WWDC silly season grows with seemingly baseless analyst speculation

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware
A high-profile Apple stock analyst has suggested virtually all of Apple's upcoming hardware pipeline could at least be previewed at WWDC, including the "iPhone 8" and an Apple TV with 4K. Needless to say, that's highly unlikely.


"iPhone 8"

In a note to investors Thurday from J.P. Morgan, provided to AppleInsider, analyst Rod Hall said he believes there is "some possibility" that Apple will preview the "iPhone 8" at the event. He cited an "expected large form factor change as well as new 3D scanning features" as a potential reason for an unexpected, uncharacteristic hardware preview.

An advanced look at Apple's rumored feature-packed 10th anniversary iPhone seems highly improbable, regardless of new features. The last time an iPhone was revealed in the summer around the time of WWDC was June 24, 2010 when the iPhone 4 was revealed. Following that unveil, the flagships of the line were shown in September or October, with the iPhone SE launching on March 31, 2016.

Despite Hall's speculation, it's still expected that the "iPhone 8" won't be shown off until this September.


iPad update

Hall also believes that there is a "reasonable chance" that Apple will update the iPad Pro line at WWDC. However, Hall claims that "flexible OLED capacity available to Apple suggests some excess that could be used for such a device."

But there have been no reports from the supply chain or evidence of contracts between Apple and other vendors suggesting that OLED screens are coming any time soon to the iPad. If details in rumors about the 10.5-inch iPad Pro update are accurate, one screen would take substrate material roughly equivalent to four "iPhone 8" screens.

While the "iPhone 8" is expected to switch to OLED this fall, it's likely that this year's iPad Pro refresh will stick with LCD technology.

Apple TV at 4K

Hall also said Apple is "overdue" to release a 4K/HDR version of the Apple TV. His report also suggested, without going into any detail, that "further partnerships" for the TV app, plus "ability to consolidate media sources," are a possibility for WWDC.

The Apple TV hardware has never been updated during a WWDC keynote. The last update to the fourth-generation Apple TV with apps was made on Oct. 30, 2015, and the ability to play back 1080p content was made in March 2012, well after 1080p content was already available on the iTunes media stores.

While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.

Siri and the "Siri Speaker"

Hall and company expect to see "new APIs for Siri this year as well as new platform capabilities." However, the analyst believes that the announcement of an actual hardware product will not happen at WWDC, but might later in the fall.




A report from Wednesday suggested that the Apple Siri speaker is currently in manufacturing, and may not ship until "later in the year." The same report claims that the product may be announced at the WWDC keynote.

Siri's underpinnings are likely to see some form of expansion at WWDC, with updates to iOS and macOS expected -- as has been the case for several years.

Kaby Lake updates for the MacBook Pro

Citing media complaints that Intel's Kaby Lake processor wasn't included in the 2016 refresh of the MacBook Pro, Hall expects that the line will get the "Kaby Lake treatment " at WWDC. Rumors of a MacBook Pro refresh at WWDC are relatively recent, and buttressed lately by no availability at the online Apple store until the day of the WWDC keynote.

Kaby Lake processors suitable for the 15-inch i7-powered 2016 MacBook Pro weren't available when the device was designed or manufactured, and were released only very slightly before the machine originally shipped. Addition of the Kaby Lake processor to the MacBook Pro will have an extremely minute performance enhancement, slightly better battery life, and better integrated graphics performance over models with the Skylake processor.

A sought-after 32GB option for the MacBook Pro needs Intel's forthcoming "Cannon Lake" processor expected at some point in 2018 bringing with it support for LPDDR4 RAM, or conversion of the machine to conventional DDR4 RAM which will demand more power and a motherboard re-design.

The last time the MacBook Pro was updated as rapidly as it would be from between the 2016 MacBook Pro's release and the date of the 2017 WWDC Keynote was in 2007, when Apple shifted to the Penryn processor without major motherboard revisions.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    As the article says, the MacBook Pro update will probably be just an update to Kaby Lake, so that the current gen will stay relevant while the wait for Cannon Lake to be released. Probably not even announced at the keynote.


    edited June 2017
  • Reply 2 of 29
    jurassicjurassic Posts: 91member
    "While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores." True, but Apple has supported the recording and editing of 4K videos on iPhone for almost 2 years now. Even if it takes some time for Apple to introduce 4K movies and TV shows for download or streaming, iPhone users DO have a need to show their 4K content on their TVs through Apple TV!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 29
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,197administrator
    jurassic said:
    "While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores." True, but Apple has supported the recording and editing of 4K videos on iPhone for almost 2 years now. Even if it takes some time for Apple to introduce 4K movies and TV shows for download or streaming, iPhone users DO have a need to show their 4K content on their TVs through Apple TV!
    Certainly not arguing that point, but the A8 processor in the Apple TV has the horsepower to play 4K, and it was around at about the same time as the 4K-capable iPhones.

    Apple chose to not implement that. I'm not dismissing the possibility outright, as I'd like one, but there doesn't seem to be quite enough foundation underneath it for it to pop up now.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 29
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,550member
    jurassic said:
    "While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores." True, but Apple has supported the recording and editing of 4K videos on iPhone for almost 2 years now. Even if it takes some time for Apple to introduce 4K movies and TV shows for download or streaming, iPhone users DO have a need to show their 4K content on their TVs through Apple TV!
    Certainly not arguing that point, but the A8 processor in the Apple TV has the horsepower to play 4K, and it was around at about the same time as the 4K-capable iPhones.

    Apple chose to not implement that. I'm not dismissing the possibility outright, as I'd like one, but there doesn't seem to be quite enough foundation underneath it for it to pop up now.
    Would the A8 in the 4th-gen Apple TV result in a good 2160p viewing experience for the profiles one would expect for that content? Haven't we seen Apple use A-series chips that weren't up to snuff for the iPhone for the Apple TV because they didn't have to be as powerful, or had a core disabled? If that's the case then they have to go by weakest chip option.

    Regardless, I think Apple hasn't released a 4K Apple TV because they're waiting for 2160p content rights for their iTunes Store -and- for H.265 for the video codec to be feasible for them to use. When those two things are possible then everything else would fall into place.

    Now, one may point out that the iPhone has been able to use H.265 for FaceTime over cellular on the iPhone 6 series (or newer) to another iPhone 6 series (or newer) over cellular, but that's a relatively low resolution video with a low-profile, and not a commercial video for sale or rent, the latter of which changes everything when it comes to H.265 licensing fees.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 29
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,019member
    After so much hope and wishes

    Apple opened the cupboard and it was bare.

    Possible? Yes
    Likely? No

    but I really do think that many people are expecting the world but will not get anywhere near what they were expecting.
    Want Saturn but got Mercury.

  • Reply 6 of 29
    Soli said:
    jurassic said:
    "While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores." True, but Apple has supported the recording and editing of 4K videos on iPhone for almost 2 years now. Even if it takes some time for Apple to introduce 4K movies and TV shows for download or streaming, iPhone users DO have a need to show their 4K content on their TVs through Apple TV!
    Certainly not arguing that point, but the A8 processor in the Apple TV has the horsepower to play 4K, and it was around at about the same time as the 4K-capable iPhones.

    Apple chose to not implement that. I'm not dismissing the possibility outright, as I'd like one, but there doesn't seem to be quite enough foundation underneath it for it to pop up now.

    Regardless, I think Apple hasn't released a 4K Apple TV because they're waiting for 2160p content rights for their iTunes Store -and- for H.265 for the video codec to be feasible for them to use. When those two things are possible then everything else would fall into place.

    That's one reason. Another would be....every single other app on Apple TV.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,760member
    I try not to pay attention too much to rumor sites around the times of scheduled Apple Keynotes. I'd rather be surprised at the keynote than get a snippet of correct or incorrect information. Its like peeking at your Christmas presents on Christmas Eve. Its not as fun after you do that. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 29
    robjnrobjn Posts: 203member
    If a new hardware feature requires developer support from day one it will have to be previewed in order for developers to get to work on supporting it.

    Few situations necessitate this kind of preview but it does happen. New screen resolutions don't necessitate this. Third party app integration with a speaker or some new iPhone sensor might, but Apple can often launch a new hardware feature with just Apple support and open it up to third party developpers later.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 9 of 29
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,137member
    I wish Apple would release a 4K Apple TV. Even if the iTunes Store isn't selling/renting 4K movies right now, there are enough apps that have 4K content. A lot of those apps are already on the ATV App Store such as Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, plus others. It would also be nice to be able to watch your 4K iPhone movies on the Apple TV.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,429member
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.  Heck, I still happily enjoy my 1080p Sony.  The fact that many TV's nowadays are 4K-capable, so what?  The amount of Internet bandwidth necessary to stream those movies for the majority is just not there infrastructure-wise.  I 4K being viable only for those with Blu-Ray drives, or that want to stream 4K videos from a local LAN/WLAN device. which is still not the norm for the majority of users.

    Heck, most of my viewing isn't even done on TV's anymore, but on my iMac (in a window) or iOS devices, which makes 4K moot.

    pscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 29
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,550member
    sflocal said:
    The amount of Internet bandwidth necessary to stream those movies for the majority is just not there infrastructure-wise.
    That's a ridiculous statement. The sole metric for determining necessary bandwidth isn't resolution. It's not even resolution + video codec, but at least that's two variables that you could use when applied to a given profile and average video frame.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    5150iii5150iii Posts: 96member
    I updated the app and am having issues staying logged in. Just testing posting a response, thanks.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,137member
    sflocal said:
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.  Heck, I still happily enjoy my 1080p Sony.  The fact that many TV's nowadays are 4K-capable, so what?  The amount of Internet bandwidth necessary to stream those movies for the majority is just not there infrastructure-wise.  I 4K being viable only for those with Blu-Ray drives, or that want to stream 4K videos from a local LAN/WLAN device. which is still not the norm for the majority of users.

    Heck, most of my viewing isn't even done on TV's anymore, but on my iMac (in a window) or iOS devices, which makes 4K moot.

    4K is hardly overrated for the average consumer. 4K adoption rate is actually pretty high. Way higher compared to the HD adoption rate. As another person pointed out, resolution has nothing to do with determining bandwidth. The majority of people in the USA can easily stream 4K content. 
    Soli
  • Reply 14 of 29
    sflocal said:
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.
    Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!).  One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered.  So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance.  It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.

    More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k.  Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).

    Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV.  A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there.  He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300.  Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in.  He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.

    All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video.  Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k".  To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
  • Reply 15 of 29
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,429member
    Soli said:
    sflocal said:
    The amount of Internet bandwidth necessary to stream those movies for the majority is just not there infrastructure-wise.
    That's a ridiculous statement. The sole metric for determining necessary bandwidth isn't resolution. It's not even resolution + video codec, but at least that's two variables that you could use when applied to a given profile and average video frame.
    Resolution is one part.  I agree with that.  However, it gets quite limiting in multiple 4K streamers per household, multiplied by neighborhood, then by city, and one begins to see how lacking the providers are in delivering that kind of bandwidth to support 4K streaming in a consistent and reliable way.  It's just not there yet.  It will eventually, just not now.  When fiber is more prevalent to the home, then we'll be talking.

    It took quite a bit for 1080p to be available in abundance as it is now.  4K will be no different.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 16 of 29
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,137member
    sflocal said:
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.
    Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!).  One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered.  So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance.  It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.

    More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k.  Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).

    Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV.  A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there.  He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300.  Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in.  He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.

    All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video.  Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k".  To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
    That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content. 
    anton zuykov
  • Reply 17 of 29
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,244member
    Kudos for this article and headline from AI. 
    Soli
  • Reply 18 of 29
    sflocal said:
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.
    Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!).  One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered.  So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance.  It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.

    More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k.  Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).

    Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV.  A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there.  He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300.  Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in.  He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.

    All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video.  Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k".  To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
    That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content. 
    What is the low limit then?  Would you be able to tell the difference on a 25" screen?  Can you see the difference between 4k and 1080p on an iPhone display?  Do you believe that once you start cramming enough pixels into the same space you start to lose the advantage of having all those pixels?  Will we also be able to see the difference between "8k" or "16k" on a 50" screen?

    You say we don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4k, so does that mean my mom can view 4k on her crappy DSL connection?  "Fast" to my mom would be 10Mbps, but to my co-workers 25Mbps is not "fast".  

    Until my neighbor's son started working for Comcast they had a 1.5Mbps connection because my neighbor said he only needed to check email and everything else was a waste of money.  If my friend with the Florida house has a 1.5Mbps connection will he be able to stream 4k (and view it just as well)?

    These are all legitimate questions, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 19 of 29
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,550member
    sflocal said:
    While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
    Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".

    4K is overrated for the average consumer.
    Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!).  One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered.  So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance.  It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.

    More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k.  Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).

    Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV.  A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there.  He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300.  Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in.  He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.

    All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video.  Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k".  To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
    That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content. 
    What is the low limit then?  Would you be able to tell the difference on a 25" screen?  Can you see the difference between 4k and 1080p on an iPhone display?  Do you believe that once you start cramming enough pixels into the same space you start to lose the advantage of having all those pixels?  Will we also be able to see the difference between "8k" or "16k" on a 50" screen?

    You say we don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4k, so does that mean my mom can view 4k on her crappy DSL connection?  "Fast" to my mom would be 10Mbps, but to my co-workers 25Mbps is not "fast".  

    Until my neighbor's son started working for Comcast they had a 1.5Mbps connection because my neighbor said he only needed to check email and everything else was a waste of money.  If my friend with the Florida house has a 1.5Mbps connection will he be able to stream 4k (and view it just as well)?

    These are all legitimate questions, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole.
    What do you people keep leaving out required variables to create even baseline model. Size paired with resolution gives you the size of each pixel. Or, to put it another way, when given a certain resolution and size you can then the determine the minimum distance in which your eyes can be that the pixels will be indistinguishable. This, of course, is dependent on your eyesight, and many other factors like the color quality of the display and what your eyes can see, as well as a variance in a still image v a series of images at a rate of 30fps v 60fps, and even refresh rate of the display comes into play. Now, many of these have a minor effect or can't be easily calculated because human eyesight varies between each person, but you at least need to have a resolution and display size to determine pixel size so you can determine distance, which means that holding a 2160p iPhone 12 inches in front of your face won't make a difference, but being 12 feet in front of a 50 8K Jumbotron you'll definitely see the pixels.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 20 of 29
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,453member
    It is just another attempt by an analysis to manipulate the stock. Claim they will show off products and when the do not it means something is wrong and apple is in trouble.
Sign In or Register to comment.