At the time of the 3G release Apple also still sold the plastic MacBooks so there was less of negative vibes toward plastic at Apple. I don't think Steve or Ive would regret that design.
Anyway as far as the new phone I do agree that I would prefer it not be plastic. Apple should find other ways to save on cost to bring the price down.
I think most people would prefer a beautiful product with high end materials even if the phone doesn't have a Retina display. For the price range I don't think a Retina display is make or break considering Samdung also uses low res screens in the low to mid tier price smartphones.
iPod touch is aluminum with retina display. How much would making an iPod touch like device a phone add to the price?
Also, a metal casing wouldn't work for a phone, unless it also has the antenna band like the iPhone 5, which is probably also expensive.
They made it work on the iPad mini. I see iPad mini as an example where Apple didn't cut corners on materials or build quality in order to push people to the more expensive flagship device. I think the lack of retina was more so to do with thicknes/weight and battery life than cannibalization concerns. How is the iPhone different?
Over a hundred posts and not a word about the shape.
The shape of thing is how it [I]feels[/I] in your hand, and secondarily how it appears to the eye.
Did anyone notice that the back is flat and that only a thin, strong curve traces the edge, giving it square shoulders? This thing, if this shape is the real deal, is going to feel great in your hand, like nothing else ever felt from Apple, or probably anyone else, in plastic. It echoes the camera-like, precision-instument shape first started by the iPhones 4/4S, and the carried into aluminum with the iPad mini, iPhone 5 and the iPod touch.
Contrast with the Samsung Galaxy back, which is shaped like the carapice of an insect, has no structural integrity, and tries to trick the eye with a greasy, glossy transparent layer over an upholstery texture. Repellant to eye and hand.
Like others have said, there's plastic, and there's plastic done right. The latter is a tactile exercise as much as a visual one. And I keep saying here (no one seems to pick up on it) that Jony Ive is a tactile designer as well as a visual one. But nobody seems to get tactile. It's our most neglected sense. Apple has given it some respect of late in aluminum, now maybe it's time for plastic.
Here is a Product Red iPod nano that looks like almost the exact same colour to me:
And the colours they have available depend on the material also.
Anodised red metal will always be a different colour than red plastic and different types of plastic will look like different shades of red even when dyed with the exact same colourant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Well exactly. I made this point myself earlier. People saying "ugh!" over a crappy spy photo aren't thinking straight. Apple takes a huge amount of care and time to get the colours and lighting just right in their product shots. These kind of snaps are obviously not going to be anything like that.
Even then they can grow on you. The latest iPod touches looked pretty hideous to me at first, now they don't. This is also a fairly standard human reaction to something that is new.
Edit: I should add that I am still not 100% convinced and probably won't be until I see the value proposition that these are really Apple phones. But the idea that they "couldn't be" is not right. They could very well be.
You've convinced me! Could be real, still not sure they are.
... I don't think a Retina display is make or break considering Samdung also uses low res screens in the low to mid tier price smartphones.
Samsung uses low-res screens in ALL their phones.
The Galaxy S3 is 720x1280 for instance, but it's PenTile, so it's "really" 600x1066 and significantly fuzzier than other screens. Same for all their junk.
Sure, Retina is nice to look at and is a defining premium "luxury" feature but it's hardly essential.
"Sure, 4G is nice to use, but it's hardly essential." "Sure, Lightning is nice to use, but it's hardly essential."
This is Apple. They don't make crap. They haven't made a non-retina iPhone for three years. They're not going to make another one. If they still can't afford the phone, they can shut up and not buy it.
Do you see a $300 Mac laptop for the people who buy computers from Wal-mart?
Am I the only one that notices how much smaller this is than an iPhone? This is 1/3 smaller.
It's interesting that the article doesn't say anything about that at all, except to say it still has a 4" screen, which is physically impossible on such a device.
For those commenting on how the plastic looks "cheap"-- the second photo of the case on someone's leg pretty evidently has a protective cover on it (you can see the air bubbles). I think it's likely that both the pictures on hand don't convey gloss levels or exact tint very accurately.
The difference between "cheap" and "nice" for something like a plastic case is subtle, having as much to do with the sensation in the hand as the look. A quick snapshot in poor lighting isn't going to be able to convey that, so I for one will withhold judgement.
And, as has been pointed out, the idea that these colors are somehow anomalous for Apple is just not not true. More over, color palettes are highly cultural. What might strike the American or European eye as garish might strike the Chinese or Asian eye as upbeat and high energy. Hey, and guess where Apple's biggest gains in iPhone sales are occurring?
Am I the only one that notices how much smaller this is than an iPhone? This is 1/3 smaller.
I didn't notice that, until now. The device looks too narrow for even the old 3.5 inch screen. If this is real, I'm even more interested in what the final product will look like.This could be an iPhone Mini/Nano and not an iPhone Lite.
Yeah. In iOS 7. Which is what we were discussing. Not hardware.
Yeah. But not retina.
Never mentioned those.
Yeah. That's what I meant.
Except. It's. Getting. iOS. 7. All this stuff is obvious; I don't know why you're repeating it and getting some wrong.
"Sure, 4G is nice to use, but it's hardly essential." "Sure, Lightning is nice to use, but it's hardly essential."
This is Apple. They don't make crap. They haven't made a non-retina iPhone for three years. They're not going to make another one. If they still can't afford the phone, they can shut up and not buy it.
Do you see a $300 Mac laptop for the people who buy computers from Wal-mart?
I remember tons of people online saying the curvy, thinner, teardrop iPhone 5 was fake and that Apple would NEVER make something like that.
Guess they were right.
It's interesting that the article doesn't say anything about that at all, except to say it still has a 4" screen, which is physically impossible on such a device.
Technically, I had mentioned that Apple is leaving behind two things: 30 pin connectors and non-retina displays, and I was chiefly referring to hardware. As in, they won't be making or selling new devices that have those things.
Included in the discussion is iOS 7, which obviously will support devices with those things. But that doesn't mean iOS 7 was designed with those devices in mind, just that it will run on them (possibly in a more limited fashion, a la iOS 6 on the 3GS).
I don't care what color, material or form factor it comes in. my phones always get a rugged case and screen protectors on day one. The color of the device inside is of no consequence to many.
I doubt it. According to the angry Wall Street mob, nothing short of Tim Cook's head on a proverbial platter, competing in the jumbo screen race, and adopting full blown Android with dark colors, and some kind of new revolutionary watch and/or TV will satisfy shareholders.
Right now Apple is selling the iPhone 4 as the cheaper iPhone option in many countries. So they're going to replace it with a plastic phone that doesn't have a retina display? And charge $400 or more for it (most people agree it won't be any cheaper).
FWIW, I have no idea whether Apple will or will not stick to the Retina screen. I don't even particularly care one way or the other. My only point is that I don't believe the absence of a Retina screen automatically, by itself, makes a phone an idiot's choice.
In the case of both the screen and the chassis, we have no idea what other features of value Apple might include that make it more attractive than an iPhone 4. LTE? FaceTime over cellular? Siri? Who knows? Perhaps to some those things would matter more than a Retina screen or a chassis that is never even SEEN because it's inside a cheap plastic case!
Except. It's. Getting. iOS. 7. All this stuff is obvious; I don't know why you're repeating it and getting some wrong.
"Sure, 4G is nice to use, but it's hardly essential." "Sure, Lightning is nice to use, but it's hardly essential."
This is Apple. They don't make crap. They haven't made a non-retina iPhone for three years. They're not going to make another one. If they still can't afford the phone, they can shut up and not buy it.
A nice discussion of Apple's cultural history, but none of that answers my question:
What is it about buying an iPhone that doesn't have a Retina screen that makes one an idiot?
FWIW, I have no idea whether Apple will or will not stick to the Retina screen. I don't even particularly care one way or the other. My only point is that I don't believe the absence of a Retina screen automatically, by itself, makes a phone an idiot's choice.
In the case of both the screen and the chassis, we have no idea what other features of value Apple might include that make it more attractive than an iPhone 4. LTE? FaceTime over cellular? Siri? Who knows? Perhaps to some those things would matter more than a Retina screen or a chassis that is never even SEEN because it's inside a cheap plastic case!
Hmm....my iPhone isn't inside a cheap plastic case.
Comments
Ugly green! Ewww!
LTE radios aren't cheap.
Also, a metal casing wouldn't work for a phone, unless it also has the antenna band like the iPhone 5, which is probably also expensive.
The shape of thing is how it [I]feels[/I] in your hand, and secondarily how it appears to the eye.
Did anyone notice that the back is flat and that only a thin, strong curve traces the edge, giving it square shoulders? This thing, if this shape is the real deal, is going to feel great in your hand, like nothing else ever felt from Apple, or probably anyone else, in plastic. It echoes the camera-like, precision-instument shape first started by the iPhones 4/4S, and the carried into aluminum with the iPad mini, iPhone 5 and the iPod touch.
Contrast with the Samsung Galaxy back, which is shaped like the carapice of an insect, has no structural integrity, and tries to trick the eye with a greasy, glossy transparent layer over an upholstery texture. Repellant to eye and hand.
Like others have said, there's plastic, and there's plastic done right. The latter is a tactile exercise as much as a visual one. And I keep saying here (no one seems to pick up on it) that Jony Ive is a tactile designer as well as a visual one. But nobody seems to get tactile. It's our most neglected sense. Apple has given it some respect of late in aluminum, now maybe it's time for plastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It depends a lot on the lighting of the picture.
Here is a Product Red iPod nano that looks like almost the exact same colour to me:
And the colours they have available depend on the material also.
Anodised red metal will always be a different colour than red plastic and different types of plastic will look like different shades of red even when dyed with the exact same colourant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Well exactly. I made this point myself earlier. People saying "ugh!" over a crappy spy photo aren't thinking straight. Apple takes a huge amount of care and time to get the colours and lighting just right in their product shots. These kind of snaps are obviously not going to be anything like that.
Even then they can grow on you. The latest iPod touches looked pretty hideous to me at first, now they don't. This is also a fairly standard human reaction to something that is new.
Edit: I should add that I am still not 100% convinced and probably won't be until I see the value proposition that these are really Apple phones. But the idea that they "couldn't be" is not right. They could very well be.
You've convinced me! Could be real, still not sure they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
... I don't think a Retina display is make or break considering Samdung also uses low res screens in the low to mid tier price smartphones.
Samsung uses low-res screens in ALL their phones.
The Galaxy S3 is 720x1280 for instance, but it's PenTile, so it's "really" 600x1066 and significantly fuzzier than other screens. Same for all their junk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73
You've convinced me! Could be real, still not sure they are.
Same. I'm convinced they *could* be real.
Yeah. In iOS 7. Which is what we were discussing. Not hardware.
Yeah. But not retina.
Never mentioned those.
Yeah. That's what I meant.
Except. It's. Getting. iOS. 7. All this stuff is obvious; I don't know why you're repeating it and getting some wrong.
"Sure, 4G is nice to use, but it's hardly essential." "Sure, Lightning is nice to use, but it's hardly essential."
This is Apple. They don't make crap. They haven't made a non-retina iPhone for three years. They're not going to make another one. If they still can't afford the phone, they can shut up and not buy it.
Do you see a $300 Mac laptop for the people who buy computers from Wal-mart?
I remember tons of people online saying the curvy, thinner, teardrop iPhone 5 was fake and that Apple would NEVER make something like that.
Guess they were right.
It's interesting that the article doesn't say anything about that at all, except to say it still has a 4" screen, which is physically impossible on such a device.
For those commenting on how the plastic looks "cheap"-- the second photo of the case on someone's leg pretty evidently has a protective cover on it (you can see the air bubbles). I think it's likely that both the pictures on hand don't convey gloss levels or exact tint very accurately.
The difference between "cheap" and "nice" for something like a plastic case is subtle, having as much to do with the sensation in the hand as the look. A quick snapshot in poor lighting isn't going to be able to convey that, so I for one will withhold judgement.
And, as has been pointed out, the idea that these colors are somehow anomalous for Apple is just not not true. More over, color palettes are highly cultural. What might strike the American or European eye as garish might strike the Chinese or Asian eye as upbeat and high energy. Hey, and guess where Apple's biggest gains in iPhone sales are occurring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundvision
People who say Steve is rolling in his grave obviously don't remember Blue Dalmation and Flower Power iMacs.
If I had to guess these are real. They are also very similar to the new colors in iOS 7 if you look at the marketing materials on apple.com
Yep, that's what I was thinking too. In that context these bright colours make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Am I the only one that notices how much smaller this is than an iPhone? This is 1/3 smaller.
I didn't notice that, until now. The device looks too narrow for even the old 3.5 inch screen. If this is real, I'm even more interested in what the final product will look like.This could be an iPhone Mini/Nano and not an iPhone Lite.
Technically, I had mentioned that Apple is leaving behind two things: 30 pin connectors and non-retina displays, and I was chiefly referring to hardware. As in, they won't be making or selling new devices that have those things.
Included in the discussion is iOS 7, which obviously will support devices with those things. But that doesn't mean iOS 7 was designed with those devices in mind, just that it will run on them (possibly in a more limited fashion, a la iOS 6 on the 3GS).
I doubt it. According to the angry Wall Street mob, nothing short of Tim Cook's head on a proverbial platter, competing in the jumbo screen race, and adopting full blown Android with dark colors, and some kind of new revolutionary watch and/or TV will satisfy shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Right now Apple is selling the iPhone 4 as the cheaper iPhone option in many countries. So they're going to replace it with a plastic phone that doesn't have a retina display? And charge $400 or more for it (most people agree it won't be any cheaper).
FWIW, I have no idea whether Apple will or will not stick to the Retina screen. I don't even particularly care one way or the other. My only point is that I don't believe the absence of a Retina screen automatically, by itself, makes a phone an idiot's choice.
In the case of both the screen and the chassis, we have no idea what other features of value Apple might include that make it more attractive than an iPhone 4. LTE? FaceTime over cellular? Siri? Who knows? Perhaps to some those things would matter more than a Retina screen or a chassis that is never even SEEN because it's inside a cheap plastic case!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except. It's. Getting. iOS. 7. All this stuff is obvious; I don't know why you're repeating it and getting some wrong.
"Sure, 4G is nice to use, but it's hardly essential." "Sure, Lightning is nice to use, but it's hardly essential."
This is Apple. They don't make crap. They haven't made a non-retina iPhone for three years. They're not going to make another one. If they still can't afford the phone, they can shut up and not buy it.
A nice discussion of Apple's cultural history, but none of that answers my question:
What is it about buying an iPhone that doesn't have a Retina screen that makes one an idiot?