(Now, if only they will retain the useful flat edge, I'll be truly happy)
I think the flat edge becomes more of an issue as the device becomes thinner. It will be harder to pick up off a flat surface, like a glass table top. Try this with a 5 or 5S: Clean a glass tabletop so there's no dust or debris on it, then place an iPhone 5 or 5S on the table. Now pick it up. You'll note the suction effect as the smooth back of the phone adheres to the smooth glass. The flat sides of the phone are harder to grip in this situation than rounded edges would be because the rounded edges allow your finger to wrap into the indent between the geometric apex of the curved edge and the surface the phone is sitting upon. This gives you a better grip when you pull the phone away from the surface. This is also why women's bodies are curved (my theory).
AppleInsider seems strangely fixated on the mockups having round vs. pill shaped holes for the flash. Its mentioned in every single leak/mockup story...even going so far as calling the veracity of some leaks into question because of the round holes....as if Apple couldn't re-engineer the "True Tone" flash into a differently shaped enclosure.
Anyway, as I read the new report, the parts that will be replaced are the plastic looking bands, not the metal top parts with the camera/flash cutouts. So this report says nothing about the flash holes, or am I missing something?
Absolutely, I bet they've either made a micro mirror to bounce light from 2 leds out of a single point or possibly even an led which can adjust its own white balance.
my guess would be they go to something more like the look of the iPod Touch rear "windows". More like Pill-shaped windows than what the 5s and 5 looked like...but one on the top and bottom for the different antennas.
I'm guessing they will keep the 5s and 5c designs as previous models at a slightly lower price-point, but i'd love to see the iPhone go all-new with 3 sizes:
small~3.5"
Medium~4.7"
Large~5.5"
Personally, i found the 4" design too much of a compromise for single-handed use. 3.5" was the best (imo). Of course everyone has different hand sizes and opinions...this is mine. I could never comfortably reach the top-row icons in springboard or in apps where you have to tap the upper portion of the screen. I always have to re-adjust my grip.
I doubt they will do this but here's hoping.
Still odd no rumors as to the future of the 4" screen.
This report is ridiculous and wishful thinking aimed to please those who "can't get over the thick antenna breaks". It's hard to get page views when you're repeating what everyone else is saying, so why not invent something different.
We've seen extremely detailed CAD renderings of the iPhone 6 which matches the recent back shell leaks (I'm not talking about the mock-ups, but the back shell recently featured in a video). I doubt these CAD renderings were fake as they are extremely precise and complex.
In the CAD rendering, the metal inlays inside the antenna bands are not separate pieces, they are part of the main back shell. Those could not be replaced with glass inlays without weakening the structure and would probably require a major redesign of what we've seen.
The iPhone leaks come from the supply chain, they are way past the prototype design stage. There may be some changes until the final version, but nothing major.
Also, the glass back parts are now for many the symbol of "Apple's planned obsolescence" as a lot of people think Apple puts them to make the iPhone easier to break (they don't know about radio frequencies transparency), I think Apple wants to get rid of them and the stigma associated with it.
The design that we've seen looks like it will be very durable. I suspect it will be the most durable iPhone since the original (which has similar curved sides) and will be much harder to bend than the 5/5S as an arch/half-pipe shape is the strongest geometry shape.
We've seen extremely detailed CAD renderings of the iPhone 6 which matches the recent back shell leaks (I'm not talking about the mock-ups, but the back shell recently featured in a video). I doubt these CAD renderings were fake as they are extremely precise and complex.
The problem I have with your reasoning is that precision and complexity does not necessarily prove accuracy or truth. Verisimilitude does not prove truth.
The problem I have with your reasoning is that precision and complexity does not necessarily prove accuracy or truth. Verisimilitude does not prove truth.
This report is ridiculous and wishful thinking aimed to please those who "can't get over the thick antenna breaks". It's hard to get page views when you're repeating what everyone else is saying, so why not invent something different.
We've seen extremely detailed CAD renderings of the iPhone 6 which matches the recent back shell leaks (I'm not talking about the mock-ups, but the back shell recently featured in a video). I doubt these CAD renderings were fake as they are extremely precise and complex.
In the CAD rendering, the metal inlays inside the antenna bands are not separate pieces, they are part of the main back shell. Those could not be replaced with glass inlays without weakening the structure and would probably require a major redesign of what we've seen.
The iPhone leaks come from the supply chain, they are way past the prototype design stage. There may be some changes until the final version, but nothing major.
Also, the glass back parts are now for many the symbol of "Apple's planned obsolescence" as a lot of people think Apple puts them to make the iPhone easier to break (they don't know about radio frequencies transparency), I think Apple wants to get rid of them and the stigma associated with it.
The design that we've seen looks like it will be very durable. I suspect it will be the most durable iPhone since the original (which has similar curved sides) and will be much harder to bend than the 5/5S as an arch/half-pipe shape is the strongest geometry shape.
The antenna breaks would be injected molded plastic that would insulate the very top and bottom from the main case, as well as part of the inside.
I've said it on other forums and will say it here as well: if the final design sold to consumers includes those thick white and black antenna bands I will sell my Apple stock. But I'm very confident that will not be the case so I'm not worried.
Still no rumors if they will keep the 4" design.
I'm guessing they will keep the 5s and 5c designs as previous models at a slightly lower price-point, but i'd love to see the iPhone go all-new with 3 sizes:
small~3.5"
Medium~4.7"
Large~5.5"
Personally, i found the 4" design too much of a compromise for single-handed use. 3.5" was the best (imo). Of course everyone has different hand sizes and opinions...this is mine. I could never comfortably reach the top-row icons in springboard or in apps where you have to tap the upper portion of the screen. I always have to re-adjust my grip.
I doubt they will do this but here's hoping.
Still odd no rumors as to the future of the 4" screen.
I would like to see:
3.5" - small
4.0" - medium
4.7" - large
I still think 5.5" is too big. But they could offer it as an iPhone Maxi or something.
I still think 5.5" is too big. But they could offer it as an iPhone Maxi or something.
agreed, but there is a case to be made for the 5.5" screen. Perhaps not that big a demand in the US or other "western" markets, but in the "East" where the phone is most people's ONLY computing device, bigger the better. Not to mention people who want the biggest screen on a phone possible due to vision and/or accessibility issues.
This report is ridiculous and wishful thinking aimed to please those who "can't get over the thick antenna breaks". It's hard to get page views when you're repeating what everyone else is saying, so why not invent something different.
I agree. I actually really like the new design. A good argument could be made that the design with the bands is more refined as it acknowledges and emphasizes the seams. It is a more truthful and intuitive design, qualities that are typically thought of as favorable to designers. You can even see this in Apple's more recent stores, where the brackets holding the glass panels together are larger and shinier than they need to be:
Highland Village store, Houston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I've said it on other forums and will say it here as well: if the final design sold to consumers includes those thick white and black antenna bands I will sell my Apple stock. But I'm very confident that will not be the case so I'm not worried.
I've said it on other forums and will say it here as well: if the final design sold to consumers includes those thick white and black antenna bands I will sell my Apple stock. But I'm very confident that will not be the case so I'm not worried.
Well good thing for you since surely the iPhone 6 will be a flop because of these lines which are 1mm too thick. /s
I'm curious, where do you think those thick lines rumors come from? Fakers said "let's make thick antenna separators, it will be more Apple like!"? Or maybe Apple decided to make the lines thicker as a fashion statement (because there couldn't be a technical reason for their thickness!) and are backing off because of the "outrage"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
The problem I have with your reasoning is that precision and complexity does not necessarily prove accuracy or truth. Verisimilitude does not prove truth.
I never stated it was a proof. We're on a rumor oriented site discussing mainly unproven facts. Everything can be faked of course, but some things are less likely to be faked, such as intricate industrial design. A video is also much less likely to be faked than a photo, though it can be done.
What's more likely to be faked, all the CAD renderings and a matching video of a "real" back shell that show the exact same antenna arrangement? Or an article based on hearsay in a Japanese newspaper?
I never stated it was a proof. We're on a rumor oriented site discussing mainly unproven facts. Everything can be faked of course, but some things are less likely to be faked, such as intricate industrial design. A video is also much less likely to be faked than a photo, though it can be done.
What's more likely to be faked, all the CAD renderings and a matching video of a "real" back shell that show the exact same antenna arrangement? Or an article based on hearsay in a Japanese newspaper?
Comments
I’m thinking they’re just wrong.
Still gunning for a 4.7” iPhone and 5.5” iPod touch combo, myself.
Whew! Thank god.
Thing looked like a prop from "Tron".
(Now, if only they will retain the useful flat edge, I'll be truly happy)
I think the flat edge becomes more of an issue as the device becomes thinner. It will be harder to pick up off a flat surface, like a glass table top. Try this with a 5 or 5S: Clean a glass tabletop so there's no dust or debris on it, then place an iPhone 5 or 5S on the table. Now pick it up. You'll note the suction effect as the smooth back of the phone adheres to the smooth glass. The flat sides of the phone are harder to grip in this situation than rounded edges would be because the rounded edges allow your finger to wrap into the indent between the geometric apex of the curved edge and the surface the phone is sitting upon. This gives you a better grip when you pull the phone away from the surface. This is also why women's bodies are curved (my theory).
(Above sentence bolded by me.)
AppleInsider seems strangely fixated on the mockups having round vs. pill shaped holes for the flash. Its mentioned in every single leak/mockup story...even going so far as calling the veracity of some leaks into question because of the round holes....as if Apple couldn't re-engineer the "True Tone" flash into a differently shaped enclosure.
Anyway, as I read the new report, the parts that will be replaced are the plastic looking bands, not the metal top parts with the camera/flash cutouts. So this report says nothing about the flash holes, or am I missing something?
Absolutely, I bet they've either made a micro mirror to bounce light from 2 leds out of a single point or possibly even an led which can adjust its own white balance.
my guess would be they go to something more like the look of the iPod Touch rear "windows". More like Pill-shaped windows than what the 5s and 5 looked like...but one on the top and bottom for the different antennas.
Still no rumors if they will keep the 4" design.
I'm guessing they will keep the 5s and 5c designs as previous models at a slightly lower price-point, but i'd love to see the iPhone go all-new with 3 sizes:
small~3.5"
Medium~4.7"
Large~5.5"
Personally, i found the 4" design too much of a compromise for single-handed use. 3.5" was the best (imo). Of course everyone has different hand sizes and opinions...this is mine. I could never comfortably reach the top-row icons in springboard or in apps where you have to tap the upper portion of the screen. I always have to re-adjust my grip.
I doubt they will do this but here's hoping.
Still odd no rumors as to the future of the 4" screen.
This report is ridiculous and wishful thinking aimed to please those who "can't get over the thick antenna breaks". It's hard to get page views when you're repeating what everyone else is saying, so why not invent something different.
We've seen extremely detailed CAD renderings of the iPhone 6 which matches the recent back shell leaks (I'm not talking about the mock-ups, but the back shell recently featured in a video). I doubt these CAD renderings were fake as they are extremely precise and complex.
In the CAD rendering, the metal inlays inside the antenna bands are not separate pieces, they are part of the main back shell. Those could not be replaced with glass inlays without weakening the structure and would probably require a major redesign of what we've seen.
The iPhone leaks come from the supply chain, they are way past the prototype design stage. There may be some changes until the final version, but nothing major.
Also, the glass back parts are now for many the symbol of "Apple's planned obsolescence" as a lot of people think Apple puts them to make the iPhone easier to break (they don't know about radio frequencies transparency), I think Apple wants to get rid of them and the stigma associated with it.
The design that we've seen looks like it will be very durable. I suspect it will be the most durable iPhone since the original (which has similar curved sides) and will be much harder to bend than the 5/5S as an arch/half-pipe shape is the strongest geometry shape.
The following patent may (or may not) describe the antenna/insulation arrangement of the iPhone 6 : http://www.google.com/patents/US20140071651
The antenna breaks would be injected molded plastic that would insulate the very top and bottom from the main case, as well as part of the inside.
The horror of looking like an iPhone.
The problem I have with your reasoning is that precision and complexity does not necessarily prove accuracy or truth. Verisimilitude does not prove truth.
That's a dedicated light, which means worse battery and no point.
I would like to see:
3.5" - small
4.0" - medium
4.7" - large
I still think 5.5" is too big. But they could offer it as an iPhone Maxi or something.
Ditto but I want a new 4" model as well.
I would like to see:
3.5" - small
4.0" - medium
4.7" - large
I still think 5.5" is too big. But they could offer it as an iPhone Maxi or something.
agreed, but there is a case to be made for the 5.5" screen. Perhaps not that big a demand in the US or other "western" markets, but in the "East" where the phone is most people's ONLY computing device, bigger the better. Not to mention people who want the biggest screen on a phone possible due to vision and/or accessibility issues.
This report is ridiculous and wishful thinking aimed to please those who "can't get over the thick antenna breaks". It's hard to get page views when you're repeating what everyone else is saying, so why not invent something different.
I agree. I actually really like the new design. A good argument could be made that the design with the bands is more refined as it acknowledges and emphasizes the seams. It is a more truthful and intuitive design, qualities that are typically thought of as favorable to designers. You can even see this in Apple's more recent stores, where the brackets holding the glass panels together are larger and shinier than they need to be:
Highland Village store, Houston
I've said it on other forums and will say it here as well: if the final design sold to consumers includes those thick white and black antenna bands I will sell my Apple stock. But I'm very confident that will not be the case so I'm not worried.
That's quite a statement.
I've said it on other forums and will say it here as well: if the final design sold to consumers includes those thick white and black antenna bands I will sell my Apple stock. But I'm very confident that will not be the case so I'm not worried.
Well good thing for you since surely the iPhone 6 will be a flop because of these lines which are 1mm too thick. /s
I'm curious, where do you think those thick lines rumors come from? Fakers said "let's make thick antenna separators, it will be more Apple like!"? Or maybe Apple decided to make the lines thicker as a fashion statement (because there couldn't be a technical reason for their thickness!) and are backing off because of the "outrage"?
The problem I have with your reasoning is that precision and complexity does not necessarily prove accuracy or truth. Verisimilitude does not prove truth.
I never stated it was a proof. We're on a rumor oriented site discussing mainly unproven facts. Everything can be faked of course, but some things are less likely to be faked, such as intricate industrial design. A video is also much less likely to be faked than a photo, though it can be done.
What's more likely to be faked, all the CAD renderings and a matching video of a "real" back shell that show the exact same antenna arrangement? Or an article based on hearsay in a Japanese newspaper?
I never stated it was a proof. We're on a rumor oriented site discussing mainly unproven facts. Everything can be faked of course, but some things are less likely to be faked, such as intricate industrial design. A video is also much less likely to be faked than a photo, though it can be done.
What's more likely to be faked, all the CAD renderings and a matching video of a "real" back shell that show the exact same antenna arrangement? Or an article based on hearsay in a Japanese newspaper?
"Unproven facts."
Uh-huh. Right.
"Unproven facts."
Uh-huh. Right.
It's called making a stupid mistake. Thank you for understanding.