The Moto G is more similar in performance to the 4S (which sells for $479 right now) than to the 5c.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
FRICK!!!
Stop this BS. Google losses money on every phone they sale. Motorolla lost $1,000,000,000 last year.
You can't compare this to an iPhone and expect Apple to sell at a loss.
The MotoG has no 4G LTE
The camera is horrible
Web browsing is slow and choopy
And of course its a direct line to Google spyware
It may not be junk but its not even close to the 5C
You both are missing the point. I'm not comparing the Moto G to the 5C. I'm saying that there is plenty of room at the low end of the market for Apple to sell a profitable iPhone.
And sog35, I've watched several in depth video reviews about the Moto G and none complained about slow or choppy performance. They cut costs by eliminating the LTE radio and choosing a lower quality camera, among other cutbacks. Nothing that they cut out leads to a bad experience, especially not for $180.
There really isn't that much difference between what you can see on an iPhone 5 sized screen and it's unwieldy Android competitors.
?! You haven't held an iPhone side-by-side with a Galaxy, have you? I have, which is why I now want a bigger iPhone.
If the little, tiny Asian women, who seem to be the primary buyers of phones with enormous screens around here, can manage them without trouble, it seems odd that you consider them "unwieldy."
Yeah, you're right. And you should be proud, by golly!
People using their handheld computer while waiting in line…
Sheesh! Some people really need to get a life, right?
Yes.
Seriously, yes.
Honestly, what the hell is going on in his life that's so bloody important it couldn't wait 30 freakin' seconds until he could use it without gymnastics?
That aside, a little less "nose buried in the screen in public places" and a little more "pay attention to what's going on around you, dipshit" would go a LOOONG way toward making this a better world.
The big, fat difference between the 5C (aka iPhone IIvx) and the devices above was that they did NOT have as prime reason for launch price/marketability considerations. They were seen as the best in their respective segments, period.
No matter how much you seem to by trying, I don't think anyone else is going to call the 5c iPhone IIvx. I'm sure you think it is really clever but no, not that clever.
The 3G and 3GS were plastic phones (and flagship models to boot). I don't remember people complaining about them being plastic. All the reviews I've read from 5C owners have been positive. The only people that seem to have an issue with the 5C are those who never were going to buy it anyway.
First I have no issue with the 5c whatsoever... and was considering it. But the 3G was then and nobody had a chance to see it up aginst the beauty of the 4 or the sleak and sexy elegance of the 5.
I rarily if ever second guess Apple's design decisions over the last decade or so, but I do believe they "possibly" could ahve found a better way to differentiate the 5c and 5s without going to such a material change. However... i'm sure they have their internal reasons for doing so which will come out some day.
You both are missing the point. I'm not comparing the Moto G to the 5C. I'm saying that there is plenty of room at the low end of the market for Apple to sell a profitable iPhone.
And sog35, I've watched several in depth video reviews about the Moto G and none complained about slow or choppy performance. They cut costs by eliminating the LTE radio and choosing a lower quality camera, among other cutbacks. Nothing that they cut out leads to a bad experience, especially not for $180.
Using substandard parts isn't Apple's MO. In fact, they improved some parts in the 5C compared to the 5.
Using substandard parts isn't Apple's MO. In fact, they improved some parts in the 5C compared to the 5.
And made others worse. There has been much ink spilled about the flaky motion sensor at compass in the 5(c, s) series -- as far as I know, c is not known to be worse than s in this respect, that's true.
And made others worse. There has been much ink spilled about the flaky motion sensor at compass in the 5(c, s) series -- as far as I know, c is not known to be worse than s in this respect, that's true.
Made others worse? Um, no.
Regarding this "much spilled ink" thing you made reference to (one of an exceedingly few "issues" found with the new handsets)... it's widely known that they changed suppliers for the sensors, and discovered the new sensors needed to be calibrated differently. It's fixed now (at least, is fixed for anyone who bothered to update iOS).
Absolutely nothing to do with Apple using substandard parts. They upgraded and improved the internals of the "iPhone 5" and put that into a new case design and called it the 5c.
So in fact, they improved some, and.... didn't make any "worse" as far as anyone knows... refer to the iFixIt article which stripped down the 5c. Nothing "substandard" or "worse" in there. They'd have noted it.
Regarding this "much spilled ink" thing you made reference to (one of an exceedingly few "issues" found with the new handsets)... it's widely known that they changed suppliers for the sensors, and discovered the new sensors needed to be calibrated differently. It's fixed now (at least, is fixed for anyone who bothered to update iOS).
Absolutely nothing to do with Apple using substandard parts. They upgraded and improved the internals of the "iPhone 5" and put that into a new case design and called it the 5c.
So in fact, they improved some, and.... didn't make any "worse" as far as anyone knows... refer to the iFixIt article which stripped down the 5c. Nothing "substandard" or "worse" in there. They'd have noted it.
What's your point?
They changed vendors why? I am guessing because the new vendor gave them a better price. They (Apple) presumably figured it would not make any difference. It did (I don't use the compass so much, but racing games were playing a lot worse on the new devices). And they did not do proper testing (again, because testing, presumably, costs money). So, worse. Otherwise, yes, iFixit is the ultimate arbiter of truth, I forgot that.
Hmmmm... I guess it depends on one's description of a "flop".
I have always contended that it hasn't lived up to Apple's expectations. Whether that could be called a flop or not would be up for debate.
Heh, just to give you an idea of how variable and how far removed from rationality an individuals (or a groups) description / definition of "flop" can be -- Consider Nintendo's last generation Wii console; some internet "know it all" gamers continue to contend it was a flop. It didn't do HD graphics, or 5.1 audio, and had only a very rudimentary "online" network. Yet it was a "flop" that sold +100 Million consoles (PS1 sold 105 million) and was just shy of 1 billion software sales. Which, of course, was more then either of its competitors.
Where as the Nintendo DS, "was a huge success because it had basically zero competition." A direct quote from one idiot who just can't bring himself to admit that the Playstation Portable was outsold. Which, mind you, sold 80 million hardware units, and was hardly "basically zero competition". Don't you dare call the Playstation Portable a "flop" to him, or any other gamer unless you want to be laughed at. Yet, were it the other way around, there would be no question that the Nintendo DS would be called and labeled a flop. By the way, Playstation 3 isn't a flop either, despite selling only half as well as its predecessor.
Is the iPhone 5c a flop? Sure, in relation to iPhone 5s sales. But, very likely, I'd gather it has outsold every other phone besides the Samsung Galaxy. Please correct me otherwise.
Is the iPhone 5c a flop? Sure, in relation to iPhone 5s sales. But, very likely, I'd gather it has outsold every other phone besides the Samsung Galaxy. Please correct me otherwise.
In the US it was running #3 on all carriers about 2 months ago but it's hard to say where it stands now. I suspect the Cannacord numbers will be out again soon.
As far as the success rate of the 5c in China and other parts of Asia... I'd guess that it is sitting about #5 or #6. Europe, maybe #4 or #5.
Whether the US, Asia or Europe... I really don't think the 5c has lived up to Apple's expectations.
To me the 5c is sitting right on the edge of the flop fence... because it all depends on who is doing the measuring. A flop because it didn't sell a few million units... no... it sold plenty. A flop because it might not have lived up to Apple's expectations... yes, if that is true.
Yeah, you're right. And you should be proud, by golly!
People using their handheld computer while waiting in line…
Sheesh! Some people really need to get a life, right?
Yes.
Seriously, yes.
Honestly, what the hell is going on in his life that's so bloody important it couldn't wait 30 freakin' seconds until he could use it without gymnastics?
That aside, a little less "nose buried in the screen in public places" and a little more "pay attention to what's going on around you, dipshit" would go a LOOONG way toward making this a better world.
I don't know, maybe he was using his phone for an emergency (seems silly, I know)
But it's definitely too bad you're not in a position to dictate to people when and where they should use their devices. It would be great if you were. I'd lick your boots all day long. You're just so insightful.
Point me to sales data from Apple that shows it wasn't...
It's neither here nor there. Apple has never broken down individual model sales figures and they probably never will. If they sold less 5c's then that only means they sold a helluva lot more 5s's, which I seriously doubt they're worried about. People calling the 5c a "flop" have absolutely no basis in doing so, other than some personal bias. I don't think anyone has called it a success either, but that's not the point of the 5c. It was designed to specifically replace the 5, which was somewhat of a nightmare to produce; being both complicated and expensive. At the same time it also offered an alternate new design direction to split the iPhone into two distinct lines: "Fun!" and "Hi-Tech". It was also a brilliant marketing move, people that like the design of the 5 no longer have a choice and have to go for the top tier model.
I just find it funny that people who don't like something, have to convince themselves that it's wrong and is failing. I've seen this reaction with the 5c as well as iOS 7 - as with any new and drastic changes made to most things in life.
It's neither here nor there. Apple has never broken down individual model sales figures and they probably never will. If they sold less 5c's then that only means they sold a helluva lot more 5s's, which I seriously doubt they're worried about. People calling the 5c a "flop" have absolutely no basis in doing so, other than some personal bias. I don't think anyone has called it a success either, but that's not the point of the 5c. It was designed to specifically replace the 5, which was somewhat of a nightmare to produce; being both complicated and expensive. At the same time it also offered an alternate new design direction to split the iPhone into two distinct lines: "Fun!" and "Hi-Tech". It was also a brilliant marketing move, people that like the design of the 5 no longer have a choice and have to go for the top tier model.
I just find it funny that people who don't like something, have to convince themselves that it's wrong and is failing. I've seen this reaction with the 5c as well as iOS 7 - as with any new and drastic changes made to most things in life.
Yup... that's the reason... uh huh... yesiree...
... oh boy.
By the way... if the 5 was such a nightmare to produce why did Apple go back to the same design to build the 5s?
I don't know, maybe he was using his phone for an emergency (seems silly, I know)
But it's definitely too bad you're not in a position to dictate to people when and where they should use their devices. It would be great if you were. I'd lick your boots all day long. You're just so insightful.
Yeah, because bemoaning an epidemic lapse of common sense is the equivalent of championing dictatorial authority, right?
By the way... if the 5 was such a nightmare to produce why did Apple go back to the same design to build the 5s?
<rolls eyes>
The reason they stuck with the same design is for the same reason they've been on a regular two year redesign schedule since the 3G, it's cost effective to make the most use out of current manufacturing, materials, parts, and assembly lines. You add new components and keep the same production methods, this allows you to balance the cost and keep your margins. Furthermore, dropping the 5 and utilizing all the current lines to produce the 5s allowed them to meet demand much quicker.
It apparently wasn't cost effective to use the same production methods and drop the price of the device $100US. So, my GUESS is that Apple decided to move to a new, less complex production method using less expensive materials, thus the 5c. As I said, at the same time it offered them a distinct second line of iPhones AND a marketing ploy to move customers up to their latest flagship phone.
By the way, there is no IF about it being a difficult product to produce; an executive from Foxconn has gone on the record stating that it is/was, which has kept yields relatively low. The recent addition of the Touch ID sensor under the Home button just added another level of complexity.
It's just a theory based off logic. Hell, at least I tried to guess why Apple would break from tradition. At the very least you can add something to this discussion other than rolling your eyes, perhaps you can enlighten us with another theory?
The reason they stuck with the same design is for the same reason they've been on a regular two year redesign schedule since the 3G, it's cost effective to make the most use out of current manufacturing, materials, parts, and assembly lines. You add new components and keep the same production methods, this allows you to balance the cost and keep your margins. Furthermore, dropping the 5 and utilizing all the current lines to produce the 5s allowed them to meet demand much quicker.
It apparently wasn't cost effective to use the same production methods and drop the price of the device $100US. So, my GUESS is that Apple decided to move to a new, less complex production method using less expensive materials, thus the 5c. As I said, at the same time it offered them a distinct second line of iPhones AND a marketing ploy to move customers up to their latest flagship phone.
By the way, there is no IF about it being a difficult product to produce; an executive from Foxconn has gone on the record stating that it is/was, which has kept yields relatively low. The recent addition of the Touch ID sensor under the Home button just added another level of complexity.
It's just a theory based off logic. Hell, at least I tried to guess why Apple would break from tradition. At the very least you can add something to this discussion other than rolling your eyes, perhaps you can enlighten us with another theory?
Well, there it is, folks. MJ has just told you that the 5s will not be offered in the second slot this year. There will be two new designs for the 1st and 2nd slots and the 5c will move down to the 3rd slot. So, Apple, according to MJ, will be keeping the 5c, contrary to the WSJ... unless MJ believes that Apple will be making 3 new designs... or that the 5c will remain in 2nd and 3rd spots... or that the 5c will remain in 2nd spot and there will be a totally new 3rd spot design.
This is what you said, MJ. I'm not reading anything into it at all... it's just... logic.
They changed vendors why? I am guessing because the new vendor gave them a better price. They (Apple) presumably figured it would not make any difference. It did (I don't use the compass so much, but racing games were playing a lot worse on the new devices). And they did not do proper testing (again, because testing, presumably, costs money). So, worse. Otherwise, yes, iFixit is the ultimate arbiter of truth, I forgot that.
So the narrative you're promoting (against all evidence to the contrary) is basically this:
"Apple is in the habit of cutting costs by preferring cheaper, substandard parts vendors, and foregoing QA testing in order to improve their bottom line, regardless of the impact on their product and brand quality."
Really?
As for your "guessing".... it's also possible their previous vendor stopped meeting Apple's quality standards/requirements. That simple.
But no, you headed straight to the most cynical view possible, and advanced a narrative that describes a company quite unlike the actual one under discussion...
Nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, including Apple. But again, the "issues" that surfaced regarding the initial sensor calibrations have been fixed. End of story.
Why are you continuing to advance this narrative that Apple behaves in a careless and greedy manner, when they clearly don't operate that way in general?
Comments
The Moto G is more similar in performance to the 4S (which sells for $479 right now) than to the 5c.
FRICK!!!
Stop this BS. Google losses money on every phone they sale. Motorolla lost $1,000,000,000 last year.
You can't compare this to an iPhone and expect Apple to sell at a loss.
The MotoG has no 4G LTE
The camera is horrible
Web browsing is slow and choopy
And of course its a direct line to Google spyware
It may not be junk but its not even close to the 5C
You both are missing the point. I'm not comparing the Moto G to the 5C. I'm saying that there is plenty of room at the low end of the market for Apple to sell a profitable iPhone.
And sog35, I've watched several in depth video reviews about the Moto G and none complained about slow or choppy performance. They cut costs by eliminating the LTE radio and choosing a lower quality camera, among other cutbacks. Nothing that they cut out leads to a bad experience, especially not for $180.
There really isn't that much difference between what you can see on an iPhone 5 sized screen and it's unwieldy Android competitors.
?! You haven't held an iPhone side-by-side with a Galaxy, have you? I have, which is why I now want a bigger iPhone.
If the little, tiny Asian women, who seem to be the primary buyers of phones with enormous screens around here, can manage them without trouble, it seems odd that you consider them "unwieldy."
Yeah, you're right. And you should be proud, by golly!
People using their handheld computer while waiting in line…
Sheesh! Some people really need to get a life, right?
Yes.
Seriously, yes.
Honestly, what the hell is going on in his life that's so bloody important it couldn't wait 30 freakin' seconds until he could use it without gymnastics?
That aside, a little less "nose buried in the screen in public places" and a little more "pay attention to what's going on around you, dipshit" would go a LOOONG way toward making this a better world.
The big, fat difference between the 5C (aka iPhone IIvx) and the devices above was that they did NOT have as prime reason for launch price/marketability considerations. They were seen as the best in their respective segments, period.
No matter how much you seem to by trying, I don't think anyone else is going to call the 5c iPhone IIvx. I'm sure you think it is really clever but no, not that clever.
First I have no issue with the 5c whatsoever... and was considering it. But the 3G was then and nobody had a chance to see it up aginst the beauty of the 4 or the sleak and sexy elegance of the 5.
I rarily if ever second guess Apple's design decisions over the last decade or so, but I do believe they "possibly" could ahve found a better way to differentiate the 5c and 5s without going to such a material change. However... i'm sure they have their internal reasons for doing so which will come out some day.
Using substandard parts isn't Apple's MO. In fact, they improved some parts in the 5C compared to the 5.
Using substandard parts isn't Apple's MO. In fact, they improved some parts in the 5C compared to the 5.
And made others worse. There has been much ink spilled about the flaky motion sensor at compass in the 5(c, s) series -- as far as I know, c is not known to be worse than s in this respect, that's true.
And made others worse. There has been much ink spilled about the flaky motion sensor at compass in the 5(c, s) series -- as far as I know, c is not known to be worse than s in this respect, that's true.
Made others worse? Um, no.
Regarding this "much spilled ink" thing you made reference to (one of an exceedingly few "issues" found with the new handsets)... it's widely known that they changed suppliers for the sensors, and discovered the new sensors needed to be calibrated differently. It's fixed now (at least, is fixed for anyone who bothered to update iOS).
Absolutely nothing to do with Apple using substandard parts. They upgraded and improved the internals of the "iPhone 5" and put that into a new case design and called it the 5c.
So in fact, they improved some, and.... didn't make any "worse" as far as anyone knows... refer to the iFixIt article which stripped down the 5c. Nothing "substandard" or "worse" in there. They'd have noted it.
What's your point?
Made others worse? Um, no.
Regarding this "much spilled ink" thing you made reference to (one of an exceedingly few "issues" found with the new handsets)... it's widely known that they changed suppliers for the sensors, and discovered the new sensors needed to be calibrated differently. It's fixed now (at least, is fixed for anyone who bothered to update iOS).
Absolutely nothing to do with Apple using substandard parts. They upgraded and improved the internals of the "iPhone 5" and put that into a new case design and called it the 5c.
So in fact, they improved some, and.... didn't make any "worse" as far as anyone knows... refer to the iFixIt article which stripped down the 5c. Nothing "substandard" or "worse" in there. They'd have noted it.
What's your point?
They changed vendors why? I am guessing because the new vendor gave them a better price. They (Apple) presumably figured it would not make any difference. It did (I don't use the compass so much, but racing games were playing a lot worse on the new devices). And they did not do proper testing (again, because testing, presumably, costs money). So, worse. Otherwise, yes, iFixit is the ultimate arbiter of truth, I forgot that.
Hmmmm... I guess it depends on one's description of a "flop".
I have always contended that it hasn't lived up to Apple's expectations. Whether that could be called a flop or not would be up for debate.
Heh, just to give you an idea of how variable and how far removed from rationality an individuals (or a groups) description / definition of "flop" can be -- Consider Nintendo's last generation Wii console; some internet "know it all" gamers continue to contend it was a flop. It didn't do HD graphics, or 5.1 audio, and had only a very rudimentary "online" network. Yet it was a "flop" that sold +100 Million consoles (PS1 sold 105 million) and was just shy of 1 billion software sales. Which, of course, was more then either of its competitors.
Where as the Nintendo DS, "was a huge success because it had basically zero competition." A direct quote from one idiot who just can't bring himself to admit that the Playstation Portable was outsold. Which, mind you, sold 80 million hardware units, and was hardly "basically zero competition". Don't you dare call the Playstation Portable a "flop" to him, or any other gamer unless you want to be laughed at. Yet, were it the other way around, there would be no question that the Nintendo DS would be called and labeled a flop. By the way, Playstation 3 isn't a flop either, despite selling only half as well as its predecessor.
Is the iPhone 5c a flop? Sure, in relation to iPhone 5s sales. But, very likely, I'd gather it has outsold every other phone besides the Samsung Galaxy. Please correct me otherwise.
Is the iPhone 5c a flop? Sure, in relation to iPhone 5s sales. But, very likely, I'd gather it has outsold every other phone besides the Samsung Galaxy. Please correct me otherwise.
In the US it was running #3 on all carriers about 2 months ago but it's hard to say where it stands now. I suspect the Cannacord numbers will be out again soon.
As far as the success rate of the 5c in China and other parts of Asia... I'd guess that it is sitting about #5 or #6. Europe, maybe #4 or #5.
Whether the US, Asia or Europe... I really don't think the 5c has lived up to Apple's expectations.
To me the 5c is sitting right on the edge of the flop fence... because it all depends on who is doing the measuring. A flop because it didn't sell a few million units... no... it sold plenty. A flop because it might not have lived up to Apple's expectations... yes, if that is true.
Yeah, you're right. And you should be proud, by golly!
People using their handheld computer while waiting in line…
Sheesh! Some people really need to get a life, right?
Yes.
Seriously, yes.
Honestly, what the hell is going on in his life that's so bloody important it couldn't wait 30 freakin' seconds until he could use it without gymnastics?
That aside, a little less "nose buried in the screen in public places" and a little more "pay attention to what's going on around you, dipshit" would go a LOOONG way toward making this a better world.
I don't know, maybe he was using his phone for an emergency (seems silly, I know)
But it's definitely too bad you're not in a position to dictate to people when and where they should use their devices. It would be great if you were. I'd lick your boots all day long. You're just so insightful.
Where's your source that it was a flop? Point me to sales data from Apple that shows it was a flop.
Point me to sales data from Apple that shows it wasn't...
9 MM 5C and 5S in the first weekend.
Point me to sales data from Apple that shows it wasn't...
It's neither here nor there. Apple has never broken down individual model sales figures and they probably never will. If they sold less 5c's then that only means they sold a helluva lot more 5s's, which I seriously doubt they're worried about. People calling the 5c a "flop" have absolutely no basis in doing so, other than some personal bias. I don't think anyone has called it a success either, but that's not the point of the 5c. It was designed to specifically replace the 5, which was somewhat of a nightmare to produce; being both complicated and expensive. At the same time it also offered an alternate new design direction to split the iPhone into two distinct lines: "Fun!" and "Hi-Tech". It was also a brilliant marketing move, people that like the design of the 5 no longer have a choice and have to go for the top tier model.
I just find it funny that people who don't like something, have to convince themselves that it's wrong and is failing. I've seen this reaction with the 5c as well as iOS 7 - as with any new and drastic changes made to most things in life.
It's neither here nor there. Apple has never broken down individual model sales figures and they probably never will. If they sold less 5c's then that only means they sold a helluva lot more 5s's, which I seriously doubt they're worried about. People calling the 5c a "flop" have absolutely no basis in doing so, other than some personal bias. I don't think anyone has called it a success either, but that's not the point of the 5c. It was designed to specifically replace the 5, which was somewhat of a nightmare to produce; being both complicated and expensive. At the same time it also offered an alternate new design direction to split the iPhone into two distinct lines: "Fun!" and "Hi-Tech". It was also a brilliant marketing move, people that like the design of the 5 no longer have a choice and have to go for the top tier model.
I just find it funny that people who don't like something, have to convince themselves that it's wrong and is failing. I've seen this reaction with the 5c as well as iOS 7 - as with any new and drastic changes made to most things in life.
Yup... that's the reason... uh huh... yesiree...
... oh boy.
By the way... if the 5 was such a nightmare to produce why did Apple go back to the same design to build the 5s?
<rolls eyes>
I don't know, maybe he was using his phone for an emergency (seems silly, I know)
But it's definitely too bad you're not in a position to dictate to people when and where they should use their devices. It would be great if you were. I'd lick your boots all day long. You're just so insightful.
Yeah, because bemoaning an epidemic lapse of common sense is the equivalent of championing dictatorial authority, right?
Yup... that's the reason... uh huh... yesiree...
... oh boy.
By the way... if the 5 was such a nightmare to produce why did Apple go back to the same design to build the 5s?
<rolls eyes>
The reason they stuck with the same design is for the same reason they've been on a regular two year redesign schedule since the 3G, it's cost effective to make the most use out of current manufacturing, materials, parts, and assembly lines. You add new components and keep the same production methods, this allows you to balance the cost and keep your margins. Furthermore, dropping the 5 and utilizing all the current lines to produce the 5s allowed them to meet demand much quicker.
It apparently wasn't cost effective to use the same production methods and drop the price of the device $100US. So, my GUESS is that Apple decided to move to a new, less complex production method using less expensive materials, thus the 5c. As I said, at the same time it offered them a distinct second line of iPhones AND a marketing ploy to move customers up to their latest flagship phone.
By the way, there is no IF about it being a difficult product to produce; an executive from Foxconn has gone on the record stating that it is/was, which has kept yields relatively low. The recent addition of the Touch ID sensor under the Home button just added another level of complexity.
It's just a theory based off logic. Hell, at least I tried to guess why Apple would break from tradition. At the very least you can add something to this discussion other than rolling your eyes, perhaps you can enlighten us with another theory?
The reason they stuck with the same design is for the same reason they've been on a regular two year redesign schedule since the 3G, it's cost effective to make the most use out of current manufacturing, materials, parts, and assembly lines. You add new components and keep the same production methods, this allows you to balance the cost and keep your margins. Furthermore, dropping the 5 and utilizing all the current lines to produce the 5s allowed them to meet demand much quicker.
It apparently wasn't cost effective to use the same production methods and drop the price of the device $100US. So, my GUESS is that Apple decided to move to a new, less complex production method using less expensive materials, thus the 5c. As I said, at the same time it offered them a distinct second line of iPhones AND a marketing ploy to move customers up to their latest flagship phone.
By the way, there is no IF about it being a difficult product to produce; an executive from Foxconn has gone on the record stating that it is/was, which has kept yields relatively low. The recent addition of the Touch ID sensor under the Home button just added another level of complexity.
It's just a theory based off logic. Hell, at least I tried to guess why Apple would break from tradition. At the very least you can add something to this discussion other than rolling your eyes, perhaps you can enlighten us with another theory?
Well, there it is, folks. MJ has just told you that the 5s will not be offered in the second slot this year. There will be two new designs for the 1st and 2nd slots and the 5c will move down to the 3rd slot. So, Apple, according to MJ, will be keeping the 5c, contrary to the WSJ... unless MJ believes that Apple will be making 3 new designs... or that the 5c will remain in 2nd and 3rd spots... or that the 5c will remain in 2nd spot and there will be a totally new 3rd spot design.
This is what you said, MJ. I'm not reading anything into it at all... it's just... logic.
They changed vendors why? I am guessing because the new vendor gave them a better price. They (Apple) presumably figured it would not make any difference. It did (I don't use the compass so much, but racing games were playing a lot worse on the new devices). And they did not do proper testing (again, because testing, presumably, costs money). So, worse. Otherwise, yes, iFixit is the ultimate arbiter of truth, I forgot that.
So the narrative you're promoting (against all evidence to the contrary) is basically this:
"Apple is in the habit of cutting costs by preferring cheaper, substandard parts vendors, and foregoing QA testing in order to improve their bottom line, regardless of the impact on their product and brand quality."
Really?
As for your "guessing".... it's also possible their previous vendor stopped meeting Apple's quality standards/requirements. That simple.
But no, you headed straight to the most cynical view possible, and advanced a narrative that describes a company quite unlike the actual one under discussion...
Nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, including Apple. But again, the "issues" that surfaced regarding the initial sensor calibrations have been fixed. End of story.
Why are you continuing to advance this narrative that Apple behaves in a careless and greedy manner, when they clearly don't operate that way in general?