iPhone 5S? That sucks. They need to make iPhone 6. This "S" moniker is the stupidest thing ever. No wonder Samsung is gaining on Apple Whoever is behind this "S" thing needs to get fired.
it's not utterly useless to:
- parents looking to get their kids a mobile phone
- tech savvy people who want add'l options for mobility that also have an iPad or Laptop.
- all those who want a smaller phone device, more durable, less expensive...but still want infrequent use of email/text.
Describe to me how a 2.5" device would be utterly useless to the audience above.
It could be a flip device to minimize size (and protect the screen).
You really should avoid using such demeaning words such as "utterly" and "useless". If you do, then explain in detail why.
Your lineup does not address what many in this forum are saying, which is that the older iPhones are still too expensive.
All of the categories you mentioned are served well with the current lineup:
Parents can get their kids older models on contract for free or at minimal upfront cost. If they don't want a contract, they can give their kids old iPhones as they themselves upgrade, or get them cheaper used/refurbished.
I consider myself to be in the tech savvy category, and I don't see how I would be better served by an iPhone nano. My iP5 is small enough to fit in my pocket, and I would never give up full app support for the times when my iPad is not on me.
I doubt very strongly that there is much demand for a smaller phone. Many people already complain that the iPhone is to small as is.
Yeah, but we are talking twice as thick if these drawings are accurate. That makes no sense because of parts, because last years parts, or even the years before that, were only slightly smaller than the current ones. The only way it could be that thick due to parts, is if it has three or four year old parts inside like the old 3G iPhones.
If that's the case, then this is truly a phone for Africa or India and will be something that only a desperately poor person would even consider. I'm still thinking it makes more sense for Apple to target the middle of the market rather than the very bottom of it.
I'm not sure you know what desperately poor looks like. It doesn't look anything like buying a smartphone of any brand
Yeah, I've thought this for a while now too. That's why I like to call the new one "iPhone cheapo" because there is really no way to name it that doesn't make it sound like a lesser product. Even the "iPhone light" suggested here, just sounds like it's missing something that the regular iPhone has. How do you market a "cheaper" Mercedes or a "budget" Rolex?
Apple would be better off naming the new "cheapo" iPhone as plain old "iPhone," and giving the new name to the original ("iPhone pro," "iPhone x" etc.).
I disagree that Apple would even consider naming a cheaper build model "iPhone". Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever. They would never have called an iPad Mini "iPad" and added a qualifier instead to the 9.7" iPad to indicate that it is better than the (new, cheaper, smaller) iPad.
I don't think they've ever done such a thing to a new category product in the post-iPhone era. Any new cheaper build model will be iPhone xyz, but they would not dilute the iPhone brand in a way that suggests iPhone is anything other than the best phone, period.
it's not utterly useless to:
- parents looking to get their kids a mobile phone
- tech savvy people who want add'l options for mobility that also have an iPad or Laptop.
- all those who want a smaller phone device, more durable, less expensive...but still want infrequent use of email/text.
Describe to me how a 2.5" device would be utterly useless to the audience above.
It could be a flip device to minimize size (and protect the screen).
You really should avoid using such demeaning words such as "utterly" and "useless". If you do, then explain in detail why.
Your lineup does not address what many in this forum are saying, which is that the older iPhones are still too expensive.
How are they going to miniaturize all the components to fit a 2.5" screen? Miniaturization isn't cheap. Why spend all that capital to undercut your flagship iPhone? The margins will be smaller as well.
iPhone 5S? That sucks. They need to make iPhone 6. This "S" moniker is the stupidest thing ever. No wonder Samsung is gaining on Apple Whoever is behind this "S" thing needs to get fired.
Surely, you're trolling. And I didn't call you "Shirley".
This "lite" version is stupid. I think they will modify the 4 with lightning and perhaps not use glass and release that off contract when the 5S is released. There is no sense designing a cheap version of the flagship.
Agreed. I'm not really following the rationale of some other posts. The only thing that I would add to yours is that Apple will move all their handsets to 4" Retinas and cease production soon (if they haven't already) of 3.5" Retinas. For a cheaper-to-build model I think we'll see 4 or 4S internals in a new shell and with Lightning. $400 off contract.
However, even if the internals are last year's, how does Apple visually differentiate the industrial design from the flagship model? I just don't think they'll go back to plastic, as much sense as that might make.
How are they going to miniaturize all the components to fit a 2.5" screen? Miniaturization isn't cheap. Why spend all that capital to undercut your flagship iPhone? The margins will be smaller as well.
That's a good point. But know that the iPod nano is already done. Whether or not it can make that while keeping margins is a challenge. But at least, it's a totally separate segment, so I disagree that it would undercut the flagship iPhone at all.
But what's the point if there's no profit in these feature phones?
There's not a whole lot of profit in smartphones either, unless you're Apple or Samsung. Tablet computing was a dead industry before Appple entered it. So maybe, just maybe, Apple will find a way to turn a profit from delivering a compelling feature phone with a healthy margin.
I think a plastic case is a great idea. I would never carry an iPhone 4 or 5 around without a case, but a plastic, less expensive iPhone, I would definitely consider carrying around with no case. So for me anyway, the thickness could actually wind up being less.
iPhone 5S? That sucks. They need to make iPhone 6. This "S" moniker is the stupidest thing ever. No wonder Samsung is gaining on Apple Whoever is behind this "S" thing needs to get fired.
Why does it personally matter to you where (you think) Samsung is in relation to Apple? Is that so important? Does Apple's position affect your enjoyment of the iPhone? It has absolutely no effect on mine. I actually use my phone. It's not some self-esteem crutch.
That's a good point. But know that the iPod nano is already done. Whether or not it can make that while keeping margins is a challenge. But at least, it's a totally separate segment, so I disagree that it would undercut the flagship iPhone at all.
But the iPod nano is so limited compared to the iPod touch in terms of functionality. I doubt Apple will ever release a limited iPhone. It isn't in the feature phone market.
2 things I don't get: why a lower cost iPhone has to be plastic and why it has to be thicker. Unless Apple would do that to keep it from stealing flagship device sales. But they didn't do that with the iPad mini. Most likely the next full size iPad will take its design cues from the mini.
I they did precisely that with the mini but using other features, like withholding the retina display and the latest generation of CPU. The mini was also a response to cheaper Android tablets so it had to have some compelling features, like price and form factor, to justify it's existence.
iPhone 5S? That sucks. They need to make iPhone 6. This "S" moniker is the stupidest thing ever. No wonder Samsung is gaining on Apple Whoever is behind this "S" thing needs to get fired.
My guess is that they want to make the lower-cost iphone feel "less premium" than the iphone5s, to avoid cannibalising its sales. Thicker could be because of different brand of parts which are not as small? For example, there are rumours that Apple might not use their A-series of processors, but instead utilise snapdragon processors.
I am more interested to know how they intend to "gimp" it. My guess is that it will obviously omit Siri, but buying into the IOS ecosystem would mean consumers still enjoy maps, mail, facetime, imessage and icloud. Will it still be retina?
It's unlikely that they would not use one of their existing A-series CPUs, and more likely it will be functionally capable somewhere within the range of the 4S/5 level. Whatever capabilities it misses will also likely just be new ones that are only on a "5S". If they retain the 5 as the $99 option, and replace the 4S as the "free" offering with the so-called iPhone Light then that makes a lot more sense with Apple's history.
There's no way Siri functionality won't be included and very unlikely it won't be Retina. It makes no sense from a supply chain sourcing strategy to move to a different screen.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I did. No apps = DOA. Have you not noticed the entire mobile phone industry since 2008?
Non-smartphones still outship smartphones by about 7 to 1 - Gartner
Especially true if you buy the line that some/many/most of Android phones that classify as smartphones are only ever used as feature phones.
Apple still make and update their iPod lineup, so it's not beyond comprehension that they might get into another market that isn't bleeding edge.
All of the categories you mentioned are served well with the current lineup:
Parents can get their kids older models on contract for free or at minimal upfront cost. If they don't want a contract, they can give their kids old iPhones as they themselves upgrade, or get them cheaper used/refurbished.
I consider myself to be in the tech savvy category, and I don't see how I would be better served by an iPhone nano. My iP5 is small enough to fit in my pocket, and I would never give up full app support for the times when my iPad is not on me.
I doubt very strongly that there is much demand for a smaller phone. Many people already complain that the iPhone is to small as is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Yeah, but we are talking twice as thick if these drawings are accurate. That makes no sense because of parts, because last years parts, or even the years before that, were only slightly smaller than the current ones. The only way it could be that thick due to parts, is if it has three or four year old parts inside like the old 3G iPhones.
If that's the case, then this is truly a phone for Africa or India and will be something that only a desperately poor person would even consider. I'm still thinking it makes more sense for Apple to target the middle of the market rather than the very bottom of it.
I'm not sure you know what desperately poor looks like. It doesn't look anything like buying a smartphone of any brand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Yeah, I've thought this for a while now too. That's why I like to call the new one "iPhone cheapo" because there is really no way to name it that doesn't make it sound like a lesser product. Even the "iPhone light" suggested here, just sounds like it's missing something that the regular iPhone has. How do you market a "cheaper" Mercedes or a "budget" Rolex?
Apple would be better off naming the new "cheapo" iPhone as plain old "iPhone," and giving the new name to the original ("iPhone pro," "iPhone x" etc.).
I disagree that Apple would even consider naming a cheaper build model "iPhone". Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever. They would never have called an iPad Mini "iPad" and added a qualifier instead to the 9.7" iPad to indicate that it is better than the (new, cheaper, smaller) iPad.
I don't think they've ever done such a thing to a new category product in the post-iPhone era. Any new cheaper build model will be iPhone xyz, but they would not dilute the iPhone brand in a way that suggests iPhone is anything other than the best phone, period.
At the risk of being picky, these are not schematics. These are assembly drawings.
How are they going to miniaturize all the components to fit a 2.5" screen? Miniaturization isn't cheap. Why spend all that capital to undercut your flagship iPhone? The margins will be smaller as well.
Surely, you're trolling. And I didn't call you "Shirley".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
This "lite" version is stupid. I think they will modify the 4 with lightning and perhaps not use glass and release that off contract when the 5S is released. There is no sense designing a cheap version of the flagship.
Agreed. I'm not really following the rationale of some other posts. The only thing that I would add to yours is that Apple will move all their handsets to 4" Retinas and cease production soon (if they haven't already) of 3.5" Retinas. For a cheaper-to-build model I think we'll see 4 or 4S internals in a new shell and with Lightning. $400 off contract.
However, even if the internals are last year's, how does Apple visually differentiate the industrial design from the flagship model? I just don't think they'll go back to plastic, as much sense as that might make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Non-smartphones still outship smartphones by about 7 to 1 - Gartner
Especially true if you buy the line that some/many/most of Android phones that classify as smartphones are only ever used as feature phones.
Apple still make and update their iPod lineup, so it's not beyond comprehension that they might get into another market that isn't bleeding edge.
But what's the point if there's no profit in these feature phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's not what the iPhone is.
Now you're just taking the mickey.
What the hell are you even saying, "that's not what the iphone is"? Hold SOME kind of discussion for heaven's sake.
Mickey?...as in alcohol? I'm not sure, but again, you're just coming off as a dismissive jerk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
How are they going to miniaturize all the components to fit a 2.5" screen? Miniaturization isn't cheap. Why spend all that capital to undercut your flagship iPhone? The margins will be smaller as well.
That's a good point. But know that the iPod nano is already done. Whether or not it can make that while keeping margins is a challenge. But at least, it's a totally separate segment, so I disagree that it would undercut the flagship iPhone at all.
Why does it personally matter to you where (you think) Samsung is in relation to Apple? Is that so important? Does Apple's position affect your enjoyment of the iPhone? It has absolutely no effect on mine. I actually use my phone. It's not some self-esteem crutch.
But the iPod nano is so limited compared to the iPod touch in terms of functionality. I doubt Apple will ever release a limited iPhone. It isn't in the feature phone market.
That adds up to quite some savings.
On the other hand it also slows down the speed of iOS evolution, because lack of RAM, speed and storage are what limits the advance of the platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
2 things I don't get: why a lower cost iPhone has to be plastic and why it has to be thicker. Unless Apple would do that to keep it from stealing flagship device sales. But they didn't do that with the iPad mini. Most likely the next full size iPad will take its design cues from the mini.
I they did precisely that with the mini but using other features, like withholding the retina display and the latest generation of CPU. The mini was also a response to cheaper Android tablets so it had to have some compelling features, like price and form factor, to justify it's existence.
Gaining, because of their S4 ¿
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal
My guess is that they want to make the lower-cost iphone feel "less premium" than the iphone5s, to avoid cannibalising its sales. Thicker could be because of different brand of parts which are not as small? For example, there are rumours that Apple might not use their A-series of processors, but instead utilise snapdragon processors.
I am more interested to know how they intend to "gimp" it. My guess is that it will obviously omit Siri, but buying into the IOS ecosystem would mean consumers still enjoy maps, mail, facetime, imessage and icloud. Will it still be retina?
It's unlikely that they would not use one of their existing A-series CPUs, and more likely it will be functionally capable somewhere within the range of the 4S/5 level. Whatever capabilities it misses will also likely just be new ones that are only on a "5S". If they retain the 5 as the $99 option, and replace the 4S as the "free" offering with the so-called iPhone Light then that makes a lot more sense with Apple's history.
There's no way Siri functionality won't be included and very unlikely it won't be Retina. It makes no sense from a supply chain sourcing strategy to move to a different screen.