I think he's referring to the polycarbonate Macbook. That would actually be cool if even the front bezel was plastic.
I understand where he was coming from, but Apple doesn't sell the plain plastic MacBook anymore, and they haven't for 2 years. There would be no continuity in Apple selling a plastic iPhone as simply "iPhone."
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 dunno. My thinking was that this phone is like the white plastic MacBook and that the iPhone "pro" would be aluminium like the current iPhone and the MacBook Pro.
It seems to me that this phone answers problems that "regular" (non-Mac-faithful) people have with the current iPhone since it appears to have much more room for battery, and looks more durable, easier to fit in the hand, more "chuckable" and less precious overall.
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul
These have a more metallic sheen that I like.
The reason the renders don't look bad is because they look like metal, not plastic. The metallic shine on these renders looks like that of the iPod Touch, nothing like the plastic case leaks we keep seeing. So don't get your hopes up.
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio. Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch. Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell. 8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
I still think there may be a missing piece of the puzzle that when it all comes together it will make more sense. I still have a hard time believing Apple's low cost option will go from glass and stainless steel to candy colored plastic. While the flagship model is aluminum and glass. If you look at Apple's other product lines everything seems to work/fit together. When Apple updated the nano last year they also updated the colors on the shuffle. The touch, nano and shuffle all work together, all look like they're part of the same family. Same with the MacBook Air and Pros. And the iPads. But candy colore plastic and aluminum and glass? I don't get it.
I want to see Android companies and other companies going out of business, dropping like flies. I want to see many thousands of people lose their jobs.
I know you've always acted like kind of a d1ck, but really? You actually want thousands of people unemployed simply because they make a competing product? (And yes, I do believe you were serious with your comment.)
Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone? Very few people (mostly hardcore Fandroids and the mentally insane) would choose the former.
I know quite a few people with the means to purchase any phone they wish who purchased an Android phone instead of an iPhone. And they're all much more mentally stable than I am (who owns an iPhone). Of course they're all IT people with the ability to judge tech products better than the average consumer (or rabid Apple fan).
Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.
Black with colors would also look like the Zune and Nokia smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I still think there may be a missing piece of the puzzle that when it all comes together it will make more sense. I still have a hard time believing Apple's low cost option will go from glass and stainless steel to candy colored plastic. While the flagship model is aluminum and glass. If you look at Apple's other product lines everything seems to work/fit together. When Apple updated the nano last year they also updated the colors on the shuffle. The touch, nano and shuffle all work together, all look like they're part of the same family. Same with the MacBook Air and Pros. And the iPads. But candy colore plastic and aluminum and glass? I don't get it.
I honestly don't think this is the finished product, let alone the product we will see in a few months. I think Apple has many surprises up their sleeve with the so called low cost iPhone.
They look fine to me, not that I'm in the market for a budget iPhone.
Even though I'm not crazy about the idea of Apple making budget versions of devices, I am not going to argue that there is not a huge market of cheap people out there, so I'm not going to blame Apple for making such a device. It's almost impossible to read a single thread about Apple anywhere on the internet without at least a few cheapskates eventually chiming in and whining about the cost of something, so maybe this will shut those people up, but probably not.
If Apple has decided to release a version of the iPhone for more budget minded people, then it would be pretty dumb to expect the same quality materials found in the regular iPhone to be present in the budget iPhone. And there will no doubt be other compromises made, but if anybody has any complaints at all about this budget iPhone, then you can simply pay more and buy the regular iPhone and quit your whining.
I think that these budget iPhones will actually sell rather well. I can see kids having these (or rather, parents buying them for their kids) and we all know that there are plenty of people out there who would love to have an iPhone, but don't yet because of the cost, and this cheaper model would enable many of those people to finally join the premiere ecosystem on the planet and step up from the miserable existence that they currently find themselves in. I'm looking at you Fandroids and other people who are not Fandroids, but simply ended up with a crappy Android phone because it was cheap. Many of those people are surely regretting their decision.
The thing that is most interesting about these phones that we don't know yet, is the price. And even though I've always argued against cheap devices and cheap people in general, if Apple is first going to do it, then they should do it proper. Price it pretty cheap and destroy everybody else. I want to see Android companies and other companies going out of business, dropping like flies. I want to see many thousands of people lose their jobs. Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone? Very few people (mostly hardcore Fandroids and the mentally insane) would choose the former.
Such a dangerous mentality. Despite your bong clouded assessment, there will always be a large group of people that will continue buying non-Apple devices regardless of what "cheap" stuff Apple can throw at them. You should be more thankful for competition, otherwise there would have been no advancement in the software and hardware for the past several years.
As for your reaction to the rumored casing: obviously biased. You'd be blasting the hell out of it were any other company's. I'm guessing the Kool-Aid is preventing some people from seeing that this design is a blast from the distant past.
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.
It does not sound trivial at all that you say this. How a portable device feels in the hand is maybe more important than how it looks to the eye, when it comes to the final unconscious emotional decision that says "I want one." And how it feels has two aspects, shape and texture.
You only speak of texture. I also hope Apple will go for some matte rather than Samsung's greasy/glossy.
But there's also shape, and here Apple is way ahead, because Ive and crew have been focussing on the flat back with rounded edges that started with the iPad. They moved to square sides/round shoulders in aluminum with the iPad mini and the iPod touch, which elevated those two devices into seriously desirable instruments. Now it looks they're going to do the same square sides with round shoulders in plastic, which will give the devices an entirely different feel from the slippery shape of the iPhone 3G. A phone with this shape in colors will trigger deep centers in the brain, because it will "look good enough to eat."
Jobs and Ive have already long worked with this pleasant sensory confusion with other of their devices and with the "lickable" Aqua interface. It's actually a kind of synesthesia involving look, feel and taste. Apple seems to understand this kind of quasi-erotic design better than anybody in technology, so I would trust them to hit the mark, which lies somewhere deep in the reptilian brain.
Not lovin' those colors. Hope they came out of intensive third-world focus group testing and will sell like hotcakes there. Sure wouldn't want to see them here.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
I understand where he was coming from, but Apple doesn't sell the plain plastic MacBook anymore, and they haven't for 2 years. There would be no continuity in Apple selling a plastic iPhone as simply "iPhone."
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 dunno. My thinking was that this phone is like the white plastic MacBook and that the iPhone "pro" would be aluminium like the current iPhone and the MacBook Pro.
It seems to me that this phone answers problems that "regular" (non-Mac-faithful) people have with the current iPhone since it appears to have much more room for battery, and looks more durable, easier to fit in the hand, more "chuckable" and less precious overall.
I would call it "iPhone plebeian."
All just speculation of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul
These have a more metallic sheen that I like.
The reason the renders don't look bad is because they look like metal, not plastic. The metallic shine on these renders looks like that of the iPod Touch, nothing like the plastic case leaks we keep seeing. So don't get your hopes up.
Those are assuming that the material is metal though. Plastic would not look like that.
The same colours in plastic would look very much like the spy shot.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.
Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Designed in California, Colours Chosen in New Jersey.
yeah, they kind of remind me of late 1980's Swatches.
Now I can dust off my old '89 Swatch!
I know you've always acted like kind of a d1ck, but really? You actually want thousands of people unemployed simply because they make a competing product? (And yes, I do believe you were serious with your comment.)
I know quite a few people with the means to purchase any phone they wish who purchased an Android phone instead of an iPhone. And they're all much more mentally stable than I am (who owns an iPhone). Of course they're all IT people with the ability to judge tech products better than the average consumer (or rabid Apple fan).
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault
Casey Liss would likely enjoy the all-white however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.
Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.
that's a matter of personal preference I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
that's a matter of personal preference I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Black on white, or black on silver looks fine.
Black on red, green, yellow, blue, etc. looks garish.
Black with colors would also look like the Zune and Nokia smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchygo
Think of it as a iPod Touch with a LTE radio.
Less expensive 4 inch screen from iPodTouch.
Delete aluminium shell of touch, replace w/plastic shell.
8MP Camera - A6X Processor - 16GB Standard/32GB Premium
Price unsubsidized? $299.00 (Lower iPodTouch to $229.00)
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I still think there may be a missing piece of the puzzle that when it all comes together it will make more sense. I still have a hard time believing Apple's low cost option will go from glass and stainless steel to candy colored plastic. While the flagship model is aluminum and glass. If you look at Apple's other product lines everything seems to work/fit together. When Apple updated the nano last year they also updated the colors on the shuffle. The touch, nano and shuffle all work together, all look like they're part of the same family. Same with the MacBook Air and Pros. And the iPads. But candy colore plastic and aluminum and glass? I don't get it.
I honestly don't think this is the finished product, let alone the product we will see in a few months. I think Apple has many surprises up their sleeve with the so called low cost iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
that's a matter of personal preference I guess.
True, but Apple has set a recent precedent with a white face/bezel and colored back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
They look fine to me, not that I'm in the market for a budget iPhone.
Even though I'm not crazy about the idea of Apple making budget versions of devices, I am not going to argue that there is not a huge market of cheap people out there, so I'm not going to blame Apple for making such a device. It's almost impossible to read a single thread about Apple anywhere on the internet without at least a few cheapskates eventually chiming in and whining about the cost of something, so maybe this will shut those people up, but probably not.
If Apple has decided to release a version of the iPhone for more budget minded people, then it would be pretty dumb to expect the same quality materials found in the regular iPhone to be present in the budget iPhone. And there will no doubt be other compromises made, but if anybody has any complaints at all about this budget iPhone, then you can simply pay more and buy the regular iPhone and quit your whining.
I think that these budget iPhones will actually sell rather well. I can see kids having these (or rather, parents buying them for their kids) and we all know that there are plenty of people out there who would love to have an iPhone, but don't yet because of the cost, and this cheaper model would enable many of those people to finally join the premiere ecosystem on the planet and step up from the miserable existence that they currently find themselves in. I'm looking at you Fandroids and other people who are not Fandroids, but simply ended up with a crappy Android phone because it was cheap. Many of those people are surely regretting their decision.
The thing that is most interesting about these phones that we don't know yet, is the price. And even though I've always argued against cheap devices and cheap people in general, if Apple is first going to do it, then they should do it proper. Price it pretty cheap and destroy everybody else. I want to see Android companies and other companies going out of business, dropping like flies. I want to see many thousands of people lose their jobs. Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone? Very few people (mostly hardcore Fandroids and the mentally insane) would choose the former.
Such a dangerous mentality. Despite your bong clouded assessment, there will always be a large group of people that will continue buying non-Apple devices regardless of what "cheap" stuff Apple can throw at them. You should be more thankful for competition, otherwise there would have been no advancement in the software and hardware for the past several years.
As for your reaction to the rumored casing: obviously biased. You'd be blasting the hell out of it were any other company's. I'm guessing the Kool-Aid is preventing some people from seeing that this design is a blast from the distant past.
It does not sound trivial at all that you say this. How a portable device feels in the hand is maybe more important than how it looks to the eye, when it comes to the final unconscious emotional decision that says "I want one." And how it feels has two aspects, shape and texture.
You only speak of texture. I also hope Apple will go for some matte rather than Samsung's greasy/glossy.
But there's also shape, and here Apple is way ahead, because Ive and crew have been focussing on the flat back with rounded edges that started with the iPad. They moved to square sides/round shoulders in aluminum with the iPad mini and the iPod touch, which elevated those two devices into seriously desirable instruments. Now it looks they're going to do the same square sides with round shoulders in plastic, which will give the devices an entirely different feel from the slippery shape of the iPhone 3G. A phone with this shape in colors will trigger deep centers in the brain, because it will "look good enough to eat."
Jobs and Ive have already long worked with this pleasant sensory confusion with other of their devices and with the "lickable" Aqua interface. It's actually a kind of synesthesia involving look, feel and taste. Apple seems to understand this kind of quasi-erotic design better than anybody in technology, so I would trust them to hit the mark, which lies somewhere deep in the reptilian brain.
Nah, more like Japan and China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
True, but Apple has set a recent precedent with a white face/bezel and colored back:
Yes, and I don't like them.