'iPad 5' rumored to debut in Oct. with mini-like design, 'iPhone 5S' & plastic iPhone also coming [u

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 171

    ``Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I don't know about that prediction chart.


     


    Does it makes sense for Apple to release basically everything in Q3? I mean, it's not like we're likely to run into any supply or production issues right? Because that certainly hasn't happened before. Just for the sake of conversation, let's say that the chart is real.


     


    So basically, there aint crap happening in Q1 and Q2. And when Q3 comes, everything will get updates, and Apple won't be selling as much as they can, because supply will be constrained and production not fully ramped up. So what is there to look forward to then, from an investor's point of view? I can already see the headlines that I'll be reading in the coming months and for 2013.



     


    They could limit a entry iPhone to China Mobile radio frequencies.


     


    Possible New Products:



    • iPad Mini Retina



    • Hires Touch Screen (stylus) iMac or Large Tablet


    • Airport with 802.11ac


    • There should be a new Mac Pro -- possibly modular & Thunderbolt 2


    • Home Server (ARM)


    • Revised AppleTV -- crossload apps from Home Server, iPhone, iPad and Mac.


     


    I still think that Apple will find a way to make the iPad Mini an inexpensive, convenient and acceptable iPhone substitute -- for emerging countries, and people that need a phone, but don't make a lot of phone calls.


     


    Possibly this could be engineered so the iPad Mini communicated via Siri and BT with something that contains a few buttons, a speaker and a mic... something inexpensive. small lightweight... something that looks like this:


     



     


    Then you could keep your iPad Mini in purse, pack or pocket while making or receiving those infrequent, but pesky, phone calls.


     


    Edit:  Oddly, the AppleTV remote is longer than the iPhone 4S and about the same length as the iPhone 5.

  • Reply 62 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    They could limit a entry iPhone to China Mobile radio frequencies.


     


    Possible New Products:



    • iPad Mini Retina



    • Hires Touch Screen (stylus) iMac or Large Tablet


    • Airport with 802.11ac


    • There should be a new Mac Pro -- possibly modular & Thunderbolt 2


    • Home Server (ARM)


    • Revised AppleTV -- crossload apps from Home Server, iPhone, iPad and Mac.


     


    I still think that Apple will find a way to make the iPad Mini an inexpensive, convenient and acceptable iPhone substitute -- for emerging countries, and people that need a phone, but don't make a lot of phone calls.


     


    Possibly this could be engineered so the iPad Mini communicated via Siri and BT with something that contains a few buttons, a speaker and a mic... something inexpensive. small lightweight... something that looks like this:


     



     


    Then you could keep your iPad Mini in purse, pack or pocket while making or receiving those infrequent, but pesky, phone calls.


     


    Edit:  Oddly, the AppleTV remote is longer than the iPhone 4S and about the same length as the iPhone 5.





     Or a bluetooth headset can turn a mini into a phone if it has the right phone circuitry.  While people can internet on the mini, and talk on the headset.

  • Reply 63 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    They could limit a entry iPhone to China Mobile radio frequencies.


     


    Possible New Products:



    • iPad Mini Retina



    • Hires Touch Screen (stylus) iMac or Large Tablet


    • Airport with 802.11ac


    • There should be a new Mac Pro -- possibly modular & Thunderbolt 2


    • Home Server (ARM)


    • Revised AppleTV -- crossload apps from Home Server, iPhone, iPad and Mac.


     


    I still think that Apple will find a way to make the iPad Mini an inexpensive, convenient and acceptable iPhone substitute -- for emerging countries, and people that need a phone, but don't make a lot of phone calls.


     


    Possibly this could be engineered so the iPad Mini communicated via Siri and BT with something that contains a few buttons, a speaker and a mic... something inexpensive. small lightweight... something that looks like this:


     



     


    Then you could keep your iPad Mini in purse, pack or pocket while making or receiving those infrequent, but pesky, phone calls.


     


    Edit:  Oddly, the AppleTV remote is longer than the iPhone 4S and about the same length as the iPhone 5.





     Or a bluetooth headset can turn a mini into a phone if it has the right phone circuitry.  While people can internet on the mini, and talk on the headset.



     


    Ohhhh Yeah!  It's not an either/or... Wear the headset when it's convenient -- like surf/navigate/text/FaceTime/compute/play/drive and talk -- and use the "remote" when you just want to answer or call.   You would have the same security and privacy with either.

  • Reply 64 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Yeah, BS all around on this one.



     


    I could see it being real in the context of being a project to investigate the possibilities of such a device, but I sure hope they don't pull the trigger and actually start to sell it.  


    Just put a damn phone in the iPad already is my advice, or actually put some f*cking work into "transforming the industry" and stopping the stranglehold the cell companies have over us all.  Apple gets major kudos for everyone for doing this but in fact they haven't actually done it at all (transform the industry).  They've caved in to the cell companies on almost every front. 


     


    It's not only still the same old expensive shell game, it's worse, because the cell companies are all making massively more money, and their businesses are all twice as profitable on unit sales and on contract sales, yet the contract prices are the same as they were when only one person out of a hundred thousand customers needed a data contract.  This is obvious gouging at best.  



     


    +++ QFT

  • Reply 65 of 171


    Originally Posted by lghulm View Post

    No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.


    I specifically said that it needed to be new!



     


    And yet your proposal isn't. So forgive me if your idea is nonsense.





    Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.



     


    There goes your credibility. Graphics cards show up in products sold to the general public. And when you keep selling the same thing but with a new name and new housing every year, calling it "new", people don't buy it. Both figuratively and literally.





    To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.



     


    Common sense. Which is why your idea is foolish; a new case with the same hardware doesn't move units.





    BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.



     


    Apologies. But this assumed new iPhone wouldn't be "mini".





    My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.


     


    The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.



    Okay. ????






    When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away…



     


    And so, via this claim, nothing at all matters except a new case design. They'll buy anything as long as it looks different. That your argument? Because we've been over that argument.






    …I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking…



     


    So why didn't they give the iPhone 4S a brand new case? Why didn't they, as was rumored, take the iPhone 4 internals, put them in the 3GS case, and call it "cheap" or "new" or whatever, dropping the iPhone 4's original design? Why isn't the iPhone 5 a radical departure from the iPhones 4/S? 

  • Reply 66 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    They could limit a entry iPhone to China Mobile radio frequencies.


     


    Possible New Products:



    • iPad Mini Retina



    • Hires Touch Screen (stylus) iMac or Large Tablet


    • Airport with 802.11ac


    • There should be a new Mac Pro -- possibly modular & Thunderbolt 2


    • Home Server (ARM)


    • Revised AppleTV -- crossload apps from Home Server, iPhone, iPad and Mac.


     


    I still think that Apple will find a way to make the iPad Mini an inexpensive, convenient and acceptable iPhone substitute -- for emerging countries, and people that need a phone, but don't make a lot of phone calls.


     


    Possibly this could be engineered so the iPad Mini communicated via Siri and BT with something that contains a few buttons, a speaker and a mic... something inexpensive. small lightweight... something that looks like this:


     



     


    Then you could keep your iPad Mini in purse, pack or pocket while making or receiving those infrequent, but pesky, phone calls.


     


    Edit:  Oddly, the AppleTV remote is longer than the iPhone 4S and about the same length as the iPhone 5.



     


     


    Yes, a combadge, that's what I said !

  • Reply 67 of 171
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post




     Or a bluetooth headset can turn a mini into a phone if it has the right phone circuitry.  While people can internet on the mini, and talk on the headset.



    This won't work. I have an iPad 3 and a iPad mini, and also an iPhone. I have a bluetooth headset and could use my iPad for making calls with Skype for example if I so chose, but both it and the iPad Mini are simply too large to grab and carry with me when I go out to dinner, shopping, or anywhere else. I doubt I am alone in thinking they are just too large to use as your primary phone. 


     


    That is not a viable solution in my opinion. I think the Samsung Note II has reached the maximum size in terms of what people want to tote with them outside their house. Adding telephony to the iPad line just doesn't pass the smell test at least not as a primary device. This is coming from a guy who would love for Apple to make a larger iPhone. I just think that something close to 4.8" would fill that niche far better than any iPad. 

  • Reply 68 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ChuckD View Post



    Eliminating the side bezel sounds like a stupid idea driven primarily by the 'need' to market the device as ultra-thin.



    Narrow bezels only make sense for the iPad mini, which is narrow enough you can actually grasp its back with one hand.

     


     


    I don't agree that thin[ner] bezels are a "stupid idea driven by the 'need' to market the device as ultra-thin".


     


    Consider that a large percentage of iPads are in a case.  Apple has already implemented technology in the iPad Mini that recognizes and ignores casual touches on the margins of the display with narrow bezels.

  • Reply 69 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post




    There are many ways to do that: 1) it can be a different brand name phone, say "pineapple".  The Tifanny people will pays a higher price for the personal statement whereas the walmart people can get the phone with similar functionalities; 2) network locked - China Mobile has a complete different network than the rest of world; 3) language locked - a chinese only phone.



    I disagree. It really runs the risk of significant future fragmentation. Next you know, ATT in the US, Orange in the UK, Vodaphone in India, DoCoMo in Japan, etc etc will want their own 'pineapples.' It'll end up being an Android-like mess with iOS that caters to the lowest common denominator. Average costs will be higher (and quality will be lower) because you have too many suppliers to keep track of, not producing in high enough volumes to achieve the massive scale economies that contribute to Apple's margins. Finally, it completely dilutes Apple's brand.


     


    Apple should stick to its core strategy, one that has made it the incredible company that it is. Stock price be damned in the short term (and I say that as an investor who is quite p-o'ed at where the stock price is today). 

  • Reply 70 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lghulm View Post


    When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"


     


    The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.


     


    It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.


    This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.


    I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.


     


    An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.


     


    The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.


    An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.


     


    Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.


     


    Someone please repost my thoughts in rebuttal the next time this argument evolves because I am tired of seeing it made and not refuted.



     


        ^


    This

  • Reply 71 of 171
    Remember to take these rumors with unhealthy quantities of sodium chloride.
  • Reply 72 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lghulm View Post


    No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.


    I specifically said that it needed to be new!


     


    The GT item you are talking about.. I presume you are referring to a graphics card? Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.


     


    Even the most successful "add on" graphics card sells in the what, tens? hundreds of thousands? they are not at the level of a mass-market consumer mobile.


     


    To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.


     


    BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.


     


    My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.


     


    The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.


     


    The reason Apple is successful is that take items that had previously only existed as part of the tech industry and transformed them into consumer items, items that have lost all their techyness.


     


    When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away and the consumer is merely consuming the product for its function in their life: playing games, listening to music, staying in touch with friends -> as these functions exist outside of the tech industry so to do the products that enable their fulfilment.


     


    Tech purchases do not meet this criteria ->those that play with "tech" do so to fulfill a range of other criteria often not solely derived from its function. 


    An example would be buying computer parts to build a computer ->many do this out of personal pride and interest, or in a competitive or creative spirit which is quiet separate to an ordinary consumers desire to merely "game".


     


    Whether I am right or wrong I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking - as an administrator on an Apple focussed site I would have thought that you would have a better grasp of Apple products.



     


    Well said!  Hate to say it TS, but this guy is right on... if you think about it the only techy/nerdy device (for its time) that Apple has sold was the Apple I.  Everything since has tended towards the consumer/appliance mentality.


     


     



     


    I work/play sitting in a chair in front of a computer --  that doesn't mean that I want to build, take apart or reprogram either one.


     


    BTW, The above brochure is one I picked up at ComputerLand of San Jose in 1978 -- Bought my Apple ][ that July... And with 2 partners, opened the Sunnyvale Computer Plus store on Dec 28, 1978.

  • Reply 73 of 171
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    I disagree. It really runs the risk of significant future fragmentation. Next you know, ATT in the US, Orange in the UK, Vodaphone in India, DoCoMo in Japan, etc etc will want their own 'pineapples.' It'll end up being an Android-like mess with iOS that caters to the lowest common denominator. Average costs will be higher (and quality will be lower) because you have too many suppliers to keep track of, not producing in high enough volumes to achieve the massive scale economies that contribute to Apple's margins. Finally, it completely dilutes Apple's brand.


     


    Apple should stick to its core strategy, one that has made it the incredible company that it is. Stock price be damned in the short term (and I say that as an investor who is quite p-o'ed at where the stock price is today). 



     


    Apple will have little choice but to increase the number of iPhone models regardless once more countries start lighting up their version of LTE. If they can't make an LTE iPhone that works in countries with all these disparate bands then there would be little reason for people to buy an iPhone stuck at 3G when an Android phone offers 10 times faster data speeds. Currently there are only 3 distinct iPhone models. Apple doesn't support many of these bands or frequencies at all which include 2.5/2.6 GHz, 1800MHz, 800Mhz, 1800, 2100, 1500 and many more for LTE. Perhaps one day there will be a universal chip or at least one that can accomodate about 6 bands allowing them to still only make 2 or 3 separate and distinct iPhone models. The Sprint/Verizon model already comes close with 5. 


     


    Even U.S. carriers will start using more bands in the future as they saturate current frequencies. Sprint will begin rolling out LTE on the old Clearwire 2.5GHz and the old Nextel ESMR band in the 861-866 MHz range in addition to the PCS 1900MHz they currently use. 


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks


     


    http://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/

  • Reply 74 of 171


    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    Well said!  Hate to say it TS, but this guy is right on... if you think about it the only techy/nerdy device (for its time) that Apple has sold was the Apple I.  Everything since has tended towards the consumer/appliance mentality.


     


    But do you think you could have sold a vanilla Apple ][, unchanged, in a new case, at half its original price, in 1985?

  • Reply 75 of 171
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    But do you think you could have sold a vanilla Apple ][, unchanged, in a new case, at half its original price, in 1985?



    No, but you sure could have  in 1979 and 1980. Who said anything about selling a 7 year old iPhone parts in a new case for half price? You love those straw men arguments don't you, exaggerate and completely change what the other person said and it is very easy to win any argument. He said to make a cheaper phone with parts from a recent iPhone as in 1 to maybe 3 years back NOT 7 year old technology like you love to use. 

  • Reply 76 of 171
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member


    I never understood why the upgraded iPad last fall was called the 4 instead of the 3S.


     


    It was largely a speed bump, and calling it the 3S would have allowed the new form factor to be delivered earlier.

  • Reply 77 of 171
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cinder6 View Post





    That's silly. For all that I don't really like it, Android definitely does some things better than iOS. I would really like to be able to toggle bluetooth, wifi, and airplane mode from the Notification Center, for instance. Also, Samsung's split window mode would be pretty great on an iPad. I would also like it if app updates showed up in Notification Center--and if you could download them from there, without having to switch to the App Store.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    These are all geeky things that are of zero importance to most consumers, particularly stuff like toggling, "bluetooth, wifi, and airplane mode from the Notification Center." Guess what, most people don't toggle these things at all. They might turn on AP mode, maybe, but, for them, the current method of doing that is fine. These sort of geek oriented changes copied from Android are not the sort of iOS changes that would be worthwhile to do, at all.


     



     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gwmac View Post


     


    Since when is turning bluetooth, wifi, or airplane on/off geeky? Anyone that uses a bluetooth headset might do that several times a day when you are trying to save every drop of battery life you can. I think the easiest solution is to fill up all the blank space on the Spotlight screen. When you swipe right it appears. Make the keyboard invisible until you try and type in the search bar and you have an entire blank screen where you could have quick access to bluetooth, wifi, or anything else. Personally I wish we could customize that space with whatever settings or shortcuts we like, but I doubt Apple ever wants us to have that level of customization. 


     


    Swiping from bottom to top is also another way to add more options since it is currently the only swipe direction where nothing happens. 


     



     


    I don't see any of what has been said as major OS overhauling features.


     


    Most people on here are saying Apple needs to turn iOS completely upside down inside out and make it more like Android.


     


    Honestly iOS is fine and there are only a few tweaks that would make it better. IMO Apple should strive to make the UI and functionality closer to OS X. I was playing with a Nexus 7 and I hated how they implemented settings on that device. Apple needs to do their own thing and not copy anyone else.

  • Reply 78 of 171

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    Well said!  Hate to say it TS, but this guy is right on... if you think about it the only techy/nerdy device (for its time) that Apple has sold was the Apple I.  Everything since has tended towards the consumer/appliance mentality.


     


    But do you think you could have sold a vanilla Apple ][, unchanged, in a new case, at half its original price, in 1985?



     


    Yes!   Apple did [almost]* exactly that:


     


    1976 Apple I


     


    1977 Apple ][


    1979 Apple ][ plus


    1980 Apple III


    1983 Apple IIe


    1984 Apple Iic


    1986 Apple IIGS


    1988 Apple Iic Plus


     


     ... 


     


     


     



     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_III


     


    * most of the above included incremental improvements:  cost, appearance, all-in-one, matching accessories, etc.  Certainly, there were power improvements, etc. -- but they were all just Apple ][s -- some with more features, others with less (no expansion slots).


     


    The Cloud 9 Core universal remote was a handheld Apple Iic.  It was released between 1985-1988.  Woz owned Cloud 9, developed the Core -- and eventually sold the company.


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL_9


     



     


    http://www.ktronicslc.com/core.html


     


    The core was a true computer -- had the gust of an Apple Iic, a modem, RS-232 I/O -- and was programmable on a Mac as well as through the Core kb/display.

  • Reply 79 of 171
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    No they can't. There's not a single rational people on this world that's going to pay full price for a 3 year old phone. No one. It has to be "new" and look "new", even if it is worse! That's how almost everyone thinks.


     


    about the second sentence... It has to do with both. The note is as expensive or more, the galaxy s3 has almost the same base-price. If you can buy a 599 phone, you can buy a 699 and you will, if you think it's better.


     


    There's a potential market of 50 million (or more) NEW COSTUMERS per quarter for big screens. (s3+note+ONE+Optimus+xperia+Nexus)



     


    Plenty of people currently have NO PROBLEM buying the 3 year old iPhone 4. I would estimate Apple sold at least 10 million over the holiday quarter.


     


    What benefits them is that the 4/4S don't look old. They still look fresh and have the iPhone look every knows. Because all the devices in the iPhone family already look similar its not going to have the problem a 3GS would have...


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    A bumped up spec 3GS?


     



    That would be completely unnecessary. If Apple designs an iPhone Mini, they should design it from scratch. If not, they can keep the iPhone 4 around and sell it for $299.

  • Reply 80 of 171


    Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

    You love those straw men arguments don't you…


     


    Tech moves faster now. 7 years then isn't 7 years now. You know this. Don't pretend otherwise.

Sign In or Register to comment.