That is a valid point. If you've got a Mac it's just so much easier to keep buying the iPhone (whatever it looks like) to stay within the Apple ecosystem for things like email synced across all your devices, iCloud, access to iTunes Apps, etc. I'm sure you could do all this with an Android phone but it's bound to be more difficult. So I guess in that sense maybe they don't have to innovate - just keep shoveling the same stuff to a willing audience. Doesn't stop me looking rather enviously at some of the great new designs the other smartphone manufacturers are coming up with though. Sigh.
What are these great designs and what makes them great? IMO the Galaxy S III and it's fake wood grain plastic is ugly. One X and Lumia are nice enough but nothing revolutionary. I guess these days bigger screen equates to better design. I don't get it.
I'm pretty sure the current model only uses two antenna bands at the top and bottom. One is for cell, the other is for WiFi, bluetooth, and GPS. This would be the same.
As far as I understand (all educated guesswork only), the pieces that make the "unibody" back are assembled together before the final milling is done. So that's why some people are calling it "unibody" and why I put it in quotes because like you, I don't really see that as being "unibody."
The way I see it however, the "unibody" construction makes it easier to manufacture in that the "unibody" back part arrives at the assembly factory and all the various inside bits are securely screwed into it. Then the front plate is attached in the same manner as the back plate was attached on previous models (annular steel ring), and secured with the two little screws at the bottom of the device.
The chief wins of this design over the previous one would be faster, more efficient and more accurate assembly and greater resistance to breakage. It's going to be almost impossible to break the glass on the back now for instance. It should give them more volume inside the phone as well.
I could be completely wrong of course, but I have been following very closely and this seems like the most reasonable explanation of why they are using this design if they in fact do end up using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomasxp
You are mostly correct. Just the "the chief wins of..." is mostly an educated guess. But since the pics are fake, that educated guess does not really comes in to play, for now at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The original iPhone 4 GSM had the WiFi/BT antenna externally, but the iPhone 4 CDMA and iPhone 4S moved the WiFi/T antenna internally, like other phones. It's funny how the external antenna was deemed such a failure by certain posters and then when they moved it inside it wasn't the one those certain posters ever claimed was a problem.
SolipsismX is right. The top and bottom bands are both for the cellular signal. IPhone 4S switches between them to enhance reception (ostensibly as a fix to the "death grip"). So I come back to my question, where is the antenna for WiFi/BT in this allegedly real prototype? Is it still internal and the glass "window" in the back is enough for strong reception?
There is some slight 'cloning' evidence on the 'inside' photo - however the biggest giveaway is on the shadows. Mostly noticeable on the photo with the cover over-top the inside (look at the drop shadow, the lighting doesn't match up).
Looks like someone cloned it to make it look stretched.
Agreed, iSheep buy anything with Apple's name on it and Apple knows it. If this phone proves true, it proves Apple knows its customers. Why innovate, they buy anything.
That is really ignorant to write of even think of.
Apple is conservative with its design. Look how the MacBook/Mac Pro design changed overTime?
That is consistency.
Stupid people accuse Apple of being all about Design, they think design is all about the look, even if Apple design are the most consistent that there is.
DeSign is the result from drawing and engineering.
You're talking about the company (and the man) who forsook the floppy, the CD, the hard drive before most other companies? The company that introduced Retina Display on laptops without an apparent demand? That's the company that believes change is a bad thing?
The iMac design hasn't changed for the past 5 years. The MBP hasn't changed for the past 4 years and hasn't changed that much for the past 11 years. The floppy, CD, retina display are internal changes. They're not design changes which is what I was talking about. Gone are the days when Apple had radical new designs every few years like the colour iMac, the Mac Cube, iMac Sunflower. Now it the same design year after year.
So I come back to my question, where is the antenna for WiFi/BT in this allegedly real prototype? Is it still internal and the glass "window" in the back is enough for strong reception?
According to AnandTech the change in how they made the WiFi antenna made it slightly better despite the flexboard being significantly smaller than the previous external design. Judging by the break in the material on the back it would appear that at least part of the back isn't an RF reflecting material which tells me that there wouldn't be a problem for them to continue using an internal antenna design with the next model.
The iMac design hasn't changed for the past 5 years. The MBP hasn't changed for the past 4 years and hasn't changed that much for the past 11 years. The floppy, CD, retina display are internal changes. They're not design changes which is what I was talking about. Gone are the days when Apple had radical new designs every few years like the colour iMac, the Mac Cube, iMac Sunflower. Now it the same design year after year.
Consistency it IS what is called.
Look at Porsche, is there a need to screw that?
Remember how Apple often look at European car manufacturers for influence?
Less sophisticate people hate apple for its consistent approach to design.
Remember how Apple often look at European car manufacturers for influence?
Less sophisticate people hate apple for its consistent approach to design.
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Really!
Porsche makes work of art. Do i need to have a Picasso in order to recognize his genius and multitude of influences ( nevertheless he maintained his own ?voice? )?
: Looks like you are not only an island ( Apple and people who love ART are not ) but also an ostrich.
Denial ... Get it... "De Nile" is a river in Egypt. Further to which, he is saying that many people are in denial that Apple is losing a bit of the "Touch of Steve".
I agree, though not so vehemently, that this iPhone 5, I don't know... Could be the first time I don't get the latest iPhone. So far I've resisted getting Mountain Lion... just doesn't seem "it". As mentioned I also returned the MacBook Pro Retina... didn't seem like it was actually ready for prime time.
Porsche makes work of art. Do i need to have a Picasso in order to recognize his genius and multitude of influences ( nevertheless he maintained his own ?voice? )? : Looks like you are not only an island ( Apple and people who love ART are not ) but also an ostrich.
I wasn't aware that an ostrich will stick its head up its own ass.
Reminds me of the Cool Wall on Top Gear (sorry you probably won't get the reference outside the UK). The Porsche is seriously uncool. They should look towards the new MIni for a cool car influence. The Porsche is Pam Anderson - old, tarty and vulger but you'd probably still go for a ride given the chance. The Mini is Emma Watson - young, hip, trendy and very desirable.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I'm pretty sure the current model only uses two antenna bands at the top and bottom. One is for cell, the other is for WiFi, bluetooth, and GPS. This would be the same.
As far as I understand (all educated guesswork only), the pieces that make the "unibody" back are assembled together before the final milling is done. So that's why some people are calling it "unibody" and why I put it in quotes because like you, I don't really see that as being "unibody."
The way I see it however, the "unibody" construction makes it easier to manufacture in that the "unibody" back part arrives at the assembly factory and all the various inside bits are securely screwed into it. Then the front plate is attached in the same manner as the back plate was attached on previous models (annular steel ring), and secured with the two little screws at the bottom of the device.
The chief wins of this design over the previous one would be faster, more efficient and more accurate assembly and greater resistance to breakage. It's going to be almost impossible to break the glass on the back now for instance. It should give them more volume inside the phone as well.
I could be completely wrong of course, but I have been following very closely and this seems like the most reasonable explanation of why they are using this design if they in fact do end up using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomasxp
You are mostly correct. Just the "the chief wins of..." is mostly an educated guess. But since the pics are fake, that educated guess does not really comes in to play, for now at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The original iPhone 4 GSM had the WiFi/BT antenna externally, but the iPhone 4 CDMA and iPhone 4S moved the WiFi/T antenna internally, like other phones. It's funny how the external antenna was deemed such a failure by certain posters and then when they moved it inside it wasn't the one those certain posters ever claimed was a problem.
SolipsismX is right. The top and bottom bands are both for the cellular signal. IPhone 4S switches between them to enhance reception (ostensibly as a fix to the "death grip"). So I come back to my question, where is the antenna for WiFi/BT in this allegedly real prototype? Is it still internal and the glass "window" in the back is enough for strong reception?
Obvious fake to any photoshop pro.
There is some slight 'cloning' evidence on the 'inside' photo - however the biggest giveaway is on the shadows. Mostly noticeable on the photo with the cover over-top the inside (look at the drop shadow, the lighting doesn't match up).
Looks like someone cloned it to make it look stretched.
cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Agreed, iSheep buy anything with Apple's name on it and Apple knows it. If this phone proves true, it proves Apple knows its customers. Why innovate, they buy anything.
That is really ignorant to write of even think of.
Apple is conservative with its design. Look how the MacBook/Mac Pro design changed overTime?
That is consistency.
Stupid people accuse Apple of being all about Design, they think design is all about the look, even if Apple design are the most consistent that there is.
DeSign is the result from drawing and engineering.
It is better to LOVE than to hate.
Anytime!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
You're talking about the company (and the man) who forsook the floppy, the CD, the hard drive before most other companies? The company that introduced Retina Display on laptops without an apparent demand? That's the company that believes change is a bad thing?
The iMac design hasn't changed for the past 5 years. The MBP hasn't changed for the past 4 years and hasn't changed that much for the past 11 years. The floppy, CD, retina display are internal changes. They're not design changes which is what I was talking about. Gone are the days when Apple had radical new designs every few years like the colour iMac, the Mac Cube, iMac Sunflower. Now it the same design year after year.
According to AnandTech the change in how they made the WiFi antenna made it slightly better despite the flexboard being significantly smaller than the previous external design. Judging by the break in the material on the back it would appear that at least part of the back isn't an RF reflecting material which tells me that there wouldn't be a problem for them to continue using an internal antenna design with the next model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
If you are wondering, de-Nile is a river in Egypt.
Am I the only one who cannot make sense of this?
Via a 'slow boat', I'm thinking...
/
/
/
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA
Am I the only one who cannot make sense of this?
His skills are lacking. Give him a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
The iMac design hasn't changed for the past 5 years. The MBP hasn't changed for the past 4 years and hasn't changed that much for the past 11 years. The floppy, CD, retina display are internal changes. They're not design changes which is what I was talking about. Gone are the days when Apple had radical new designs every few years like the colour iMac, the Mac Cube, iMac Sunflower. Now it the same design year after year.
Consistency it IS what is called.
Look at Porsche, is there a need to screw that?
Remember how Apple often look at European car manufacturers for influence?
Less sophisticate people hate apple for its consistent approach to design.
Originally Posted by Mode
Obvious fake to any photoshop pro.
YES! LET'S GET IT ON!
Conclusion: not done in Photoshop at all, made of real, physical parts of unverified authenticity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
Remember how Apple often look at European car manufacturers for influence?
Less sophisticate people hate apple for its consistent approach to design.
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Richard Hammond is gonna be mad!
Ironical...
I do like it, very much, and hope it's real. I'm the fanboy now.
Lol at people calling this a photoshop. Photoshop of what? A samsung transformed into an iphone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Since when? I thought Apple was omnipotent without influence from outside designs. In harmony with itself and faithful to one infinite design ethos. Simple, elegant and boring.
As for Porsche - the only people I know who drive them are fat, middle-aged business men who think it makes them look younger and more attractive when actually it just makes them look like a prick.
Really!
Porsche makes work of art. Do i need to have a Picasso in order to recognize his genius and multitude of influences ( nevertheless he maintained his own ?voice? )?
Denial ... Get it... "De Nile" is a river in Egypt. Further to which, he is saying that many people are in denial that Apple is losing a bit of the "Touch of Steve".
I agree, though not so vehemently, that this iPhone 5, I don't know... Could be the first time I don't get the latest iPhone. So far I've resisted getting Mountain Lion... just doesn't seem "it". As mentioned I also returned the MacBook Pro Retina... didn't seem like it was actually ready for prime time.
I wasn't aware that an ostrich will stick its head up its own ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA
Richard Hammond is gonna be mad!
Reminds me of the Cool Wall on Top Gear (sorry you probably won't get the reference outside the UK). The Porsche is seriously uncool. They should look towards the new MIni for a cool car influence. The Porsche is Pam Anderson - old, tarty and vulger but you'd probably still go for a ride given the chance. The Mini is Emma Watson - young, hip, trendy and very desirable.