Apple's new iPhone expected to be 18% thinner than iPhone 4S

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
A significant redesign of Apple's iPhone due this September is not only expected to yield a display with with roughly 30 percent more real estate but an overall design that's nearly one fifth thinner than the current iPhone 4S.

Taiwanese Apple rumor site Apple.pro has published scans of an a article that originally ran in the paper edition of the Chinese-language Apple Daily, in which the publication took measurements of one of the many leaked enclosures believed to represent genuine pre-production parts for the so-called iPhone 5.

Measuring 58.47mm wide, 123.83mm long and 7.6mm thick, the enclosure is approximately 18% thinner than the 9.3mm thick iPhone 4S. It's believed that Apple has been able to achieve the reduction via a series of modifications, including:

an elongation of the design by 8.63mm (~7.5%) to accommodate a 4-inch screen;
relocation of the headphone jack to the base of the unit;
inclusion of a new nano-SIM tray comprising 40% less space than the current Micro-SIM tray in the iPhone 4S;
a more compact MagSafe-style Dock connector with 8 or 9 pins as opposed to the 30-pin Dock connector shipping on current devices; and
a general reduction in the size of several internal components due to broader industry advancements.

The changes are expected to deliver the thinnest iPhone yet, though Apple will still fall short of reclaiming the title of the world's thinnest smartphone it achieved with the inaugural iPhone back in 2007. Though the uniformity of several rival smartphones has made pin-pointing the thinnest smartphone a topic of debate, Chinese manufacturer Oppo is currently believed to hold the title with its 6.65mm thick Oppo Finder.


A so-called iPhone 5 shell sitting atop an iPhone 4S | Source: SharpDaily


It should be noted that the dimensions for the new iPhone reported by Apple Daily's aren't entirely new, and instead serve as further support of measurements that originally surfaced in June from a set of apparently leaked Apple schematics.


Leaked schematics believed to represent Apple's next iPhone


Apple is expected to introduce its new iPhone on September 12th during a media event in California.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 110
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member


    Ugh, I hope not!  Keep the thickness, and give me 50% more battery life!

  • Reply 2 of 110
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member


    the new iphone looks so badassly radical... i did not think that apple had the balls to do it.. it's like going from an merc class E to a lambo.. oh forget it. it's like going from a class E to a S65AMG... will they put that awesome power efficient and fast 32nm a5 or delay it and go the crazy route of a6 (based on A15) with the new badass graphic chip?

  • Reply 3 of 110
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I'm loving this design, though much prefer the dark metal band on the rumoured models.

    cameronj wrote: »
    Ugh, I hope not!  Keep the thickness, and give me 50% more battery life!

    I can't argue with the thickness or battery life as the first isn't too thick and the battery could always be better but I would be weight would be the biggest issue with going with a 50% larger battery. I'd argue that it would then be too heavy to be comfortable. (Note: I know you said battery life, not battery size, but without better tech it's currently one and the same.)

    From the reduction of so many other components and the change in the front and back paneling it's possible they could have increased the battery capacity a bit. i doubt it's by much if they did, but it still could be possible to get better battery life from even the same size or smaller battery with the new tech. The LTE chip should be (hopefully) using the 28nm lithography and at least be more power efficient than the iPhone 3G on 3G when it arrived in 2008.


    PS: I'm most concerned with how Apple will do LTE operating bands for the rest of the world. It's one thing to focus on the US for the iPad but a smartphone is different. While LTE uses the same baseband they do need different HW for different markets (read: countries) for the operating bands. Maybe Qualcomm was able to make them a baseband that allowed for a half-dozen or more operating bands but I doubt it. I'm thinking we'll see LTE iPhones that are now regionalized because of the LTE bands.
  • Reply 4 of 110
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 140member


    I hope they do get better battery life out of it, at least some kind of a bitter battery in there with LTE it will be an issue.

  • Reply 5 of 110
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    raptoroo7 wrote: »
    I hope they do get better battery life out of it, at least some kind of a bitter battery in there with LTE it will be an issue.

    That seems guaranteed with these 3rd gen LTE chips. I'll be shocked it they are still using gen 2 tech in this next iPhone.
  • Reply 6 of 110


    Move over Samsung, we have a new winner in the copycat sweepstakes!  OPPO!

  • Reply 7 of 110
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member


    LOVE the design. And As long as everything works, I'm all in for a thinner phone.

  • Reply 8 of 110
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    That seems guaranteed with these 3rd gen LTE chips. I'll be shocked it they are still using gen 2 tech in this next iPhone.


    the delay in the adoption of LTE on the iphone wasn't due to the fact that the new qualcomm chip was much smaller, power efficient and a "world chip"?

  • Reply 9 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm loving this design, though much prefer the dark metal band on the rumoured models.

    I can't argue with the thickness or battery life as the first isn't too thick and the battery could always be better but I would be weight would be the biggest issue with going with a 50% larger battery. I'd argue that it would then be too heavy to be comfortable. (Note: I know you said battery life, not battery size, but without better tech it's currently one and the same.)

    From the reduction of so many other components and the change in the front and back paneling it's possible they could have increased the battery capacity a bit. i doubt it's by much if they did, but it still could be possible to get better battery life from even the same size or smaller battery with the new tech. The LTE chip should be (hopefully) using the 28nm lithography and at least be more power efficient than the iPhone 3G on 3G when it arrived in 2008.

    PS: I'm most concerned with how Apple will do LTE operating bands for the rest of the world. It's one thing to focus on the US for the iPad but a smartphone is different. While LTE uses the same baseband they do need different HW for different markets (read: countries) for the operating bands. Maybe Qualcomm was able to make them a baseband that allowed for a half-dozen or more operating bands but I doubt it. I'm thinking we'll see LTE iPhones that are now regionalized because of the LTE bands.


     


    Remember when Apple was arguing for a software SIM (again to make the phone more interoperable [read: firmware push]).  Maybe qualcomm can do the same (a firmware frequency 'tuner').


     


     


    as for battery  volume.


     


    Old 4s gross volume= 62642.4 cu. mm


    new iPhone gross volume  = 55026.6


    net reduction = 7615  (12.2% decrease)


     


    This is significant.  Unless all the other components (including the 'exoskeleton') shrunk by more than 12%, battery space will be smaller.


     


    But in the end, the weight is the most important thing after dimensions.  more battery = heavier.  so here's to chip power consumption efficiency!!!!

  • Reply 10 of 110
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


     


    Remember when Apple was arguing for a software SIM (again to make the phone more interoperable [read: firmware push]).  Maybe qualcomm can do the same (a firmware frequency 'tuner').


     


     


    as for battery  volume.


     


    Old 4s gross volume= 62642.4 cu. mm


    new iPhone gross volume  = 55026.6


    net reduction = 7615  (12.2% decrease)


     


    This is significant.  Unless all the other components (including the 'exoskeleton') shrunk by more than 12%, battery space will be smaller.


     


    But in the end, the weight is the most important thing after dimensions.  more battery = heavier.  so here's to chip power consumption efficiency!!!!



    And that's where the 32nm A5 on the ipad 2 runs the show, right? the a5x is too big and power hungry and it is too soon for the rumoured a6, so that's the only option?

  • Reply 11 of 110
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member


    Forget "thinner" just for the sake of some advertising campaign proclaiming thinnest. Back in 2007 being the thinnest was a claim due to the bloated nature of everything else on the market that came anywhere close to having a similar feature set. There is a point at which thin is too thin - think Miley Cyrus, Lyndsey Lohan, etc. Focus on "Best" and if that means it is 0.1 mm thicker than some other product so be it. 


     
  • Reply 12 of 110
    cameronj wrote: »
    Ugh, I hope not!  Keep the thickness, and give me 50% more battery life!

    YES!
  • Reply 13 of 110
    inklinginkling Posts: 768member


    Forget the thin. Give this beast more battery life--or as an alternative offer an EL version that thicker and has a longer useful time.


     


    Apple needs to make their gadgets for people that actually work for a living. Not just those wanting to make silly fashion statements. Thin makes about as much sense as diamond encrusted.

  • Reply 14 of 110
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    lilgto64 wrote: »
    Forget "thinner" just for the sake of some advertising campaign proclaiming thinnest. Back in 2007 being the thinnest was a claim due to the bloated nature of everything else on the market that came anywhere close to having a similar feature set. There is a point at which thin is too thin - think Miley Cyrus, Lyndsey Lohan, etc. Focus on "Best" and if that means it is 0.1 mm thicker than some other product so be it. 
    <div id="user_myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

    ...a bit off topic but... Miley cyrus and "Lyndsey" Lohan are NOT to thin... they are the perfect weight... (If you watch TMZ you would have noticed that they are not too thin...)
    if anything they look like every (average) teenagers (weight) in the malll...
  • Reply 15 of 110
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

    …offer an EL version that thicker and has a longer useful time.


     


    What do you think this is, Dell?

  • Reply 16 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm loving this design, though much prefer the dark metal band on the rumoured models.

    ...


     


    I prefer the bright silver and white to the dark metal and black but then that's why they make two versions every year I guess.  :-)


     


    The thing that worries me the most about the next iPhone is really that nano SIM.  There will be a massive changeover from micro to nano SIMS and if we believe the reports probably in less than a months time.  I see almost no indications from the carriers as to what their policy is going to be on SIM exchanges in my country or any other.  I've heard reports of some European carriers "stockpiling" nano SIMs but no clear indication in the USA or Canada that any of the carriers are even thinking about this let alone planning for it.  


     


    On another note, I do think it's a bit juvenile the way this article uses percentages instead of real measurements to make things sound like they are radically different in size when in fact we are really just talking about a millimetre here and there.  In an argument (or an article) about the increase in internal volume, it would make more sense for someone to actually calculate what the difference in internal volumes is between the two models than it would to talk about "40% savings" on the already incredibly tiny SIM tray.  

  • Reply 17 of 110


    I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking Apple products are thin enough already; but Apple seems obsessed with thinning everything. The new 15" MPB with Retina is sweet but it's apparently nearly impossible to repair. I've saved myself (and some friends) thousands of dollars over the years repairing Macs. It used to be easy -- I fear those days are nearly gone.

  • Reply 18 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by haar View Post





    ...a bit off topic but... Miley cyrus and "Lyndsey" Lohan are NOT to thin... they are the perfect weight... (If you watch TMZ you would have noticed that they are not too thin...)

    if anything they look like every (average) teenagers (weight) in the malll...


     


    I think Miley Cyrus is way too thin.  On the other hand I think she is a talentless slut who's only claim to fame is being the daughter of a one-hit-wonder Country & Western singer who is similarly talentless.  So on average ... who cares?  

  • Reply 19 of 110
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    the delay in the adoption of LTE on the iphone wasn't due to the fact that the new qualcomm chip was much smaller, power efficient and a "world chip"?

    1) Yeah, that's what I mean by 3rd generation LTE. All previous LTE chips from Qualcomm have been 45nm.

    2) World mode only refers to what the baseband can handle in terms of CMDA/CDMA2000 and GSM/3GSM. What the unbefitting term doesn't include is that the baseband is limited to the number of operating bands that can be included on the HW. Now you can shuffle these around at will but you are still limited in the total number per device. While the world is finally moving to a most homogenized network with LTE (and Qualcomm's chips will support China's homegrown LTE variant) the world has also moved to use many, many more operating bands. This will be a logistics issue that Apple doesn't like to deal with when it comes to their HW releases unless TheOtherGeoff's comment (below) comes to fruition.

    Remember when Apple was arguing for a software SIM (again to make the phone more interoperable [read: firmware push]).  Maybe qualcomm can do the same (a firmware frequency 'tuner').

    That would be awesome! However, if that comes out for this next iPhone I might hold off on my purchase until it's proven to work well because that is such a radical change in the way we use these devices. It does seem like it should be possible. If it's not, I hope someone can describe why the RF amplified can't use varying frequencies with accuracy.
    as for battery  volume.

    Old 4s gross volume= 62642.4 cu. mm
    new iPhone gross volume  = 55026.6
    net reduction = 7615  (12.2% decrease)

    This is significant.  Unless all the other components (including the 'exoskeleton') shrunk by more than 12%, battery space will be smaller.

    But in the end, the weight is the most important thing after dimensions.  more battery = heavier.  so here's to chip power consumption efficiency!!!!

    I haven't seen any specs on the rumoured battery. How did you get a 12.2% decrease in the battery size for the new iPhone?

    And that's where the 32nm A5 on the ipad 2 runs the show, right? the a5x is too big and power hungry and it is too soon for the rumoured a6, so that's the only option?

    I'd be surprised if they didn't have 32nm in the next iPhone but I'd wager it's called the A6 and be based off the A15. I'd also wager it's a dual-core chip in both the CPU and GP as it doesn't need the quad-core GPU and the only A15-based on the market I've seen are dual-core.
  • Reply 20 of 110
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    kimys1022 wrote: »
     But I think it should be a little more different than this... there should be a big change every two generations.

    Companies that are serious about design do not think this way. Only if function can be improved should design change. Good design is about the way it works, or words to that effect—Steve Jobs.

    The first VW Beetle was basically the same from 1939 to sometime in the 90s. The engineers of the company at that time were patient and observant, not style-conscious. They sold more of that car than any other in history.

    Edit: And if they make it thinner, it's because it fits the hand better, or goes in and out of pocket better, not because it's a fashion statement.
Sign In or Register to comment.