Plastic instead of aluminium could signal two-tier iPhone range
I was amazed by the first iPhone. To get a product this right first time round was nothing short of miraculous. It shows just how good Apple has become in figuring out how to combine first-class product design, with state-of-the-art electrical engineering and high quality mass production techniques. it made you kinda wonder what they'd do for an encore.
So here we are, a year down the line and along comes the iPhone 3G. Battery technology has caught-up with 3G technology and a larger capacity battery (that actually makes the iPhone sit better in your hand) along with the faster download capabilities of a 3G mobile chip add significantly greater functionality to it. Longer stand-by/ talk times and faster page loading times are a real bonus. Meanwhile GPS adds another dimension to the iPhone's usefulness while improvements to the software in version 2.0 perfect what was already excellent by smart-phone standards. in short, what we have seen here is a significant ramping up of features and performance.
What's not to like? A number of iPhone fans were disappointed that video calling wasn't added, nor a better camera, nor cut and paste in the software. I guess you can't have everything at once. Adding too many new features at the same time creates a higher risk of something not working as it should. (We all remember iPod batteries not delivering quite the performance we had hoped for.) In fact,Ii am sure these features will be added come the next version in 2009, but the problem is that not everyone wants them. instead, Apple has focused on what matters.
I was disappointed that Apple should choose to make iPhone 3G out of plastic - come on Jonathan (Ive), you're forgetting your usual ruthless attention to perfection. Even the Green Lobby thinks iPhone 3G should be still made of aluminium. I don't give a s**t about a commitment to recycling, i just don't want a phone that shatters if i drop it accidently. But when you consider this choice in more detail, you can see exactly where Apple is headed and the answer is a two-tier model range.
My prediction is that iPhone 3G will become the entry model while a new model (more than likely made out of aluminium again) will arrive offering a better camera, video calling and other cool features. It'll be like MacBook and MacBook Pro. So i think Apple will move to dual product range. I think that could arrive as soon as January 2009.
Any thoughts on this perspective?
So here we are, a year down the line and along comes the iPhone 3G. Battery technology has caught-up with 3G technology and a larger capacity battery (that actually makes the iPhone sit better in your hand) along with the faster download capabilities of a 3G mobile chip add significantly greater functionality to it. Longer stand-by/ talk times and faster page loading times are a real bonus. Meanwhile GPS adds another dimension to the iPhone's usefulness while improvements to the software in version 2.0 perfect what was already excellent by smart-phone standards. in short, what we have seen here is a significant ramping up of features and performance.
What's not to like? A number of iPhone fans were disappointed that video calling wasn't added, nor a better camera, nor cut and paste in the software. I guess you can't have everything at once. Adding too many new features at the same time creates a higher risk of something not working as it should. (We all remember iPod batteries not delivering quite the performance we had hoped for.) In fact,Ii am sure these features will be added come the next version in 2009, but the problem is that not everyone wants them. instead, Apple has focused on what matters.
I was disappointed that Apple should choose to make iPhone 3G out of plastic - come on Jonathan (Ive), you're forgetting your usual ruthless attention to perfection. Even the Green Lobby thinks iPhone 3G should be still made of aluminium. I don't give a s**t about a commitment to recycling, i just don't want a phone that shatters if i drop it accidently. But when you consider this choice in more detail, you can see exactly where Apple is headed and the answer is a two-tier model range.
My prediction is that iPhone 3G will become the entry model while a new model (more than likely made out of aluminium again) will arrive offering a better camera, video calling and other cool features. It'll be like MacBook and MacBook Pro. So i think Apple will move to dual product range. I think that could arrive as soon as January 2009.
Any thoughts on this perspective?
Comments
..........
I was disappointed that Apple should choose to make iPhone 3G out of plastic - come on Jonathan (Ive), you're forgetting your usual ruthless attention to perfection.
First there is nothing wrong with plastic. Second Aluminum is very expensive to refine due to MASSIVE energy requirements.
Even the Green Lobby thinks iPhone 3G should be still made of aluminium.
Each and everyone of those shiftless lazy greens can rot in hell. It is extremely sad to realize that the so called Green Lobby hasn't spent a single day trying to make the world a better place.
I don't give a s**t about a commitment to recycling, i just don't want a phone that shatters if i drop it accidently. But when you consider this choice in more detail, you can see exactly where Apple is headed and the answer is a two-tier model range.
Huh? There is nothing to indicate that the move to plastic has anything to do with tiering of the model range. I'd be the first to jump and say Apple needs and will come out with additional phone models. IT is a requirement to compete fully in the market place. That does not however mean the use of plastic has anything to do with marketing of the product.
My prediction is that iPhone 3G will become the entry model while a new model (more than likely made out of aluminium again) will arrive offering a better camera, video calling and other cool features. It'll be like MacBook and MacBook Pro. So i think Apple will move to dual product range. I think that could arrive as soon as January 2009.
Garbage. The problem is simple, the more antennas you need in a device the more transparent it needs to be to RF energy. At some point you either will have good RF performance or you will have a metal back for people that don't know better. There are already indications that the new iPhone does much better with respect to RF performance so one can suggest that Apple made the right choice.
Any thoughts on this perspective?
Yeah, think long an hard about posting in ways that might result in negative performance on new devices just so you can have your damn precious metal back. Some of us make use of our cell phones more than 100 feet from the tower and as such expect the phone to be able to keep up its end of the deal.
Second it is obvious that Apple will have to expand its cell phone line up. As such I might be interested in one of those devices, the last thing I want to see is one compromised by incessant whining from some one more concerned about form over function. I want each and ever new model that comes from Apple to perform well as performance is always a significant portion of the equation.
Dave
Now, to address your feedback.
Plastic on iPhone 3G was chosen for one reason and one reason alone. Cost.
The first iPhone works fine. Of all the comments i've heard over the last year, I haven't come across one complaint about reception. That said, I too have read that 3G needs a better antenna and plastic makes for better reception. However, no one likes plastic. Objectively, it may not be less durable or robust than aluminium, but metal has a feel about it that says quality and strength. We hear that Apple intends to migrate its entire notebook line to aluminium precisely because it represents the best compromise between durability and recyclability.
Moreover, Steve Jobs was also very specific about price being an issue among people who wanted an iPhone but who hadn't yet bought one. Apple made iPhone 1.0 too expensive. Plastic is cheaper. No brainer for iPhone 3G to have plastic back instead of an aluminium one. But bye bye perceived quality.
Apple has done very well selling iphones for $399. The six million or so people who bought them for this price will happily buy another for the same price if not more. Why sell them one for $199 when you can sell one for $399? If this logic makes sense, and I believe it does, is it beyond the bounds of possibility to expect Apple to bring it a second iPhone priced above $199 with more bells and whistles? If it does give us such a machine, then you can bet that plastic won't cut it.
Once again I find the tone of one of your responses rude, offensive and unnecessary. ...
Whether necessary or not, Wizard69's response is the type expected to your post. Virtually everything that you say is profoundly and completely wrong. However, you want to be offended while you clamor for the moral high ground.
Plastic on iPhone 3G was chosen for one reason and one reason alone. Cost.
Wrong. You have absolutely zero (0) evidence to support your assertion that an aluminum iPhone is more expensive to manufacture than a plastic one.
The first iPhone works fine. Of all the comments i've heard over the last year, I haven't come across one complaint about reception. That said, I too have read that 3G needs a better antenna and plastic makes for better reception. However, no one likes plastic. Objectively, it may not be less durable or robust than aluminium, but metal has a feel about it that says quality and strength. We hear that Apple intends to migrate its entire notebook line to aluminium precisely because it represents the best compromise between durability and recyclability.
I own an iPhone. I love my iPhone. However, I have no evidence that plastic won't improve its reception, not just for the phone service, but also for the Wi-Fi reception. Certainly the plastic-cased iBook had better Wi-Fi reception than Apple's titanium- and aluminum-cased laptops. I would expect the same to be case with the iPhone.
Where is your evidence that "no one likes plastic"? Have you spoken to everyone? Do you mean to say that there is not even one weirdo somewhere who prefers to plastic to aluminum? Not one?
Apple has done very well selling iphones for $399. The six million or so people who bought them for this price will happily buy another for the same price if not more. Why sell them one for $199 when you can sell one for $399? If this logic makes sense, and I believe it does, is it beyond the bounds of possibility to expect Apple to bring it a second iPhone priced above $199 with more bells and whistles? If it does give us such a machine, then you can bet that plastic won't cut it.
You seem to blithely ignore the fact--at least the informed speculation--that the new iPhone will be cheaper not because it is cheaper to make but because AT&T will pick-up part of the tab.
Although I do agree that a two tier iPhone range is less than a year away.
So here we are, a year down the line and along comes the iPhone 3G. Battery technology has caught-up with 3G technology
Be careful you don't drown in the Steve Job's Kool-Aid won't you?
I have had and have used 3G phones for 5 years and the only time I ever had an issue with battery life was the very first one I owned. From Nokias to Blackberries I have enjoyed the fast speeds combined with decent battery length.
The idea that battery life was good enough for 3G devices was an idea that Steve Jobs first planted to avoid the question as to why there was no 3G support in iPhone 1.0. But it was not true, only a very common marketing ploy used often to try and disguise features that your own product may be lacking. Last year these boards were full of posts about how the lack of 3G was a great thing as wifi was better, 3G is slow, no coverage, drains batteries blah, blah, blah...
Now hear how 3G is amazing and so fast, better than wifi because it is truly mobile etc.. etc..
Rather like your idea that the lack of a front camera is a good thing, rubbish notion I am afraid. Again, many 3G phones have managed to have cameras on the front with no problems.
At the moment the iPhone is well behind the technology curve that most real phone manufacturers are on and are just leading on the design front, which to be honest is exactly where Apple sits with its whole product range. Apple do not really break new ground in technology anymore at all, they follow everyone else. They just do it in a much more stylish and well designed way.
Be careful you don't drown in the Steve Job's Kool-Aid won't you?
I have had and have used 3G phones for 5 years and the only time I ever had an issue with battery life was the very first one I owned. From Nokias to Blackberries I have enjoyed the fast speeds combined with decent battery length.
The idea that battery life was good enough for 3G devices was an idea that Steve Jobs first planted to avoid the question as to why there was no 3G support in iPhone 1.0. But it was not true, only a very common marketing ploy used often to try and disguise features that your own product may be lacking.....
Nah, I would say as little as within the past 2 years my Sony Ericsson V600i (Vodafone Australia) has much, much better battery life on 2G. Before that in 2003-2004 my Motorola (3/ Hutchinson) brand-spanking-new 3G phone was absolutely hideous. I kept trying to "lose" it but some kind soul always found it and contacted me. That was the last time I would ever touch a Moto.
I would say that it is the major mobile phone companies and telcos that have shoved Kool-Aid up our *ahems* with the promise of "3G mobility will changey your life and we all super happy yay yay !!!!".
It is Apple that finally may deliver the true promise of 3G for which we have salivated for since the start of this millenium.
...At the moment the iPhone is well behind the technology curve that most real phone manufacturers are on and are just leading on the design front, which to be honest is exactly where Apple sits with its whole product range. Apple do not really break new ground in technology anymore at all, they follow everyone else. They just do it in a much more stylish and well designed way.
Yup, this has been the same argument over and over again of why people don't like using Mac computers. Yes, Apple does not break new ground in technology anymore...
Apple is doing what it always has, challenging our very notion of what we think technological advancement is.
Until the iPhone came along, mobile phone technology has been cool, but there was something missing. Use an iPhone or an iPod touch, and with the "mobile PDA smartphone" thing... You will probably feel that something *has* been achieved, and something *new* is being done, even if it doesn't use the latest Intel SuperDuperNuclearAtom chips.
In any case, just remember who really started popular use of USB, FireWire/IEE11394, 802.11b, 802.11n... oh, multi-touch mobile devices...
I tried a Dell Axim in 2004 with Windows Mobile, and it was really, really terrible to use. Honestly.
I'm not saying Apple is for everyone on earth, or that they are the epitome of perfection. However arguments of "just stylish and well designed way of presenting [outdated] technology", is usually not a valid argument. Apple doesn't do things like take a Vaio, strip out the casing, design some fancy thing around it, and repackage it as "voila". Not with the level of sophistication that OS X now has. Have you even used iLife'08 or iWork'08?
I have had and have used 3G phones for 5 years and the only time I ever had an issue with battery life was the very first one I owned. From Nokias to Blackberries I have enjoyed the fast speeds combined with decent battery length.
The idea that battery life was good enough for 3G devices was an idea that Steve Jobs first planted to avoid the question as to why there was no 3G support in iPhone 1.0. But it was not true, only a very common marketing ploy used often to try and disguise features that your own product may be lacking. Last year these boards were full of posts about how the lack of 3G was a great thing as wifi was better, 3G is slow, no coverage, drains batteries blah, blah, blah...
Your definition of decent battery life is different from Apple's or others, as it is quite definitive that 3G radios and circuitry drain consume about 2x more energy than 2G radios and circuitry. All you need to do is look at the talk time ratings for 2G versus 3G. Apple's iPhone 3G quote 10 hours on 2G and 5 hours on 3G. The previous iPhone EDGE would have had a 3.5 hr talk time assuming that they could squeeze in hardware. Only phones this year are quoting 5+ hr talk time on 3G. Last year, 3 to 4 hour talk on 3G was about the average. The only phone that did really well last year with 3G was the Blackjack II with 5 to 6 hr talk time, but they pulled that off through using a monster battery.
Unfortunately, Apple is trying to attract a wide range of customers, not just you, and has a sealed in battery design to boot, and talk-time performance is kind of important in that case. So yeah, it is an absolutely reasonable reason for not including 3G hardware in the iPhone last year.
Rather like your idea that the lack of a front camera is a good thing, rubbish notion I am afraid. Again, many 3G phones have managed to have cameras on the front with no problems.
How often do you use a front facing camera (for presumably video conferencing)? Honest question.
At the moment the iPhone is well behind the technology curve that most real phone manufacturers are on and are just leading on the design front, which to be honest is exactly where Apple sits with its whole product range. Apple do not really break new ground in technology anymore at all, they follow everyone else. They just do it in a much more stylish and well designed way.
Yup. Apple isn't in the game to be the most bleeding edge phone out there. They are in the game to produce the most user friendly (easy to use, fun to use, productive to use) and elegant product. That's their niche. However, they do have the largest screen in the smallest form factor phone. That may not be bleeding edge design, but it certainly makes the non-phone functions of the devices much more useful.
One of the disappointments I have with the iPhone 3G is that Apple didn't make the screen larger! They had room to put a 3.7" screen in there, maybe with 720x480 resolution, but that is not the path they took. They wanted to drive the cost down as much as they could, so only included 3G and GPS hardware, and kept all other functionality the same. Those parts are definitely cheaper this year than they were last year. It wouldn't surprise me if it only costs $150 to produce the iPhone 3G.
As to the original question, it's quite obvious that Apple will eventually have a multiple tiered phone lineup and will likely produce a phone at a $399 and $499 price point in the future. A 32 GB version will probably be released in January at the $399 price point, when 32 GB flash (single SD card sized package) becomes more affordable. That's the only thing I'd expect.
Next Summer, in 2009, it's possible they rework the current iPhone 3G so as it'll be cheaper to produce for the lower pricing tiers and may ship a new higher cost version with more features (and not necessarily features people are wanting currently either).
Anyway, it's only a "two-tier" range if Apple continues making the old model, which they won't.
One of the disappointments I have with the iPhone 3G is that Apple didn't make the screen larger! They had room to put a 3.7" screen in there, maybe with 720x480 resolution, but that is not the path they took....
After the iPhone 3G, they want to make a cooler, smaller MacBook Air, not a bigger iPhone...
After the iPhone 3G, they want to make a cooler, smaller MacBook Air, not a bigger iPhone...
Hehe, but I think it is doable to put a 3.7" screen in the current sized iPhone.
If you look at the iPhone 3G, the bezel now is bigger due to the reduced size of the chrome trim. They can put in a 3.7" screen if they want to, and the 720x480 resolution actually has smaller DPI than phones that have shipped before or about to ship. With the iPhone design, having as large of a screen as possible is vitally important. Every square inch larger they can make it helps its usability. The higher DPI is debatable, but it will help with legibility in Safari, which would be a big win. It'll be a lot of work to reword the UI for higher DPI though, but if everything is based on Interface Builder, it shouldn't be that hard except for shipping multiple bitmaps for each screen resolution and size Apple ships.
More likely that a plastic back attenuates the RF less.
I don't know the antenna patterns or the frequencies involved, but plastic will attenuate the RF less.
Sealed metal boxes form Faraday Shields and block RF signals. The more sealed the box is the more the RF is blocked. Windows and opening is the box will permit different RF frequencies to escape at different levels. To get the least RF attenuation for the most frequencies you want to stay away from metal boxes of any kind. (There is truth in the old joke about tin foil hats.)
I'm not saying Apple is for everyone on earth, or that they are the epitome of perfection. However arguments of "just stylish and well designed way of presenting [outdated] technology", is usually not a valid argument. Apple doesn't do things like take a Vaio, strip out the casing, design some fancy thing around it, and repackage it as "voila". Not with the level of sophistication that OS X now has. Have you even used iLife'08 or iWork'08?
Of course I have, I have been using Apple computers for a few years now. I currently own a Mac Book Pro for my home stuff and have a Dell for my work.
My Mac Book Pro is not a year old yet and really has become quite useless, 3 keys have stopped working, it fails to wake from sleep half the time and often freezes. Time to send it away to the doctors before the warranty expires. My dell btw is slightly older and yet has yet to experience any kind of problem.
I appreciate the elegance of Apple design and simplicity of OSX and will continue to use Apple products at home, my wife is even considering buying an iPhone next month. Don't confuse not being a Steve Jobs fetishist with being an Apple hater!!
I never said that battery life on 3G was not as good as on 2G, what I clearly said was that 3G phones have been around for many years now and many have managed to work very well with enough battery life to get through a day for even a heavy business user such as myself. The idea that battery life has finally caught up with 3G technology is just silly. You should have said that it is Apple that has finally caught up with 3G technology. Most devices give you the ability to turn off your 3G radio when not in use, this ensures that the battery can last a long time while giving you the 3G data speeds when you need.
A clear example of why Apple is very late to the 3G party is that up to now no macbook has yet to include 3G wireless inside the box.
...
A clear example of why Apple is very late to the 3G party is that up to now no macbook has yet to include 3G wireless inside the box.
As difficult as this is to believe, the MacBook is not a phone.
But as with any generalization, there are always exceptions. If willing to consider plastic on it's merits, it is obviously an ideal material for many applications. It simply gets a bad name because, being inexpensive, it is used in many places where other material would actually be superior. But to assume that plastic is always bad is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is flawed thinking to start with the premise that plastic is bad, or that it is indicative of an inferior product. In my opinion, pocket computers (aka: iPhones) are a perfect application for plastics. It is impact resistant, non-fading, inexpensive, (can) hide scratches, easily moldable, and RF-transparent.
What's not to like? Perhaps a lack of bling? One could always buy a $400 pen instead and call it quits. Seems like that would serve the same purpose.
As difficult as this is to believe, the MacBook is not a phone.
And as difficult as this is to believe 3G in the rest of the world is seen as a high speed, mobile data technology. Hence why 3G in laptops is a great thing to have, often much better than wifi. It is not only for phones, in fact I know people who's only internet connection at home is a 3G connection.
A clear example of why Apple is very late to the 3G party is that up to now no macbook has yet to include 3G wireless inside the box.
It's not that clear. There's no reason to add 3G to MacBooks until it's saturated in the market.
And as difficult as this is to believe 3G in the rest of the world is seen as a high speed, mobile data technology.
Again, as amazing as it may seem, like many members of this forum, I don't live in the rest of the world. I live and work in the USA where 3G availability is very spotty. Only three metro areas in my state have it. However, this is a dramatic expansion of 3G coverage in the year since the iPhone first went on sale. When did 3G reach your home and place of work?
Hence why 3G in laptops is a great thing to have,
3G is great to have if it is available where you live, work, shop, or go to school. For the vast majority of AT&T customers in the USA, 3G coverage has not yet reached the level of a promise. For subscribers to other service providers, it isn't even a consideration. Why should the vast majority of US MacBook customers pay for something that they cannot use?
often much better than wifi. It is not only for phones, in fact I know people who's only internet connection at home is a 3G connection.
Oh, come on. Wi-Fi is 50% faster than 3G--unless you are stealing service from your neighbors in the apartment two doors down.