'iPhone XI' and 'iPhone XI Max' case manufacturing dummies pop up on Chinese social media

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 82
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,812member
    Stories like this one make me realize that there should be a filter that allows me to filter out stories that don't have a certain threshold of likelihood of truthfulness/accuracy. The editors should rate each story on a scale of likelihood. This story is probably low on that scale, perhaps 50%, so if my setting is set to 75%, then I wouldn't even see this story show up in the list of stories. I feel that many people would want their filter to be set to 100%, such as people who like product reviews but won't want rumours of upcoming products. Doing this would give AppleInsider a good reason for using a browser cookie. I think that this is what cookies were invented for.
    That's reasonable. 

    I see this rumor as close to fact, but again, until it happens, it's still just a rumor.
    curtis hannah
  • Reply 22 of 82
    I don't care what they're trying to achieve and how good the result will be. This is just not as important to me as how good the phone looks. If it comes like this – and everything is pointing towards that it is – this will be one ugly phone. Ugliest iPhone so far. 
  • Reply 23 of 82
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    “But these go to XI...”
    anantksundaramStrangeDays
  • Reply 24 of 82
    The Apple logo on the iPhone XI looks awfully close to the camera array. All other renders I’ve seen shows the same. It needs more room to breath. Why not move it downwards?
    caladanian
  • Reply 25 of 82
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,430member
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    Take an Engineering Physics course on Optics then come back and comment. You'll realize the reason for this array once you understand the laws of optics. They are attempting to create a DSLR capable lens array inside a phone.
    Are you suggesting that the Mate 20 Pro was designed by people who don't understand engineering physics? Huawei's imaging division is currently setting the pace in this area, but you never know, someone up there in Finland might know something about this subject.

    You have no idea what Apple is 'trying to create'. The phone doesn't exist yet and all you have is rumour to play off.

    And I will restate what I said above. I am talking about the square and its placement - not how the cameras are placed within it.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 26 of 82
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    You always make me laugh!

    Seriously, Apple's configuration is likely not "cosmetic", but developed around an optimum placement of the three imagining sensors, for images, video and AR. We won't know until after it is delivered, but I'd bet that configuration will soon be copied by many of the Android OS device makers.

    Over time, I've come to the realization that you are really shallow.

    History would tell you that Apple doesn't spend a lot of time hiding function.
    Is that optimum in the sense of the hockey puck mouse?

    Please explain why this placement is more 'optimum' than the Mate 20 Pro placement? Even if it is only 'likely'.

    Or why not forget 'optimum' altogether and give your opinion on the cosmetic angle. You know, just in case 'optimum' doesn't eventually factor into anything.

    By the way, it should be clear that I am referring to the camera grouping and not the distribution within the grouping!
    Well, since you asked...

    Having 3 lenses in a line isn't going to give you much spatial information in the axis perpendicular to that line.

    Apple has one sensor that is off axis that will give very good spatial information. Actually, the primary imager could be any of the three, without issue.

    This would be the preferred configuration for obtaining depth information, ie, range finding, even if you have a TOF sensor.

    The real question will be how well it enables computation of up to three overlapping images or videos.

    Seems pretty obvious. 

    I'd argue that three in a row is easier to package.

    My guess is that Apple will be very particular about the alignment of those three imagining modules in the manufacturing process.


    Cool, but if that is true wouldn't 4 sensors be more useful in that regard ?
    Yep, but each added sensor is giving you diminishing returns, ie, bang for the buck, increasing the device cost and reducing sales volume. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with you, just that Apple seems to be on a roadmap that makes sense for them by moving from two to three imagers for two of their upcoming devices. 

    I'm on record as being an early buyer of the Max version of this when they arrive.
    I see, But personally don't you think it would be worth the cost to Apple, just to justify or compensate for the esthetics, most people won't appreciate the technicalities, all they'll see is an affront at the back of their iPhones, 4 cameras just seem like a simpler idea to sell
    Most people didn't initially appreciate the ascetics of AirPods, the Notch, or removal of the headphone jack, but Apple actually came out better than fine on those. Perhaps best to wait and see the result in the flesh.
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    You always make me laugh!

    Seriously, Apple's configuration is likely not "cosmetic", but developed around an optimum placement of the three imagining sensors, for images, video and AR. We won't know until after it is delivered, but I'd bet that configuration will soon be copied by many of the Android OS device makers.

    Over time, I've come to the realization that you are really shallow.

    History would tell you that Apple doesn't spend a lot of time hiding function.
    Is that optimum in the sense of the hockey puck mouse?

    Please explain why this placement is more 'optimum' than the Mate 20 Pro placement? Even if it is only 'likely'.

    Or why not forget 'optimum' altogether and give your opinion on the cosmetic angle. You know, just in case 'optimum' doesn't eventually factor into anything.

    By the way, it should be clear that I am referring to the camera grouping and not the distribution within the grouping!
    Well, since you asked...

    Having 3 lenses in a line isn't going to give you much spatial information in the axis perpendicular to that line.

    Apple has one sensor that is off axis that will give very good spatial information. Actually, the primary imager could be any of the three, without issue.

    This would be the preferred configuration for obtaining depth information, ie, range finding, even if you have a TOF sensor.

    The real question will be how well it enables computation of up to three overlapping images or videos.

    Seems pretty obvious. 

    I'd argue that three in a row is easier to package.

    My guess is that Apple will be very particular about the alignment of those three imagining modules in the manufacturing process.


    Cool, but if that is true wouldn't 4 sensors be more useful in that regard ?
    Yep, but each added sensor is giving you diminishing returns, ie, bang for the buck, increasing the device cost and reducing sales volume. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with you, just that Apple seems to be on a roadmap that makes sense for them by moving from two to three imagers for two of their upcoming devices. 

    I'm on record as being an early buyer of the Max version of this when they arrive.
    I see, But personally don't you think it would be worth the cost to Apple, just to justify or compensate for the esthetics, most people won't appreciate the technicalities, all they'll see is an affront at the back of their iPhones, 4 cameras just seem like a simpler idea to sell
    Most people didn't initially appreciate the ascetics of AirPods, the Notch, or removal of the headphone jack, but Apple actually came out better than fine on those. Perhaps best to wait and see the result in the flesh.
    Good point, lets see what Jony's got for us.
    I found it funny when people criticize MacBooks, they said “their forms are way over functions”, but on the iPhone, aesthetics are “more important” than functionalities.  Really double standard there.
    edited April 2019 radarthekatchemengin
  • Reply 27 of 82
    tmay said:
    Stories like this one make me realize that there should be a filter that allows me to filter out stories that don't have a certain threshold of likelihood of truthfulness/accuracy. The editors should rate each story on a scale of likelihood. This story is probably low on that scale, perhaps 50%, so if my setting is set to 75%, then I wouldn't even see this story show up in the list of stories. I feel that many people would want their filter to be set to 100%, such as people who like product reviews but won't want rumours of upcoming products. Doing this would give AppleInsider a good reason for using a browser cookie. I think that this is what cookies were invented for.
    That's reasonable. 

    I see this rumor as close to fact, but again, until it happens, it's still just a rumor.
    No rumor is close to fact until there are several identical looking mockups. The 3 cameras is likely over 50% odds, but not in this shape.
    DuhSesame said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    Most people didn't initially appreciate the ascetics of AirPods, the Notch, or removal of the headphone jack, but Apple actually came out better than fine on those. Perhaps best to wait and see the result in the flesh.
    Good point, lets see what Jony's got for us.
    I found it funny when people criticize MacBooks, they said “their forms are way over functions”, but on the iPhone, aesthetics are “more important” than functionalities.  Really double standard there.
    Uhm what? All Apple products are prioritized on design before function. That is why AirPods, while compact, look like the old headphones chopped off (familiar simplicity).
    The notch is designed to minimize space lost (even though arguably more space left would be just as functional). As for the headphone port, it's obvious that was done for symmetrical bottoms with the simplicity of one port and defiantly less functional.
    On Macbooks the basic one is super thin but only has one usb c port, also having a 480p camera for small bezels priority. The MacBook Pro has a marginally thicker shell but internally themal throttles beyond acceptable on the 6 core models(when the design was created 6 core mobile Intel chips weren't available, so it isn't all Apples doing). I see form/ looks prioritized over function in a number of cases, though the products all still perform as expected.


    This wouldn't surprise me if Apple does do a design similar to this. But I also would probable prefer it if they made is a circle with the cameras inside and put the flash in the middle. I also would see it practical if they had it set up as a line and put each of the LEDs to the sides (Led-Camera-LED-Camera-LED-Camera-LED), though I don't know if True Tone would work as well in that setup. 
  • Reply 28 of 82
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    curtis hannah said:
    when the design was created 6 core mobile Intel chips weren't available, so it isn't all Apples doing. 
    At least you got this one right.
    curtis hannahcornchip
  • Reply 29 of 82
    It’s straight ugly. No other way around it. Would it keep me from buying the next iPhone, no, but I am not a fan of that look at all. 
    cornchipsuperklotonchemengin
  • Reply 30 of 82
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,175member
    supadav03 said:
    It’s straight ugly. No other way around it. Would it keep me from buying the next iPhone, no, but I am not a fan of that look at all. 
    Does it matter that you wouldn’t buy it? Uh, nope, not one tiny bit.
  • Reply 31 of 82
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    You always make me laugh!

    Seriously, Apple's configuration is likely not "cosmetic", but developed around an optimum placement of the three imagining sensors, for images, video and AR. We won't know until after it is delivered, but I'd bet that configuration will soon be copied by many of the Android OS device makers.

    Over time, I've come to the realization that you are really shallow.

    History would tell you that Apple doesn't spend a lot of time hiding function.
    Is that optimum in the sense of the hockey puck mouse?

    Please explain why this placement is more 'optimum' than the Mate 20 Pro placement? Even if it is only 'likely'.

    Or why not forget 'optimum' altogether and give your opinion on the cosmetic angle. You know, just in case 'optimum' doesn't eventually factor into anything.

    By the way, it should be clear that I am referring to the camera grouping and not the distribution within the grouping!
    Well, since you asked...

    Having 3 lenses in a line isn't going to give you much spatial information in the axis perpendicular to that line.

    Apple has one sensor that is off axis that will give very good spatial information. Actually, the primary imager could be any of the three, without issue.

    This would be the preferred configuration for obtaining depth information, ie, range finding, even if you have a TOF sensor.

    The real question will be how well it enables computation of up to three overlapping images or videos.

    Seems pretty obvious. 

    I'd argue that three in a row is easier to package.

    My guess is that Apple will be very particular about the alignment of those three imagining modules in the manufacturing process.


    Cool, but if that is true wouldn't 4 sensors be more useful in that regard ?
    Yep, but each added sensor is giving you diminishing returns, ie, bang for the buck, increasing the device cost and reducing sales volume. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with you, just that Apple seems to be on a roadmap that makes sense for them by moving from two to three imagers for two of their upcoming devices. 

    I'm on record as being an early buyer of the Max version of this when they arrive.
    I see, But personally don't you think it would be worth the cost to Apple, just to justify or compensate for the esthetics, most people won't appreciate the technicalities, all they'll see is an affront at the back of their iPhones, 4 cameras just seem like a simpler idea to sell
    Most people didn't initially appreciate the ascetics of AirPods, the Notch, or removal of the headphone jack, but Apple actually came out better than fine on those. Perhaps best to wait and see the result in the flesh.
    There is nothing to appreciate about the notch aesthetically. It is absolutely the definition of function over form. That may end up being the case with the camera on the new phones. But you would think with Apple being a premium design lead company they would be able to find a way to meet the functional need without having to compromise aesthetics.
  • Reply 32 of 82
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    Take an Engineering Physics course on Optics then come back and comment. You'll realize the reason for this array once you understand the laws of optics. They are attempting to create a DSLR capable lens array inside a phone.
    Are you suggesting that the Mate 20 Pro was designed by people who don't understand engineering physics? Huawei's imaging division is currently setting the pace in this area, but you never know, someone up there in Finland might know something about this subject.

    You have no idea what Apple is 'trying to create'. The phone doesn't exist yet and all you have is rumour to play off.

    And I will restate what I said above. I am talking about the square and its placement - not how the cameras are placed within it.
    Do you work for Huawei or something? You seem to do a lot of advertising for them here.
    StrangeDaysanantksundaramtmayradarthekatcornchipshark5150roundaboutnow
  • Reply 33 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,256member
    avon b7 said:
    Brace yourselves...Apple critics are activating their “concern” mode
    Erm no. If there is a mode, it is 'opinion mode'.

    What's yours?

    Let me guess. If it had a Huawei logo on the back you would be heaving into a bucket but as it has an Apple logo on the back you love it!

    Did I guess right?

    As I implied, I'll wait to see if they manage to hide it somehow.
    The fact that you think my opinions are based on logos and not on the actual value derived from better products is indicative of your poor reasoning. 
    tmayradarthekatroundaboutnow
  • Reply 34 of 82
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    I just realized that the word "iPhone" looks stretched, so this may not be genuine after all.
  • Reply 35 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,256member
    tmay said:
    Stories like this one make me realize that there should be a filter that allows me to filter out stories that don't have a certain threshold of likelihood of truthfulness/accuracy. The editors should rate each story on a scale of likelihood. This story is probably low on that scale, perhaps 50%, so if my setting is set to 75%, then I wouldn't even see this story show up in the list of stories. I feel that many people would want their filter to be set to 100%, such as people who like product reviews but won't want rumours of upcoming products. Doing this would give AppleInsider a good reason for using a browser cookie. I think that this is what cookies were invented for.
    That's reasonable. 

    I see this rumor as close to fact, but again, until it happens, it's still just a rumor.
    No rumor is close to fact until there are several identical looking mockups. The 3 cameras is likely over 50% odds, but not in this shape.
    DuhSesame said:
    holyone said:
    tmay said:
    Most people didn't initially appreciate the ascetics of AirPods, the Notch, or removal of the headphone jack, but Apple actually came out better than fine on those. Perhaps best to wait and see the result in the flesh.
    Good point, lets see what Jony's got for us.
    I found it funny when people criticize MacBooks, they said “their forms are way over functions”, but on the iPhone, aesthetics are “more important” than functionalities.  Really double standard there.
    Uhm what? All Apple products are prioritized on design before function. That is why AirPods, while compact, look like the old headphones chopped off (familiar simplicity).

    The notch is designed to minimize space lost (even though arguably more space left would be just as functional). As for the headphone port, it's obvious that was done for symmetrical bottoms with the simplicity of one port and defiantly less functional.
    Incorrect. Apple hardware VP went on record any they removed the legacy analog audio jack — it freed up space in the iphone design for water gaskets, larger camera modules, and increased battery. They made the right choice. 

    You’re also confused about Apple design ethos. It isn’t about looks over functionality. As Apple design leaders have said many times — design is not just how something looks, but about how something works. (I don’t understand why they can say this and people still not understand what their process is)
    edited April 2019 tmayradarthekatmacpluspluscurtis hannahsuperklotonroundaboutnow
  • Reply 36 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,256member
    I don't care what they're trying to achieve and how good the result will be. This is just not as important to me as how good the phone looks. If it comes like this – and everything is pointing towards that it is – this will be one ugly phone. Ugliest iPhone so far. 
    It’s funny, when the leaks come out every year, people say the same thing every year. Since the 4 — nobody could believe the 4 leaks were real, said it was ugly, antenna lines, screws, etc.. Now it’s considered a classic and people pine for it. Happened every shell design after. 
    radarthekatcurtis hannah
  • Reply 37 of 82
    “But these go to XI...”
    You think this version is going to be hit in China? After all, it’s version ‘Xi’...

    I believe that’s going be an auspicious number for Apple. 
    edited April 2019 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 38 of 82
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,256member

    The same notch.
     At least Tim has plenty of time to draft his letter apologizing to investors about the drop of iPhone sales.
    perhaps he can just alter the last letter....change the date.
    Foolish nonsense. I have the X, no matter how much a notch offends you, i’ve spent exactly zero seconds thinking about it IRL. Yet I have noticed and admire the four round corners and lack of forehead or chin. 

    No one expected iphone sales to grow indefinitely. As the world was shifting from feature phones to smartphones, the demand would taper at some point. Everybody knew this. Yet despite non-growth in sales they made up for it in ASP and profit. That’s success and professional leadership. Only a complete idiot would fire a CEO for that. I assume you don’t invest?
    radarthekatroundaboutnow
  • Reply 39 of 82

    The same notch.
     At least Tim has plenty of time to draft his letter apologizing to investors about the drop of iPhone sales.
    perhaps he can just alter the last letter....change the date.
    Foolish nonsense. I have the X, no matter how much a notch offends you, i’ve spent exactly zero seconds thinking about it IRL. Yet I have noticed and admire the four round corners and lack of forehead or chin. 

    No one expected iphone sales to grow indefinitely. As the world was shifting from feature phones to smartphones, the demand would taper at some point. Everybody knew this. Yet despite non-growth in sales they made up for it in ASP and profit. That’s success and professional leadership. Only a complete idiot would fire a CEO for that. I assume you don’t invest?
    Actually - I am massively invested in Apple stock since 2006.  Did I suggest firing the CEO? 
    You don’t see the forehead on the iPhone? That’s - foolish nonsense (ur words).

    A massive drop in iPhone sales in 2019, 2020 will trigger another letter from Tim Cook.  That’s all I’m saying.  
    chemengin
  • Reply 40 of 82
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,542moderator
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    At first, and depending on the render, I wasn't sure if I liked the camera placement setup.

    Over time I've reached the conclusion that something seems wrong. It seems lopsided.

    There was talk of making them less visible in the final product. I hope that's the case.
    You always make me laugh!

    Seriously, Apple's configuration is likely not "cosmetic", but developed around an optimum placement of the three imagining sensors, for images, video and AR. We won't know until after it is delivered, but I'd bet that configuration will soon be copied by many of the Android OS device makers.

    Over time, I've come to the realization that you are really shallow.

    History would tell you that Apple doesn't spend a lot of time hiding function.
    Is that optimum in the sense of the hockey puck mouse?

    Please explain why this placement is more 'optimum' than the Mate 20 Pro placement? Even if it is only 'likely'.

    Or why not forget 'optimum' altogether and give your opinion on the cosmetic angle. You know, just in case 'optimum' doesn't eventually factor into anything.

    By the way, it should be clear that I am referring to the camera grouping and not the distribution within the grouping!
    Sorry, you lost us on the hockey puck mouse whataboutism.
    roundaboutnow
Sign In or Register to comment.