Hmm...I can't see Apple coming out with a NEW phone that only has 8GB storage. They should be able to provide16GB free on contract. Didn't they just up the storage and lower the price for the MBA? If anything memory should be getting cheaper, not staying the same (or getting more expensive).
How is everyone so sure this is an iPhone? Perhaps the iPod Classic is being replaced with something that is like an iPod Touch (screen, os, connectors, camera) but with large capacity hard drive (like the current iPod classic)? Perhaps the size is also to house larger battery to maintain iPod Classic's uptime.
Just wifi antennae needed like iPod Touch so aluminum back. I highly doubt Apple would go back to plastic; some of the point of aluminum and glass was to move to more recyclable products. It's surprising the new airport extreme and time capsule are still plastic; perhaps the argument is that they have a longer unpgrade cycle for customers so less end up in the land fill...
As for phones, the 5 becomes the new low end and the 5s becomes the new high end...
In the end, every product then has the new lightning connector and more of the product lineup runs iOS...
I'm not sure at all who you imagine cares if its plastic or not...?
Hmm...all the people who make fun of Samsung and others for using plastic? I thought one of the reasons Apple was able to charge a premium was because of the materials they use like aluminum and glass and stainless steel. For sure that was one of the selling features of the iPad mini, one of the reasosn they could charge $329 for it when other tablets with better displays are selling for less.
It all depends on what this device is for. If it is for the U.S. market at all, I can guarantee you there will be no other iPhones for sale from Apple besides this one, and the 5S.
This device is not going to be dirt cheap, and it is not going to be the same cost as the flagship model. The only price points for it to enter, on-contract, are $0 and $99.
Now it is entirely possible, if they don't wish to do away with either of those price points, they simply make an 8 GB model and 16 GB model and call it $0 and $99.
Makes a lot more sense to me, and will be a lot less confusing to consumers. There is the "entry level iPhone" just like there are "entry level" MacBooks....$0 to $99 subsidized. And $399 to $449 off-contract. It is a consumer level iPhone (meaning, for people who think they want an iPhone but don't have $200 to spend, and wouldn't know the difference if they did).
It subtly reminds users of the 3GS/White MacBook days, and instantly strikes the right chord.
For everyone else, for everyone that has owned a 4S or a 5....your next iPhone will be the iPhone 5S.
This all makes too much sense to ignore.
I wouldn't count on the iPad 2 existing beyond October of this year...and the iPod Classic is hardly significant enough to matter.
I would add Apple isn't the only one that has offered older devices at reduced pricing alongside the newer ones. I would definitely grab a $400 phone off contract with pre-paid rates. I don't care how the outside feels. It just goes in a case anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
The people (blog journalists) that keep claiming that this device is for "Farmers in China in India" EMERGING MARKETZ!!!
...Have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, whatsoever.
I wouldn't have worded it exactly like that, but yeah doesn't India have some of its own brands with little to no international presence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Hmm...all the people who make fun of Samsung and others for using plastic? I thought one of the reasons Apple was able to charge a premium was because of the materials they use like aluminum and glass and stainless steel. For sure that was one of the selling features of the iPad mini, one of the reasosn they could charge $329 for it when other tablets with better displays are selling for less.
Many of those people are just spouting random opinions without the ability to articulate what they actually like about the device, although in the case of Samsung specifically, some have mentioned the issue of flex. I wouldn't call it just aluminum. Aluminum is used in soda cans too. They use machined aluminum for its strength. Part of that was to enable very thin phones without the aforementioned flex. Articles have suggested the use of glass was for scratch resistance. I'm really curious how much is the cost of materials versus the cost of machines and processing. As long as their current models maintain some kind of growth, those machines won't go unused.
Hmm...all the people who make fun of Samsung and others for using plastic? I thought one of the reasons Apple was able to charge a premium was because of the materials they use like aluminum and glass and stainless steel. For sure that was one of the selling features of the iPad mini, one of the reasosn they could charge $329 for it when other tablets with better displays are selling for less.
Once again, there is the way Apple does plastic, like pmz says with the white MacBook, and the way everybody else does plastic, like Samsung's horrible Galaxies, or the creaky silver or black stuff with stickers that any number of laptop makers do. Night and day, when you look at the total package.
Which is where I think the problem lies, in focusing on the parts rather than the whole. I would trust Apple to come up with a delicious and highly desirable plastic-backed phone, one that has a better overall look and feel than even Nokia did. That Ive design machine has powerful right-brain physics on its side, stuff never seen nor felt before. Their aluminum adventures show that. I think their resumed plastic adventures will too, but we will have to wait till the device is in the hand.
Once again, there is the way Apple does plastic, like pmz says with the white MacBook, and the way everybody else does plastic, like Samsung's horrible Galaxies, or the creaky silver or black stuff with stickers that any number of laptop makers do. Night and day, when you look at the total package.
Which is where I think the problem lies, in focusing on the parts rather than the whole. I would trust Apple to come up with a delicious and highly desireable plastic-backed phone, one that has a better overall look and feel that even Nokia did. That Ive design machine has powerful right-brain physics on its side, stuff never seen nor felt before. Their aluminum adventures show that. I think their resumed plastic adventures will too, but we will have to wait till the device is in the hand.
I agree. It is not the plastic that is bad per se just that other companies have done a piss poor job. In some respects at least plastic can offer advantages over metal in terms of better signal penetration and less chance of damage from drops and perhaps a few more. Maybe I am an oddball in that I really have never thought much about the looks or the materials of my phone. They always go in a case for me from day 1 and this has served me well. I am far more concerned with how the phone performs and what I see on the display. The use and performance of the phone is my only real consideration not the looks or exterior or whether is is made of plastic or metal. If Apple decides to go with a plastic iPhone and that is still a very big "if", I am confident it would not feel or look cheap. Perhaps they are working on a new and extremely durable polymer that is extremely scratch resistant and very strong.
Once again, there is the way Apple does plastic, like pmz says with the white MacBook, and the way everybody else does plastic, like Samsung's horrible Galaxies, or the creaky silver or black stuff with stickers that any number of laptop makers do. Night and day, when you look at the total package.
Which is where I think the problem lies, in focusing on the parts rather than the whole. I would trust Apple to come up with a delicious and highly desireable plastic-backed phone, one that has a better overall look and feel that even Nokia did. That Ive design machine has powerful right-brain physics on its side, stuff never seen nor felt before. Their aluminum adventures show that. I think their resumed plastic adventures will too, but we will have to wait till the device is in the hand.
Maybe but no one yet has provided a good explanation for why it has to be plastic. Based on the off contract prices people here are throwing around it doesn't seem like keeping the price down is the reason. There isn't one flagship Apple device right now that is plastic. Couldn't they take the current iPod touch design and make a phone out of it? Currently 32GB is $299. Could they throw in cellular components (and maybe reduce the storage to 16GB) and sell it for $399 off contract? Or maybe $450 which is the current price of the iPhone 4?
It all depends on what this device is for. If it is for the U.S. market at all, I can guarantee you there will be no other iPhones for sale from Apple besides this one, and the 5S.
How can you guarantee anything?? Only Tim Cook can guarantee what Apple is planning and I don't think he posts in this forum.
Maybe but no one yet has provided a good explanation for why it has to be plastic. Based on the off contract prices people here are throwing around it doesn't seem like keeping the price down is the reason. There isn't one flagship Apple device right now that is plastic. Couldn't they take the current iPod touch design and make a phone out of it? Currently 32GB is $299. Could they throw in cellular components (and maybe reduce the storage to 16GB) and sell it for $399 off contract? Or maybe $450 which is the current price of the iPhone 4?
Not that I know anything (contrary to rumor I'm not Tim Cook posting under another name), but I think the use of plastic allows flexibility for antenna placement, eliminates several parts with their manufacturing and assembly steps, and saves big on the aluminum forming, machining and finishing. It was said that the mini's back cost as much as the display. I wonder if that even approximates it, because the handling during assembly and finishing must be a bear with the metal back. Thus the problems with the scratched surfaces when the production was getting ironed out.
I bet when you add it all up using plastic saves a hundred bucks.
[...] Plastic is just going backwards IMO. And I can imagine the press having a field day considering how many Apple fans have a go at Samsung for their plastic devices.
Which would be hilarious, because it would be nice to see the knee-jerkers take it in the chops.
There are actually some ADVANTAGES to a plastic case, and it doesn't automatically mean "junk" (iPhone 3G anyone?).
I don't actually care whether there is or isn't a less-expensive phone or whether it is or isn't made of plastic, but if there is and it is, I will enjoy the sound of all the back-peddling!
Which would be hilarious, because it would be nice to see the knee-jerkers take it in the chops.
There are actually some ADVANTAGES to a plastic case, and it doesn't automatically mean "junk" (iPhone 3G anyone?).
I don't actually care whether there is or isn't a less-expensive phone or whether it is or isn't made of plastic, but if there is and it is, I will enjoy the sound of all the back-peddling!
Yes will be interesting to see. Won't come from me though. Of course doesn't matter as I won't be buying one.
Not that I know anything (contrary to rumor I'm not Tim Cook posting under another name), but I think the use of plastic allows flexibility for antenna placement, eliminates several parts with their manufacturing and assembly steps, and saves big on the aluminum forming, machining and finishing. It was said that the mini's back cost as much as the display. I wonder if that even approximates it, because the handling during assembly and finishing must be a bear with the metal back. Thus the problems with the scratched surfaces when the production was getting ironed out.
I bet when you add it all up using plastic saves a hundred bucks.
That's the only way I could see it but then it should be less than $400 off contract.
Right, because the "low cost" iPhone is going to be made out of the finest aluminium with the exacting chamfered edge.
This thing will obviously have a much larger battery, and probably internals similar to whatever the previous generation had. If it is also made out of aluminium like this, is much cheaper, and can be bought off contract, that would cannibalise something like 90% of the sales of the "pro" iPhone. Who's gonna buy a $600 iPhone, when there is a $100-$200 one with double the battery life and slightly slower specs?
It has to be a different value proposition aimed at a different segment of the market. This thing is done up to be almost identical to the current iPhone 5.
$100-$200? Are you insane? This will be "cheaper", not "bottom of the barrel garbage cheap". More likely this will be $350-$400 off contract, with the iPhone 5 successor retaining the current pricepoints.
Who is going to buy a high end iPhone if this one is available?
If this phone is coming out at a lower price point, then a clearly better flagship phone must also be coming out
Maybe the new flagship iPhone has a larger screen.
Otherwise the phones look too similar, no?
The new iPhone 5S will have fingerprint unlock and a faster CPU/GPU and more memory. The next lower product will be the current iPhone 5. Finally comes the 4S phone with the iPhone 5 screensize and Lightning connector. It will be able to take advantage of what iOS 7 offers however not be available in more than 8 or 16 GB.
Therefore one can chose to have higher security with the new phone that will be designed to take one further into the future. Or one can chose the current iPhone 5 model for a discount. Or one can buy the low-cost model that is a lot like the iPhone 5 but with more limitations in memory and CPU/GPU capability. This one may not be able to handle all the features of iOS 7. ( Think of it as having a two-year lifespan before being unable to keep up with iOS 8.
Comments
How is everyone so sure this is an iPhone? Perhaps the iPod Classic is being replaced with something that is like an iPod Touch (screen, os, connectors, camera) but with large capacity hard drive (like the current iPod classic)? Perhaps the size is also to house larger battery to maintain iPod Classic's uptime.
Just wifi antennae needed like iPod Touch so aluminum back. I highly doubt Apple would go back to plastic; some of the point of aluminum and glass was to move to more recyclable products. It's surprising the new airport extreme and time capsule are still plastic; perhaps the argument is that they have a longer unpgrade cycle for customers so less end up in the land fill...
As for phones, the 5 becomes the new low end and the 5s becomes the new high end...
In the end, every product then has the new lightning connector and more of the product lineup runs iOS...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott
By the way, artist: NICE RENDER!
Not an artist who did this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
It all depends on what this device is for. If it is for the U.S. market at all, I can guarantee you there will be no other iPhones for sale from Apple besides this one, and the 5S.
This device is not going to be dirt cheap, and it is not going to be the same cost as the flagship model. The only price points for it to enter, on-contract, are $0 and $99.
Now it is entirely possible, if they don't wish to do away with either of those price points, they simply make an 8 GB model and 16 GB model and call it $0 and $99.
Makes a lot more sense to me, and will be a lot less confusing to consumers. There is the "entry level iPhone" just like there are "entry level" MacBooks....$0 to $99 subsidized. And $399 to $449 off-contract. It is a consumer level iPhone (meaning, for people who think they want an iPhone but don't have $200 to spend, and wouldn't know the difference if they did).
It subtly reminds users of the 3GS/White MacBook days, and instantly strikes the right chord.
For everyone else, for everyone that has owned a 4S or a 5....your next iPhone will be the iPhone 5S.
This all makes too much sense to ignore.
I wouldn't count on the iPad 2 existing beyond October of this year...and the iPod Classic is hardly significant enough to matter.
I would add Apple isn't the only one that has offered older devices at reduced pricing alongside the newer ones. I would definitely grab a $400 phone off contract with pre-paid rates. I don't care how the outside feels. It just goes in a case anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
The people (blog journalists) that keep claiming that this device is for "Farmers in China in India" EMERGING MARKETZ!!!
...Have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, whatsoever.
I wouldn't have worded it exactly like that, but yeah doesn't India have some of its own brands with little to no international presence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Hmm...all the people who make fun of Samsung and others for using plastic? I thought one of the reasons Apple was able to charge a premium was because of the materials they use like aluminum and glass and stainless steel. For sure that was one of the selling features of the iPad mini, one of the reasosn they could charge $329 for it when other tablets with better displays are selling for less.
Many of those people are just spouting random opinions without the ability to articulate what they actually like about the device, although in the case of Samsung specifically, some have mentioned the issue of flex. I wouldn't call it just aluminum. Aluminum is used in soda cans too. They use machined aluminum for its strength. Part of that was to enable very thin phones without the aforementioned flex. Articles have suggested the use of glass was for scratch resistance. I'm really curious how much is the cost of materials versus the cost of machines and processing. As long as their current models maintain some kind of growth, those machines won't go unused.
Once again, there is the way Apple does plastic, like pmz says with the white MacBook, and the way everybody else does plastic, like Samsung's horrible Galaxies, or the creaky silver or black stuff with stickers that any number of laptop makers do. Night and day, when you look at the total package.
Which is where I think the problem lies, in focusing on the parts rather than the whole. I would trust Apple to come up with a delicious and highly desirable plastic-backed phone, one that has a better overall look and feel than even Nokia did. That Ive design machine has powerful right-brain physics on its side, stuff never seen nor felt before. Their aluminum adventures show that. I think their resumed plastic adventures will too, but we will have to wait till the device is in the hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Once again, there is the way Apple does plastic, like pmz says with the white MacBook, and the way everybody else does plastic, like Samsung's horrible Galaxies, or the creaky silver or black stuff with stickers that any number of laptop makers do. Night and day, when you look at the total package.
Which is where I think the problem lies, in focusing on the parts rather than the whole. I would trust Apple to come up with a delicious and highly desireable plastic-backed phone, one that has a better overall look and feel that even Nokia did. That Ive design machine has powerful right-brain physics on its side, stuff never seen nor felt before. Their aluminum adventures show that. I think their resumed plastic adventures will too, but we will have to wait till the device is in the hand.
I agree. It is not the plastic that is bad per se just that other companies have done a piss poor job. In some respects at least plastic can offer advantages over metal in terms of better signal penetration and less chance of damage from drops and perhaps a few more. Maybe I am an oddball in that I really have never thought much about the looks or the materials of my phone. They always go in a case for me from day 1 and this has served me well. I am far more concerned with how the phone performs and what I see on the display. The use and performance of the phone is my only real consideration not the looks or exterior or whether is is made of plastic or metal. If Apple decides to go with a plastic iPhone and that is still a very big "if", I am confident it would not feel or look cheap. Perhaps they are working on a new and extremely durable polymer that is extremely scratch resistant and very strong.
Not that I know anything (contrary to rumor I'm not Tim Cook posting under another name), but I think the use of plastic allows flexibility for antenna placement, eliminates several parts with their manufacturing and assembly steps, and saves big on the aluminum forming, machining and finishing. It was said that the mini's back cost as much as the display. I wonder if that even approximates it, because the handling during assembly and finishing must be a bear with the metal back. Thus the problems with the scratched surfaces when the production was getting ironed out.
I bet when you add it all up using plastic saves a hundred bucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
[...] Plastic is just going backwards IMO. And I can imagine the press having a field day considering how many Apple fans have a go at Samsung for their plastic devices.
Which would be hilarious, because it would be nice to see the knee-jerkers take it in the chops.
There are actually some ADVANTAGES to a plastic case, and it doesn't automatically mean "junk" (iPhone 3G anyone?).
I don't actually care whether there is or isn't a less-expensive phone or whether it is or isn't made of plastic, but if there is and it is, I will enjoy the sound of all the back-peddling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Right, because the "low cost" iPhone is going to be made out of the finest aluminium with the exacting chamfered edge.
This thing will obviously have a much larger battery, and probably internals similar to whatever the previous generation had. If it is also made out of aluminium like this, is much cheaper, and can be bought off contract, that would cannibalise something like 90% of the sales of the "pro" iPhone. Who's gonna buy a $600 iPhone, when there is a $100-$200 one with double the battery life and slightly slower specs?
It has to be a different value proposition aimed at a different segment of the market. This thing is done up to be almost identical to the current iPhone 5.
$100-$200? Are you insane? This will be "cheaper", not "bottom of the barrel garbage cheap". More likely this will be $350-$400 off contract, with the iPhone 5 successor retaining the current pricepoints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke
Who is going to buy a high end iPhone if this one is available?
If this phone is coming out at a lower price point, then a clearly better flagship phone must also be coming out
Maybe the new flagship iPhone has a larger screen.
Otherwise the phones look too similar, no?
The new iPhone 5S will have fingerprint unlock and a faster CPU/GPU and more memory. The next lower product will be the current iPhone 5. Finally comes the 4S phone with the iPhone 5 screensize and Lightning connector. It will be able to take advantage of what iOS 7 offers however not be available in more than 8 or 16 GB.
Therefore one can chose to have higher security with the new phone that will be designed to take one further into the future. Or one can chose the current iPhone 5 model for a discount. Or one can buy the low-cost model that is a lot like the iPhone 5 but with more limitations in memory and CPU/GPU capability. This one may not be able to handle all the features of iOS 7. ( Think of it as having a two-year lifespan before being unable to keep up with iOS 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
I don't think Apple would release anything that bland and boring.
The descriptor you were searching for is "understated," like a pearl white Lamborgheni.