I agree, this is the "5S" as it's been termed, essentially a 5 re-engineered in a less expensive casing and probably a few other places to cut some costs. Considering how obviously scalable iOS 7's UI is, I would expect these leaks are being controlled to hide the existence of a larger, next-gen iPhone "6" which will launch simultaneously. Then the lineup would consist of a 4.x"* high-end iPhone in black and white with a 4" mid-range available in a spectrum of colours.
* For some math, 720p at the existing 326 ppi would make a 4.5" screen.
Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this:
This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone. It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.
This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).
This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether. Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro. The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door. The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product. That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be.
So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.
What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.
If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.
So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price. Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?
Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility. Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility?
Thoughts?
Those cases are hideous. In any case, if Apple releases a new low cost iPhone, it'll probably use the 4/4S internals in a new case. Cost will lie between 300-400, off contract.
You wouldn't and that's fine, but I guarantee to you that these will in fact fly off the shelves. These will sell like crazy and Tim Cook will get to keep his full pay.
Assuming all these rumors are true and the low-cost phone is this candy-shell thing.
Yes, they will sell well if the price is right.
However, in the price range of the category of smartphone Apple would need to get into to make any kind of dent in market share...they won't go that low. And I fear the stock price will probably drop again pretty big if that happens.
Now I could be wrong. Looking at the iPod & iPod Mini and the Nano when it first came out...ended up being the best selling iPod to date. And the difference in price was really not that much. At first around a $50 difference, then lower over the years. Personally, that's what needs to happen but at the start.
If Apple makes a lower-cost iPhone, contract free and sells it for $450 it won't sell that well. So the real question should be not how well it's going to sell, it'll be how much will it sell for? For me, a $299 iPhone with 16GB would be the absolute minimum I think Apple would do off-contract. Then $399 for 32GB and $499 for 64GB.
What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.
If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.
So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price. Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?
Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility. Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility?
Thoughts?
I've postulated that they may use a non-Retina screen in order to get the price down and retain margins.
If they use a non-Retina screen, then the GPU only has to push around a fraction of the pixels (they can use a cheaper processor), the screen wouldn't consume as much power (they can use a smaller battery), and the 5S is more desirable (higher upscale means higher profits). All of those factor into major cost savings on this device, and I could see it priced at $299-$349 easy at that point, and the device may be able to receive value adding features that the current iPhone 4 doesn't have such as Siri and Voice guided Maps.
Easy. It's called economy of scale. The first time around, components must be sold at a certain price to recoop engineering and tooling costs, after that they can lower the costs and still make the same amount of profits. Milling of the aluminum cases on the other hand will cost just the same though. Time and materials do not go down and the milling process is a lot more costly and time consuming than casting plastic. Plus, the return rates on the aluminum bodied iPhonesfor minor issues must have take a huge toll on margins.
Any way you cut it, it is a smart move, and Apple will sell tons of these suckers.
I agree economy of scale could be a factor in the lower price, but I don't think that alone would result in a nearly 50% selling price reduction.
What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.
If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.
So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price. Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?
Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility. Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility?
Thoughts?
I think you hit all the big cost-saving measures. Display, Battery and Memory are usually the highest cost features.
Also, this might be a stretch but...since we've heard recently that Apple has sealed a deal with Taiwuan Semi, I think that will get us some cost-saving since Apple wouldn't have to rely on Samsung as much for the chips, and pay Samsung's Apple-tax to build them. That same logic could also be adapted to Display Tech and other components that Apple probably pay's a premium for since they're purchasing those components from competing Tech companies.
Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this:
This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone. It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.
This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).
This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether. Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro. The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door. The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product. That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be.
So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.
That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.
If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."
Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?
For all we know, there will be several different color schemes available based upon the region or country. A "low cost" iPhone is all about getting people who couldn't afford the standard phone into the Apple experience and ecosystem...this includes hundreds of million potential ne customers in China, India, Russia, Brazil and other "emerging markets"! It may not even be for sale in the US for all we know.
That doesnt mean anything imo. All it says is they didnt do it in the past for quality reasons. Not to mention those arguments are pretty BS, they can make a good quality 4", 7.9" and 10" screens but they cant solve the problem for a 5" screen? I dont think Apple can afford to spit on a larger screen for very long without losing a good chunck of the high end market.
I think the real argument would be resolution on Apple's side. Cook probably just doesn't want to show his deficiency in talking tech lingo so he looks at the whole picture in more general terms. Which he should since he's CEO and not head of Technology.
Sure, they made amazing 4" and 9.7" retina screens. But the 9.7" 'retina' is a lower pixel density, which is a "trade-off" since you don't hold the device as close to your eyes. It's yet to be seen if 4.8" and/or 7.9" retina screens are possible. And the reason being resolution issues.
So let's say we see a retina iPad mini in the future. What would that resolution be? Double the current display, matching the 9.7"? I hardly think so. That would make the Mini's density equal to the iPhone 4 & 5 and that would be really expensive, however totally possible.
Now, with a 4.8" iPhone, it's a different story. If you increase the screen but keep the same display resolution as the iPhone 5, you end up with lower pixel density, and then you have a lower quality display. If you keep the same pixel density but just make a bigger display, you'll have to tell your dev's to support two different screen resolutions and that will make no one happy.
So the real problem to overcome is resolution dependence, which we've heard Apple might be hinting at independence with iOS 7. And if that's the case, then there's no reason for Apple not to make a 4.8" iPhone with a different screen res. But to me, resolution independence add so much more complexity to iOS and to dev apps that would bloat the software and create slower devices using much bigger program sizes. To me, the resolution dependent model is more efficient and probably creates a much faster UX.
For all we know, there will be several different color schemes available based upon the region or country. A "low cost" iPhone is all about getting people who couldn't afford the standard phone into the Apple experience and ecosystem...this includes hundreds of million potential ne customers in China, India, Russia, Brazil and other "emerging markets"! It may not even be for sale in the US for all we know.
When has Apple ever done something like this?
That makes absolutely no sense from a budgetary, manufacturing and cost-effectiveness POV. Especially if this iPhone is supposed to be a low-cost or budget model.
Yes, we've seen the Auto industry does this, but now they even realize how much more money that costs. Ford is going back to the "world-car" model rather than catering to the EU, Asian and others markets. Now, the Ford Focus is the same in any country, save for engines and minor tweaks to get through reg's. The Ford Fusion is soon to be the platform for the new Mondeo in most countries. Just makes so much more sense when you look at manufacturing efficiencies. And that's Tim Cook's strong suit. He would never let what you are suggesting happen.
The one thing that I struggle with regarding a cheaper iPhone is the ability to run iOS 7. They can't cheap out on the specs too much if they want a smooth experience using it. Whereas everyone expects some type of slowdown with 2 year old phones, it would be unacceptable on a new phone regardless of the internals. Given how much Apple touts the majority of users using the latest operating system, I doubt Apple wants a new phone running an older operating system.
That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.
If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."
Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?
I can see the iPhone and iPhone Pro argument.
I think he's referring to the polycarbonate Macbook. That would actually be cool if even the front bezel was plastic.
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
These have a more metallic sheen that I like. Hopefully the finish is something like this instead of flat candy shell. The other unknown is feel. As trivial as it sounds, the feel of the iPhone 4 was very satisfying. If took me longer to warm to the iPhone 5, but I like it now. Slippery smooth would be a mistake. I hope it feels mildly grippy, while still allowing smooth repositioning in the hand.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault
I agree, this is the "5S" as it's been termed, essentially a 5 re-engineered in a less expensive casing and probably a few other places to cut some costs. Considering how obviously scalable iOS 7's UI is, I would expect these leaks are being controlled to hide the existence of a larger, next-gen iPhone "6" which will launch simultaneously. Then the lineup would consist of a 4.x"* high-end iPhone in black and white with a 4" mid-range available in a spectrum of colours.
* For some math, 720p at the existing 326 ppi would make a 4.5" screen.
Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this:
This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone. It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.
This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).
This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether. Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro. The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door. The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product. That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be.
So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.
Those cases are hideous. In any case, if Apple releases a new low cost iPhone, it'll probably use the 4/4S internals in a new case. Cost will lie between 300-400, off contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela
You wouldn't and that's fine, but I guarantee to you that these will in fact fly off the shelves. These will sell like crazy and Tim Cook will get to keep his full pay.
Assuming all these rumors are true and the low-cost phone is this candy-shell thing.
Yes, they will sell well if the price is right.
However, in the price range of the category of smartphone Apple would need to get into to make any kind of dent in market share...they won't go that low. And I fear the stock price will probably drop again pretty big if that happens.
Now I could be wrong. Looking at the iPod & iPod Mini and the Nano when it first came out...ended up being the best selling iPod to date. And the difference in price was really not that much. At first around a $50 difference, then lower over the years. Personally, that's what needs to happen but at the start.
If Apple makes a lower-cost iPhone, contract free and sells it for $450 it won't sell that well. So the real question should be not how well it's going to sell, it'll be how much will it sell for? For me, a $299 iPhone with 16GB would be the absolute minimum I think Apple would do off-contract. Then $399 for 32GB and $499 for 64GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.
If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.
So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price. Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?
Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility. Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility?
Thoughts?
I've postulated that they may use a non-Retina screen in order to get the price down and retain margins.
If they use a non-Retina screen, then the GPU only has to push around a fraction of the pixels (they can use a cheaper processor), the screen wouldn't consume as much power (they can use a smaller battery), and the 5S is more desirable (higher upscale means higher profits). All of those factor into major cost savings on this device, and I could see it priced at $299-$349 easy at that point, and the device may be able to receive value adding features that the current iPhone 4 doesn't have such as Siri and Voice guided Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela
Easy. It's called economy of scale. The first time around, components must be sold at a certain price to recoop engineering and tooling costs, after that they can lower the costs and still make the same amount of profits. Milling of the aluminum cases on the other hand will cost just the same though. Time and materials do not go down and the milling process is a lot more costly and time consuming than casting plastic. Plus, the return rates on the aluminum bodied iPhonesfor minor issues must have take a huge toll on margins.
Any way you cut it, it is a smart move, and Apple will sell tons of these suckers.
I agree economy of scale could be a factor in the lower price, but I don't think that alone would result in a nearly 50% selling price reduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
What's interesting is how a few dollars' difference in case materials is seen by some people as the primary difference between "cheap" and "high end", even if the internals stayed the same.
If that were the only difference, then people will really start wondering why they should pay hundreds extra for some glass and aluminum that they usually buy another protective case for, anyway.
So it seems like that there would be more differences to lower the build price. Anyone have some guesses or suggestions as to what they might be?
Obviously, less memory and a slower CPU is one possibility. Would they also go backwards with the display, or is that not a possibility?
Thoughts?
I think you hit all the big cost-saving measures. Display, Battery and Memory are usually the highest cost features.
Also, this might be a stretch but...since we've heard recently that Apple has sealed a deal with Taiwuan Semi, I think that will get us some cost-saving since Apple wouldn't have to rely on Samsung as much for the chips, and pay Samsung's Apple-tax to build them. That same logic could also be adapted to Display Tech and other components that Apple probably pay's a premium for since they're purchasing those components from competing Tech companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Well, I'm still not 100% convinced these are real, but if they are, the best theory I can come up with, that closest fits the available facts (so far) IMO is this:
This isn't the "iPhone lite" because it doesn't make sense to differentiate two products and have the new one be "lesser" than the regular iPhone. It also isn't the iPhone 5s, because it's too different from the iPhone 5 in every way not to have it's own name.
This is actually just the "iPhone" (late 2013), and what we've been thinking of and imagining as the "iPhone 5s", is instead the "iPhone Pro" (late 2013).
This year could mark the year that Apple switches to the same model as all of it's other products and stops the numbering altogether. Each year the iPhone and the iPhone Pro would be updated just like the MacBook and the MacBook pro. The regular one is cheap, sold off contract and shoveled out the door. The "Pro" model is super slim and made out of aluminium blah, blah, blah, etc. just like every other Apple "Pro" product. That way the only thing with numbers is the OS, and the phones are designated by production dates instead, just like all the other stuff they make. There is no iPhone 6, 7, etc. in this scenario and never will be.
So far, based on the available evidence, this is what makes the most sense to me.
That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.
If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."
Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
That doesnt mean anything imo. All it says is they didnt do it in the past for quality reasons. Not to mention those arguments are pretty BS, they can make a good quality 4", 7.9" and 10" screens but they cant solve the problem for a 5" screen? I dont think Apple can afford to spit on a larger screen for very long without losing a good chunck of the high end market.
I think the real argument would be resolution on Apple's side. Cook probably just doesn't want to show his deficiency in talking tech lingo so he looks at the whole picture in more general terms. Which he should since he's CEO and not head of Technology.
Sure, they made amazing 4" and 9.7" retina screens. But the 9.7" 'retina' is a lower pixel density, which is a "trade-off" since you don't hold the device as close to your eyes. It's yet to be seen if 4.8" and/or 7.9" retina screens are possible. And the reason being resolution issues.
So let's say we see a retina iPad mini in the future. What would that resolution be? Double the current display, matching the 9.7"? I hardly think so. That would make the Mini's density equal to the iPhone 4 & 5 and that would be really expensive, however totally possible.
Now, with a 4.8" iPhone, it's a different story. If you increase the screen but keep the same display resolution as the iPhone 5, you end up with lower pixel density, and then you have a lower quality display. If you keep the same pixel density but just make a bigger display, you'll have to tell your dev's to support two different screen resolutions and that will make no one happy.
So the real problem to overcome is resolution dependence, which we've heard Apple might be hinting at independence with iOS 7. And if that's the case, then there's no reason for Apple not to make a 4.8" iPhone with a different screen res. But to me, resolution independence add so much more complexity to iOS and to dev apps that would bloat the software and create slower devices using much bigger program sizes. To me, the resolution dependent model is more efficient and probably creates a much faster UX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
Ugh!!! Please get rid of those damn White Bezels! I know it will make me and John Siracusa happier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Ugh!!! Please get rid of those damn White Bezels! I know it will make me and John Siracusa happier.
Ughh, what color would you suggest? Black would look horrible, and having everything the same color would be puketastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
For all we know, there will be several different color schemes available based upon the region or country. A "low cost" iPhone is all about getting people who couldn't afford the standard phone into the Apple experience and ecosystem...this includes hundreds of million potential ne customers in China, India, Russia, Brazil and other "emerging markets"! It may not even be for sale in the US for all we know.
When has Apple ever done something like this?
That makes absolutely no sense from a budgetary, manufacturing and cost-effectiveness POV. Especially if this iPhone is supposed to be a low-cost or budget model.
Yes, we've seen the Auto industry does this, but now they even realize how much more money that costs. Ford is going back to the "world-car" model rather than catering to the EU, Asian and others markets. Now, the Ford Focus is the same in any country, save for engines and minor tweaks to get through reg's. The Ford Fusion is soon to be the platform for the new Mondeo in most countries. Just makes so much more sense when you look at manufacturing efficiencies. And that's Tim Cook's strong suit. He would never let what you are suggesting happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Black would look horrible
Apple didn't think so.
Sure, White bezel on white body would look better, but in many opinions the black bezel on colored (including silver) bodies just looks better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
That would work if this thing wasn't plastic and candy colored.
If this looked high end like the MacBook Air or iPad Mini even, I would agree with your logic, but this thing doesn't look "iPhone" and ergo shouldn't be simply called "iPhone."
Maybe Apple will call it the "iPhone Color" or something to reflect the candy colored cases?
I can see the iPhone and iPhone Pro argument.
I think he's referring to the polycarbonate Macbook. That would actually be cool if even the front bezel was plastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
These have a more metallic sheen that I like. Hopefully the finish is something like this instead of flat candy shell. The other unknown is feel. As trivial as it sounds, the feel of the iPhone 4 was very satisfying. If took me longer to warm to the iPhone 5, but I like it now. Slippery smooth would be a mistake. I hope it feels mildly grippy, while still allowing smooth repositioning in the hand.
Casey Liss would likely enjoy the all-white however.
Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.