These people really make me sick. One will say demand for iPhone 7 is low so Apple isn't going to sell many of them. Now another says Apple won't even meet the numbers of low demand due to component shortages. How can these people know what problems Apple is going to have when they don't even know for sure what features are going to be on the iPhone 7? Why is it that other smartphone vendors don't seem to have all these problems that Apple is always said to have? Look at all those smartphones Samsung puts out and they're never said to have all these component supply problems.
If there are supply constraints then what is Tim Cook doing because he was supposedly the master of keeping the trains running on time at Apple. Apple would seem to have so much time to get everything in order before the new iPhones are released. Wall Street isn't happy because Apple doesn't sell enough iPhones so Apple will never manage to sell many more if they don't have any control over component supply numbers. Apple always seems to be sitting on a sharp rock as far as analysts are concerned.
Investors are scared, mindless lemmings. They want to be told what will happen before doing anything. That's why analysts exist in the first place. It's a symbiotic relationship. Analysts are no more than carnival psychics with turbans on their heads. They make shit up and sell it as research. Investors gobble it up because they have no clue what's going on and want someone to blame if things go south. Of course analysts are protected from liability for their "research" because it's just their opinion. Read the fine print. Can you imagine if analysts were held liable for their recommendations and research?
WRT to the upgrade cycle, my iPhone 6 is nearly 2 yrs old and I have absolutely zero interest in upgrading this September. This is the first time I can remember not being anxiously awaiting the new model iPhone. Upgrade cycles are definitely extending. At this point the only thing I can think of that would motivate me to upgrade would be better battery life or massively better camera performance.
No, they aren't. With every upgrade cycle there are those that upgrade, and those that don't. The issue isn't who is upgrading, the issue is the metric used to measure growth. That metric can be Q0Q, YoY, Bi-annual or even try-annual. By and large the PRE-DOMINANT UPGRADER does so on a two year basis. But like everything its a bell curve, some of those that are upgrading are late to the party and some are early.
The only point that matters is the growth attributed to the cycle. The average December quarter growth rate, using a two year cycle model for the past 3 years is ~46% (FY2014 37%, FY2015 55% and FY2016 46%. So whether you (a sample of one) think the iPhone 7 represents a compelling reason to upgrade isn't statistically relevant, not when we're discussing tens of millions of upgrade decisions.
For the purposes of my forecast model I had lowered the three year average growth downward by two standard deviations and a factor representing FX headwinds, resulting in an approximate 23% bi-annual growth rate. That comes out to be about 91 million iPhones sold during the December quarter.
Notice I did not say iPhone 7s sold. That's because in addition to iPhone 7s Apple will be selling discounted iPhone 6Ss and iPhone SEs (addressing a VERY large base of 4" iPhone users not interested in large format handsets).
Because of the quality (DSLR) of the dual lens iPhone I'm expecting a bump in iPhone ASP attributable to a shift in buying preference to the Plus, equipped with the RAM (3 GB) and memory (256 GB) needed to take and store such high quality photos. And this doesn't even address the other improvements I'm expecting to see in the iPhone 7.
Did a little research. Here's my findings related to the advantages of a dual-lens setup:
First, a dual-lens setup could feature two lenses with two different focal lengths. One lens is wide-angle, while the other could be 3x zoom. This means you can switch lenses to magnify more distant subjects without resorting to digital zoom. The setup could also deliver smooth zooms, for example during video recording, by employing a mix of digital zoom and lens-switching.
The second benefit to using two parallel lenses, each with its own sensor, is improved low-light performance. Software works in real-time to match each pixel from one lens with the corresponding pixel from the other lens, and it uses scene analysis to detect which pixel is likely to be closer to the truth. As a result, noise is reduced and we end up with a cleaner picture.
The third and final advantage is having two lenses enables a degree of depth analysis. Depth analysis allows for extra control over images, such automatically blurring out of backgrounds in portrait shots, quicker autofocus and augmented reality.
Two lenses with different focal lengths are not going to allow you to compare pixels to reduce noise because each pixel will be lit by an entirely different part of the scene - the images won't correspond.
As for a dual lens camera delivering DSLR rivaling image quality - bunkum.
The rumor is that Apple's dual lens camera is better then best DSLR camera at 1/50th of the price!
Hell I buy an iPhone for the phone not the camera....I don't give a damn what the camera does....I just wish the smaller phone would also get the goodies the + gets (i know there is probably no room)...I'll be damned to carry a Phablet...If I want a bigger screen I'll just grab my iPad. If I want a good photo I'll grab my real camera...
Happens every year. New iPhone, rumors of "supply constraints." Anything to manipulate the stock price. Issue a false "note to investors" to push down the price. Analysts are lower than whale shit.
I would think it might have the opposite effect, driving demand and anticipation for a supposedly scarce product and pumping first weekend sales numbers. Stock price then jumps immediately due to another record-breaking phone.
I imagine reports like this help at least a tiny bit to create those big same-day release lines with the resultant photos of packed stores on TV, and new stories of "massive demand" in the press and on-line. Happens every year. Isn't the iPhone always in short supply and selling out within a couple of days for every new release? Everyone here knows Apple is going to sell umpteen million of the new models and make huge profits with it but a big part of the PR is that first-three-day-number and rumours of scarcity can't do anything but help those numbers.
Two lenses with different focal lengths are not going to allow you to compare pixels to reduce noise because each pixel will be lit by an entirely different part of the scene - the images won't correspond.
As for a dual lens camera delivering DSLR rivaling image quality - bunkum.
The rumor is that Apple's dual lens camera is better then best DSLR camera at 1/50th of the price!
Top of the line pro DSLR with a pro quality lens is about $5500 and shoots at 50.6 Megapixel full-frame. You say the rumor is that Apple will sell a matching camera in the iPhone7 for $110? Sign me up.
The rumor is that Apple's dual lens camera is better then best DSLR camera at 1/50th of the price!
Top of the line pro DSLR with a pro quality lens is about $5500 and shoots at 50.6 Megapixel full-frame. You say the rumor is that Apple will sell a matching camera in the iPhone7 for $110? Sign me up.
While the price is certainly a joke, Apple is known for having the best camera in the industry.
The rumor is that Apple's dual lens camera is better then best DSLR camera at 1/50th of the price!
Top of the line pro DSLR with a pro quality lens is about $5500 and shoots at 50.6 Megapixel full-frame. You say the rumor is that Apple will sell a matching camera in the iPhone7 for $110? Sign me up.
Lens and MP count is only part of the story. Despite generally having a lower MP count the iPhone's camera habitually beats its competitors thanks to Apple's better software and image processing hardware, which is being developed in-house now.
The rumor is that Apple's dual lens camera is better then best DSLR camera at 1/50th of the price!
Top of the line pro DSLR with a pro quality lens is about $5500 and shoots at 50.6 Megapixel full-frame. You say the rumor is that Apple will sell a matching camera in the iPhone7 for $110? Sign me up.
Lens and MP count is only part of the story. Despite generally having a lower MP count the iPhone's camera habitually beats its competitors thanks to Apple's better software and image processing hardware, which is being developed in-house now.
Yup Apple has done a really nice job with their phone cameras, consistently ranking in the top 10 in DxOMark professional testing year after year. http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles
Happens every year. New iPhone, rumors of "supply constraints." Anything to manipulate the stock price. Issue a false "note to investors" to push down the price. Analysts are lower than whale shit.
I would think it might have the opposite effect, driving demand and anticipation for a supposedly scarce product and pumping first weekend sales numbers. Stock price then jumps immediately due to another record-breaking phone.
I imagine reports like this help at least a tiny bit to create those big same-day release lines with the resultant photos of packed stores on TV, and new stories of "massive demand" in the press and on-line. Happens every year. Isn't the iPhone always in short supply and selling out within a couple of days for every new release? Everyone here knows Apple is going to sell umpteen million of the new models and make huge profits with it but a big part of the PR is that first-three-day-number and rumours of scarcity can't do anything but help those numbers.
Hyping the "scarcity" stories by third parties doesn't correlate well with artificially restricting supply, which most companies, in most cases, would consider a losing strategy. The meme, that Apple intentionally restricts supply to get these ever-increasingly huge three day release numbers is a function of the supply chain and active users, a proportion of which will be looking to upgrade.
Apple doesn't have anything to do with the "rumors" of shortages and in fact, I would guess that the SEC would not consider that beneficial to stockholders. It isn't happening. This is all based on analytics of the supply chain, which Apple would have difficulty containing in the few weeks leading to release.
Lens and MP count is only part of the story. Despite generally having a lower MP count the iPhone's camera habitually beats its competitors thanks to Apple's better software and image processing hardware, which is being developed in-house now.
Yup Apple has done a really nice job with their phone cameras, consistently ranking in the top 10 in DxOMark professional testing year after year. http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles
I think that Apple basically took that fork in the road a couple of years back, as have and are other companies, and is pushing multiple lens cameras and computational photography to the top tier for the future. Expect to see some DxO Mark increases over the next year that would appear to be disruptive to the current evolution of single lens modules.
The other path is zoom lenses modules, and those will be either a traditional lens stack or we might start seeing folder optic (Sony especially) designs that are a better fit for smartphones.
Either way, in good light, we will benefit from large "virtual" apertures and computational computing that will bring some of the benefits of dslr's, specifically the ability to separate foreground objects from the background with blurring and "bokeh' effects that are "pleasing" to the viewer, which isn't the case now.
From here on, smartphones will likely eliminate most of the pocket camera market below 1 inch sensors, which will be a problem for camera manufacturers.
Happens every year. New iPhone, rumors of "supply constraints." Anything to manipulate the stock price. Issue a false "note to investors" to push down the price. Analysts are lower than whale shit.
I would think it might have the opposite effect, driving demand and anticipation for a supposedly scarce product and pumping first weekend sales numbers. Stock price then jumps immediately due to another record-breaking phone.
I imagine reports like this help at least a tiny bit to create those big same-day release lines with the resultant photos of packed stores on TV, and new stories of "massive demand" in the press and on-line. Happens every year. Isn't the iPhone always in short supply and selling out within a couple of days for every new release? Everyone here knows Apple is going to sell umpteen million of the new models and make huge profits with it but a big part of the PR is that first-three-day-number and rumours of scarcity can't do anything but help those numbers.
Hyping the "scarcity" stories by third parties doesn't correlate well with artificially restricting supply, which most companies, in most cases, would consider a losing strategy. The meme, that Apple intentionally restricts supply to get these ever-increasingly huge three day release numbers is a function of the supply chain and active users, a proportion of which will be looking to upgrade.
Apple doesn't have anything to do with the "rumors" of shortages and in fact, I would guess that the SEC would not consider that beneficial to stockholders. It isn't happening. This is all based on analytics of the supply chain, which Apple would have difficulty containing in the few weeks leading to release.
Au contraire, I don't think there really will be any true iPhone scarcity, despite the regular annual rumors. They have several weeks to build 'em and there's untold millions ready to box and ship I'm sure. With that said the SEC could not care less if any company made it sound as tho there was for marketing purposes. In addition artificially restricting supply to pump perceived value has a long history of success. Look no further than the diamond industry.
But just to be certain before you claim I've said otherwise I'm NOT saying Apple executive management is behind any unsubstantiated rumors of iPhone scarcity.
I am definitely upgrading my 6 to 7 for two major reasons: higher resolution selfie camera and quicker access to common tasks with 3D Touch.
Those might be bad reasons.
Higher resolution on the same-sized sensor means more closely packed photosites. They generate more heat at high ISOs which leads to more noise in low light. You'll notice that the highest end cameras from Nikon and Canon have lower resolution than some of their lower priced cameras. So while there are sensor improvements that can be made to result in better photos, higher resolution might not be one of them. The sensor in the iPhone6 is only 4.8% the size of an APS-C (Nikon DX) sensor and only 2.1% the size of a "full frame" sensor. It's only 63% the size of the 1/2.3" sensor used in most point-and-shoots and 15% of the size of cameras that use a 1" sensor like the Nikon 1 line and the Sony RX100. For its size, it's quite remarkable, but adding resolution could be a mistake if that's the path Apple is taking.
And you might be disappointed with the relatively few things 3D Touch actually does that aren't all that different from simply clicking.
How exactly is a dual-lens camera module suppose to product DSLR quality images? What's the tech doing to provide a superior final image over a single lens setup?
Is it going to provide zoom without pixel loss? Will it match APS-C for low light performance? I'm sure with image processing it will be an improvement, but DSLR quality? Also 3x zoom is nothing to write home about.
More than a year ago, Apple bought a camera technology company called LinX Imaging, which specializes in "multi-aperture imaging technology" for DSLR-quality images.
LinX cameras use multiple sensors to capture both 2D and 3D images. Applications can tap into the 3D picture to refocus an image after it has been taken, in a fashion similar to capabilities offered by the Lytro camera.
The 3D data can allow applications to measure the true dimensions of objects, create 3D object modeling, and also accomplish real-time background replacement in video.
LinX's technology sets new standards for image quality parameters such as low light performance, HDR, refocusing, color fidelity, shutter lag and more.
You can see a 2014 presentation that shows the benefits of LinX's multi-lens technology here:
Comments
Seven is both a lucky and a unlucky number, so it will have poor sales in China depending on how superstitious one is.
The only point that matters is the growth attributed to the cycle. The average December quarter growth rate, using a two year cycle model for the past 3 years is ~46% (FY2014 37%, FY2015 55% and FY2016 46%. So whether you (a sample of one) think the iPhone 7 represents a compelling reason to upgrade isn't statistically relevant, not when we're discussing tens of millions of upgrade decisions.
For the purposes of my forecast model I had lowered the three year average growth downward by two standard deviations and a factor representing FX headwinds, resulting in an approximate 23% bi-annual growth rate. That comes out to be about 91 million iPhones sold during the December quarter.
Notice I did not say iPhone 7s sold. That's because in addition to iPhone 7s Apple will be selling discounted iPhone 6Ss and iPhone SEs (addressing a VERY large base of 4" iPhone users not interested in large format handsets).
Because of the quality (DSLR) of the dual lens iPhone I'm expecting a bump in iPhone ASP attributable to a shift in buying preference to the Plus, equipped with the RAM (3 GB) and memory (256 GB) needed to take and store such high quality photos. And this doesn't even address the other improvements I'm expecting to see in the iPhone 7.
There are two smaller phones now!
I imagine reports like this help at least a tiny bit to create those big same-day release lines with the resultant photos of packed stores on TV, and new stories of "massive demand" in the press and on-line. Happens every year. Isn't the iPhone always in short supply and selling out within a couple of days for every new release? Everyone here knows Apple is going to sell umpteen million of the new models and make huge profits with it but a big part of the PR is that first-three-day-number and rumours of scarcity can't do anything but help those numbers.
http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles
Apple doesn't have anything to do with the "rumors" of shortages and in fact, I would guess that the SEC would not consider that beneficial to stockholders. It isn't happening. This is all based on analytics of the supply chain, which Apple would have difficulty containing in the few weeks leading to release.
I think that Apple basically took that fork in the road a couple of years back, as have and are other companies, and is pushing multiple lens cameras and computational photography to the top tier for the future. Expect to see some DxO Mark increases over the next year that would appear to be disruptive to the current evolution of single lens modules.
The other path is zoom lenses modules, and those will be either a traditional lens stack or we might start seeing folder optic (Sony especially) designs that are a better fit for smartphones.
Either way, in good light, we will benefit from large "virtual" apertures and computational computing that will bring some of the benefits of dslr's, specifically the ability to separate foreground objects from the background with blurring and "bokeh' effects that are "pleasing" to the viewer, which isn't the case now.
From here on, smartphones will likely eliminate most of the pocket camera market below 1 inch sensors, which will be a problem for camera manufacturers.
But just to be certain before you claim I've said otherwise I'm NOT saying Apple executive management is behind any unsubstantiated rumors of iPhone scarcity.
Higher resolution on the same-sized sensor means more closely packed photosites. They generate more heat at high ISOs which leads to more noise in low light. You'll notice that the highest end cameras from Nikon and Canon have lower resolution than some of their lower priced cameras. So while there are sensor improvements that can be made to result in better photos, higher resolution might not be one of them. The sensor in the iPhone6 is only 4.8% the size of an APS-C (Nikon DX) sensor and only 2.1% the size of a "full frame" sensor. It's only 63% the size of the 1/2.3" sensor used in most point-and-shoots and 15% of the size of cameras that use a 1" sensor like the Nikon 1 line and the Sony RX100. For its size, it's quite remarkable, but adding resolution could be a mistake if that's the path Apple is taking.
And you might be disappointed with the relatively few things 3D Touch actually does that aren't all that different from simply clicking.
More than a year ago, Apple bought a camera technology company called LinX Imaging, which specializes in "multi-aperture imaging technology" for DSLR-quality images.
LinX cameras use multiple sensors to capture both 2D and 3D images. Applications can tap into the 3D picture to refocus an image after it has been taken, in a fashion similar to capabilities offered by the Lytro camera.
The 3D data can allow applications to measure the true dimensions of objects, create 3D object modeling, and also accomplish real-time background replacement in video.
LinX's technology sets new standards for image quality parameters such as low light performance, HDR, refocusing, color fidelity, shutter lag and more.
You can see a 2014 presentation that shows the benefits of LinX's multi-lens technology here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261875793/LinX-Imaging-Presentation
i don't see why Apple doesn't come out with the duo camera on both models.