New super high-end iPhone could arrive by 2024

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,534member
    So they've been convincing me to get the ProMax phone for years. Now, $1200+ isn't good enough for Apple? They have to hold back features on that phone so they can create yet another cost level? This is the reward for loyalty over the years? Seems like the penalty for being a chump for years instead. I know this is conjecture at this point, but I don't doubt if Apple can get away with it, they will. And there will be plenty of people to defend Apple.

    Yes, I think Apple makes a good product. But there comes a point where it seems rather than a valued customer, Apple is just inventing new ways to make me spend more for what ends up being incremental updates on a yearly basis. I can't decide if I'm more upset with Apple, or myself...
    Part of Apple’s marketing strategy has always been to bring luxurious, aspirational, and inspirational products to the market. It’s never been simply about utility and just getting the job done or even bang for the buck. They’re tapping into the same buyer impulses that drive sales of jewelry and high performance luxury automobiles. 

    This is neither inherently good nor bad, it’s simply the market that they’ve decided to go after. Since there are a plethora of consumer choices for more utilitarian or cost conscious products in the same market, it’s all good. From Apple’s perspective there’s always motivation to continually raise the bar and see how far they can push their products to keep the customers they target coming back for more, even when the versions they currently own more than satisfy their needs.  

    Apple is masterful at constantly maintaining a delta between their customers needs and desires. But they don’t do it in trivial ways, like simply adding more bling to a product (which the also do, e.g., colors), because a lot of the desires they introduce are things their customers didn’t know they would desire, like health sensors in a watch or an elaborate camera array in a phone. 

    watto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 22 of 37
    omasouomasou Posts: 606member
    I don't buy it.

    Instead I could see them offering a more powerful iPhone with the Apple Glasses that is required to use the advanced AR features.
    rezwitsFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 23 of 37
    * sigh *

    It’s Gurman. It won’t happen. When the release date of the iPhone arrives in 2024, he’s have a “surprise” announcement, revise his “prediction,” saying Apple thought of doing this then declined. And he keeps is “prediction” rating high. 

    Take anything you hear from him with a HUGE grain of salt. 

    AppleInsider — stop quoting him!
  • Reply 24 of 37
    TerriZ said:
    I cannot wait to carry around a 30 inch iPhone.
    It will put iPad Pro to shame!
    rezwits
  • Reply 25 of 37
    Apple’s “super upgrades” are pretty darn disappointing the last years so I stay put, let the marketing crap
    dissolve and first will see what comes out here
  • Reply 26 of 37
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,584member
    If the cameras are significantly better, I’m in. But this is just a rumor for almost two years out. A lot can happen in that time.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 27 of 37
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,338member
    M68000 said:
    tshapi said:
    iPhone Ultra = iPhone fold.  This would justify significant cost increase and value  
    Definitely cost increase,  but maybe not value.  Unless you like an even heavier phone than the Max phones.
    If they use sapphire front and back they could make the make them both thinner and and save weight, but still have the strength of ceramic shield or stronger.. Same goes for replacing the Stainless Steel body with Titanium.. this would also aid in weight savings. As of repeat Max owner I would love for the weight to come down a bit without sacrificing durability or battery size.
  • Reply 28 of 37
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,920member
    In Ultra iPhone, besides all bells and whistles, like to see two way satellite messaging. USB-C TB4, WiFi 7, under screen touch id and face id.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 937member
    A n upgrade such as my Apple Watch Ultra is over the Series 8? I could see that. And more choices is a good thing. 
    edited February 2023
  • Reply 30 of 37
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,901member
    M68000 said:
    Many of you remember when things were simple,  you had iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus.   How times have changed.   It might be said there are already too many current models available. Simplicity has always been Apple mantra right?
    Yes, when Apple had a much smaller (and narrower) customer base, they could get away with a bare-bones line up.  Apple sold 125 million phones in 2022.  2 iPhone models cannot address the varied preferences of all those customers; if you don't offer what they want, they'll go to a competitor who offers it.  Imagine Toyota or Volkswagen, each of which sells roughly 10 million vehicles a year, just offering a line up of two models.
    logic2.6tht
  • Reply 31 of 37
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,955member
    avon b7 said:
    Over the last six years Apple has been very late to market with most of the cutting edge technologies which have rolled out on competing flagship phones, often years before Apple incorporates them. 

    This situation really began in 2017, which was when Apple took the right decision, IMO, to extend the model spread with iPhone X. 

    The iPhone/iPhone S strategy was only leading to competitors extending their leads in many areas. 

    Since the iPhone X Apple has increased the model spread to where we are now with the only bump in the road being last year's decision to use the previous years processors in a new model. 

    In spite of that bump, I believe Apple hit the right balance between not having enough models to cater to a broad spread of user needs and price points and having too many. 

    The rumored inclusion of an ultra high end model might stretch the product spread just a little too far but there might be some justification for it. 

    Apple has its yearly release cycle and subsequent blowout quarter. After release all attention switches to Android with most flagship manufacturers on a two-model per year cycle. One in February/March to coincide with MWC in Barcelona and another in readiness for the Christmas period. CES can also be used as a platform grabbing tool. 

    From just about every conceivable perspective, that release cycle is better than Apple’s. Any hiccup in the 'blowout' quarter could have major implications. Releasing phones twice a year keeps consumers focused on the product and attracts it away from competitors. Logistically, it has advantages too. 

    As far as this rumor goes, an expensive (read lower demand) ultra premium device, with cutting edge technologies and released early in the year might find its niche and allow Apple to test certain features in the real world prior to making them available on other models down the line once component pricing and availability are better. 
    Nah, you just have a misunderstanding of how Apple rolls. You dudes have been saying the same crap about Apple being “late” long before 2017. Have you forgotten about how Apple was “late” with NFC chips? OLED? Netbooks? Etc etc. Nope…Apple is not interesting in being “first!” with some crappy knockoff’s implementation like your Chinese junk brand. 

    Gruber wrote about this over a decade ago. 

    https://www.macworld.com/article/205387/apple-rolls.html
  • Reply 32 of 37
    Wireless charging is way too slow. Put a USB-C port on it and be done with it. 
  • Reply 33 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    avon b7 said:
    Over the last six years Apple has been very late to market with most of the cutting edge technologies which have rolled out on competing flagship phones, often years before Apple incorporates them. 

    This situation really began in 2017, which was when Apple took the right decision, IMO, to extend the model spread with iPhone X. 

    The iPhone/iPhone S strategy was only leading to competitors extending their leads in many areas. 

    Since the iPhone X Apple has increased the model spread to where we are now with the only bump in the road being last year's decision to use the previous years processors in a new model. 

    In spite of that bump, I believe Apple hit the right balance between not having enough models to cater to a broad spread of user needs and price points and having too many. 

    The rumored inclusion of an ultra high end model might stretch the product spread just a little too far but there might be some justification for it. 

    Apple has its yearly release cycle and subsequent blowout quarter. After release all attention switches to Android with most flagship manufacturers on a two-model per year cycle. One in February/March to coincide with MWC in Barcelona and another in readiness for the Christmas period. CES can also be used as a platform grabbing tool. 

    From just about every conceivable perspective, that release cycle is better than Apple’s. Any hiccup in the 'blowout' quarter could have major implications. Releasing phones twice a year keeps consumers focused on the product and attracts it away from competitors. Logistically, it has advantages too. 

    As far as this rumor goes, an expensive (read lower demand) ultra premium device, with cutting edge technologies and released early in the year might find its niche and allow Apple to test certain features in the real world prior to making them available on other models down the line once component pricing and availability are better. 
    Nah, you just have a misunderstanding of how Apple rolls. You dudes have been saying the same crap about Apple being “late” long before 2017. Have you forgotten about how Apple was “late” with NFC chips? OLED? Netbooks? Etc etc. Nope…Apple is not interesting in being “first!” with some crappy knockoff’s implementation like your Chinese junk brand. 

    Gruber wrote about this over a decade ago. 

    https://www.macworld.com/article/205387/apple-rolls.html
    Over a decade later, Gruber was wrong. In that time Apple has completely changed its iPhone business model. 

    It did it because 'iterating' wasn't cutting it.

    Hence a completely new model to the release cycle in 2016 (iPhone Se) and again in 2017 (iPhone X). Then even more models were added.

    That's more than iteration but let's run with the Gruver mantra for a moment. Depending on how you define 'iteration' everybody does it, they just do it faster. 

    If course, your throwing the 'iteration' hat into the ring is just a distraction from what is really happening, and that's what I pointed out. 

    Apple has played catch up ('scrambled' is a better word) for the last six years. 

    Iteration cannot justify sticking with a 5W charger for a decade. Iteration cannot explain Apple not providing camera features which literally mean you get a picture or you don't (low light photography for example). Iteration cannot explain the absence of reversed wired charging.

    It's not like they are running slow in the iPhone release cycle. They make sure every year end has a new model ready to go and a new iOS number. Those iOS shifts could definitely benefit from not being so fast! 

    It's almost 'normal' now to see Apple release something, wreak havoc on users, and then pull the release until it gets fixed. The HomeKit architecture update comes to mind. That was an update that should have been failsafe and bulletproof - but wasn't. 

    The reason for the yearly cycle is that the iPhone, to this day, remains the number one revenue generator.

    The real issue was that Apple was drip feeding features to users. Making them wait. That brings with it another problem. Your competitors are, ehem, 'iterating' on a two model per year cycle and the result is that you drop further and further behind. It becomes so embarrassing that Apple watchers simply start ignoring those flagship features and imagining they don't exist. That is of course until they do and then it's 'magic'.

    That, or they make up other excuses. You yourself use the Gruber card like a kind of Joker card.

    Then there is the chip side of things. Apple is faster! Really? When things are 'instant' , faster than instant is worthless. iPhone users get a new phone knowing it's the 'fastest iPhone ever' but don't really see a big improvement in CPU performance terms because their everyday use doesn't push things enough. That was until last year of course when Apple released a new phone with the previous year's processor. 'Iteration!' I hear you say. Really?

    So, where are we now? 

    I'd say Apple has done pretty well over the last couple of years in bringing the most needed flagship features over from the Android world. The features that are truly needed and that impact users' lives on a daily basis. Tri-cameras, low light, faster charging, wireless charging, 5G etc. 

    It had a momentous 'Yikes!' moment with the whole 5G/Qualcomm thing and ended up 'licking the toad' but it was able to ship something at least. In hindsight, given the rumored issues Apple is having with producing its homebrew 5G modem, that is just as well. If not, we might have had a repeat of the 5W charger situation. A ten year wait for 5G!

    But as soon as 5G landed on iPhone, Apple spent no time in whooping it all up. No wonder! While 5G was a bit of a mess in the US, in the rest of the world it was gaining traction faster than any other generational implementation before it and China is one of Apple’s key markets. 

    No doubt you'd be trying to justify any delays by claiming 'nah, it's just the way Apple rolls'. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 37
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,304member
    I just want both Pro models to continue to have the  same bells & whistles.
    omasou
  • Reply 35 of 37
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,584member
    JP234 said:
    JP234 said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Make sense.  It’ll be odd just to just have a single Pro model without different performance.
    I don't think it would be odd at all. The only difference between the iPhone 14 Pro and the iPhone 14 Pro Max is the screen size and obviously the bigger battery due to the larger size. That's a good thing in my view. I feel like if you want a smaller phone then get the Pro and if you want a bigger phone then get the Pro Max. I hate being penalized just because I prefer a smaller phone.
    What "penalty" are you suffering? I prefer a smaller phone, too. It has to fit sideways in my bicycling jersey pocket so it doesn't fall out. The 2020 SE works just fine, and there's nothing I feel like I'm missing with the smaller screen.
    The penalty was with the 12 Pro. The Pro Max had a 47% larger camera sensor and had 2.5X zoom instead of 2X zoom. I felt like I was missing out because I wanted the smaller size. I would be fine with the SE size as long as it has the same specs, but it doesn’t. The main thing for me is that the phone can fit in my front pocket, which the Pro Max does not. I usually go with the Pro because it fits in my front pocket. I was worried about the 6 when it first came out but I waited for the user experience accounts and then confidently purchased the 6S knowing that it would be fine in my front pocket. I see a large number of people with their phone in the back pocket, but I don’t want to do that.
    I'm not sure I get it. Is that extra .5x zoom that important to you? If so, maybe you need one of those man purses so popular in Europe so you can use the Pro Max?
    Really? Is that insult the best response you could have given?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 37
    avon b7 said:
    Over the last six years Apple has been very late to market with most of the cutting edge technologies which have rolled out on competing flagship phones, often years before Apple incorporates them. 

    This situation really began in 2017, which was when Apple took the right decision, IMO, to extend the model spread with iPhone X. 

    The iPhone/iPhone S strategy was only leading to competitors extending their leads in many areas. 

    Since the iPhone X Apple has increased the model spread to where we are now with the only bump in the road being last year's decision to use the previous years processors in a new model. 

    In spite of that bump, I believe Apple hit the right balance between not having enough models to cater to a broad spread of user needs and price points and having too many. 

    The rumored inclusion of an ultra high end model might stretch the product spread just a little too far but there might be some justification for it. 

    Apple has its yearly release cycle and subsequent blowout quarter. After release all attention switches to Android with most flagship manufacturers on a two-model per year cycle. One in February/March to coincide with MWC in Barcelona and another in readiness for the Christmas period. CES can also be used as a platform grabbing tool. 

    From just about every conceivable perspective, that release cycle is better than Apple’s. Any hiccup in the 'blowout' quarter could have major implications. Releasing phones twice a year keeps consumers focused on the product and attracts it away from competitors. Logistically, it has advantages too. 

    As far as this rumor goes, an expensive (read lower demand) ultra premium device, with cutting edge technologies and released early in the year might find its niche and allow Apple to test certain features in the real world prior to making them available on other models down the line once component pricing and availability are better. 


    Yes. If the Pro models are a cheaper version of the Ultra of that spring... Hmmm... Might work.
Sign In or Register to comment.