Apple's 'iPhone 6s' again said to be in production as parts leaks continue

Posted:
in iPhone edited July 2015
Late-week reports from the Asian supply chain continue to suggest that Apple's next-generation iPhone has begun to roll off of assembly lines, with some indications that the forthcoming device will sport a nearly identical outward appearance with slightly tweaked internals.




Primary Apple contract manufacturers Foxconn and Pegatron have begun receiving shipments of components for the so-called "iPhone 6s" from suppliers and sub-assemblers, according to Digitimes. The publication believes that Apple will begin selling the new iPhone in September, and could move up to 50 million of them before the end of this year.

To cope with what is expected to be record demand for Apple's latest handset, many suppliers are rumored to have beefed up manufacturing capabilities at Apple's request.




Relatively little is known about the "iPhone 6s," but it is will likely bear an upgraded A-series processor and could ship with 2 gigabytes of RAM after being stuck at 1 gigabyte for 3 generations. A camera update is also a possibility, as is the addition of pressure-sensing Force Touch capabilities.

Apple could also move to an updated NXP-sourced NFC chip, photos sourced by 9to5Mac suggest, as well as a new Qualcomm modem that would enable faster LTE connections. Externally, the phone is expected to maintain the same industrial design as the iPhone 6, but might add a new rose gold color option.
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 178
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,670member
    Wrong thread
  • Reply 2 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    It is interesting to see that pilot assemblies are already shipping for the next iPhone. Makes me wonder if the debut will be earlier than normal, maybe the end of August.
  • Reply 3 of 178
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Apple got a way with 16 GB last year I'm not so sure that will work again. I have a feeling if the entry level 6S/Plus starts at 16GB Apple will have a lot of pised off customers and will lose some good will. When Apple's making $$14-18 billion of profit in a quarter it's pretty obvious they're making a killing off of storage pricing. Good will and happy customers is more important than record profits, margins, ASP's IMO. It's not like Apple is struggling to find cash to invest in R&D and other stuff. Let's not forget the iPhone and iPad came out of an Apple that made far less money than its making today. Heck in the early 2000s there were some quarters where Apple barely turned a profit and even some quarters where they posted small losses. Somehow they were still able to develop the product that is allowing them to post record profits now.
  • Reply 4 of 178
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Apple got a way with 16 GB last year I'm not so sure that will work again. I have a feeling if the entry level 6S/Plus starts at 16GB Apple will have a lot of pised off customers and will lose some good will. When Apple's making $$14-18 billion of profit in a quarter it's pretty obvious they're making a killing off of storage pricing. Good will and happy customers is more important than record profits, margins, ASP's IMO. It's not like Apple is struggling to find cash to invest in R&D and other stuff. Let's not forget the iPhone and iPad came out of an Apple that made far less money than its making today. Heck in the early 2000s there were some quarters where Apple barely turned a profit and even some quarters where they posted small losses. Somehow they were still able to develop the product that is allowing them to post record profits now.

    Yes, they keep on saying they put the interest of customers first, but this decision only serves to make Apple more money and has only a negative impact on the user. It doesn't make sense. Make only two models with the minimal at 64 GB, that would be big.
  • Reply 5 of 178
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post





    Yes, they keep on saying they put the interest of customers first, but this decision only serves to make Apple more money and has only a negative impact on the user. It doesn't make sense. Make only two models with the minimal at 64 GB, that would be big.

     

    An completely absurd move, considering how popular the 16GB is. Then what? Does the 64GB start at $199 on contract? Great way to eliminate almost all up sells and decimate ASP. I know a ton of people that have absolutely no need for a 64GB, and have been happily on a 16GB iPhone since they were used one. Hell, some people are fine with an 8GB device, yet you're proposing 8 TIMES that as the minimum? Not everyone is in the "Apple Insider" demographic. Hell, the vast majority are not. 

  • Reply 6 of 178
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    clemynx wrote: »
    Yes, they keep on saying they put the interest of customers first, but this decision only serves to make Apple more money and has only a negative impact on the user. It doesn't make sense. Make only two models with the minimal at 64 GB, that would be big.

    You think it serves customers to force them to pay more for storage they don't need simply because you want to have more storage and yet still want to feel like you're "sticking it" to Apple by getting the lowest capacity tier? Good one¡

    Why the **** does someone that 1) stores no music locally, 2) stores no videos, 3) rarely takes pictures, 4) doesn't have large productivity apps or games need to have 32 or 64GB as their starting point when they have yet to go over half their available storage with the 16GB model up through iOS 8.x? There is none, but you want the cost of the device to increase which ill hurt other factors, like adding more useful features of an investment in making other features even better because of this. Why would you want that?! And iOS 9 will give back several more GiBs to the user thereby making the 16GB models I suggest to many a techtard after checking System » General » About even more likely this year.

    BTW, it's completely absurd to make any sort of comment about a for-profit company making money. Do you, [@]Rogifan[/@], et al. actually think that if the minimum capacity 32 or 64GB that it would be because Apple isn't thinking about profits? It's all about profits, not about doing something to suit your specific, misguided desires.
  • Reply 7 of 178

    For many the choice is whether to buy a phone with the lowest storage every year or a phone with the higher storage every two years. If Apple increased the base storage to 64GB, far more people would upgrade every year. Why? Because when you upgrade you lose all that storage you purchased. You can't move it to the new phone so you have to buy it again at Apple's gigantic premium. I know I held off buying a new iPad last year for this reason.

  • Reply 8 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Unfortunately I see the low storage configurations as a way for Apple to drive iCloud usage. Or at least it is Apples effort to drive iCloud storage. The problem is cloud storage in general is pretty stupid, unreliable and most importantly very costly. So no reasonable person wants cloud storage in place of local storage.
    rogifan wrote: »
    Apple got a way with 16 GB last year I'm not so sure that will work again.
    A 16 GB phone is exactly what many corporations want though. To put it simply they don't want employees carrying a lot of easy to loose data around with them. There is a flip side to every argument here.
    I have a feeling if the entry level 6S/Plus starts at 16GB Apple will have a lot of pised off customers and will lose some good will. When Apple's making $$14-18 billion of profit in a quarter it's pretty obvious they're making a killing off of storage pricing.
    There are issues with pricing that is why I'd like to see storage at step 2 and 3 doubled. Maybe make the top of the line machines come with 4GB of RAM too. By the time you get to the high end model you are paying a hell of a lot for a little bit of extra storage. As such it would feel like less of a raping if you got a little extra for that money. I'm not sure what else they could add besides RAM, some might appreciate higher clock speeds.
    Good will and happy customers is more important than record profits, margins, ASP's IMO. It's not like Apple is struggling to find cash to invest in R&D and other stuff. Let's not forget the iPhone and iPad came out of an Apple that made far less money than its making today. Heck in the early 2000s there were some quarters where Apple barely turned a profit and even some quarters where they posted small losses. Somehow they were still able to develop the product that is allowing them to post record profits now.

    You have to remember iPhones are selling like hot cakes right now and are leading in most markets! As such it is pretty obvious that most people don't care about the ripoff pricing of high end models. If the market doesn't care then Apple will keep on doing what they have always done.
  • Reply 9 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sog35 wrote: »
    There is no gigantic premium for high memory devices. The truth is the 16 GB versions are sold at a discount. Apple is sacrificing profits selling 16 GB phones to widen their price range.

    If Apple was to charge the same mark-up for all their memory tiers then the 16 GB phone would be much more expensive. Pricing would look like this:
    The cost for 16 GB of flash these days is trivial, equal to what 4 GB of flash cost a few years ago. Like wise the cost of flash in other sizes has come down significantly. These days even high performances SSD's are pretty cheap.
    16 GB - $350 on contract
    64 GB - $370
    128 GB - $390

    Is that what you want?
    Not in my case! I'd like to see the 16 GB machine stay in the line up with a 128 GB and 256 GB of storage in the current price brackets. This is very doable with today's technology.

    That still isn't perfect though and to make the high end machine less of a screwing that model ought to have other enhancements. Frankly the cheapest enhancement Apple could offer is to offer the 256 GB model with a higher clock rate to afford the unit premium performance that matches the higher price point. Considering how SoC are made this would cost Apple almost nothing yet give buyers a little more for their money.

    In a nut she'll the problem is that at the high end a buyer is paying a massive premium for a fractional increase in supplied electronics.
    Some of you have no idea how to run a $500 billion company. Yet you are quick to criticize Apples pricing structure. Every year Apple is selling more and more iPhones at an alarming rate. They know exactly what they are doing.

    No one has said that Apple doesn't know what they are doing. What we are saying is that they need to improve their image in the market place. Getting greedy and obviously so, has never worked to the advantage of any company in the long run.
  • Reply 10 of 178
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    clemynx wrote: »
    Yes, they keep on saying they put the interest of customers first, but this decision only serves to make Apple more money and has only a negative impact on the user. It doesn't make sense. Make only two models with the minimal at 64 GB, that would be big.

    Exactly. Plus it's not like Apple can't offer 16GB models for business and schools that only need a minimum amount of storage. Think about it though...Apple went retina, didn't increase the price of the phone; went 4" and then 4.7" and didn't increase the price of the phone. But somehow offering double the storage for the same price is impossible. Isn't the price of technology supposed to come down over time? But if Apple is going to be stubborn about storage pricing then at least be more competitive with iCloud. Google, Microsoft and Amazon all offer more cloud storage at cheaper prices.
  • Reply 11 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Cloud is not stupid. Anyone who had there phone crash, destroyed, or lost know this. A full cloud backup is a lifesaver.
    For one part of a backup program the cloud is reasonable. Using the cloud in the way Apple wants users to use the cloud is stupid or morse so completely asinine. This especially in the context of a cell phone when most of us are not near a WiFi link when about with that cell phone. Between the impact on your data plan and Apples iCloud fees it is a very expensive way to store data. That is assuming you even have a high speed connection to retrieve that data.
    I dont think giving higher memory phones more ram would be smart. To much work on the machine line and apps wont be written to take advantage of the extra ram because many phones wont have it.
    As iOS moves forward you will have more multitasking going on, even if the apps are written with the intent of running in 2GB of RAM you will have use for the extra RAM.

    In the end though I do like the idea of offering a faster SOC better. With semiconductor manufacturing the way it is Apple could easily sort out the higher performance chips to give high end storage buyers a little extra for their money. This would cost Apple virtually nothing as the chips would be tested anyways. Let's say the base SoC runs at 1.6 GHz and the high end permits 2GHz, that would certainly make the high end machine more appealing. In fact such an offering might actually increase profits at Apple as it makes the high end machine more appealing.
    Anyone who buys top end products knows the extra cost for marginally better features. We see the same thing with cars that charge crazy prices for options and upgrades. Its all part of the deal. You have to pay to play.

    Sure, nobody is really arguing against paying more for legitimate features! The problem is Apple has sat on flash configurations while costs have dropped rapidly in the market place. Current pricing just makes Apple look greedy. By the way the auto industry often offers packages of improvements to entice buyers, that often works to the advantage of both the seller and buyer. In a sense the high end iPhone needs to be a better package deal in some way or the other.
  • Reply 12 of 178
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    There is no gigantic premium for high memory devices. The truth is the 16 GB versions are sold at a discount. Apple is sacrificing profits selling 16 GB phones to widen their price range.

    If Apple was to charge the same mark-up for all their memory tiers then the 16 GB phone would be much more expensive. Pricing would look like this:

    16 GB - $350 on contract
    64 GB - $370
    128 GB - $390

    Is that what you want?

    Some of you have no idea how to run a $500 billion company. Yet you are quick to criticize Apples pricing structure. Every year Apple is selling more and more iPhones at an alarming rate. They know exactly what they are doing.

    In the holiday quarter Apple posted a record $18 billion in profit. No company in history has ever posted a profit that high. And you want us to believe that Apple is sacrificing profits? No the only reason 16 GB exist is so Phil Schiller can upsell people and get them to spend $100 more. The more he's able to upsell the higher the margins and ASPs.
  • Reply 13 of 178
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Unfortunately I see the low storage configurations as a way for Apple to drive iCloud usage. Or at least it is Apples effort to drive iCloud storage. The problem is cloud storage in general is pretty stupid, unreliable and most importantly very costly. So no reasonable person wants cloud storage in place of local storage.
    A 16 GB phone is exactly what many corporations want though. To put it simply they don't want employees carrying a lot of easy to loose data around with them. There is a flip side to every argument here.
    There are issues with pricing that is why I'd like to see storage at step 2 and 3 doubled. Maybe make the top of the line machines come with 4GB of RAM too. By the time you get to the high end model you are paying a hell of a lot for a little bit of extra storage. As such it would feel like less of a raping if you got a little extra for that money. I'm not sure what else they could add besides RAM, some might appreciate higher clock speeds.
    You have to remember iPhones are selling like hot cakes right now and are leading in most markets! As such it is pretty obvious that most people don't care about the ripoff pricing of high end models. If the market doesn't care then Apple will keep on doing what they have always done.

    Apple could easily offer 16GB devices to enterprise and education. And if they want to drive people to iCloud then make their cloud pricing competitive with Microsoft, Google and Amazon. Currently it's not.
  • Reply 14 of 178
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Unfortunately I see the low storage configurations as a way for Apple to drive iCloud usage. Or at least it is Apples effort to drive iCloud storage. The problem is cloud storage in general is pretty stupid, unreliable and most importantly very costly. So no reasonable person wants cloud storage in place of local storage.

     

     

    Uh, iCloud is ultra-convenient, not to mention it has saved my ass more times than I can remember. And sorry, but I don't think $0.99/m for 20GB or $3.99 for 100GB is "very costly". It's the price of a coffee or a latte per month, for what I believe are massive benefits in convenience and usage. But yes, obviously iCloud storage can't replace local storage, especially when it comes to apps, and I don't think Apple is attempting to do that in all cases. 

  • Reply 15 of 178
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    In the holiday quarter Apple posted a record $18 billion in profit. No company in history has ever posted a profit that high. And you want us to believe that Apple is sacrificing profits? No the only reason 16 GB exist is so Phil Schiller can upsell people and get them to spend $100 more. The more he's able to upsell the higher the margins and ASPs.

     

    So what do you think will happen if Apple's profits sharply decline, or even stay constant because of your suggested changes? They will get decimated by wall street and investors, a billion articles will go up about how Apple's profits are "shrinking", their stock will tank, and it will feed a circle of negativity that will have deep and widespread effects. And I love how you keep insisting that 16GB only exists to upsell, which is a complete bullshit statement, as myself and hundreds of millions of others use 16GB iPhones and are fine with that. So sure, make things up. 

  • Reply 16 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Exactly. Plus it's not like Apple can't offer 16GB models for business and schools that only need a minimum amount of storage. Think about it though...Apple went retina, didn't increase the price of the phone; went 4" and then 4.7" and didn't increase the price of the phone.
    This in a nut shell is the whole problem, the cost of flash has dropped dramatically over the years. As such it makes Apples tiering look really bad. I'd be the first to admit that Apples hold on flash has allowed them to implement higher cost technologies like retina at no cost to the user but that is old hat now.
    But somehow offering double the storage for the same price is impossible. Isn't the price of technology supposed to come down over time? Be ut if Apple is going to be stubborn about storage pricing then at least be more competitive with iCloud. Google, Microsoft and Amazon all offer more cloud storage at cheaper prices.

    I'm not even sure how many even tolerate the cost of cloud services. Cloud storage raises hell with your data plans and the reoccurring costs add up fast if you need more than the "free" offering. Cloud computing is all about companies finding ways to make money off people that don't know better.
  • Reply 17 of 178
    fred1fred1 Posts: 828member
    All this discussion about memory and profits is very interesting, but I still wonder about this article: it's "news" that Apple is in production for a new phone model, 2 or 3 months before its release? Hmmmm.
  • Reply 18 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Uh, iCloud is ultra-convenient, not to mention it has saved my ass more times than I can remember. And sorry, but I don't think $0.99/m for 20GB or $3.99 for 100GB is "very costly".
    Over time it adds up to a lot of money, a point people seem to mis often. Beyond that if the majority of your connectivity is over cell connections it is expensive use of your data plan. This especially if you just want to access a file that should be held locally.
    It's the price of a coffee or a latte per month, for what I believe are massive benefits in convenience and usage.
    I use Apples cloud services all the time for syncing apps. What I'm talking about here is using the cloud for file storage because you don't have the room to store stuff locally. In other words it is a poor replacement for local storage to cover your needs.
    But yes, obviously iCloud storage can't replace local storage, especially when it comes to apps, and I don't think Apple is attempting to do that in all cases. 

    I really think that is exactly what Apple is trying to do. It has a lot to do with "services" as a way to make money in the software industry. Business want the steady stream of income subscription software enables. Thus you have the latest tricks from the like of Adobe and others. ICloud is just a way for Apple to enter the same racket and generate a monthly income stream from all of its iOS users. Well the users that sign up for extra anyways.

    In the end these programs are really bad for consumers.
  • Reply 19 of 178
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    fred1 wrote: »
    All this discussion about memory and profits is very interesting, but I still wonder about this article: it's "news" that Apple is in production for a new phone model, 2 or 3 months before its release? Hmmmm.

    Well yes and no. It isn't news that pilot construction of new iPhones has started, just the timing is an issue. I suspect that they have bugs and glitches to work out as all ramp ups do. The other thing is that they most likely want to have a larger inventory built up than in the past.

    All that being said you always start your initial production before your debut date! Some components like A9 most likely have taped out months ago. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that A9 has a new video camera processing module and that likely took some debugging effort all on its own. All of this stuff needs to be integrated on a PCB so that hardware specific software can be written and tested. Pilot production gives Apple real hardware to test upon.

    So in the end not unexpected though maybe a couple of weeks early.
  • Reply 20 of 178
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,793member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Apple got a way with 16 GB last year I'm not so sure that will work again. I have a feeling if the entry level 6S/Plus starts at 16GB Apple will have a lot of pised off customers and will lose some good will. When Apple's making $$14-18 billion of profit in a quarter it's pretty obvious they're making a killing off of storage pricing. Good will and happy customers is more important than record profits, margins, ASP's IMO. It's not like Apple is struggling to find cash to invest in R&D and other stuff. Let's not forget the iPhone and iPad came out of an Apple that made far less money than its making today. Heck in the early 2000s there were some quarters where Apple barely turned a profit and even some quarters where they posted small losses. Somehow they were still able to develop the product that is allowing them to post record profits now.

     

    This is a variation of the "Apple is greedy" meme. I hear it all the time from Apple critics and trolls. Apple is guilty of having too much money, too much success. Success = evil, money = evil.

     

    Your theory of "good and happy customers" is a non sequitur. You're either a customer, or you're not. That's the only question that's economically relevant: You either bought an iPhone, or your bought something else because it was a better deal for the money (or held-off upgrading). Apple, like any other business, reacts to and adjusts their strategy according to what people buy or don't buy.  Customer "mood" doesn't show up on any accounting spreadsheet, but it does influence buying decisions.

     

    That being said, you cannot absolve customers of responsibility for the wrong choices they've made. I can't blame Apple if I exceed the limit of the iPhone's storage; I can grumble about it, delete some apps, music, or photos, but how can I blame Apple? They didn't lie about the storage capacity and they didn't lie about the price when I bought it. I can only blame myself if I later regretted the purchase decision, but I don't go around on forums saying Apple is doomed because customers are pissed off at their own purchase decisions.

Sign In or Register to comment.