It's amazing how shitty a website macrumors is, always reporting the headline of rumors like this as an unbridled FACT- absolutely no journalistic integrity. No "reportedly", "rumored", etc in the headline- just a statement that Apple is doing X, which they rush to throw up at the blip of a rumor.
He's "completely insane" because he has a different prediction than you, which is just as plausible (if not more so) than yours? Don't reply with your train of thought, because I don't care. The point is you've been wrong in the past numerous times about these issues after mocking others, so just learn some humility and stop being so confident on such matters like product line/naming/etc.
Nonsense; TS's chart is logical and based on Apple's strategy. Methinks it is you who needs to learn some humility. TS's confidence is well-placed.
Nonsense; TS's chart is logical and based on Apple's strategy. Methinks it is you who needs to learn some humility. TS's confidence is well-placed.
TS's chart includes 1 year of actual data and two years of speculation. If 2012 was included then the chart would show that the 5C was a pattern-breaking product.
So no, it is not concretely based on Apple strategy, and his confidence, to the extent of calling others "insane", is as usual, hubristic.
Apple could easily do otherwise, and the repeated rumours of multiple sizes suggest that something else may be on the cards.
Nonsense; TS's chart is logical and based on Apple's strategy. Methinks it is you who needs to learn some humility. TS's confidence is well-placed.
TS's chart includes 1 year of actual data and two years of speculation. If 2012 was included then the chart would show that the 5C was a pattern-breaking product.
So no, it is not concretely based on Apple strategy, and his confidence, to the extent of calling others "insane", is as usual, hubristic.
Apple could easily do otherwise, and the repeated rumours of multiple sizes suggest that something else may be on the cards.
So TS is basing his chart on solid data, and you are basing your vapid guesses on rumours. Got it.
I haven't made any vapid guesses. Doubting an assertion is not making a vapid guess.
And one year is not "solid data", it's one data point. TS's chart claims to show a pattern when the simple inclusion of the previous year's data would show that the 5C broke that pattern. So it's misleading, and rather disingenuous to claim that this is "solid data".
I haven't made any vapid guesses. Doubting an assertion is not making a vapid guess.
And one year is not "solid data", it's one data point. TS's chart claims to show a pattern when the simple inclusion of the previous year's data would show that the 5C broke that pattern. So it's misleading, and rather disingenuous to claim that this is "solid data".
The rumours are merely another point of doubt.
You yourself called his chart data, yet now you're saying it's not data but a data point.
Let me know which face you'd like to show, and I’ll get back to you.
It's one year of data, and an extrapolation of two further years that is speculative. No ambiguity, even TS couldn't claim otherwise.
No idea what the "faces" comment is referring to. Try actually addressing the point instead of vaguely insulting me.
You were being two-faced by firstly citing TS's chart as based on data, which I quoted, but then denying that it was data, but rather a data point, as though somehow diminishing the data.
Regardless, TS's chart is based on data, whereas your speculation is based on rumour, so we are back to square one.
I never denied it was based on data you maniac, I just pointed out that there was only a single year of actual data compared to two of speculation. A single data point.
I have no idea what contradiction you're seeing, or how this in any way makes me "two-faced".
And my "speculation" (which I haven't really done, just expressed doubt) is based on data too. The data of the 5C being pattern breaking, and the data of new external designs having always earned new model names.
Here's some data-driven speculation for you: if two new external designs are coming this year, as they did last year, and as rumours are suggesting they might this year, then that suggests we might see two new model names.
TS would call that insane, for some not very well-defined reason.
I never denied it was based on data you maniac, I just pointed out that there was only a single year of actual data compared to two of speculation. A single data point.
I have no idea what contradiction you're seeing, or how this in any way makes me "two-faced".
And my "speculation" (which I haven't really done, just expressed doubt) is based on data too. The data of the 5C being pattern breaking, and the data of new external designs having always earned new model names.
Here's some data-driven speculation for you: if two new external designs are coming this year, as they did last year, and as rumours are suggesting they might this year, then that suggests we might see two new model names.
TS would call that insane, for some not very well-defined reason.
I would call it insane, too, with good reason: there was only one new design last year, not two. Newsflash: the 5s was the same design as the 5.
If I'm a maniac, then I guess that makes you a megalomaniac!
Actually I'm not even sure why I added the "external" qualifier, Apple assign new model names whenever there's a change in internal [I]or[/I] external design, with only slight exceptions for variances in antenna design and chips.
I would call it insane, too, with good reason: there was only one new design last year, not two. Newsflash: the 5s was the same design as the 5.
That's correct. Hopefully they will come up with a new, fresh design because the 5 and 5s was not much different from the 4 and 4s. Now that Apple is playing catch up to Android phones with the larger screen hopefully they will try to come up with something better looking like an HTC One M8. Its too bad that Apple brought Dr Dre on board too late to really help them with the audio/speakers in their phones this year. It would be really nice if they could also do Boom Sound.
TS would call that insane, for some not very well-defined reason.
No, I’ve never made any comment as to the 5.5” device other than to assume it wasn’t an iPhone. I will now, though.
If they’re stupid enough to release a 5.5” phone, it’s obviously the “iPhone Pro”. Which means that “professional” now means “physically unusable” to Apple. The 4.7” would be the iPhone Air. And the 8GB 5S remains on sale as the $0 on contract model. Boom. There. Naming scheme.
Except whoever it is said ‘Nope’ to the latter already, so I have my doubts about two simultaneous models, one of which, again, is unusable. Oh, and because the media said “two models” three years ago and they were completely and utterly wrong, as always.
What won’t happen is magically changing last year’s definition of names to fit a new setup.
Is that obvious in the same way as the iPhone after the 4S was obviously going to be the iPhone 6?
I don't think Apple gives a hoot about obvious if they want to do something else.
Well, they created an “iPad Air” for absolutely no reason because they weren’t smart enough just to drop the modifiers to the name. The implication, then, is that they’ll be making a larger iPad–deemed “Pro”–to match their laptop line. Therefore the same association with the iPhone is an easy one to make, though I’ve never subscribed to it (remember back in… 2010 when they tried to pull that schtick?).
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Apple is very inconsistent in their naming conventions - Macs are separated by user expertise with the Pro, and sometimes (but not always) an "i" distinguisher, and also by form factor with the Air and Mini; the iPods and iPads by form factor, with the Airs, Minis, Nanos... plus the oddball Classic and Touches; and the iPhones are distinguished by an odd mix of version numbering that iterates roughly every other year, and an almost arbitrary letter.
I wouldn't put money on any new name, there's minimal sense to any of it.
Comments
Nice chart.
I haven't been there for years.
Nonsense; TS's chart is logical and based on Apple's strategy. Methinks it is you who needs to learn some humility. TS's confidence is well-placed.
So no, it is not concretely based on Apple strategy, and his confidence, to the extent of calling others "insane", is as usual, hubristic.
Apple could easily do otherwise, and the repeated rumours of multiple sizes suggest that something else may be on the cards.
So TS is basing his chart on solid data, and you are basing your vapid guesses on rumours. Got it.
And one year is not "solid data", it's one data point. TS's chart claims to show a pattern when the simple inclusion of the previous year's data would show that the 5C broke that pattern. So it's misleading, and rather disingenuous to claim that this is "solid data".
The rumours are merely another point of doubt.
You yourself called his chart data, yet now you're saying it's not data but a data point.
Let me know which face you'd like to show, and I’ll get back to you.
It's one year of data, and an extrapolation of two further years that is speculative. No ambiguity, even TS couldn't claim otherwise.
No idea what the "faces" comment is referring to. Try actually addressing the point instead of vaguely insulting me.
You were being two-faced by firstly citing TS's chart as based on data, which I quoted, but then denying that it was data, but rather a data point, as though somehow diminishing the data.
Regardless, TS's chart is based on data, whereas your speculation is based on rumour, so we are back to square one.
I have no idea what contradiction you're seeing, or how this in any way makes me "two-faced".
And my "speculation" (which I haven't really done, just expressed doubt) is based on data too. The data of the 5C being pattern breaking, and the data of new external designs having always earned new model names.
Here's some data-driven speculation for you: if two new external designs are coming this year, as they did last year, and as rumours are suggesting they might this year, then that suggests we might see two new model names.
TS would call that insane, for some not very well-defined reason.
I would call it insane, too, with good reason: there was only one new design last year, not two. Newsflash: the 5s was the same design as the 5.
If I'm a maniac, then I guess that makes you a megalomaniac!
Neither of those change the overall design. You're welcome.
I would call it insane, too, with good reason: there was only one new design last year, not two. Newsflash: the 5s was the same design as the 5.
That's correct. Hopefully they will come up with a new, fresh design because the 5 and 5s was not much different from the 4 and 4s. Now that Apple is playing catch up to Android phones with the larger screen hopefully they will try to come up with something better looking like an HTC One M8. Its too bad that Apple brought Dr Dre on board too late to really help them with the audio/speakers in their phones this year. It would be really nice if they could also do Boom Sound.
No, I’ve never made any comment as to the 5.5” device other than to assume it wasn’t an iPhone. I will now, though.
If they’re stupid enough to release a 5.5” phone, it’s obviously the “iPhone Pro”. Which means that “professional” now means “physically unusable” to Apple. The 4.7” would be the iPhone Air. And the 8GB 5S remains on sale as the $0 on contract model. Boom. There. Naming scheme.
Except whoever it is said ‘Nope’ to the latter already, so I have my doubts about two simultaneous models, one of which, again, is unusable. Oh, and because the media said “two models” three years ago and they were completely and utterly wrong, as always.
What won’t happen is magically changing last year’s definition of names to fit a new setup.
I don't think Apple gives a hoot about obvious if they want to do something else.
I don't think Apple gives a hoot about obvious if they want to do something else.
Well, they created an “iPad Air” for absolutely no reason because they weren’t smart enough just to drop the modifiers to the name. The implication, then, is that they’ll be making a larger iPad–deemed “Pro”–to match their laptop line. Therefore the same association with the iPhone is an easy one to make, though I’ve never subscribed to it (remember back in… 2010 when they tried to pull that schtick?).
I wouldn't put money on any new name, there's minimal sense to any of it.