You do use it one-handed when you make a call (the primary function of a phone). The question to ask is why would Apple want to sell a phone that is harder to use for the primary function of the device? All standard telephones have been designed for one-handed use:
You do use it one-handed when you make a call (the primary function of a phone). The question to ask is why would Apple want to sell a phone that is harder to use for the primary function of the device? All standard telephones have been designed for one-handed use:
But how much are smartphones such as iPhones really used as phones? i.e. spoken into to place a voice discussion call. Mine have never been: something like 2 hours 57 minutes of call time from my 3G onward given my current Settings have rolled over since back then.... my primary function has always been as an ultra-portable tablet computer.
The reason to have two iPad models is to avoid Android tablets undercutting them in price too much. A larger phone doesn't solve this problem as it won't be cheaper.
Originally Posted by Marvin
That doesn't make sense; of course if you can operate a device with one hand, you can with two but it's not necessary to use two for all touch screen phones. If one-handed use wasn't needed, Samsung wouldn't bother putting a one-handed mode in the software.
You've made a lot of good and objective points none of which I disagree with. And as you mentioned, there are a few design changes that could be made (e.g. accessibility options, moving the volume switch down a bit, etc.) that could help.
I just think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water...as I'm sure that's what Apple is doing...balancing what consumers really want/need. Anecdotally, it really seems that a larger screen (4.7") is out weighing one-handed use.
And unlike the iPad Mini, it's possible that a 4.7" iPhone might boost revenue (in the short term) rather than hurt it.
my primary function has always been as an ultra-portable tablet computer.
The name typically gives away the main usage but I can see how some people would use it more for other tasks. It just shouldn't compromise on its purpose in order to satisfy people who want it to be something else. Apple doesn't make a phablet yet millions of people buy a Galaxy Note. Given that those people chose not to buy a smaller 4.7" or 5" product, does that mean Apple has to cater to that separate crowd too? That's where the suggestions come from for Apple to make a ~5.5" device as well.
They don't have to be all things to all people. If people want a phablet, they can buy a Galaxy Note just like if they want a TV set, they can buy a Samsung TV. Apple doesn't make a TV set either.
I just think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water...as I'm sure that's what Apple is doing...balancing what consumers really want/need. Anecdotally, it really seems that a larger screen (4.7") is out weighing one-handed use.
Some surveys would point to larger screens (meaning 4.7"+) being desired but it's like the old quote about customers wanting faster horses. What people always want are compelling features to buy a new product. The newer and more useful the feature, the more compelling it is (like touch id). The bigger screen does 1 of 2 things: it scales everything up without giving you more space or it gives you more space without scaling things up. More space is not very useful unless it's enough to do what a tablet does like add new panels. It worked for the iPhone 5 as it has an aspect change so better for portrait typing and for movies but it took a while for software to offer the benefits.
I'm not against a larger display than 4", but I'd say the ideal that works for most people would be somewhere between 4"-4.7" (assuming they stick to one model, which I think they will). As shown in the image above, Apple's iconic design doesn't lend itself to simply scaling the display up to 4.7".
And unlike the iPad Mini, it's possible that a 4.7" iPhone might boost revenue (in the short term) rather than hurt it.
The iPad mini still boosted revenue due to the sales volume but their margins suffered so net profit was flat. The iPad mini was better for women being able to fit them into their handbags:
Would a 4.7" display on an iPhone put people off buying one? If it was styled like the above image, I think it would. That's far too big for a pocket. It would also attract new people so overall sales might be flat. I don't think that it would suddenly boost sales by a huge amount.
I'm not against a larger display than 4", but I'd say the ideal that works for most people would be somewhere between 4"-4.7" (assuming they stick to one model, which I think they will). As shown in the image above, Apple's iconic design doesn't lend itself to simply scaling the display up to 4.7".
I thought the biggest thing that might prompt another size increase would be increasing the width to revert to the older aspect ratio. I haven't tested whether that would impede one handed use, as my phone is old.
That's far too big for a pocket. It would also attract new people so overall sales might be flat. I don't think that it would suddenly boost sales by a huge amount.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 4.7" iPhone along with an additional/new feature (something minor, like minor speed boost or better camera) will boost sales by a significant amount...not huge, but significant.
Again, I don't disagree with anything you've said except the above. I appreciate your opinions.
I type and text with two hands- but I use my thumbs. How can you think using your other fingers would be faster than using your thumbs?
I'm one of the fastest texters I've ever seen. And I've never seen anyone use other fingers quickly.
View in landscape mode and use all your fingers in a kind of touch typing scenario. But then I didn't ever have a Nintendo Game Boy or play Super Mario. Youngsters who did may well have grown accustomed to using thumbs for everything, perhaps even picking their noses, but as a biologist I know there are more nerve endings in fingers than thumbs, and the muscles allow for finer control, and the bones are longer. Also, that part of the brain responsible for fine motor control is bigger for fingers than for thumbs. Which means for a touchscreen phone, higher levels of precision are possible using fingers than thumbs. It doesn't mean things are impossible with thumbs, just less efficient.
View in landscape mode and use all your fingers in a kind of touch typing scenario. But then I didn't ever have a Nintendo Game Boy or play Super Mario. Youngsters who did may well have grown accustomed to using thumbs for everything, perhaps even picking their noses, but as a biologist I know there are more nerve endings in fingers than thumbs, and the muscles allow for finer control, and the bones are longer. Also, that part of the brain responsible for fine motor control is bigger for fingers than for thumbs. Which means for a touchscreen phone, higher levels of precision are possible using fingers than thumbs. It doesn't mean things are impossible with thumbs, just less efficient.
Ahh that explains it- A biologist. I own a laboratory that does work exclusively in the science field (aquatic toxicity), and if there's on thing I've learned in my years of dealing with brilliant Phd chemists, biologists, and engineers- and the industry would be ridiculously behind if it weren't for them- is that they are incredibly knowledgable but lack common sense in some real world applications.
So while, scientifically, you can talk about how your other fingers could be quicker- in the real world, they aren't. Landscape or otherwise, thumbs are substantially faster. And that's simply because of how one holds the phone. You can't hold the phone comfortably or a position to make the index or other fingers faster than the thumbs. And nothing on the iPhone requires precision superior to what the thumbs can give you.
So throw your science out the window, because until you can prove it in the real world, it's just hypothesis.
The name typically gives away the main usage but I can see how some people would use it more for other tasks. It just shouldn't compromise on its purpose in order to satisfy people who want it to be something else. Apple doesn't make a phablet yet millions of people buy a Galaxy Note. Given that those people chose not to buy a smaller 4.7" or 5" product, does that mean Apple has to cater to that separate crowd too? That's where the suggestions come from for Apple to make a ~5.5" device as well.
They don't have to be all things to all people. If people want a phablet, they can buy a Galaxy Note just like if they want a TV set, they can buy a Samsung TV. Apple doesn't make a TV set either.
....
True, but even as a portable communication device (in comparison to internet and media consumption as a pad computer) hasn't voice been long overtaken by text and other messaging routes? So even as a phone the usage is shifting towards things other than speaking and listening and towards hand manipulation, was my direction of thought. With the form being bounded by portability and manual interaction rather than the distance between the users mouth and ear... and phablets are outside that portability boundary for myself anyway. 4.7 I'd consider.
- 90% of American adults have a cell phone, 58% smartphones, 32% have an e-reader, 42% have a tablet so that's an idea on growth opportunities to new users
- 2.27 trillion messages sent (other sites have different stats but roughly single digit trillion)
You can see some one-handed texters in the following video:
[VIDEO]
I think as long as the design is comfortable, that's what matters. I don't expect them to say that 4.7" is what people want so just throw one in and everyone just has to deal with it. Making two models is a possibility but I'd be surprised if they did that because either the larger one would cost more or they'd cost the same, which isn't going to have the effect on unit volume that people think. The iPad mini was cheaper. If they'd done the mini first and then introduced the larger more expensive one, the larger one wouldn't have sold nearly as well.
If the older ones drop down and they have a single larger and comfortably designed flagship, it helps drive people to the higher model. If it's too bulky, it'll drive sales of the lower down 4" model, lowering revenues.
I don't think I'd turn it down based on usage at 4.7" as I'd expect them to design it comfortably, it's more pocketability.
The second is the 5.3" Note, the first is the 5" S4.
Keeps getting funnier.
I’m 100% for an iPhone larger than 4” provided said phone can be used identically to smaller models. I’d want the largest screen that is possible to use in a manner consistent with previous devices, and 4.7” is too big for that. Measuring my own hand, with a 9.75” span (thanks, childhood piano lessons), a 4.5” stretch from thumb tip (unusable contact tip; shave a quarter of an inch for contact) to the base of the 1st metacarpal, and a 5.5” span from thumb tip to 5th metacarpal, I’d guess that 4.7” is just out of reach. Again, I want to get some cardboard of various thicknesses and build something to check.
I’m also 100% for a 5.5” device, provided that device is the iPod touch. It’s too big to put in a pocket, too big to be used much of anywhere the iPhone is, but as a gaming platform? With a delicious A8 with graphics that make the Xbox One and PS4 do that slow, terrified turnaround you see in horror movies? Yes, please.
I’m also 100% for a 5.5” device, provided that device is the iPod touch. It’s too big to put in a pocket, too big to be used much of anywhere the iPhone is, but as a gaming platform? With a delicious A8 with graphics that make the Xbox One and PS4 do that slow, terrified turnaround you see in horror movies? Yes, please.
I think it's time to get rid of the iPod Touch entirely. People don't want standalone music players any more. The iPod Touch makes up over half of the iPod line and the total sales are at 2.7m units per quarter vs 43.7m iPhones. Say that the iPod Touch makes up 60% of iPod sales, that means there are 27 iPhones sold for every iPod Touch. Making it bigger won't change that significantly.
The iPod as it is now is dead. It's over.
The entry 16GB iPod Touch is $229 with no rear camera. The entry 8GB iPhone 4S is $450. An entry level iPhone around $399 wouldn't satisfy all iPod Touch buyers but some and the number of iPod buyers is negligible anyway. Perhaps they can hit $349 given than the 32GB iPod Touch with rear camera is $299 and still leave it at 16GB. Leave touch id out though and put it in the next two up and that'll drive sales of those while leaving the entry-level at a good price to expand more into India and China.
Going to the trouble of designing and maintaining the 3 entry iPods is a waste of time and resources.
A standalone music player needs to be rethought to fit better with people's lifestyle and everyone already carries a phone so it makes sense to turn this into a wearable that can also interface with a phone but only the iPhone so iPhone buyers are more likely to have both. It'll tell the time but I doubt people will wear it all the time as a watch.
The iPhone line can ditch the idea of using older model phones at the entry level and instead have this iPod Touch replacement at the entry point. This eliminates the iPod category on their website for this 'new' wearable category. It simplifies the lineup:
iPod wearable $99, 8GB scaling up to 64-128GB, has wifi for syncing songs from iCloud.
iPhone entry 4" screen, no touch id, 8GB/16GB, decent camera, stainless steel with plastic antenna opening or external antenna and internal sim so that without the case it's an iPod, decent games performance. $349
iPhone mid-level, last year's internals, touch id, 4" screen, metal no plastic, good camera. $499
iPhone flagship, larger 4.4" display (the reason to use 4.4" is that very few other devices use this size), newish design with smaller side bezels, very good camera with HDR video, depth sensors. $599-649
4.4" would look a lot like the Meizu MX2 (again though because they've clearly ripped off the iPhone first):
[VIDEO]
That looks usable enough with one hand and negligibly smaller than the Android hand bricks that people want. The iPhone wouldn't have that aspect though as that's 16:10 so it would be narrower and taller.
They'd be able to improve all the markets this way. They'd expand in developing markets due to the cheaper entry point with a compelling new design. Without touch id, it still drives sales of the more expensive phones and the metal mid-point will be like the cheaper iPhone 5 people didn't get last year but with 5S internals. The larger display / new design and higher quality camera will drive the sales of the flagship and they might even get away with using the same resolution at 4.4" so that they don't annoy developers.
The iPod wearable then becomes an accessory for all of those buyers so despite the lower revenue from the iPhone directly, it would be offset by higher volume sales of the phones and boosted by $100 sales of this accessory. The only piece left to solve is converting earpods into a wireless solution that lasts long enough on battery to make it through the day and it would probably have to have a way to answer calls. The mic could be in the wrist accessory but it could have one on the earpiece too in case the accessory isn't being worn.
If they managed to make a wireless set of earpods, I'd expect it to be a headband so would they still ship the iPhone with a set of headphones? When will it be time to get rid of the 3.5mm jack entirely, same with computers? The 3.5mm jack is still analog and it transmits electrical noise. Forcing wireless unfortunately means that whenever the wireless headphones are not charged, there's no backup. One way to help get round this would be to have a dual power supply where each can be removed and plugged into USB so that when one runs down, the other is charging. But it still leaves the possibility of running out so I suppose there would have to be a Lightning adaptor for the headphone jack, especially for better quality non-wireless headphones. It helps move people off analog audio though and the better headphone manufacturers can use similar charging systems.
I was thinking more voice versus text, but voice HAS held up better than my impression it appears (though I still have a nagging memory that a few years back text numbers overtook voice for the majority of "calls"....:
I think it's time to get rid of the iPod Touch entirely. People don't want standalone music players any more. The iPod Touch makes up over half of the iPod line and the total sales are at 2.7m units per quarter vs 43.7m iPhones. Say that the iPod Touch makes up 60% of iPod sales, that means there are 27 iPhones sold for every iPod Touch. Making it bigger won't change that significantly.
The iPod as it is now is dead. It's over.
1) As a major part of Apple's business the iPod is definitely over, which is funny because about 7(?) years ago some "respected" tech journalist was calling for Apple to drop the Mac line completely and just focus on the iPod.
2) They sold 4.1 million Mac sales compared to 2.7 million iPod sales. I am not surprised the revenue and profits for the iPod line is much lower than the Mac but I'm surprised the unit numbers are now below it. I hadn't really thought about the iPod Touch as being over-over until you mentioned it but you could be right. I could see at least another round as we're still round of the Touch in this biennial cycle as it's unit sales could be more higher than any individual Mac size (even though each Mac makes a lot more profit) and it probably takes very little effort to make from a current or previous iPhone.
1) As a major part of Apple's business the iPod is definitely over, which is funny because about 7(?) years ago some "respected" tech journalist was calling for Apple to drop the Mac line completely and just focus on the iPod.
2) They sold 4.1 million Mac sales compared to 2.7 million iPod sales. I am not surprised the revenue and profits for the iPod line is much lower than the Mac but I'm surprised the unit numbers are now below it. I hadn't really thought about the iPod Touch as being over-over until you mentioned it but you could be right. I could see at least another round as we're still round of the Touch in this biennial cycle as it's unit sales could be more higher than any individual Mac size (even though each Mac makes a lot more profit) and it probably takes very little effort to make from a current or previous iPhone.
And the iPod must hold a special place in Apple's heart. It was the product that lead to the iPhone and the iPad and Apple's world-leading status. They're not going to drop it without very careful consideration.
Maybe, in its way, the iWatch will be the iPod renewed as a wearable-hence Tim Cook's somewhat guarded statement about a future device: "any reasonable person would call a new product category." Do the ears hold the key to the new category, I wonder?
And the iPod must hold a special place in Apple's heart. It was the product that lead to the iPhone and the iPad and Apple's world-leading status. They're not going to drop it without very careful consideration.
Maybe, in its way, the iWatch will be the iPod renewed as a wearable-hence Tim Cook's somewhat guarded statement about a future device: "any reasonable person would call a new product category."
I like that idea and think the term pod works great for a wearable, but it may depend on whether they see the iPod brand as being bad for business at this point.
As a major part of Apple's business the iPod is definitely over, which is funny because about 7(?) years ago some "respected" tech journalist was calling for Apple to drop the Mac line completely and just focus on the iPod.
I think it was also insightful of them to realise that the mobile phone would cannibalize the iPod and make the move even while the iPod was going strong.
Here's another video of the Meizu with 4.4" screen held next to the iPhone 5:
I think the display using more of the front face looks nicer. The Meizu has a messed up position for the earpiece and 16:10 looks too wide but something along those lines would be nice. Rather than scale it all up too, they can add more padding around the icons.
Comments
That picture illustrates wonderfully that 4.7” is too big.
You do use it one-handed when you make a call (the primary function of a phone). The question to ask is why would Apple want to sell a phone that is harder to use for the primary function of the device? All standard telephones have been designed for one-handed use:
I like how they used a Pixar clip at the end.
You do use it one-handed when you make a call (the primary function of a phone). The question to ask is why would Apple want to sell a phone that is harder to use for the primary function of the device? All standard telephones have been designed for one-handed use:
But how much are smartphones such as iPhones really used as phones? i.e. spoken into to place a voice discussion call. Mine have never been: something like 2 hours 57 minutes of call time from my 3G onward given my current Settings have rolled over since back then.... my primary function has always been as an ultra-portable tablet computer.
That doesn't make sense; of course if you can operate a device with one hand, you can with two but it's not necessary to use two for all touch screen phones. If one-handed use wasn't needed, Samsung wouldn't bother putting a one-handed mode in the software.
You've made a lot of good and objective points none of which I disagree with. And as you mentioned, there are a few design changes that could be made (e.g. accessibility options, moving the volume switch down a bit, etc.) that could help.
I just think we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water...as I'm sure that's what Apple is doing...balancing what consumers really want/need. Anecdotally, it really seems that a larger screen (4.7") is out weighing one-handed use.
And unlike the iPad Mini, it's possible that a 4.7" iPhone might boost revenue (in the short term) rather than hurt it.
The name typically gives away the main usage but I can see how some people would use it more for other tasks. It just shouldn't compromise on its purpose in order to satisfy people who want it to be something else. Apple doesn't make a phablet yet millions of people buy a Galaxy Note. Given that those people chose not to buy a smaller 4.7" or 5" product, does that mean Apple has to cater to that separate crowd too? That's where the suggestions come from for Apple to make a ~5.5" device as well.
They don't have to be all things to all people. If people want a phablet, they can buy a Galaxy Note just like if they want a TV set, they can buy a Samsung TV. Apple doesn't make a TV set either.
Some surveys would point to larger screens (meaning 4.7"+) being desired but it's like the old quote about customers wanting faster horses. What people always want are compelling features to buy a new product. The newer and more useful the feature, the more compelling it is (like touch id). The bigger screen does 1 of 2 things: it scales everything up without giving you more space or it gives you more space without scaling things up. More space is not very useful unless it's enough to do what a tablet does like add new panels. It worked for the iPhone 5 as it has an aspect change so better for portrait typing and for movies but it took a while for software to offer the benefits.
I'm not against a larger display than 4", but I'd say the ideal that works for most people would be somewhere between 4"-4.7" (assuming they stick to one model, which I think they will). As shown in the image above, Apple's iconic design doesn't lend itself to simply scaling the display up to 4.7".
The iPad mini still boosted revenue due to the sales volume but their margins suffered so net profit was flat. The iPad mini was better for women being able to fit them into their handbags:
http://qz.com/19314/apple-has-a-clear-target-with-its-ipad-mini-advertising-women/
Would a 4.7" display on an iPhone put people off buying one? If it was styled like the above image, I think it would. That's far too big for a pocket. It would also attract new people so overall sales might be flat. I don't think that it would suddenly boost sales by a huge amount.
I'm not against a larger display than 4", but I'd say the ideal that works for most people would be somewhere between 4"-4.7" (assuming they stick to one model, which I think they will). As shown in the image above, Apple's iconic design doesn't lend itself to simply scaling the display up to 4.7".
I thought the biggest thing that might prompt another size increase would be increasing the width to revert to the older aspect ratio. I haven't tested whether that would impede one handed use, as my phone is old.
That's far too big for a pocket. It would also attract new people so overall sales might be flat. I don't think that it would suddenly boost sales by a huge amount.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 4.7" iPhone along with an additional/new feature (something minor, like minor speed boost or better camera) will boost sales by a significant amount...not huge, but significant.
Again, I don't disagree with anything you've said except the above. I appreciate your opinions.
That looks sexy
Indeed. If Apple was to create a 5.5" device, that OnePlus One could be a strong competitor.
I type and text with two hands- but I use my thumbs. How can you think using your other fingers would be faster than using your thumbs?
I'm one of the fastest texters I've ever seen. And I've never seen anyone use other fingers quickly.
View in landscape mode and use all your fingers in a kind of touch typing scenario. But then I didn't ever have a Nintendo Game Boy or play Super Mario. Youngsters who did may well have grown accustomed to using thumbs for everything, perhaps even picking their noses, but as a biologist I know there are more nerve endings in fingers than thumbs, and the muscles allow for finer control, and the bones are longer. Also, that part of the brain responsible for fine motor control is bigger for fingers than for thumbs. Which means for a touchscreen phone, higher levels of precision are possible using fingers than thumbs. It doesn't mean things are impossible with thumbs, just less efficient.
Ahh that explains it- A biologist. I own a laboratory that does work exclusively in the science field (aquatic toxicity), and if there's on thing I've learned in my years of dealing with brilliant Phd chemists, biologists, and engineers- and the industry would be ridiculously behind if it weren't for them- is that they are incredibly knowledgable but lack common sense in some real world applications.
So while, scientifically, you can talk about how your other fingers could be quicker- in the real world, they aren't. Landscape or otherwise, thumbs are substantially faster. And that's simply because of how one holds the phone. You can't hold the phone comfortably or a position to make the index or other fingers faster than the thumbs. And nothing on the iPhone requires precision superior to what the thumbs can give you.
So throw your science out the window, because until you can prove it in the real world, it's just hypothesis.
The name typically gives away the main usage but I can see how some people would use it more for other tasks. It just shouldn't compromise on its purpose in order to satisfy people who want it to be something else. Apple doesn't make a phablet yet millions of people buy a Galaxy Note. Given that those people chose not to buy a smaller 4.7" or 5" product, does that mean Apple has to cater to that separate crowd too? That's where the suggestions come from for Apple to make a ~5.5" device as well.
They don't have to be all things to all people. If people want a phablet, they can buy a Galaxy Note just like if they want a TV set, they can buy a Samsung TV. Apple doesn't make a TV set either.
....
True, but even as a portable communication device (in comparison to internet and media consumption as a pad computer) hasn't voice been long overtaken by text and other messaging routes? So even as a phone the usage is shifting towards things other than speaking and listening and towards hand manipulation, was my direction of thought. With the form being bounded by portability and manual interaction rather than the distance between the users mouth and ear... and phablets are outside that portability boundary for myself anyway. 4.7 I'd consider.
There are some stats here:
http://www.accuconference.com/blog/Cell-Phone-Statistics.aspx
- 90% of American adults have a cell phone, 58% smartphones, 32% have an e-reader, 42% have a tablet so that's an idea on growth opportunities to new users
- 2.27 trillion messages sent (other sites have different stats but roughly single digit trillion)
http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-spied-on-124-8-billion-phone-calls-in-just-one-month--watchdog-group-claims-213633988.html
Probably single digit trillion phone calls. There's a high volume of calls and texting.
There's a poll here saying just under 1/3 of people text one-handed:
http://www.imore.com/how-do-you-type-your-iphone-hand-position-poll
You can see some one-handed texters in the following video:
[VIDEO]
I think as long as the design is comfortable, that's what matters. I don't expect them to say that 4.7" is what people want so just throw one in and everyone just has to deal with it. Making two models is a possibility but I'd be surprised if they did that because either the larger one would cost more or they'd cost the same, which isn't going to have the effect on unit volume that people think. The iPad mini was cheaper. If they'd done the mini first and then introduced the larger more expensive one, the larger one wouldn't have sold nearly as well.
If the older ones drop down and they have a single larger and comfortably designed flagship, it helps drive people to the higher model. If it's too bulky, it'll drive sales of the lower down 4" model, lowering revenues.
I don't think I'd turn it down based on usage at 4.7" as I'd expect them to design it comfortably, it's more pocketability.
The second is the 5.3" Note, the first is the 5" S4.
The second is the 5.3" Note, the first is the 5" S4.
Keeps getting funnier.
I’m 100% for an iPhone larger than 4” provided said phone can be used identically to smaller models. I’d want the largest screen that is possible to use in a manner consistent with previous devices, and 4.7” is too big for that. Measuring my own hand, with a 9.75” span (thanks, childhood piano lessons), a 4.5” stretch from thumb tip (unusable contact tip; shave a quarter of an inch for contact) to the base of the 1st metacarpal, and a 5.5” span from thumb tip to 5th metacarpal, I’d guess that 4.7” is just out of reach. Again, I want to get some cardboard of various thicknesses and build something to check.
I’m also 100% for a 5.5” device, provided that device is the iPod touch. It’s too big to put in a pocket, too big to be used much of anywhere the iPhone is, but as a gaming platform? With a delicious A8 with graphics that make the Xbox One and PS4 do that slow, terrified turnaround you see in horror movies? Yes, please.
I think it's time to get rid of the iPod Touch entirely. People don't want standalone music players any more. The iPod Touch makes up over half of the iPod line and the total sales are at 2.7m units per quarter vs 43.7m iPhones. Say that the iPod Touch makes up 60% of iPod sales, that means there are 27 iPhones sold for every iPod Touch. Making it bigger won't change that significantly.
The iPod as it is now is dead. It's over.
The entry 16GB iPod Touch is $229 with no rear camera. The entry 8GB iPhone 4S is $450. An entry level iPhone around $399 wouldn't satisfy all iPod Touch buyers but some and the number of iPod buyers is negligible anyway. Perhaps they can hit $349 given than the 32GB iPod Touch with rear camera is $299 and still leave it at 16GB. Leave touch id out though and put it in the next two up and that'll drive sales of those while leaving the entry-level at a good price to expand more into India and China.
Going to the trouble of designing and maintaining the 3 entry iPods is a waste of time and resources.
A standalone music player needs to be rethought to fit better with people's lifestyle and everyone already carries a phone so it makes sense to turn this into a wearable that can also interface with a phone but only the iPhone so iPhone buyers are more likely to have both. It'll tell the time but I doubt people will wear it all the time as a watch.
The iPhone line can ditch the idea of using older model phones at the entry level and instead have this iPod Touch replacement at the entry point. This eliminates the iPod category on their website for this 'new' wearable category. It simplifies the lineup:
iPod wearable $99, 8GB scaling up to 64-128GB, has wifi for syncing songs from iCloud.
iPhone entry 4" screen, no touch id, 8GB/16GB, decent camera, stainless steel with plastic antenna opening or external antenna and internal sim so that without the case it's an iPod, decent games performance. $349
iPhone mid-level, last year's internals, touch id, 4" screen, metal no plastic, good camera. $499
iPhone flagship, larger 4.4" display (the reason to use 4.4" is that very few other devices use this size), newish design with smaller side bezels, very good camera with HDR video, depth sensors. $599-649
4.4" would look a lot like the Meizu MX2 (again though because they've clearly ripped off the iPhone first):
[VIDEO]
That looks usable enough with one hand and negligibly smaller than the Android hand bricks that people want. The iPhone wouldn't have that aspect though as that's 16:10 so it would be narrower and taller.
They'd be able to improve all the markets this way. They'd expand in developing markets due to the cheaper entry point with a compelling new design. Without touch id, it still drives sales of the more expensive phones and the metal mid-point will be like the cheaper iPhone 5 people didn't get last year but with 5S internals. The larger display / new design and higher quality camera will drive the sales of the flagship and they might even get away with using the same resolution at 4.4" so that they don't annoy developers.
The iPod wearable then becomes an accessory for all of those buyers so despite the lower revenue from the iPhone directly, it would be offset by higher volume sales of the phones and boosted by $100 sales of this accessory. The only piece left to solve is converting earpods into a wireless solution that lasts long enough on battery to make it through the day and it would probably have to have a way to answer calls. The mic could be in the wrist accessory but it could have one on the earpiece too in case the accessory isn't being worn.
If they managed to make a wireless set of earpods, I'd expect it to be a headband so would they still ship the iPhone with a set of headphones? When will it be time to get rid of the 3.5mm jack entirely, same with computers? The 3.5mm jack is still analog and it transmits electrical noise. Forcing wireless unfortunately means that whenever the wireless headphones are not charged, there's no backup. One way to help get round this would be to have a dual power supply where each can be removed and plugged into USB so that when one runs down, the other is charging. But it still leaves the possibility of running out so I suppose there would have to be a Lightning adaptor for the headphone jack, especially for better quality non-wireless headphones. It helps move people off analog audio though and the better headphone manufacturers can use similar charging systems.
I was thinking more voice versus text, but voice HAS held up better than my impression it appears (though I still have a nagging memory that a few years back text numbers overtook voice for the majority of "calls"....:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/09/19/how-americans-use-text-messaging/
1) As a major part of Apple's business the iPod is definitely over, which is funny because about 7(?) years ago some "respected" tech journalist was calling for Apple to drop the Mac line completely and just focus on the iPod.
2) They sold 4.1 million Mac sales compared to 2.7 million iPod sales. I am not surprised the revenue and profits for the iPod line is much lower than the Mac but I'm surprised the unit numbers are now below it. I hadn't really thought about the iPod Touch as being over-over until you mentioned it but you could be right. I could see at least another round as we're still round of the Touch in this biennial cycle as it's unit sales could be more higher than any individual Mac size (even though each Mac makes a lot more profit) and it probably takes very little effort to make from a current or previous iPhone.
And the iPod must hold a special place in Apple's heart. It was the product that lead to the iPhone and the iPad and Apple's world-leading status. They're not going to drop it without very careful consideration.
Maybe, in its way, the iWatch will be the iPod renewed as a wearable-hence Tim Cook's somewhat guarded statement about a future device: "any reasonable person would call a new product category." Do the ears hold the key to the new category, I wonder?
I like that idea and think the term pod works great for a wearable, but it may depend on whether they see the iPod brand as being bad for business at this point.
I think it was also insightful of them to realise that the mobile phone would cannibalize the iPod and make the move even while the iPod was going strong.
Here's another video of the Meizu with 4.4" screen held next to the iPhone 5:
I think the display using more of the front face looks nicer. The Meizu has a messed up position for the earpiece and 16:10 looks too wide but something along those lines would be nice. Rather than scale it all up too, they can add more padding around the icons.