I think there are three desires/expectations that are being conflated with each other:
A larger screen size
A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).
I think there are three desires/expectations that are being conflated with each other:
A larger screen size
A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).
One of Apple's strengths is good industrial design. A new design for the i5 would be for more than looking cool - it would make the form more closely follow the function. So a new design would do something practical too. Maybe make it more comfortable to hold, maybe house a bigger or better screen, maybe be made of lighter, stronger materials or a new way of sandwiching things together, etc.
IMO, people are so used to Apple's design enhancing functionality that they implicitly assume it would happen in a major new iPhone (that looks different too). Not just a new design, but a better design.
I think there are three desires/expectations that are being conflated with each other:
A larger screen size
A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).
I agree, but would go further and just say that (3) is an entirely irrational "want" otherwise.
IMO everyone who is talking about a "redesigned iPhone" is really talking about wanting a bigger screen (or at least a bigger, flatter, iPhone more in line with the recent Android phones).
1) Apple meant to introduce the iPhone 5 but couldn't because of design/production delays.
2) They come up with the 5 in a few months making the 4S obsolete.
I will NOT be disappointed if:
1) The 4S will last for a year as the latest model.
2) It has a little bit bigger screen and all the other upgraded goodies inside.
The thinner design, the aluminum back etc. would be nice but the existing iP4 is also a beautiful piece of equipment. Could it be possible that the leaked designs are for next year's phone as they start working on the next phone a couple of years before release?
Just because someone says he will be disappointed if Apple doesn't launch their dream-phone doesn't make him an "Apple-hater". If anything, the opposite assumption would be more logical.
Except that's not what they said.
They said things like "no one will buy it" and "Apple is incompetent if they can't do more than a 4S" and "Android is so far ahead of Apple" and other things which are presented as fact but are nothing but inane, misguided opinions.
There's copious mention of aluminum backs here. One problem - antenna.
Recall the aluminum back on the original iPhone? They had to mix in a plastic panel for the antenna to work. Ive hates design features that stand out and distract from the only thing that matters on the iPhone - the screen. So we won't see that again. They also won't likely return to the plastic back again.
On the iPad, the antenna is behind the plastic logo. But they would need a rather large logo on the back of the alleged iPhone 5 for voice, data, etc. to all work. Again, this goes against their design ethos.
It's possible for them to include the external antenna band with an aluminum back. But because the depth (or height) of the band will be shrinking (because of rounded edge of the back), it would have to grow in thickness outward (because the amount of material matters in antenna design). This is not how Apple likes to design its products.
So, as much as Apple likes to use a common design language across its products, I don't see them adopting the iPad 2 design for the iPhone. Aluminum back is likely gone for good, for reasons stated.
And since the two-and-a-half-year-old 3GS sells better than any new Android phone?
Exactly. Furthermore, how much different does the Galaxy S2 look compared to the original? The differences are subtle, but the S2 is getting rave reviews.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
So? what's your point? The first-gen looks the best of any of the iPhones. LiquidMetal is radio transparent, so the entire back can be one piece, no seams, no plastic.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
Is it? I didn't thinking being a glassy metal meant it was a form of "a hard, brittle substance, typically transparent or translucent, made by fusing sand with soda, lime, and certain other ingredients." I thought it was a term made to refer to an amoprhous metal.
So… what's your point? The first-gen looks the best of any of the iPhones. LiquidMetal is radio transparent, so the entire back can be one piece, no seams, no plastic.
Liquidmetal is radio transparent? Very odd general statement to make, given that it is a material already used to make antennae.
Is it? I didn't thinking being a glassy metal meant it was a form of "a hard, brittle substance, typically transparent or translucent, made by fusing sand with soda, lime, and certain other ingredients." I thought it was a term made to refer to an amoprhous metal.
You're right that liquidmetal is amorphous metal (and brittle, etc., etc). But amorphous metal is indeed a form of glass, or more precisely metallic glass. Conversely, glass is an amorphous solid that can be changed (typically by heat) into a molten state. Metallic glass (or liquidmetal) also shares this property, which is why it can be shaped by thermoforming processes.
Although the most commonly known glass is the soda lime variety with a high percentage of silica, it is not the only type of glass.
I do not know whether liquidmetal can be made truly transparent (I'm sure someone can look it up). But that does not matter because the back of the iPhone will not be transparent. I do wonder if that's where liquidmetal will be used.
The beauty of liquidmetal is that, by changing its composition, you can change its properties. It is a wonderful material for antennae. Perhaps that's where we will see it.
Already, Apple has shipped an iPhone part made of liquidmetal, BTW.
Apple will unveil one new phone: the 4s. It will be made using cheaper components, and will save Apple a boatload of money. It will carry the same pricing as the iPhone 4. No mention of the iPhone 5 until October 2012.
OPTIMISTIC PREDICTION:
Apple will come out with the 4s, however each model will be $100 cheaper than last year's version. The iPhone 4 will become the entry level, $49 unit. Maybe a hint or two at the iPhone 5, but no model.
PREDICTION THAT WON'T HAPPEN:
Apple will unveil two new phones: the 4S and 5. The iPhone 5 will be powered by magic unicorn farts and fairy dust, and will have a 4 inch screen.
I never expected Apple to drastically redesign the iPhone just one year after a major redesign. It costs too much R&D, and if you upgrade when the redesigns come out, then you have to wait 2 years anyway because of your phone carrier contract. Apple is rewarding those in that cycle, and the people 1 year out of cycle get a speed bump. This year's speed bump will come (hopefully) with huge software updates to make it worthwhile. I always expected a 4S and not a 5.
Those who want to upgrade will, and those who don't will wait until next year.
They said things like "no one will buy it" and "Apple is incompetent if they can't do more than a 4S" and "Android is so far ahead of Apple" and other things which are presented as fact but are nothing but inane, misguided opinions.
Nobody said that. People disappointed with Apple are potential iPhone 5 purchasers.
In saner parts of the internet, and other forums generally sympathetic to Apple, the general reaction in comments is: "If this is all it is, I am not buying it".
Clearly, this is not an ideal situation. Probably not for Apple either. Unless people think that Ive's team got the year off then they probably have spent 18-24 months on a new phone. Whatever they came up with has apparently been rejected, or didn't work in mass production.
There is the missing wow factor. The fact that - unless the 3GS is continued - there will be one model of iPhone, with different internals. So while Android phones change drastically between June 2010 and October 2012, Apple stays the same?
When the iPhone 4 came out, people with it had to hand it over in pubs, and to the friends so the other guy could look at the retina display. I - with my 3GS - do this all the time.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
Wrong. Liquidmetal is metallic in appearance. From a consumer's perspective, a liquidmetal back looks like an aluminum back, not what people would consider a 'glass' back.
Just because it's technically a glass, doesn't mean that it looks like the clear, brittle material you think of as glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Liquidmetal is radio transparent? Very odd general statement to make, given that it is a material already used to make antennae.
If you'd bother learning about the subject, you'd realize that liquidmetal is a product range, not a specific product. One can make liquidmetal from any number of metal compositions. One can make a liquidmetal product from a radio-transparent alloy or from an alloy which is suitable for an antenna.
Comments
- A larger screen size
- A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
- A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).I think there are three desires/expectations that are being conflated with each other:
- A larger screen size
- A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
- A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).One of Apple's strengths is good industrial design. A new design for the i5 would be for more than looking cool - it would make the form more closely follow the function. So a new design would do something practical too. Maybe make it more comfortable to hold, maybe house a bigger or better screen, maybe be made of lighter, stronger materials or a new way of sandwiching things together, etc.
IMO, people are so used to Apple's design enhancing functionality that they implicitly assume it would happen in a major new iPhone (that looks different too). Not just a new design, but a better design.
I think there are three desires/expectations that are being conflated with each other:
- A larger screen size
- A noticeably cheaper second iPhone (not just $50 to $100 cheaper)
- A different physical design (mainly for the sake of differentiation)
Of course, you cannot have (1) without (3) and you likely also cannot have (2) without at least a new physical shape for the cheaper version. But I feel a lot of people are beating (3) when they actually mean (1) or (2).I agree, but would go further and just say that (3) is an entirely irrational "want" otherwise.
IMO everyone who is talking about a "redesigned iPhone" is really talking about wanting a bigger screen (or at least a bigger, flatter, iPhone more in line with the recent Android phones).
1) Apple meant to introduce the iPhone 5 but couldn't because of design/production delays.
2) They come up with the 5 in a few months making the 4S obsolete.
I will NOT be disappointed if:
1) The 4S will last for a year as the latest model.
2) It has a little bit bigger screen and all the other upgraded goodies inside.
The thinner design, the aluminum back etc. would be nice but the existing iP4 is also a beautiful piece of equipment. Could it be possible that the leaked designs are for next year's phone as they start working on the next phone a couple of years before release?
The cell phone market moves too fast for anyone to release a new format in an old package.
So you've forgotten the 3GS exists.
Apple is the king of packaging. Expect no less.
And since the two-and-a-half-year-old 3GS sells better than any new Android phone…
I will only be disappointed if:
2) They come up with the 5 in a few months making the 4S obsolete.
You have to be insane to think this would happen.
Could it be possible that the leaked designs are for next year's phone as they start working on the next phone a couple of years before release?
Not really. No way on Heaven or Earth would an iPhone two years out be this far along in physical design.
Just because someone says he will be disappointed if Apple doesn't launch their dream-phone doesn't make him an "Apple-hater". If anything, the opposite assumption would be more logical.
Except that's not what they said.
They said things like "no one will buy it" and "Apple is incompetent if they can't do more than a 4S" and "Android is so far ahead of Apple" and other things which are presented as fact but are nothing but inane, misguided opinions.
Recall the aluminum back on the original iPhone? They had to mix in a plastic panel for the antenna to work. Ive hates design features that stand out and distract from the only thing that matters on the iPhone - the screen. So we won't see that again. They also won't likely return to the plastic back again.
On the iPad, the antenna is behind the plastic logo. But they would need a rather large logo on the back of the alleged iPhone 5 for voice, data, etc. to all work. Again, this goes against their design ethos.
It's possible for them to include the external antenna band with an aluminum back. But because the depth (or height) of the band will be shrinking (because of rounded edge of the back), it would have to grow in thickness outward (because the amount of material matters in antenna design). This is not how Apple likes to design its products.
So, as much as Apple likes to use a common design language across its products, I don't see them adopting the iPad 2 design for the iPhone. Aluminum back is likely gone for good, for reasons stated.
So you've forgotten the 3GS exists.
And since the two-and-a-half-year-old 3GS sells better than any new Android phone?
Exactly. Furthermore, how much different does the Galaxy S2 look compared to the original? The differences are subtle, but the S2 is getting rave reviews.
So we won't see that again. Aluminum back is likely gone for good, for reasons stated.
LiquidMetal.
End of argument.
LiquidMetal.
End of argument.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
So? what's your point? The first-gen looks the best of any of the iPhones. LiquidMetal is radio transparent, so the entire back can be one piece, no seams, no plastic.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
Is it? I didn't thinking being a glassy metal meant it was a form of "a hard, brittle substance, typically transparent or translucent, made by fusing sand with soda, lime, and certain other ingredients." I thought it was a term made to refer to an amoprhous metal.
So… what's your point? The first-gen looks the best of any of the iPhones. LiquidMetal is radio transparent, so the entire back can be one piece, no seams, no plastic.
Liquidmetal is radio transparent? Very odd general statement to make, given that it is a material already used to make antennae.
Is it? I didn't thinking being a glassy metal meant it was a form of "a hard, brittle substance, typically transparent or translucent, made by fusing sand with soda, lime, and certain other ingredients." I thought it was a term made to refer to an amoprhous metal.
You're right that liquidmetal is amorphous metal (and brittle, etc., etc). But amorphous metal is indeed a form of glass, or more precisely metallic glass. Conversely, glass is an amorphous solid that can be changed (typically by heat) into a molten state. Metallic glass (or liquidmetal) also shares this property, which is why it can be shaped by thermoforming processes.
Although the most commonly known glass is the soda lime variety with a high percentage of silica, it is not the only type of glass.
I do not know whether liquidmetal can be made truly transparent (I'm sure someone can look it up). But that does not matter because the back of the iPhone will not be transparent. I do wonder if that's where liquidmetal will be used.
The beauty of liquidmetal is that, by changing its composition, you can change its properties. It is a wonderful material for antennae. Perhaps that's where we will see it.
Already, Apple has shipped an iPhone part made of liquidmetal, BTW.
PESSIMISTIC PREDICTION:
Apple will unveil one new phone: the 4s. It will be made using cheaper components, and will save Apple a boatload of money. It will carry the same pricing as the iPhone 4. No mention of the iPhone 5 until October 2012.
OPTIMISTIC PREDICTION:
Apple will come out with the 4s, however each model will be $100 cheaper than last year's version. The iPhone 4 will become the entry level, $49 unit. Maybe a hint or two at the iPhone 5, but no model.
PREDICTION THAT WON'T HAPPEN:
Apple will unveil two new phones: the 4S and 5. The iPhone 5 will be powered by magic unicorn farts and fairy dust, and will have a 4 inch screen.
I never expected Apple to drastically redesign the iPhone just one year after a major redesign. It costs too much R&D, and if you upgrade when the redesigns come out, then you have to wait 2 years anyway because of your phone carrier contract. Apple is rewarding those in that cycle, and the people 1 year out of cycle get a speed bump. This year's speed bump will come (hopefully) with huge software updates to make it worthwhile. I always expected a 4S and not a 5.
Those who want to upgrade will, and those who don't will wait until next year.
This.
I'm starting to think they might merge the iPhone 4S with the iPod Touch line, and offer it free of contract but with the ability to take a data plan.
Finally. Someone thinking outside the box.
Except that's not what they said.
They said things like "no one will buy it" and "Apple is incompetent if they can't do more than a 4S" and "Android is so far ahead of Apple" and other things which are presented as fact but are nothing but inane, misguided opinions.
Nobody said that. People disappointed with Apple are potential iPhone 5 purchasers.
In saner parts of the internet, and other forums generally sympathetic to Apple, the general reaction in comments is: "If this is all it is, I am not buying it".
Clearly, this is not an ideal situation. Probably not for Apple either. Unless people think that Ive's team got the year off then they probably have spent 18-24 months on a new phone. Whatever they came up with has apparently been rejected, or didn't work in mass production.
There is the missing wow factor. The fact that - unless the 3GS is continued - there will be one model of iPhone, with different internals. So while Android phones change drastically between June 2010 and October 2012, Apple stays the same?
When the iPhone 4 came out, people with it had to hand it over in pubs, and to the friends so the other guy could look at the retina display. I - with my 3GS - do this all the time.
Design obviously promotes sales.
Liquid metal is a form of glass. So, from a consumer's perspective, invisible change.
Wrong. Liquidmetal is metallic in appearance. From a consumer's perspective, a liquidmetal back looks like an aluminum back, not what people would consider a 'glass' back.
Just because it's technically a glass, doesn't mean that it looks like the clear, brittle material you think of as glass.
Liquidmetal is radio transparent? Very odd general statement to make, given that it is a material already used to make antennae.
If you'd bother learning about the subject, you'd realize that liquidmetal is a product range, not a specific product. One can make liquidmetal from any number of metal compositions. One can make a liquidmetal product from a radio-transparent alloy or from an alloy which is suitable for an antenna.