Suppliers gearing up to ship Apple's 'iPhone 7' by end of September

AppleInsider

Like clockwork, Apple's well-established annual iPhone release cycle is on track once again, as a new report claims the company's suppliers are prepared to begin shipping the "iPhone 7" and "iPhone 7 Plus" by the end of the third quarter.

"iPhone 7 Plus" dual camera design mockup by Feld & Volk.

That timetable, reported on Tuesday by DigiTimes, would see the next-generation iPhone models on track for launch by the end of September. Apple has launched new iPhones in September since the debut of the iPhone 5 on Sept. 21, 2012, and last year the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus arrived in the hands of consumers on Sept. 25.

Tuesday's report alleges that the new 4.7-inch iPhone will see assembly split between Foxconn and Pegatron, while Foxconn and Wistron will handle the larger 5.5-inch model. Wistron's alleged assembly of the "iPhone 7 Plus" would be a change-up for Apple, which hasn't partnered with that assembler since the iPhone 5c.

It was also said that Apple has queued up multiple suppliers for the "iPhone 7" launch to reduce risks. At least two suppliers are on tap for many of the device's major components, including batteries, the report said.

DigiTimes has a mixed track record in predicting Apple's future product plans, but its supply chain sources do, on occasion, provide reliable information about upcoming launches. And Apple's consistent annual release pattern for the iPhone would strongly suggest consumers waiting to upgrade can bank on a late September launch.

The so-called "iPhone 7" is expected to feature a thinner design that could ditch the legacy 3.5-millimeter headphone jack, instead relying on Lightning- and Bluetooth-connected headphones. Leaked schematics suggest the external appearance will be largely similar to the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6 series, though the antenna lines on the back of the handset will be removed.

Though reports on the hardware have been somewhat inconsistent, it's been suggested that a new dual-camera design and 3 gigabytes of RAM could be exclusive to the larger "iPhone 7 Plus." Some designs have also been shown with a magnetic Smart Connector on the rear case.

ireland

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people.

But everyone wants/needs the best camera and everyone could make use of an iPhone smart connector.

iPhone 7 lineup for iPhone lovers:

(reduced bezels; dual cameras; smart connector)

4.2" iPhone 7 mini (7.3 mm, 64 GB, $599)
4.7" iPhone 7 (7.1 mm, 64 GB, $699)
5.5" iPhone 7 plus (6.9 mm, 64 GB, $799)

rogifan_new

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people and probably don't need the other features of pro machines. Everyone needs the best camera and everyone can make use of smart connectors.

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Seeing as how Apple was caught a bit flat footed with the SE (no reason that device should be 2+ weeks out on shipping) and Tim Cook said this Didi investment would help Apple better understand Chinese consumers it makes me wonder if Apple really does understand its customer base. Also it seems pretty clear that Apple isn't being rewarded for being the most profitable company in the world with the biggest cash pile. So maybe rather than focusing on margins and the bottom line the focus should be on making the best products possible and not making people feel like you're constantly trying to upsell them and extract more money from them.

ireland

rogifan_new said:

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. 

It has Schiller written all over it.

igorsky

Apple following the same production schedule as it has for the last five years...news at 11.

singularity

rogifan_new said:

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people and probably don't need the other features of pro machines. Everyone needs the best camera and everyone can make use of smart connectors.

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Seeing as how Apple was caught a bit flat footed with the SE (no reason that device should be 2+ weeks out on shipping) and Tim Cook said this Didi investment would help Apple better understand Chinese consumers it makes me wonder if Apple really does understand its customer base. Also it seems pretty clear that Apple isn't being rewarded for being the most profitable company in the world with the biggest cash pile. So maybe rather than focusing on margins and the bottom line the focus should be on making the best products possible and not making people feel like you're constantly trying to upsell them and extract more money from them.

But isn't that what certain people wanted. Full monetization of the users. Drag every nickel and dime from its user based?

igorsky

rogifan_new said:

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people and probably don't need the other features of pro machines. Everyone needs the best camera and everyone can make use of smart connectors.

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell.

Then you must be annoyed at pretty much every company that sells consumer goods. Or maybe Apple should be the only company in the world to not upsell their products?  As a shareholder I certainly hope they don't stop.

ireland

igorsky said:

Then you must be annoyed at pretty much every company that sells consumer goods. Or maybe Apple should be the only company in the world to not upsell their products?  As a shareholder I certainly hope they don't stop.

As Rogifan has sensibly pointed out, the stock price reflects that this streategy is not working. It's not helping stock price or sales figures.

One the one hand Tim and company talk about making the best products and financial benefits being a result of that focus, but it's clear finances are the higher focus and best products suffer for it. To charge €114 in Europe to cover front and rear of iPad mini 4 or to charge €89 for a simple remote that lacks Siri in the majority of countries here is terrible decision-making. I literally don't know a single person with an ATV4.

Do I think Apple makes good products? Yes. Does Apple stand up to the high standard we hold them and they aspire for? Certainly not. The slow spinning drive in the base model in a 2016 Apple iMac is not up to snuff for this company. Neither are the 16 GB drives in iPhones—people were complaining about this long before iPhone 6s debuted.

Perhaps if Tim and company had have killed off the existence of a 16 GB model and debuted at 64 GB at that price iPhone 6s sales would have outstripped iPhone 6 sales. Wouldn't surprise me in the least in that scenario. People would have called it the year iPhone disk size because good enough for most people. It would have been a hugely positive move.

igorsky

ireland said:

igorsky said:

Then you must be annoyed at pretty much every company that sells consumer goods. Or maybe Apple should be the only company in the world to not upsell their products?  As a shareholder I certainly hope they don't stop.

As Rogifan has sensibly pointed out, the stock price reflects that this streategy is not working. It's not helping stock price or sales figures.

First of all you can't apply the same rules to AAPL as you do to other securities.  The market chooses to view Apple as an iPhone company despite ample evidence of incredibly successful and stable market-leading businesses outside of the iPhone.  As far as "sales figures", this was the first ever qtr-over-qtr sales decline, and they still sold the second highest amount of phones that they ever have.

Does it suck that they had a bad quarter and will likely have another bad one?  Yeah.  But this is more of a product of the general current "smartphone fatigue" in the entire market than some sort of failed strategy.

rogifan_new

singularity said:

rogifan_new said:

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Seeing as how Apple was caught a bit flat footed with the SE (no reason that device should be 2+ weeks out on shipping) and Tim Cook said this Didi investment would help Apple better understand Chinese consumers it makes me wonder if Apple really does understand its customer base. Also it seems pretty clear that Apple isn't being rewarded for being the most profitable company in the world with the biggest cash pile. So maybe rather than focusing on margins and the bottom line the focus should be on making the best products possible and not making people feel like you're constantly trying to upsell them and extract more money from them.

But isn't that what certain people wanted. Full monetization of the users. Drag every nickel and dime from its user based?

Yeah people freaking out over slowing iPhone sales jumped on this monetize the user base meme. It makes no sense to me because the whole point of Apple charging a premium for their hardware is for all the software/services/support that come with it. So Apple is going to continue to charge a premium for their hardware AND start adding monthly fees for all sorts of things in the name of "monetizing the user base"? I don't think so.

If the issues is predictable revenue streams then maybe Apple should expand the iPhone upgrade program to other products. Apparently they're already doing it in China. I'll bet a lot of people would pay a monthly fee to rent hardware from Apple that they could turn in and replace every 1/2/3/4 years with something new. And Apple could sell the refurbished items into markets that are more price sensitive.

rogifan_new

ireland said:

igorsky said:

Then you must be annoyed at pretty much every company that sells consumer goods. Or maybe Apple should be the only company in the world to not upsell their products?  As a shareholder I certainly hope they don't stop.

As Rogifan has sensibly pointed out, the stock price reflects that this streategy is not working. It's not helping stock price or sales figures.

One the one hand Tim and company talk about making the best products and financial benefits being a result of that focus, but it's clear finances are the higher focus and best products suffer for it. To charge €114 in Europe to cover front and rear of iPad mini 4 or to charge €89 for a simple remote that lacks Siri in the majority of countries here is terrible decision-making. I literally don't know a single person with an ATV4.

Do I think Apple makes good products? Yes. Does Apple stand up to the high standard we hold them and they aspire for? Certainly not. The slow spinning drive in the base model in a 2016 Apple iMac is not up to snuff for this company. Neither are the 16 GB drives in iPhones—people were complaining about this long before iPhone 6s debuted.

Perhaps if Tim and company had have killed off the existence of a 16 GB model and debuted at 64 GB at that price iPhone 6s sales would have outstripped iPhone 6 sales. Wouldn't surprise me in the least in that scenario. People would have called it the year iPhone disk size because good enough for most people. It would have been a hugely positive move.

Plenty of Apple decisions don't square with Tim and Jony's comments over the years that the focus isn't on money but making great products and making money is a by-product of that. Though I have a feeling Jony has little involvement with pricing or what the base storage amount is in an iOS device. Perhaps he needs to be more assertive. Someone does. Apple seems to be decision by committee now which is not good.

dick applebaum

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people.

But everyone wants/needs the best camera and everyone could make use of an iPhone smart connector.

iPhone 7 lineup for iPhone lovers:

(reduced bezels; dual cameras; smart connector)

4.2" iPhone 7 mini (7.3 mm, 64 GB, $599)
4.7" iPhone 7 (7.1 mm, 64 GB, $699)
5.5" iPhone 7 plus (6.9 mm, 64 GB, $799)

This is a very reasoned post.   IMO, Apple would be better served by a strategy to get the customers to upgrade every year -- than to try to up-sell by features.

There are some natural distinctions such as screen size.  But each model should have all the capabilities/features (where possible) included or optional.

jackansi

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people.

But everyone wants/needs the best camera and everyone could make use of an iPhone smart connector.

iPhone 7 lineup for iPhone lovers:

(reduced bezels; dual cameras; smart connector)

4.2" iPhone 7 mini (7.3 mm, 64 GB, $599)
4.7" iPhone 7 (7.1 mm, 64 GB, $699)
5.5" iPhone 7 plus (6.9 mm, 64 GB, $799)

A million times this.

Even the two sizes of "Pro" iPads are different for seemingly no real reason.  There are some features on the 9.7 that should have been added/updated on the 12.9.

Apple's own marketing is saying "look what wonderful photos and videos you can take on an iPhone!" but it's not going to be possible without lots of fine print if they use the camera to differentiate the iP7 models.  

Sounds a lot like something a company does when they know they have given up trying their hardest and just don't care to me.

latifbp

singularity said:

rogifan_new said:

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Seeing as how Apple was caught a bit flat footed with the SE (no reason that device should be 2+ weeks out on shipping) and Tim Cook said this Didi investment would help Apple better understand Chinese consumers it makes me wonder if Apple really does understand its customer base. Also it seems pretty clear that Apple isn't being rewarded for being the most profitable company in the world with the biggest cash pile. So maybe rather than focusing on margins and the bottom line the focus should be on making the best products possible and not making people feel like you're constantly trying to upsell them and extract more money from them.

But isn't that what certain people wanted. Full monetization of the users. Drag every nickel and dime from its user based?

Yes. That's what they should continue to do and will.

nolamacguy

rogifan_new said:

ireland said:

It's looking more and more like the larger likely marketed as 'Pro' iPhone will be the technically superior iPhone. What's sad about this strategy is while Apple gets to talk about iPhone as really high end in this scenario the vast majority of us get an  inferior product—especially folks like me who prefer the ~4.2" form factor (I use ~4.2" because that's my more ideal display size; kill the bezel, but I certainly choose 4" over 4.7" no question).

Finance wise it helps Apple probably to up-sell for more features, but I wish all iPhones were flagship and iPhone came in three screen sizes, all with dual cameras and smart connectors. Screen size plus and slight price up-tick are enough of a differentiator for new model iPhones going forward—people understand a larger iPhone would cost more with larger materials.

Anything else seems like intentionally gimping the smaller devices—there's no need; smaller iPhone lovers shouldn't suffer. With something like iPad or Mac it makes more sense because iPad Pro is a professional drawing machine and non pro Macs are well good enough for regular people and probably don't need the other features of pro machines. Everyone needs the best camera and everyone can make use of smart connectors.

This is probably the most annoying thing about Apple; the constant upsell. I don't know if it's Phil Schiller in marketing or the bean counters in Finance driving it but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Seeing as how Apple was caught a bit flat footed with the SE (no reason that device should be 2+ weeks out on shipping) and Tim Cook said this Didi investment would help Apple better understand Chinese consumers it makes me wonder if Apple really does understand its customer base. Also it seems pretty clear that Apple isn't being rewarded for being the most profitable company in the world with the biggest cash pile. So maybe rather than focusing on margins and the bottom line the focus should be on making the best products possible and not making people feel like you're constantly trying to upsell them and extract more money from them.

let's see -- on the one hand you acknowledge Apple is the most profitable publically traded company, but on the other you complain about optional feature upgrades (which you call upsell). sounds to me that Schiller or your mustache-twirling "bean counters" (oh lawd) ought to be lauded.

as for needing to focus on making the best products -- if Apple isn't already doing so, then who do you argue is?

nolamacguy

ireland said:

igorsky said:

Then you must be annoyed at pretty much every company that sells consumer goods. Or maybe Apple should be the only company in the world to not upsell their products?  As a shareholder I certainly hope they don't stop.

As Rogifan has sensibly pointed out, the stock price reflects that this streategy is not working. It's not helping stock price or sales figures.

you misunderstand. good management doesn't play to the stock price, that's the dumbest idea in he world. good management delights the customer. and apple's sales figures confirm they're doing that *very* well. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=dumbest+idea+in+the+world

nolamacguy

rogifan_new said:

ireland said:

As Rogifan has sensibly pointed out, the stock price reflects that this streategy is not working. It's not helping stock price or sales figures.

One the one hand Tim and company talk about making the best products and financial benefits being a result of that focus, but it's clear finances are the higher focus and best products suffer for it. To charge €114 in Europe to cover front and rear of iPad mini 4 or to charge €89 for a simple remote that lacks Siri in the majority of countries here is terrible decision-making. I literally don't know a single person with an ATV4.

Do I think Apple makes good products? Yes. Does Apple stand up to the high standard we hold them and they aspire for? Certainly not. The slow spinning drive in the base model in a 2016 Apple iMac is not up to snuff for this company. Neither are the 16 GB drives in iPhones—people were complaining about this long before iPhone 6s debuted.

Perhaps if Tim and company had have killed off the existence of a 16 GB model and debuted at 64 GB at that price iPhone 6s sales would have outstripped iPhone 6 sales. Wouldn't surprise me in the least in that scenario. People would have called it the year iPhone disk size because good enough for most people. It would have been a hugely positive move.

Plenty of Apple decisions don't square with Tim and Jony's comments over the years that the focus isn't on money but making great products and making money is a by-product of that. Though I have a feeling Jony has little involvement with pricing or what the base storage amount is in an iOS device. Perhaps he needs to be more assertive. Someone does. Apple seems to be decision by committee now which is not good.

so because the decisions aren't the ones you like, that means it must be decision by committee, because...? because Jobs is dead?

what a load of nonsense. you just don't like the decisions. but that's why your some anonymous guy on a rumors site and they're over there killing it in real life.