I think this is most accurate from any of the other kind of crazy ones ya'll are predicting. Although I think they'll keep the 5S as is and not put a plastic case on it. Also- the 4.7 wouldn't be called the Air if the 5.5 is.
Except its not just the cost of the storage they're thinking of. That's being simple-minded. It isnt the $5 difference in storage costs. They are calculating how many "upgrades" theyd lose from people who pay $100 extra for 32gb- which is what I do. I'd spend $650 instead of $750. Hey- I'm all for that- but it goes beyond "bean counting" when you're talking $100-$300.
I'm with blackbook on this- no need for Apple to upgrade to 32gb this round. Why? Because they can afford it and out of the goodness of their own hearts? They won't sell more- they just won't make as much money. 32gb base will likely be a "6s" feature.
so why 2015 instead of 2014? If people are willing to pay $100 more this year why wouldn't they be next year too? I guess if Apple is all about how they can make the most money off people then they won't change anything.
Do you think Apple is going to split a new product line based on display size and not charge more for the larger model?
No, no, I'm just saying the survey is asking two questions at once and not separating them. The way they phrased the question may well be MORE indicative of likely "real-world" outcomes than if they asked the two questions separately, it just doesn't allow for conclusions about either factor independently. Is any particular respondent's choice based primarily on cost or size preference? There's no way to know. That's all.
The second setup would make sure that TouchID would become very prevalent very quickly. It would also make sure that Android has no way to compete with Apple's lineup at all. The first solution, however, would be more of what Apple is like: conservative with their aggressiveness.
Your second option will provably never happen but boy oh boy would Android OEMs be in a world of hurt.
So do you not think Apple should be giving software away for free? I'm sure Apple could still charge for OSX and iWork and people would pay for it. Apple has reduced prices on Macs. I'd love to know who decided that 16/32/64 with $100 price increments between each has to be around forever. As far as an 8GB phone being acceptable for the "third world", Apple introduced an 8GB 5C in Europe so basically you're equating Europe to the third world.
Software is of course not the same as physical flash memory. With the amount of phones that Apple sells, that is no small amount of extra flash to be giving away. Isn't Apple the biggest flash user in the entire world?
I will agree with you on one thing, 16 GB increments could come down slightly in price, say $50 or $75, instead of $100. I don't agree with making the lowest model 32GB. Keep it at 16GB, and make the upgrade for an extra 16GB slightly less than it currently is.
As for Europe being the third world, some southern European countries are still in dire economic straits, not surprisingly countries where also Android is popular, and those places might as well be the third world, because they're moving more in that direction.
... the edges of the glass have an "arc" to them, sporting curved edges as opposed to the rounded off corners on the iPhone 5 class.
Fantastic! I'm tired of the sharp-edged iPhone glass and the plastic strip around it. Ive must have been looking for a solution to the sharp edge issue since the iPhone 4.
And I'd be quite happy if the chamfering disappears too. It serves an important function on iPad, but no so much on iPhone. Try this experiment with any chamfered-edge iPad:
1. Hold your chamfered-edge iPad over something soft, because you're going to drop it.
2. Now hold it one-handed, as though you were using it normally with thumb on front bezel.
3. See how close to the edge you can move your thumb without dropping the iPad.
4. Turn the iPad over, so its backshell is facing up.
5. Again, hold it one-handed, thumb on top.
6. See how close to the edge you can move your thumb without dropping the iPad.
And now you see one of the benefits of the chamfered edge. It creates two sharp edges for increased friction with your thumb. You can hold the iPad one-handed with your thumb quite close to the edge when it's face-up. But when it's face-down and the rounded edge is on top, your one-handed grip is much less secure with your thumb near the edge.
Which of course means nothing for iPhone. The chamfered edge increases one-handed grip security on iPad, but does precious little for iPhone and iPod touch other than to maintain a family resemblance between iPhone and iPad lines. So yes, I think it's time for a rounded-edge glass front panel and iPad-like rounded-edge backshell for iPhone. But I'm not so sure iPad will get the rounded-edge glass panel. We'll see.
So does Apple just pretend they never made a big deal about being able to comfortably use the phone with one hand?
So what do you want, exactly? For Apple to make a 4" phone for the end of time? Yes, they truly believed that was the best size at the time, and their point about one-handed use still stands. I have both a Nexus 5 and iPhone 5, and the iPhone IS much more comfortable to hold. However, things change, people's expectations change, software complexity changes, the landscape changes, and Apple holds the right to adjust their previous beliefs based on these changing circumstances. People are now using iPhones for MUCH, MUCH more than Steve Jobs originally envisioned. Yes, smaller phones are more comfortable. Are MOST people willing to trade a bit of comfort for a larger screen? I'd say the answer is definitely yes. Apple will reconcile their previous statements somehow- or they won't at all. In the end it doesn't matter much. Only people like you will obsess about making a huge fuss about it. Consumers won't care about what Apple previously said, nor should they.
I don't get why Apple just don't allow 3G and 4G iPads to make calls, obviously using a headset (wired or bluetooth), although I can see some people holding an iPad mini to their face. That puts pay to these retards who think that a massive screen is the future.
If Apple does come out with a larger 4.7" and 5.5" phone, Apple will give customers the option of choosing a 64 bit phone in three screen sizes, just as Apple offers a 64 bit iPad in two screen sizes.
Apple most likely will come out with a 64 bit 4.7" and 5.5" phone, while retaining the same technology in the smaller 4" iPhone 5S, and make the iPhone 5C the mid range phone, the iPhone 4S the lower end phone, and phase out the iPhone 4.
This is similar to Apple offering the same 64 Bit A7 chip in the smaller iPad mini Retina and the larger iPad Air Retina, while retaining the non-retina iPad mini with the Dual Core A5 chip, as the lower range iPad, and the original iPad Retina with the Dual Core A6X chip, as the mid range iPad, while they phased out the iPad 2.
What all of this means is that with the introduction of larger screened iPhones, Apple is going after the market that wants a screen larger than their current iPhone, while not abandoning its customers who prefer a smaller screened phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I think we'll see this:
iPhone Air 5.5 with A8 and 16GB: $299 (on contract)
iPhone Air 4.7 with A8 and 16GB: $199 (on contract)
iPhone Color* 4.0 with A7 and 16GB: $99 (on contract)
iPhone 5C 4.0 with A6 and 8GB: $0 (on contract)
*The iPhone "Color" is an iPhone 5S repackaged in a plastic case just like the 5C, but it will include Touch ID.
Really?
Tell me something, which is more likely...
Your idea of Apple producing an A8 chip in less than a year of developing the A7 chip, for the sole purpose of incorporating the newer chip in a larger screened 4.7" and 5.5" phone like you proposed in your post (at your quoted prices)...
Or...
Apple leveraging their 64 bit A7 chip, which has the horsepower to power an iPad mini Retina Display, and an iPad Air Retina Display, and creating two larger 64 bit iPhone screen sizes...
What you must realize is that when Apple upgrades their mobile processors, their focus is to increase horsepower AND increase power efficiency, and that such upgrades happen gradually over time. Apple always first leverages their existing chips into new product lines, and follows a product life cycle before they introduce a new chip (which only happens when Apple refreshes its product line).
The iPhone 4 is at the end of its product life and can no longer support the software upgrades, so Apple will phase out the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S will take its place as the budget iPhone. The iPhone 5C was the iPhone 5 (with the body of the iPhone 5S). Apple differentiated the previous iPhone 5 from the iPhone 5S, by making the metallic iPhone 5 the plastic iPhone 5C, and taking the iPhone 5's metallic body and giving it a new internal makeover with the 64 bit A7 chip and Touch ID, and calling it the iPhone 5S.
Apple just refreshed its product line with the Touch ID and the A7 chip in the iPhone 5S, and the A7 chip in the iPad mini Retina and the iPad Air Retina. Apple will refresh the 64 bit A7 chip iPad line with Touch ID (since only the A7 chip can handle Touch ID). The logical upgrade path to the iPhone line is a 64 bit iPhone 5S with Touch ID in a 4.7" and 5.5" screen size; which allows Apple to sell the same phone technology without having to create different logic boards for different screen sizes.
Once the 64 bit iPhone and iPad lines are established globally, only then will Apple introduce an A8 chip in a 12" iPad, which most likely will be a Macbook Air tablet powered by an A8 chip, with a Mac OS that can run both desktop Mac apps, and mobile iOS apps - which would have a detachable Bluetooth Apple Keyboard/Magic Trackpad dock.
I like the idea of the 4.7" screen. If only the text could be slightly larger in some of the interface elements, sort of like taking the current UI and just scaling it up to 4.7". But that will probably never happen. More likely they'll just give us an extra row and an extra column of icons. Right now I have my backgrounds set to black to get enough contrast to read some of the tinier text.
For young people the tiny text is no problem, but for older people who wear glasses some of the text is a little too small and does not have enough contrast. My vision is definitely getting worse as I get older. Overall, I'm in really good shape, it is just the vision thing that is bothering me. I'll probably get laser correction at some point. Glasses are a pain. I have one pair for computing at work, which is a single focal length of 60 cm, another pair for just walking around, but not all that good for focusing up close, and a third for driving, with clear and dark of each, except the computing pair which is only clear. But as bad as that sounds I can function quite well without any vision correction, but it is definitely better when you can see clearly.
so why 2015 instead of 2014? If people are willing to pay $100 more this year why wouldn't they be next year too? I guess if Apple is all about how they can make the most money off people then they won't change anything.
The reason it makes more sense for 2015 versus now is because this year Apple is already giving consumers a larger, thinner, faster, more efficient phone for the same price as the outgoing model.
Consumers will see the value of getting more for their money already with the 6 over the 5S, hence why there is no need to also double the storage.
Next year there will be less features added between the 6 to the 6S so if Apple were to double the storage sizes for the iPhone, next year makes more sense.
Conversely I said this year makes more sense to double storage sizes on the iPads since they will likely retain the same form factor. That way Apple can release an A8 iPad Air with Touch ID and 32GB for $499. That will be a must have Christmas gift even for those that bought 16GB iPad Airs last year.
4.7" screen is good enough for me. Outside of folk with big hands not sure what other motivation for a 5.5" screen. I've been just treating as a rumor. Will believe it when I see it. Anything that large I'll just get an iPad mini. Looking forward to see how the new hardware looks come September.
People are now using iPhones for MUCH, MUCH more than Steve Jobs originally envisioned.
That is true. Hell, in the early days of the iPhone, Steve Jobs was against an app store that sold third party apps. Things do change, and sometimes what was valid a decade ago is no longer valid.
People keep talking about the iPhone's size, and the iPhone had a HUGE display when it was first released, I think that some people forget that. Does that mean that Apple has to stick with that sized display for all eternity? Of course not. Things change.
[SIZE=14px]Tell me something, which is more likely...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Your idea of Apple producing an A8 chip in less than a year of developing the A7 chip, for the sole purpose of incorporating the newer chip in a larger screened 4.7" and 5.5" phone like you proposed in your post (at your quoted prices)...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Or...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Apple leveraging their 64 bit A7 chip, which has the horsepower to power an iPad mini Retina Display, and an iPad Air Retina Display, and creating two larger 64 bit iPhone screen sizes...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]What you must realize is that when Apple upgrades their mobile processors, their focus is to increase horsepower AND increase power efficiency, and that such upgrades happen gradually over time. Apple always first leverages their existing chips into new product lines, and follows a product life cycle before they introduce a new chip (which only happens when Apple refreshes its product line).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]The iPhone 4 is at the end of its product life and can no longer support the software upgrades, so Apple will phase out the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S will take its place as the budget iPhone. The iPhone 5C was the iPhone 5 (with the body of the iPhone 5S). Apple differentiated the previous iPhone 5 from the iPhone 5S, by making the metallic iPhone 5 the plastic iPhone 5C, and taking the iPhone 5's metallic body and giving it a new internal makeover with the 64 bit A7 chip and Touch ID, and calling it the iPhone 5S.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Apple just refreshed its product line with the Touch ID and the A7 chip in the iPhone 5S, and the A7 chip in the iPad mini Retina and the iPad Air Retina. Apple will refresh the 64 bit A7 chip iPad line with Touch ID (since only the A7 chip can handle Touch ID). The logical upgrade path to the iPhone line is a 64 bit iPhone 5S with Touch ID in a 4.7" and 5.5" screen size; which allows Apple to sell the same phone technology without having to create different logic boards for different screen sizes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Once the 64 bit iPhone and iPad lines are established globally, only then will Apple introduce an A8 chip in a 12" iPad, which most likely will be a Macbook Air tablet powered by an A8 chip, with a Mac OS that can run both desktop Mac apps, and mobile iOS apps - which would have a detachable Bluetooth Apple Keyboard/Magic Track Pad dock.[/SIZE]
There's no logic to what you're saying. Apple is already developing an A8 processor that will be more efficient than the A7, and every year since the iPhone 4 Apple has come out with an upgraded A series chip. I don't see why this year would be any different.
In most countries the iPhone 4 has already been phased out and I assume both the 4 and 4S will be phased out this year completely.
The 5C will be the low end the 5S (or a plastic version) will be the mid range and the new iPhones will be the top of the line models.
I know all that, and said so. Apple apologists argue that it works. I simply offered one example of how it didn't. I have no way of knowing whether or not anyone else's situation is similar to mine, and I'm not saying that I'm right and Apple is wrong. I'm saying that for those of us willing to vote with our wallets, the particular factor and strategy Apple chose for differentiation may just prevent a sale altogether, which may not have a negative effect on ASP but does hurt gross sales.
One may point out that Apple already sells so many iPhones that some lost sales don't matter and that would probably be a reasonable argument. One might also point out that Apple could achieve the same ASP *and* higher sales with a different strategy and that, too, might be a reasonable argument. FOR ME it would be better if additional storage were less expensive. Apparently Apple's bean-counters don't think there are enough others like me to make that approach better for them. Maybe they're right, but without trying it the best anyone can offer is an educated guess. I have no data at all myself, so I'm not postulating, I'm simply providing the basis for considering alternative conclusions.
The company I work for spent a dump truck full of money on trying to find out what the consumers of our product want, and later discovered that what they SAY and what they DO are two very different things! When they tried a new approach that ignored all the research, almost out of desperation, the positive response was overwhelming. I don't know how often that happens and I'm not saying Apple is wrong, but it's one example of extensive market research being almost 100% wrong. For another example, ask the two major political parties in British Columbia's last Provincial election what they think of market research. It was WAY wrong about that, too.
If Apple does make a larger iPhone I will buy one. Two, actually. And I will probably pay the long coin for the upgrade. I'll just be less likely to buy next year's model or the one after that or the one after that without a REALLY compelling reason. Anyone else is free to draw their own conclusions about the validity of Apple's approach.
I don't get why Apple just don't allow 3G and 4G iPads to make calls, obviously using a headset (wired or bluetooth), although I can see some people holding an iPad mini to their face.
As one who wants a big phone, I'm good with that. I've said all along that Apple could resolve this once and for all just by adding voice capability to the IPad. Or even the MacBook Air. I gotta carry a computer anyway. If it could be my phone too, so much the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
That puts pay to these retards who think that a massive screen is the future.
Yeah, and let's do something about those assholes who drive trucks instead of cars! And dumbasses who wear baggy pants! Don't even get me started about the douchebags with big screen TVs! How about those dipshits who buy 27" iMacs instead of the 21"?
Can you at least TRY to make a point without insulting everyone whose preferences differ from yours?
I get that and don't necessarily disagree, but $100 per bump? Holy Buttrape, Batman!
That pricing policy CAN backfire. I've skipped three generations and clung to my old iPhone 4, even paying the $169 "repair" fee twice, because I wanted a big screen and refused to pay top dollar for a device that wasn't what I want. Replacing it with an entry-level version of whatever was current at any given time meant sacrificing storage capacity, which for my needs is more important than processor speed. If the price of a more spacious model had been more reasonable, I *might* have just upgraded to something new in the meantime instead paying to repair the old one (which can't be making Apple any money since they just give me a new phone each time).
There's no need to explain all the complexities of cost-averaging and such, I get all that. I'm just saying my case is one example of how what SEEMS like a profitable pricing strategy may actually be a sales deterrent.
I saw recently one of those breakdown type sites that estimate parts to a fairly accurate degree. I believe they priced the 16GB storage in the 5s at around $9. I can't find that article but did find one a little older.
"Apple spends at least $191 on components to build a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5S. The cost rises to $210 for a 64 GB unit. The cost of assembly adds another $8 per unit, bringing the range to between $199 and $218m [...]
On the iPhone 5C, the lower-priced model known for its colorful outer shell, IHS estimates the cost of components plus manufacturing ranges from $173 to $183 including $7 for assembly."
Now everyone understands the price of R&D not to mention Apple stores and employees all over the world are hidden cost and you can't simply look at raw component prices. But one thing we can safely say is that Apple's margins would not suffer greatly if they standardized on 32/64/128 at the same price level as the current lineup.
There's no logic to what you're saying. Apple is already developing an A8 processor that will be more efficient than the A7, and every year since the iPhone 4 Apple has come out with an upgraded A series chip. I don't see why this year would be any different.
In most countries the iPhone 4 has already been phased out and I assume both the 4 and 4S will be phased out this year completely.
The 5C will be the low end the 5S (or a plastic version) will be the mid range and the new iPhones will be the top of the line models.
Like I told you, Apple only introduces a new chip when it refreshes its product line.
Tim Cook is very efficient when it comes to logistics in the supply chain, which he was managing when Steve Jobs was still alive. Tim Cook doesn't just introduce a new processor for its own sake, and will not introduce an A8 processor when he just introduced the A7 processor.
Apple most likely will come out with a 64 bit 4.7" and 5.5" phone, while retaining the same technology in the smaller 4" iPhone 5S, and make the iPhone 5C the mid range phone, the iPhone 4S the lower end phone, and phase out the iPhone 4.
You're all over the place, that's for sure.
Newflash- this isn't 2013. The iPhone 4 is already phased out, and the 4S is already the lower end phone
Tim Cook is very efficient when it comes to logistics in the supply chain, which he was managing when Steve Jobs was still alive. Tim Cook doesn't just introduce a new processor for its own sake, and will not introduce an A8 processor when he just introduced the A7 processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InteliusQ
Apple just refreshed its product line with the Touch ID and the A7 chip in the iPhone 5S, and the A7 chip in the iPad mini Retina and the iPad Air Retina. Apple will refresh the 64 bit A7 chip iPad line with Touch ID (since only the A7 chip can handle Touch ID).
Apple upgrade cycles:
3GS- June 19, 2009
A4- June 24, 2010
A5- Oct 14, 2011
A6- Sept 21, 2012
A7- Sept 20, 2013
Why are you acting like they don't upgrade to a "new more efficient" chip every single year? And no- they didn't just release the A7. It's not like the A7 has only been out 2 months- it's been out over 9 months- and will be a year old (like every other processor)- when it gets updated.
Of all the insane claims on this forum- you are the only one who doesn't think Apple will introduce the A8. Let that resonate.
Comments
Do you think Apple is going to split a new product line based on display size and not charge more for the larger model?
No, no, I'm just saying the survey is asking two questions at once and not separating them. The way they phrased the question may well be MORE indicative of likely "real-world" outcomes than if they asked the two questions separately, it just doesn't allow for conclusions about either factor independently. Is any particular respondent's choice based primarily on cost or size preference? There's no way to know. That's all.
So do you not think Apple should be giving software away for free? I'm sure Apple could still charge for OSX and iWork and people would pay for it. Apple has reduced prices on Macs. I'd love to know who decided that 16/32/64 with $100 price increments between each has to be around forever. As far as an 8GB phone being acceptable for the "third world", Apple introduced an 8GB 5C in Europe so basically you're equating Europe to the third world.
Software is of course not the same as physical flash memory. With the amount of phones that Apple sells, that is no small amount of extra flash to be giving away. Isn't Apple the biggest flash user in the entire world?
I will agree with you on one thing, 16 GB increments could come down slightly in price, say $50 or $75, instead of $100. I don't agree with making the lowest model 32GB. Keep it at 16GB, and make the upgrade for an extra 16GB slightly less than it currently is.
As for Europe being the third world, some southern European countries are still in dire economic straits, not surprisingly countries where also Android is popular, and those places might as well be the third world, because they're moving more in that direction.
... the edges of the glass have an "arc" to them, sporting curved edges as opposed to the rounded off corners on the iPhone 5 class.
Fantastic! I'm tired of the sharp-edged iPhone glass and the plastic strip around it. Ive must have been looking for a solution to the sharp edge issue since the iPhone 4.
And I'd be quite happy if the chamfering disappears too. It serves an important function on iPad, but no so much on iPhone. Try this experiment with any chamfered-edge iPad:
1. Hold your chamfered-edge iPad over something soft, because you're going to drop it.
2. Now hold it one-handed, as though you were using it normally with thumb on front bezel.
3. See how close to the edge you can move your thumb without dropping the iPad.
4. Turn the iPad over, so its backshell is facing up.
5. Again, hold it one-handed, thumb on top.
6. See how close to the edge you can move your thumb without dropping the iPad.
And now you see one of the benefits of the chamfered edge. It creates two sharp edges for increased friction with your thumb. You can hold the iPad one-handed with your thumb quite close to the edge when it's face-up. But when it's face-down and the rounded edge is on top, your one-handed grip is much less secure with your thumb near the edge.
Which of course means nothing for iPhone. The chamfered edge increases one-handed grip security on iPad, but does precious little for iPhone and iPod touch other than to maintain a family resemblance between iPhone and iPad lines. So yes, I think it's time for a rounded-edge glass front panel and iPad-like rounded-edge backshell for iPhone. But I'm not so sure iPad will get the rounded-edge glass panel. We'll see.
Iphone 6:
3.5". 4". 4.7". 5.5"
So does Apple just pretend they never made a big deal about being able to comfortably use the phone with one hand?
So what do you want, exactly? For Apple to make a 4" phone for the end of time? Yes, they truly believed that was the best size at the time, and their point about one-handed use still stands. I have both a Nexus 5 and iPhone 5, and the iPhone IS much more comfortable to hold. However, things change, people's expectations change, software complexity changes, the landscape changes, and Apple holds the right to adjust their previous beliefs based on these changing circumstances. People are now using iPhones for MUCH, MUCH more than Steve Jobs originally envisioned. Yes, smaller phones are more comfortable. Are MOST people willing to trade a bit of comfort for a larger screen? I'd say the answer is definitely yes. Apple will reconcile their previous statements somehow- or they won't at all. In the end it doesn't matter much. Only people like you will obsess about making a huge fuss about it. Consumers won't care about what Apple previously said, nor should they.
I don't get why Apple just don't allow 3G and 4G iPads to make calls, obviously using a headset (wired or bluetooth), although I can see some people holding an iPad mini to their face. That puts pay to these retards who think that a massive screen is the future.
If Apple does come out with a larger 4.7" and 5.5" phone, Apple will give customers the option of choosing a 64 bit phone in three screen sizes, just as Apple offers a 64 bit iPad in two screen sizes.
Apple most likely will come out with a 64 bit 4.7" and 5.5" phone, while retaining the same technology in the smaller 4" iPhone 5S, and make the iPhone 5C the mid range phone, the iPhone 4S the lower end phone, and phase out the iPhone 4.
This is similar to Apple offering the same 64 Bit A7 chip in the smaller iPad mini Retina and the larger iPad Air Retina, while retaining the non-retina iPad mini with the Dual Core A5 chip, as the lower range iPad, and the original iPad Retina with the Dual Core A6X chip, as the mid range iPad, while they phased out the iPad 2.
What all of this means is that with the introduction of larger screened iPhones, Apple is going after the market that wants a screen larger than their current iPhone, while not abandoning its customers who prefer a smaller screened phone.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I think we'll see this:
iPhone Air 5.5 with A8 and 16GB: $299 (on contract)
iPhone Air 4.7 with A8 and 16GB: $199 (on contract)
iPhone Color* 4.0 with A7 and 16GB: $99 (on contract)
iPhone 5C 4.0 with A6 and 8GB: $0 (on contract)
*The iPhone "Color" is an iPhone 5S repackaged in a plastic case just like the 5C, but it will include Touch ID.
Really?
Tell me something, which is more likely...
Your idea of Apple producing an A8 chip in less than a year of developing the A7 chip, for the sole purpose of incorporating the newer chip in a larger screened 4.7" and 5.5" phone like you proposed in your post (at your quoted prices)...
Or...
Apple leveraging their 64 bit A7 chip, which has the horsepower to power an iPad mini Retina Display, and an iPad Air Retina Display, and creating two larger 64 bit iPhone screen sizes...
What you must realize is that when Apple upgrades their mobile processors, their focus is to increase horsepower AND increase power efficiency, and that such upgrades happen gradually over time. Apple always first leverages their existing chips into new product lines, and follows a product life cycle before they introduce a new chip (which only happens when Apple refreshes its product line).
The iPhone 4 is at the end of its product life and can no longer support the software upgrades, so Apple will phase out the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S will take its place as the budget iPhone. The iPhone 5C was the iPhone 5 (with the body of the iPhone 5S). Apple differentiated the previous iPhone 5 from the iPhone 5S, by making the metallic iPhone 5 the plastic iPhone 5C, and taking the iPhone 5's metallic body and giving it a new internal makeover with the 64 bit A7 chip and Touch ID, and calling it the iPhone 5S.
Apple just refreshed its product line with the Touch ID and the A7 chip in the iPhone 5S, and the A7 chip in the iPad mini Retina and the iPad Air Retina. Apple will refresh the 64 bit A7 chip iPad line with Touch ID (since only the A7 chip can handle Touch ID). The logical upgrade path to the iPhone line is a 64 bit iPhone 5S with Touch ID in a 4.7" and 5.5" screen size; which allows Apple to sell the same phone technology without having to create different logic boards for different screen sizes.
Once the 64 bit iPhone and iPad lines are established globally, only then will Apple introduce an A8 chip in a 12" iPad, which most likely will be a Macbook Air tablet powered by an A8 chip, with a Mac OS that can run both desktop Mac apps, and mobile iOS apps - which would have a detachable Bluetooth Apple Keyboard/Magic Trackpad dock.
I like the idea of the 4.7" screen. If only the text could be slightly larger in some of the interface elements, sort of like taking the current UI and just scaling it up to 4.7". But that will probably never happen. More likely they'll just give us an extra row and an extra column of icons. Right now I have my backgrounds set to black to get enough contrast to read some of the tinier text.
For young people the tiny text is no problem, but for older people who wear glasses some of the text is a little too small and does not have enough contrast. My vision is definitely getting worse as I get older. Overall, I'm in really good shape, it is just the vision thing that is bothering me. I'll probably get laser correction at some point. Glasses are a pain. I have one pair for computing at work, which is a single focal length of 60 cm, another pair for just walking around, but not all that good for focusing up close, and a third for driving, with clear and dark of each, except the computing pair which is only clear. But as bad as that sounds I can function quite well without any vision correction, but it is definitely better when you can see clearly.
The reason it makes more sense for 2015 versus now is because this year Apple is already giving consumers a larger, thinner, faster, more efficient phone for the same price as the outgoing model.
Consumers will see the value of getting more for their money already with the 6 over the 5S, hence why there is no need to also double the storage.
Next year there will be less features added between the 6 to the 6S so if Apple were to double the storage sizes for the iPhone, next year makes more sense.
Conversely I said this year makes more sense to double storage sizes on the iPads since they will likely retain the same form factor. That way Apple can release an A8 iPad Air with Touch ID and 32GB for $499. That will be a must have Christmas gift even for those that bought 16GB iPad Airs last year.
People are now using iPhones for MUCH, MUCH more than Steve Jobs originally envisioned.
That is true. Hell, in the early days of the iPhone, Steve Jobs was against an app store that sold third party apps. Things do change, and sometimes what was valid a decade ago is no longer valid.
People keep talking about the iPhone's size, and the iPhone had a HUGE display when it was first released, I think that some people forget that. Does that mean that Apple has to stick with that sized display for all eternity? Of course not. Things change.
There's no logic to what you're saying. Apple is already developing an A8 processor that will be more efficient than the A7, and every year since the iPhone 4 Apple has come out with an upgraded A series chip. I don't see why this year would be any different.
In most countries the iPhone 4 has already been phased out and I assume both the 4 and 4S will be phased out this year completely.
The 5C will be the low end the 5S (or a plastic version) will be the mid range and the new iPhones will be the top of the line models.
Why a 32GB iPhone costs $100 more
http://www.imore.com/segmenting-based-storage-or-why-32gb-costs-100
Did you read the rest of my post?
I know all that, and said so. Apple apologists argue that it works. I simply offered one example of how it didn't. I have no way of knowing whether or not anyone else's situation is similar to mine, and I'm not saying that I'm right and Apple is wrong. I'm saying that for those of us willing to vote with our wallets, the particular factor and strategy Apple chose for differentiation may just prevent a sale altogether, which may not have a negative effect on ASP but does hurt gross sales.
One may point out that Apple already sells so many iPhones that some lost sales don't matter and that would probably be a reasonable argument. One might also point out that Apple could achieve the same ASP *and* higher sales with a different strategy and that, too, might be a reasonable argument. FOR ME it would be better if additional storage were less expensive. Apparently Apple's bean-counters don't think there are enough others like me to make that approach better for them. Maybe they're right, but without trying it the best anyone can offer is an educated guess. I have no data at all myself, so I'm not postulating, I'm simply providing the basis for considering alternative conclusions.
The company I work for spent a dump truck full of money on trying to find out what the consumers of our product want, and later discovered that what they SAY and what they DO are two very different things! When they tried a new approach that ignored all the research, almost out of desperation, the positive response was overwhelming. I don't know how often that happens and I'm not saying Apple is wrong, but it's one example of extensive market research being almost 100% wrong. For another example, ask the two major political parties in British Columbia's last Provincial election what they think of market research. It was WAY wrong about that, too.
If Apple does make a larger iPhone I will buy one. Two, actually. And I will probably pay the long coin for the upgrade. I'll just be less likely to buy next year's model or the one after that or the one after that without a REALLY compelling reason. Anyone else is free to draw their own conclusions about the validity of Apple's approach.
I don't get why Apple just don't allow 3G and 4G iPads to make calls, obviously using a headset (wired or bluetooth), although I can see some people holding an iPad mini to their face.
As one who wants a big phone, I'm good with that. I've said all along that Apple could resolve this once and for all just by adding voice capability to the IPad. Or even the MacBook Air. I gotta carry a computer anyway. If it could be my phone too, so much the better.
That puts pay to these retards who think that a massive screen is the future.
Yeah, and let's do something about those assholes who drive trucks instead of cars! And dumbasses who wear baggy pants! Don't even get me started about the douchebags with big screen TVs! How about those dipshits who buy 27" iMacs instead of the 21"?
Can you at least TRY to make a point without insulting everyone whose preferences differ from yours?
I get that and don't necessarily disagree, but $100 per bump? Holy Buttrape, Batman!
That pricing policy CAN backfire. I've skipped three generations and clung to my old iPhone 4, even paying the $169 "repair" fee twice, because I wanted a big screen and refused to pay top dollar for a device that wasn't what I want. Replacing it with an entry-level version of whatever was current at any given time meant sacrificing storage capacity, which for my needs is more important than processor speed. If the price of a more spacious model had been more reasonable, I *might* have just upgraded to something new in the meantime instead paying to repair the old one (which can't be making Apple any money since they just give me a new phone each time).
There's no need to explain all the complexities of cost-averaging and such, I get all that. I'm just saying my case is one example of how what SEEMS like a profitable pricing strategy may actually be a sales deterrent.
I saw recently one of those breakdown type sites that estimate parts to a fairly accurate degree. I believe they priced the 16GB storage in the 5s at around $9. I can't find that article but did find one a little older.
"Apple spends at least $191 on components to build a 16-gigabyte iPhone 5S. The cost rises to $210 for a 64 GB unit. The cost of assembly adds another $8 per unit, bringing the range to between $199 and $218m [...]
On the iPhone 5C, the lower-priced model known for its colorful outer shell, IHS estimates the cost of components plus manufacturing ranges from $173 to $183 including $7 for assembly."
Now everyone understands the price of R&D not to mention Apple stores and employees all over the world are hidden cost and you can't simply look at raw component prices. But one thing we can safely say is that Apple's margins would not suffer greatly if they standardized on 32/64/128 at the same price level as the current lineup.
There's no logic to what you're saying. Apple is already developing an A8 processor that will be more efficient than the A7, and every year since the iPhone 4 Apple has come out with an upgraded A series chip. I don't see why this year would be any different.
In most countries the iPhone 4 has already been phased out and I assume both the 4 and 4S will be phased out this year completely.
The 5C will be the low end the 5S (or a plastic version) will be the mid range and the new iPhones will be the top of the line models.
Like I told you, Apple only introduces a new chip when it refreshes its product line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_system_on_a_chip
Tim Cook is very efficient when it comes to logistics in the supply chain, which he was managing when Steve Jobs was still alive. Tim Cook doesn't just introduce a new processor for its own sake, and will not introduce an A8 processor when he just introduced the A7 processor.
Apple most likely will come out with a 64 bit 4.7" and 5.5" phone, while retaining the same technology in the smaller 4" iPhone 5S, and make the iPhone 5C the mid range phone, the iPhone 4S the lower end phone, and phase out the iPhone 4.
You're all over the place, that's for sure.
Newflash- this isn't 2013. The iPhone 4 is already phased out, and the 4S is already the lower end phone
Tim Cook is very efficient when it comes to logistics in the supply chain, which he was managing when Steve Jobs was still alive. Tim Cook doesn't just introduce a new processor for its own sake, and will not introduce an A8 processor when he just introduced the A7 processor.
Apple just refreshed its product line with the Touch ID and the A7 chip in the iPhone 5S, and the A7 chip in the iPad mini Retina and the iPad Air Retina. Apple will refresh the 64 bit A7 chip iPad line with Touch ID (since only the A7 chip can handle Touch ID).
Apple upgrade cycles:
3GS- June 19, 2009
A4- June 24, 2010
A5- Oct 14, 2011
A6- Sept 21, 2012
A7- Sept 20, 2013
Why are you acting like they don't upgrade to a "new more efficient" chip every single year? And no- they didn't just release the A7. It's not like the A7 has only been out 2 months- it's been out over 9 months- and will be a year old (like every other processor)- when it gets updated.
Of all the insane claims on this forum- you are the only one who doesn't think Apple will introduce the A8. Let that resonate.