I agree except for the price point. $400-$450 is waaaay too much.
There's not much point in taking the superb iPhone 5, cheapening it up like a cheap whore, and then selling it for only slightly less. It has to be significantly cheaper to drive sales.
I mean how do you sell that? "It looks bargain basement and it has lesser capabilities but it's (slightly) cheaper?" Why would anyone buy that? Also, the whole point is to get more people to walk into an Apple store and pick one up off-contract. The price has to be something that someone would go for off-contract, not something that would be slightly cheaper on-contract.
$299 or it isn't worth the trouble.
$200 if they can do it.
$299 is wishful thinking at best, and $200 is not going to happen.
How is an iPhone Lite supposed to come in under the price of an iPod Touch when a phone has far more complex silicon?
Adding cellular support to any iPad adds $130 to the price.
The cheapest iTouch is currently $229 sans rear camera. Add the camera and plastics and you probably end up with a $250 device. Add your cellular radio which we know is a $130 mark up and suddenly you have a $380 phone. And that's with recycled 4S guts. But now you need LTE capability because Apple would have to be on crack to launch a new non-LTE cellular device, and Apple doesn't make products for "Africa and India". That puts in the $400-450 range which is $200 less than an iPhone 5, and $100 less than a 4S, only get you get a larger 4" screen and LTE.
More importantly, with a cheaper and familiar model, it frees Apple to go balls to the wall with iPhone 6 and really pioneer new territory and technology.
Also, the cheaper model will just be "iPhone" and flagship models will be 5S, 6, 6S, 7, etc etc.
So are you suggesting they keep it intact with the expensive return prone aluminum case and sell it at a discount now that the iPhone 4 4s is discontinued? What other options are there?
They keep it intact with the premium highest customer satisfaction aluminum case.
[...] 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.
I think you overestimate the expectations of the average smartphone buyer. We tend to assume that everyone must surely appreciate the subtle conveniences and premium features of iOS, but many just don't really care. They don't see themselves using things like AirPlay and FaceTime. They see Siri as a cute gimmick but not really necessary. They use Windows and Gmail or Hotmail so device sync doesn't have much value for them. Heck, most of the iPhone owners I know rarely if ever take advantage of anything more than cloud sync.
The point of that being I don't think most Android buyers DO regret their choice. They're able to do the things they want just fine. Their expectations are modest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone?
[A] Those who want a big screen.
[B] The people I described above when dealing with a salesperson who gets a spiff on every slow-selling unit sold.
You, other AI forum members and I appreciate the value of both the iPhone and iOS, but I don't think we're "typical" phone shoppers. I think a less-expensive iPhone is probably a good idea, but I don't think it'll get a free ride. There will still be those who choose an Android device for reasons that we wouldn't, and one that some of us WOULD: a larger, wider screen.
Anyone thinking Apple will announce a larger screen iPhone this fall I think will be disappointed.
I think you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Or are we supposed to believe Apple solved for these trade off issues between when Cook made those comments at D11 and Sept/Oct when the new phone comes out?
Some of us don't believe those supposed trade-offs actually exist, so no time is required to "overcome" them.
That doesn't mean I think they'll release a bigger screen this year though. It is exactly because they won't that Cook had to come up with all that nonsense as an excuse.
Anyone thinking Apple will announce a larger screen iPhone this fall I think will be disappointed.
Here's what Tim Cook said at Apple's last earnings call:
And at D11
Putting aside whether Tim Cook is right about these "tradeoffs" would he have made these comments in April and May if Apple was planning to release a 4.5" - 5" phone this fall? Or are we supposed to believe Apple solved for these trade off issues between when Cook made those comments at D11 and Sept/Oct when the new phone comes out? Of course I know Apple in the past has shot something down that they later embraced. But have they done it in the same year? I personally think Apple will get one more cycle out of the 5 design and we may see a larger phone in 2014. Also I'm sure there's something iOS 7 related that Apple is saving for the phone launch this fall.
The thing is that Tim Cook's arguments were misleading. Many (but not all) of the issues he mentioned had nothing to do with screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Some of us don't believe those supposed trade-offs actually exist, so no time is required to "overcome" them.
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 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.
I *HATE* that practice! Tracking down a model by production date is a PITA. I bought my MacBook Pro is 2009. Does that mean it's a 2009 model? Or is it a "Late 2008?" It's a bloody nuisance. If they won't number them I would sure appreciate at least making the model number more prominent and using THAT as the designator.
No, it isn't a "fact." There's no way to prove a negative, so it by very definition can not BE a fact. Then there's the issue of his listed criteria being subjective and it's impossible to qualify.
I stand by my assertion that Apple absolutely COULD build a larger screen iPhone that meets the criteria Cook listed. They obviously CHOOSE not to and that's fine, but the reasons he listed are pure peeper wool. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple doesn't want to complicate the developer landscape and they're waiting to see if the whole big-screen fad just blows over.
No, it isn't a "fact." There's no way to prove a negative, so it by very definition can not BE a fact. Then there's the issue of his listed criteria being subjective and it's impossible to qualify.
That is categorically false. There is no way to prove some negatives. But others are proven daily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I stand by my assertion that Apple absolutely COULD build a larger screen iPhone that meets the criteria Cook listed. They obviously CHOOSE not to and that's fine, but the reasons he listed are pure peeper wool. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple doesn't want to complicate the developer landscape and they're waiting to see if the whole big-screen fad just blows over.
I didn't disagree with you on that. WTF are you talking about?
- outside of Heavy Metal bands, designers have traditionally always considered the black & red combination, "tacky."
- black & yellow has also traditionally been considered garish, which is why black and yellow stripes are used for "warning" signs.
The intense contrast when black is used together with a bright primary colour is what makes these combinations "pop" for the average person, but the same reason why artists and designers generally avoid them, because they are sort of an assault on the eyeballs in general.
I would like a direct link or sited quotation to that theory. I am a designer and have never heard such a thing. Even trying to remember back to color theory courses. Regardless, I still hold this as a matter of opinion.
[quote name="v5v" url="/t/158350/more-pictures-of-purported-iphone-lite-shell-surface-with-new-blue-color/120#post_2357431"] No, it isn't a "fact."[/QUOTE]
Of course it is. Or can you explain to use how there magically aren't tradeoffs in phones that cost less than other phones? Or phones that are larger than other phones? :no:
- outside of Heavy Metal bands, designers have traditionally always considered the black & red combination, "tacky."
- black & yellow has also traditionally been considered garish, which is why black and yellow stripes are used for "warning" signs.
The intense contrast when black is used together with a bright primary colour is what makes these combinations "pop" for the average person, but the same reason why artists and designers generally avoid them, because they are sort of an assault on the eyeballs in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I would like a direct link or sited quotation to that theory. I am a designer and have never heard such a thing. Even trying to remember back to color theory courses. Regardless, I still hold this as a matter of opinion.
Me too. I'd love to see a credible reference for this.
indeed. They could used super LCD or IGZO. IGZO is by far the best tech, if they ever used it. I am being convinced the new iOS 7 look may be a way to avoid getting duplicated by android, since a lot of android phones are on oled and amoled.
Isn't yield and/or price the current limiting factor(s) for IGZO???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I think it will shift to 32GB, 64GB and 128GB capacities.
Of course it is. Or can you explain to use how there magically aren't tradeoffs in phones that cost less than other phones? Or phones that are larger than other phones?
What I said is that it's not a "fact" that Apple can't build a bigger screen phone that meets the criteria Cook outlined. As it turns out, I misunderstood what stelligent meant so there was actually no claim of that even BEING a "fact" in the first place!
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were calling Cook's claim of insurmountable trade-offs a "fact." I get what you meant now.
It is a fact that some of alleged tradeoffs are NOT such. While trying to be concise, I was not precise.
But it doesn't matter. I won't hold Cook to his comments. He is closer to the going-ons in his company than most CEOs. He stays close to what he knows best most of the time, allowing others to talk about topics not within his expertise. For example, neither Meg Whitman nor Michael Dell can list the key design features of a server the way Cook can rhyme off resolution, color quality, white balance, etc. So I am willing to give him some slack, particularly since I prefer to see Apple stay with a single flagship design. Principles over market share. Great companies do not prioritize shareholder value over the really important things.
They keep it intact with the premium highest customer satisfaction aluminum case.
If Apple did keep making the iPhone 5 and sold it at a discount when the 5s is released, then Tim Cook does deserve to be fired and Apple would face certain extinction. Not going to happen. The Aluminum case 5 is done and for good reason.
If Apple did keep making the iPhone 5 and sold it at a discount when the 5s is released, then Tim Cook does deserve to be fired and Apple would face certain extinction. Not going to happen. The Aluminum case 5 is done and for good reason.
I hope you're not disappointed that the 5S will have the exact same aluminum case
If Apple did keep making the iPhone 5 and sold it at a discount when the 5s is released, then Tim Cook does deserve to be fired and Apple would face certain extinction. Not going to happen. The Aluminum case 5 is done and for good reason.
Surely you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Troll off. The 5 is the current #1 phone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I agree except for the price point. $400-$450 is waaaay too much.
There's not much point in taking the superb iPhone 5, cheapening it up like a cheap whore, and then selling it for only slightly less. It has to be significantly cheaper to drive sales.
I mean how do you sell that? "It looks bargain basement and it has lesser capabilities but it's (slightly) cheaper?" Why would anyone buy that? Also, the whole point is to get more people to walk into an Apple store and pick one up off-contract. The price has to be something that someone would go for off-contract, not something that would be slightly cheaper on-contract.
$299 or it isn't worth the trouble.
$200 if they can do it.
$299 is wishful thinking at best, and $200 is not going to happen.
How is an iPhone Lite supposed to come in under the price of an iPod Touch when a phone has far more complex silicon?
Adding cellular support to any iPad adds $130 to the price.
The cheapest iTouch is currently $229 sans rear camera. Add the camera and plastics and you probably end up with a $250 device. Add your cellular radio which we know is a $130 mark up and suddenly you have a $380 phone. And that's with recycled 4S guts. But now you need LTE capability because Apple would have to be on crack to launch a new non-LTE cellular device, and Apple doesn't make products for "Africa and India". That puts in the $400-450 range which is $200 less than an iPhone 5, and $100 less than a 4S, only get you get a larger 4" screen and LTE.
More importantly, with a cheaper and familiar model, it frees Apple to go balls to the wall with iPhone 6 and really pioneer new territory and technology.
Also, the cheaper model will just be "iPhone" and flagship models will be 5S, 6, 6S, 7, etc etc.
They keep it intact with the premium highest customer satisfaction aluminum case.
Perhaps because it's Design by Faker in China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
[...] 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.
I think you overestimate the expectations of the average smartphone buyer. We tend to assume that everyone must surely appreciate the subtle conveniences and premium features of iOS, but many just don't really care. They don't see themselves using things like AirPlay and FaceTime. They see Siri as a cute gimmick but not really necessary. They use Windows and Gmail or Hotmail so device sync doesn't have much value for them. Heck, most of the iPhone owners I know rarely if ever take advantage of anything more than cloud sync.
The point of that being I don't think most Android buyers DO regret their choice. They're able to do the things they want just fine. Their expectations are modest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Who would buy a cheap, crappy Android phone if the alternative is a budget version of an iPhone?
[A] Those who want a big screen.
[B] The people I described above when dealing with a salesperson who gets a spiff on every slow-selling unit sold.
You, other AI forum members and I appreciate the value of both the iPhone and iOS, but I don't think we're "typical" phone shoppers. I think a less-expensive iPhone is probably a good idea, but I don't think it'll get a free ride. There will still be those who choose an Android device for reasons that we wouldn't, and one that some of us WOULD: a larger, wider screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Anyone thinking Apple will announce a larger screen iPhone this fall I think will be disappointed.
I think you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Or are we supposed to believe Apple solved for these trade off issues between when Cook made those comments at D11 and Sept/Oct when the new phone comes out?
Some of us don't believe those supposed trade-offs actually exist, so no time is required to "overcome" them.
That doesn't mean I think they'll release a bigger screen this year though. It is exactly because they won't that Cook had to come up with all that nonsense as an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Anyone thinking Apple will announce a larger screen iPhone this fall I think will be disappointed.
Here's what Tim Cook said at Apple's last earnings call:
And at D11
Putting aside whether Tim Cook is right about these "tradeoffs" would he have made these comments in April and May if Apple was planning to release a 4.5" - 5" phone this fall? Or are we supposed to believe Apple solved for these trade off issues between when Cook made those comments at D11 and Sept/Oct when the new phone comes out? Of course I know Apple in the past has shot something down that they later embraced. But have they done it in the same year? I personally think Apple will get one more cycle out of the 5 design and we may see a larger phone in 2014. Also I'm sure there's something iOS 7 related that Apple is saving for the phone launch this fall.
The thing is that Tim Cook's arguments were misleading. Many (but not all) of the issues he mentioned had nothing to do with screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Some of us don't believe those supposed trade-offs actually exist, so no time is required to "overcome" them.
It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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 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.
I *HATE* that practice! Tracking down a model by production date is a PITA. I bought my MacBook Pro is 2009. Does that mean it's a 2009 model? Or is it a "Late 2008?" It's a bloody nuisance. If they won't number them I would sure appreciate at least making the model number more prominent and using THAT as the designator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Doesn't look so bad based on the renders that Mac Rumors did:
Those renders show metallic colors. The photos don't. That makes a pretty significant difference to their "attractiveness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact.
No, it isn't a "fact." There's no way to prove a negative, so it by very definition can not BE a fact. Then there's the issue of his listed criteria being subjective and it's impossible to qualify.
I stand by my assertion that Apple absolutely COULD build a larger screen iPhone that meets the criteria Cook listed. They obviously CHOOSE not to and that's fine, but the reasons he listed are pure peeper wool. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple doesn't want to complicate the developer landscape and they're waiting to see if the whole big-screen fad just blows over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
No, it isn't a "fact." There's no way to prove a negative, so it by very definition can not BE a fact. Then there's the issue of his listed criteria being subjective and it's impossible to qualify.
That is categorically false. There is no way to prove some negatives. But others are proven daily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I stand by my assertion that Apple absolutely COULD build a larger screen iPhone that meets the criteria Cook listed. They obviously CHOOSE not to and that's fine, but the reasons he listed are pure peeper wool. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that Apple doesn't want to complicate the developer landscape and they're waiting to see if the whole big-screen fad just blows over.
I didn't disagree with you on that. WTF are you talking about?
No, it isn't a "fact."[/QUOTE]
Of course it is. Or can you explain to use how there magically aren't tradeoffs in phones that cost less than other phones? Or phones that are larger than other phones? :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Not entirely.
- outside of Heavy Metal bands, designers have traditionally always considered the black & red combination, "tacky."
- black & yellow has also traditionally been considered garish, which is why black and yellow stripes are used for "warning" signs.
The intense contrast when black is used together with a bright primary colour is what makes these combinations "pop" for the average person, but the same reason why artists and designers generally avoid them, because they are sort of an assault on the eyeballs in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I would like a direct link or sited quotation to that theory. I am a designer and have never heard such a thing. Even trying to remember back to color theory courses. Regardless, I still hold this as a matter of opinion.
Me too. I'd love to see a credible reference for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
indeed. They could used super LCD or IGZO. IGZO is by far the best tech, if they ever used it. I am being convinced the new iOS 7 look may be a way to avoid getting duplicated by android, since a lot of android phones are on oled and amoled.
Isn't yield and/or price the current limiting factor(s) for IGZO???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I think it will shift to 32GB, 64GB and 128GB capacities.
From your keyboard to the powers that be!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
I didn't disagree with you on that. WTF are you talking about?
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were calling Cook's claim of insurmountable trade-offs a "fact." I get what you meant now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course it is. Or can you explain to use how there magically aren't tradeoffs in phones that cost less than other phones? Or phones that are larger than other phones?
What I said is that it's not a "fact" that Apple can't build a bigger screen phone that meets the criteria Cook outlined. As it turns out, I misunderstood what stelligent meant so there was actually no claim of that even BEING a "fact" in the first place!
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were calling Cook's claim of insurmountable trade-offs a "fact." I get what you meant now.
It is a fact that some of alleged tradeoffs are NOT such. While trying to be concise, I was not precise.
But it doesn't matter. I won't hold Cook to his comments. He is closer to the going-ons in his company than most CEOs. He stays close to what he knows best most of the time, allowing others to talk about topics not within his expertise. For example, neither Meg Whitman nor Michael Dell can list the key design features of a server the way Cook can rhyme off resolution, color quality, white balance, etc. So I am willing to give him some slack, particularly since I prefer to see Apple stay with a single flagship design. Principles over market share. Great companies do not prioritize shareholder value over the really important things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
They keep it intact with the premium highest customer satisfaction aluminum case.
If Apple did keep making the iPhone 5 and sold it at a discount when the 5s is released, then Tim Cook does deserve to be fired and Apple would face certain extinction. Not going to happen. The Aluminum case 5 is done and for good reason.
I hope you're not disappointed that the 5S will have the exact same aluminum case
Surely you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Troll off. The 5 is the current #1 phone.