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



  • Reply 81 of 82
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,430member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 
    I think the iPhone 4 was considered a classic from the get go. No one 'pines' for it, though. It is a classic design where a lot of factors came together at the right time. Just like the Sawtooth Macs and Pismo laptops.

    Later designs have regularly been called boring due to the lack of change in shell design. 6,7 and 8 series earned them that reputation.

    There are only so many designs you can play off on a phone but you have to bring something to market to stand out. Apple largely failed at that for a few years.

    Two points that need to be resolved.

    Notches and slipperyness.

    Notches are an inevitable compromise. From Sharp first and then everyone else who wanted to maximise screen to body ratios.

    They don't bother me but were clearly a 2018 design element. Towards the end of 2018, sliding mechanisms, smaller notches and hole punches all came out as possible alternative options. Of all the options available, I think the wide notch is the worst. It doesn't do a great job maximising screen space as so little is left on either side.


    Apart from the other options already mentioned, I think the best alternative is to move the components out of the screen altogether and house them in the frame and a Pismo style curve. This would give the phone a new form factor without dominating the overall look.

    Slipperyness is a constant problem and with all glass phones, the consequences can be devastating. Again a Pismo style narrowing along the vertical frame would go a long way towards reducing drops resulting from phones slipping out of people's hands. 

    It is not the first time I have mentioned both ideas here.
    Yet again, you make me laugh!

    On a list of faults with the iPhone, slipperiness would rank about #35. It's an issue for you because you don't use one as your primary smartphone, and heres' why;


    • The ability to reproduce a particular movement without conscious thought, acquired as a result of frequent repetition of that movement.

      ‘typing relies heavily on muscle memory’
      ‘the secret to learning a technique like this is to do it over and over again until you have developed muscle memory’

    As far as a "boring" design, Apple already has definitive design cues throughout it's product line. If the design aesthetics was an issue, then you would see a huge drop in sales at each new design point. But that isn't the case, and certainly, not everyone is as focused on "fashion" as you are. 

    The fact that Apple's user base keeps growing, and users keep their iPhones longer, is a testament to the lack of "fashion" that Apple embodies. Good design is timeless.
    Muscle memory has nothing to do with slipperiness and there are plenty of reasons for it to fail. Age, neuropathologies, cold, sweat etc.

    There are design cues that would help to reduce drops and help people 'save the situation' when the phone is on the way out of their hand. Many phone cases are designed with the specific goal of reducing how slippery the phone is in the hand.

    People have been looking for years to create nano-costings to make things almost 'stick' to your hand.

    Apple doesn't give users a voice on design. If people want an iPhone they have to accept what Apple offers.

    As for definitive design cues, are you referring to flat and rectangular or something else.

    Pens and pencils have been around longer than iPhones and still look to sell on design. Believe me, while limited, there are still options to differentiate on smartphone design and it remains a key marketing factor.

    The edges of the iPhone 4 probably wouldn't work on a larger phone but there are still plenty of options. I am not focused on fashion but fashion is a driving element in marketing. It counts in the smartphone world.
    Muscle memory in this particular case, is your unconscious grip. "slipperiness" is friction, and a function to the surface area, frictional coefficient, and pressure. People that have good muscle memory will not have an issue gripping the phone. Others, as you state, would find a case to be the ideal solution. Either way, this isn't a notable issue.

    What you, as always, fail to acknowledge, is that the iPhone is, for the most part, a completely separate market from Android OS, What you consider necessary for competition in Android OS devices, is not necessarily relevant to the iPhone. 

    What is relevant is the size of the user base, and how long the user keeps the iPhone between upgrades. In the case of a user base that Apple stated as 900 million active iPhone users, a 5 year time span between upgrades is 180 million upgrades per year, on average. [900 million (and growing) / 5 years]. 
    From a handset perspective there is zero difference between user needs and desires and the two options are not 'mostly' completely different on a competition level either. That is why I will always fail to acknowledge what you claiming.

    They are different systems and that is all. There are very few reasons that prevent users moving from to another. In fact, with WeChat sitting atop Android or iOS there are even fewer reasons not to switch in places like China.

    If people don't switch, it is often to avoid changes in habits. They are simply comfortable with one system and stick with it. However, there are factors that can change that. The biggest is probably price. Then there are technical reasons (features), promotions among others.

    Of course the grass is greener on the other side is one of those others and marketing intensifies that angle.

    As for 900 million active users, 180 million upgrades and five year cycles, that is too vague to interpret. Some will upgrade on 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. Some will switch away and new users will come onboard. That makes it all too much of a guess, even if we are only talking about averages. Far more informative is what has already happened. Basically three flat years followed by a Q1-19 YoY drop. How many people here (of those like yourself) saw that coming?  None of you! You were trying to 'sell' the iPhone X as the great success but it seems to have run out of steam quickly.  So quickly that just months before Apple's profit warning you were pushing the 'most popular phone' line. Not popular enough to avoid a profit warning directly related to the iPhone business and Apple now stopping revealing iPhone quarterly shipments. What comes next is anybody's guess. There are simply too many unique factors involved. Imagine, for example, what might have happened if Apple hadn't secured access to a 5G modem. That is just one factor. What might have happened if Apple hadn't changed its iPhone business model in 2017. What might happen if the China/US situation turns nasty. Etc.


    Here's a comment that I came across about Huawei:

    Huawei: -

    100+ billion/yr in sales -
    Massive R&D spend -Underbidding competitors (sometimes by >50%) -
    Never fundraised from public markets -
    Claims profitability -
    Claims to not receive state subsidies -
    Claims to have never received state capital
    The math here doesn't add up.

    Of course, it would be easy to demonstrate that Huawei is in fact not closely connected to the CCP and Chinese Government, or receiving state aid and support, but it would require transparency like any public company in the West would have.

    That isn't likely to happen.
    It is not a publicly traded company. Not having as high a degree of transparency as a public listed company is the result of being private. It affords advantages like not catering to the whims of the market. It is one of the reasons Dell went private a few years ago. There are obvious disadvantages too, though.

    As for maths, it adds up when you look at revenues and how they spend them. Huge amounts have gone into R&D. More than many publicly listed companies. More than 20 R&D labs worldwide. Over 80,000 employees working in R&D. Last year, Huawei registered more patents than any other company on the planet. R&D has taken priority over maximising profit but profits remain healthy.

    Also, strategic partnerships. Lots of them. Last week they partnered with CATL which will allow both companies to advance battery performance.

    If there is any maths that doesn't add up is the narrative that they steal everything.

    Offering class leading equipment in many different technical spheres has led to success at the expense of others who have chosen to rest on their laurels. Samsung woke up. It's time for Apple to do likewise.

    Huawei's growth is putting the major players to shame. It won't last forever but it is a result of the products it offers.


    It's not a private company, excepting Ren's ownership. The rest is vague ownership by a trade union answering to the Chinese Government.



    Huawei can't refute this without more transparency, which they won't allow.

    I'm not knocking Huawei's growth, but it is almost certainly because of Huawei's ties to and support of the CCP and Chinese Government, which you dispute, with absolutely no evidence in support.

    Really, do you think it is fair competition for the EU, not to mention all others, that Huawei is supported financially by the Chinese Government, hence why Huawei can undercut other telecom providers? 

    Here's something on working for Lenovo and Huawei;


    "Boot camp and wolf culture

    In contrast, Huawei, with its military background, tends to have a culture that can encourage a battlefield-like mentality. This culture is often referred to at Huawei as “wolf culture,” a relentlessly aggressive approach, which one former employee described this way: “In Huawei, ‘wolf culture’ means you kill or be killed. I think the idea is that if you have everyone in the company competing fiercely with one another, the company will be better at fighting and competing with external threats.” If this seems like an unpleasant work environment, that partially seems to be by design. The former employee explained, “I don’t think Huawei seems to be very interested in making work ‘fun’ or ‘enjoyable.’ What Huawei looks for when recruiting is young, skilled people from fourth- or fifth-tier cities looking for their ‘first pot of gold’ [第一桶金 dìyī tǒng jīn],” using a phrase meaning the first opportunity that a person receives to make a lot of money, or to move into the middle class."

    Not a great place to work by Western Standards, especially contrasted with Lenovo.

    It's not for me to judge what is fair when the basis of the question is sitting on a perch of pure speculation.

    What isn't fair (if you want to go down that alley) is that in spite of managing speculative information with no real facts to counter what the company itself states, you have already formed an opinion based solely on your own bias.

    Huawei actually is under no obligation to be more transparent. It has made statements on its situation and we must accept them or formerly investigate them under common rules.

    To counter your question with a question, though, and extend that show of bias, is it fair for the US government to impede sales of Huawei handsets in the US without actually banning them for a specific reason? I'd say that isn't fair at all, as their is zero reason to use protectionism to thwart Huawei. That action alone is costing Huawei billions in lost revenue. Is it fair that the US tours the world 'ordering' other nations to stop using Huawei while simultaneously being unable to back up what it is saying? Even the recent claims by the CIA have nothing solid against Huawei. There are more billions lost there.

    'Fair' is sometimes harder to define than we think, but my opinion in this context is not based on speculation whereas yours is.

    Huawei effectively complies with what is asked of it. If any official body disputes that, it has to take action based on the results of its findings. Those findings need to be based on facts, though.

    The reality is that Huawei is growing strongly and impacting competitors negatively. Its accounts are audited independently and show that it is profitable and ploughing revenues back into R&D to produce competitive products.

    Time to get back on topic, don't you think?

    Do you actually like the camera grouping placement in this rumour from a design perspective?

    You probably don't realize this, but as of today, the word "Leica" is banned on social media by the Chinese Government. The why of that is pretty easy to find.

    China is not an environment where truth is easy to ferret out, and the reason for that, is the tight hold on journalism and the population by the CCP and the Chinese Government. Why should the West assume anything other than China serving its own best interests? Why should we believe Huawei without transparency.

    Heck, our CIA likely has more transparency to the world than Huawei does.

    For the record, no one will care a bit about the camera grouping placement, excepting you and a few others. It's all about the functionality that it will bring with iOS 13.

    You are still confusing China with Huawei.

    I think plenty of people will care about the design although, as has been rumoured, I hope they find a way to make the grouping less visible.
    Nope. I'm certainly not confused, and you certainly can't show anything that proves that Huawei isn't closely connected financially to the Chinese Government.

     Huawei needs to be transparent and show to the world who actually owns them. Without that, they are just another state sponsored Chinese business.
    I don't have to show anything. I'm not doing the accusing.

    Huawei has made many very clear statements on these subjects. If anyone thinks those statements are untrue and accuses them of that, then the onus is on them to disprove them. 

    What you are saying is 'as I'm incapable of proving what I claim, you have to prove that what I claim isn't true'.

    That is very poor in anybody's book. Remember, Huawei has already responded to the claims. This is just one of the latest responses:


    And to make matters worse you say this:

    "Without that, they are just another state sponsored Chinese business."

    What you are saying here is I am not going to believe a word you say until every one of them is demonstrated.

    Think about that for a second. Do you see a serious problem in there?
    edited April 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.