This isn't 4chan. Rule 11 of the Internet doesn't apply here. You're all tiptoeing around the fact that I'm unequivocally RIGHT about why they named the iPhone 4 the iPhone 4. Why?!



    Quote:

    Which point? I think there will be an A6 chip but that it won't influence the naming convention in any way.



    Other than the iPhone 4 being partially named after its own chip, sure.



    Quote:

    I don't see much reason for them to make an iOS 6 next year.



    Other then them having released a new version of iOS every year prior, sure.



    Quote:

    I can see where you're coming from with the iPhone 4 being the only single numbered phone that had an A4 running iOS 4 in a 4th version product and so a 6th version product running iOS 6 and an A6 chip would follow being the iPhone 6…



    YES. THANK YOU.



    Quote:

    …but I think it would have been called the iPhone 4 solely based on the design change…



    NO. It was the third redesign. So it should have been called the "iPhone 3" by that logic.



    Quote:

    …to follow the numbering sequence after the 3GS.



    WHAT numbering sequence?! You've already said that the "3G" in the name "isn't a number" and "can't be construed as a number" even though these people's argument is that "people assume that 'after 4S comes 5', despite that making ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKING SENSE WHATSOEVER, and THEN you go and contradict yourself by claiming that 3GS somehow is a 'numbering sequence'?! No.



    According to half of what these people say, the iPhone 4 couldn't possibly have been called the iPhone 4. Following their logic, it should have been:



    iPhone

    iPhone 3G -this isn't a numbering sequence, it's a telephony, that's why no iPhone 2 makes sense

    iPhone 3GS -this is a numbering sequence, it has nothing to do with telephony

    iPhone 3 -after the third redesign of the case, because that's all that matters

    ————continuity break————

    iPhone 4S -this is a numbering sequence, it has nothing to do with telephony

    iPhone 5 -because 5 comes after 4, despite it being the 6th model and having nothing to do with 5G

    iPhone 5S -because that's the only thing that could ever possibly make sense, given the past

    iPhone 6 -because 6 comes after 5, despite this iPhone being the EIGHTH FREAKING MODEL.



    That's what I'm reading when I combine all this nonsense together. STOP CONTRADICTING YOURSELVES.



    Quote:

    It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.



    I'm going to go to Schrödinger's grave, dig him up, revive him, and get him to slap every single one of the iPhone 5 crowd. Are you listening to yourselves?! 3G can't simultaneously stand for telephony and generation of device.



    Quote:

    I think the major revision number will refer to the chipset.



    So it should be iPhone 4G to you, not iPhone 5.



    Quote:

    The 3GS made a big jump so new major revision number.



    Other than the fact that 3G was already a "major revision """"""number"""""".



    Quote:

    But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .



    I feel like I'm talking to the trolls here. I want to send PMs to everyone sane on this forum to have them come here and set people straight.



    I'm not done. I'm just taking a break for now. You haven't won, I just feel it prudent to step away and scream at some squirrels. At least they don't count their nuts twice and pretend they have fewer than they do.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 196 of 241
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I'm going to go to Heisenberg's grave, dig him up, revive him, and get him to slap every single one of the iPhone 5 crowd. Are you listening to yourselves?! 3G can't simultaneously stand for telephony and generation of device.



    I feel like I'm talking to the trolls here. I want to send PMs to everyone sane on this forum to have them come here and set people straight.



    I'm not done. I'm just taking a break for now. You haven't won, I just feel it prudent to step away and scream at some squirrels. At least they don't count their nuts twice and pretend they have fewer than they do.



    Words (or numbers for that matter) cannot describe how I value the posts in this thread! I thank you so much for the logic, the reasoned and founded statements, arguments, yes, and all the laughs. It really has become the most memorable post I have read. Ever, on any site.



    Thanks TS! And Solipsims of course!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 197 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


    Words (or numbers for that matter) cannot describe how I value the posts in this thread!



    This is a pretty dang good thread, yeah.



    EDIT: Oh, gosh, I screwed that up. In my heightened emotional state, I confused Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Great.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 198 of 241
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    ...I confused Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Great.



    Don't sweat it; nobody will notice the difference, bit like numbers.



    Maybe people will opt for an entirely new name, so it doesn't matter if you are holding it wrong: iPhone69



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 199 of 241
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I'm really tired of the guys that write articles claiming that iPhone 4s is the same design as the 4. It is just plain ignorance folks and frankly Apple insider can do better. The phone has all of the following new: antenna, battery, processor, base band chips, GPS system, effectively all new electronics.



    As to a flat panel, how much innovation does one expect there? A little bigger a little smaller, a little brighter or a little darker, all nice to contemplate but they are not something that is as compelling as a the other new capabilities.



    As to iPhone 5 sorry guys but don't get wound up in the hype, it is a phone that sits in your pocket next to your best friend. Apple has already done the major moves to deliver innovation in this field, the rest is incremental improvements. And yes a larger screen is an incremental improvement.



    Really I don't understand why so many get so wrapped up in their cell phones. It is nothing more than a tool and frankly iPad beats it hands down in many ways. Gotta believe many have something missing in their personal life.





    People equate design to the exterior. Obviously, that misses a large portion of the picture. The interior has been significantly redesigned to accommodate the revised hardware. With that said, a larger screen might be incremental, but the iPhone is the smallest phone of its type. It's screen is beautiful, but it looks tiny compared to even 4 inch models.



    I would love to see Apple increase the screen size without dramatically increasing the overall size of the phone. This likely would be possible by bringing the screen out to the edge, and possibly rethinking the home button (either its placement or by removing it entirely).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 200 of 241
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    ?possibly rethinking the home button (either its placement or by removing it entirely).



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



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



    I don't know. I don't feel good about changing its purpose like that, but we really don't need a Home Button anymore for operation.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.