The idea that Apple isn't flexible with its product lines is total BS. Look at what they have done with the iPods and laptops over the years. I believe at one time Apple had 4 different iPods for sale each dramatically different. If you look at the AIRs they effectively replaced the Mac Book with two models with rumors of three coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.
IOS is extremely successful right now. It would be extremely foolish of Apple not to capitalize on that fact. Now there are so many possibilities I will not even try to guess at what may be coming but Apple has a cow to be milked and needs to get at it.
Quote:
So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?
That isn't what he was saying in the least. By default the high resolution iPad would have a faster processor, if for nothing else to keep up speed wise on that screen.
Quote:
I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.
That is one possible play on the iPad3. I could see iPad 2 being upgraded though. IPads still suffer from poor CPU/GPU performance so a bump there would help iPad keep the lead. Plus they might want to market Siri on the upgraded unit.
Quote:
Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?
I'm not too sure you want to be working for those sorts.
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
But not iPhone 5. Nope.
Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
But not iPhone 5. Nope.
Let's see, IPhones 1, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S; seems like 5 would fit in there. Note the jump from the original to the 3G which indicated a technology not a sequence number. What is notable is the move from the 3G to the 3GS was minor. Contrary to the article the move from the 4 to the 4S was a major overhaul. So if you are looking at it that way there have been 4 iPhone models to date.
Of course if you are one to believe the fairy tails about iPhone 4S being insignificant then this likely goes over your head.
I think analysts vastly overestimate the importance of novelty to Apple's success. This comes from seeing Apple as a company driven by fashion. The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix. But overall Apple tends to be conservative with design. They only do a major redesign when there's a reason to do it. There are either major functional changes (i.e., original iMac to LCD iMacs), or there are new manufacturing possibilities (i..e, plastic to machined aluminium), or they screwed up and need to correct a misstep (sunflower iMac, iPod nano fatty, buttonless iPod shuffle, etc). To think Apple has to do a major redesign every year (or every other year) is to completely misunderstand Apple and why they're successful. For Apple, form generally follows function (the exceptions are notable because they're exceptions).
So the question is, What reason is there for a major redesign for the iPhone or iPad? It seems unlikely that new manufacturing processes will cause a shift to new materials (i.e., mass market carbon fibre doesn't seem to be possible yet) and there are no major functional changes on the horizon. Apple doesn't appear to think either the iPhone 4 or the iPad 2 is a major design misstep either. So I find it unlikely that either will see major redesigns. iPad is on an obvious trend of getting thinner and lighter and the display will probably see an upgrade, but none of that requires a major rethink of the design. iPhone could potentially have a larger screen but the same size due a smaller bezel (which may have been a manufacturing constraint; on the other hand, Apple may feel that 3.5" is the best size for usability reasons), but again, there's no reason to think it needs a major redesign. One thing that could prompt a major redesign of the iPhone is a different antenna system (we could file that under correcting a misstep; Antennagate was overblown but an external antenna might still not be the best choice going forward).
But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.
You labor under a false impression. Apple changes designs in order to maximize profits. That is the reason they change designs. They keep the same design if it would yield the highest profits. They change designs if it would yield the highest profits. That is the one and only reason Apple does anything.
Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?
Because it is marketing-speak. You think that Apple's target customers know the info you presented? You think that the majority of them care?
It is marketing-speak. The next iPhone will be the 5. Otherwise, the vast majority of people will wonder why Apple skipped a number when they go in to buy.
The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Good thoughts, but the only way they could call it the 4G is if they kept the same form factor with the tiny screen and glass back.
Maybe the 4G will be the value line, keeping the same design, with a deluxe i5 released at the same time?
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Not going to happen. S comes after G in the alphabet. Among the other reason (the one stated by Apple themselves) that they wouldn't be doing it.
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). Apple even went out of the way to mention that 4G isn't well defined at this point (partially due to marketing and disagreements about the spec itself). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.
So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?
I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.
Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?
I don't know why analysts think that Apple will expand the iPad line, to most non-tech consumers, it's confusing enough. When I visit my Apple store I see throngs of people pondering what memory size and color and if they need 3G service. Then their head starts smoking.
I especially like the conversations where the customer is asking why there are no 4G iPads. They obviously have no idea what 4G is but they know it's one more than 3G. It's like an updated version of Spinal Tap. "This one goes to 11". By then I see the specialist sighing and try to explain it. Then the customer asks the dumbest question of all: "When is the (insert next generation Apple product here) coming out?"
Not saying it won't HAVE LTE, just that it wouldn't be called that.
A few more words: Apple didn't release the "iPhone HSPA" or the "iPhone HSDPA". Apple chooses the broad term for a level of telephony, not a branch of it (LTE, for example).
if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!
1080p, no way I'd shell out for that crap, it'll need to have at least a 2K camera, and pref a 4K cam at least as good as a current RED.
Probably they'll revive some NeXT (and porsche) names and produce the iPhone 4S Turbo, and there will be rumors of a Nitro.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)
Any thoughts?
I think an LTE iPhone is going to take more time to solve the heavy battery requirements for the 4g network. Location services is killing the battery right now on the 4S, so imagine if you were on an LTE network. Just ask the guys at Engadget who reviewed the Galaxy Nexus on Verizon. This is what they said about battery life:
And then there's the battery life. It's well known that LTE can put a real hurting on phone longevity and that appears to be the case here as well, our Nexus struggling to hold on to a charge in day-to-day use with all antennas firing. We've as of yet had very limited time with the thing, but in our 24 hours of intensive testing we had to reach for the charger multiple times. Using Google Navigation with LTE enabled? The battery drained so fast our in-car charger couldn't keep up, leaving us unsure of which exit to take off the 101.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.
Too many idiots bought them and lost the headphones that came with them, or wanted to use other headphones that didn't support the controls for the shuffle.
Is this really a problem? I've always considered Sprint to be 4th among US carriers, despite what the data suggests. GSM is a global standard, but Sprint followed Verizon's lead and hopped on the CDMA train. While this may have advantages, they'll always be fighting with VZ for customers and it doesn't take much thought to figure out who would win that battle.
Also, CDMA in its current form doesn't really have a future (in the US anyways) so now they have to get off old tech and jettison a losing fourth-generation network strategy (WiMax) and invest large amounts of money to transition sites or build up their network.
As to your point, it's not like any of the carriers have an alternative. Once they can offer the iPhone they're essentially stuck. People broke contracts just to get the iPhone, if Sprint got pissed and wanted out, people could just as easily leave. Loyalty to Apple far outweighs any commitment people have to a carrier.
Comments
iPhone 5, next year? NO WAY!
Nooooo, a 'redesigned' iPhone 5!
His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.
IOS is extremely successful right now. It would be extremely foolish of Apple not to capitalize on that fact. Now there are so many possibilities I will not even try to guess at what may be coming but Apple has a cow to be milked and needs to get at it.
So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?
That isn't what he was saying in the least. By default the high resolution iPad would have a faster processor, if for nothing else to keep up speed wise on that screen.
I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.
That is one possible play on the iPad3. I could see iPad 2 being upgraded though. IPads still suffer from poor CPU/GPU performance so a bump there would help iPad keep the lead. Plus they might want to market Siri on the upgraded unit.
Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?
I'm not too sure you want to be working for those sorts.
iPhone 5, next year? NO WAY!
Exactly. I was sure we were gonna see the iPhone 4S2. This guy has blown my mind.
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
But not iPhone 5. Nope.
Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
Unless Apple have been dining on stupid sauce, it'll be called the iPhone 6. Or, maybe, just maybe, the iPhone 4G. Or there's a slight possibility of iPhone 4GS, though I hope not.
But not iPhone 5. Nope.
Let's see, IPhones 1, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S; seems like 5 would fit in there. Note the jump from the original to the 3G which indicated a technology not a sequence number. What is notable is the move from the 3G to the 3GS was minor. Contrary to the article the move from the 4 to the 4S was a major overhaul. So if you are looking at it that way there have been 4 iPhone models to date.
Of course if you are one to believe the fairy tails about iPhone 4S being insignificant then this likely goes over your head.
Exactly.
Exactly exactly.
And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
They're complete idiots. I'm not trying to be funny; that's the only reason I can think of.
Seriously, when faced with this:
iPhone 3G: [ ] 2nd phone, [X] telephony, [ ] Processor name, [ ] iPhone OS version
iPhone 4: [X] 4th iPhone, [ ] telephony, [X] Processor name, [X] iOS version
So with the 6th gen iPhone, I applied the same logic.
It's not the 5th iPhone. It won't have an A5 chip. It won't run iOS 5. It won't have 5G telephony.
It WILL, however, be the 6th iPhone, have an A6 chip, run iOS 6, and likely have 4G telephony.
That's 3 for iPhone 6 and 0 for iPhone 5.
How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?
I think analysts vastly overestimate the importance of novelty to Apple's success. This comes from seeing Apple as a company driven by fashion. The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix. But overall Apple tends to be conservative with design. They only do a major redesign when there's a reason to do it. There are either major functional changes (i.e., original iMac to LCD iMacs), or there are new manufacturing possibilities (i..e, plastic to machined aluminium), or they screwed up and need to correct a misstep (sunflower iMac, iPod nano fatty, buttonless iPod shuffle, etc). To think Apple has to do a major redesign every year (or every other year) is to completely misunderstand Apple and why they're successful. For Apple, form generally follows function (the exceptions are notable because they're exceptions).
So the question is, What reason is there for a major redesign for the iPhone or iPad? It seems unlikely that new manufacturing processes will cause a shift to new materials (i.e., mass market carbon fibre doesn't seem to be possible yet) and there are no major functional changes on the horizon. Apple doesn't appear to think either the iPhone 4 or the iPad 2 is a major design misstep either. So I find it unlikely that either will see major redesigns. iPad is on an obvious trend of getting thinner and lighter and the display will probably see an upgrade, but none of that requires a major rethink of the design. iPhone could potentially have a larger screen but the same size due a smaller bezel (which may have been a manufacturing constraint; on the other hand, Apple may feel that 3.5" is the best size for usability reasons), but again, there's no reason to think it needs a major redesign. One thing that could prompt a major redesign of the iPhone is a different antenna system (we could file that under correcting a misstep; Antennagate was overblown but an external antenna might still not be the best choice going forward).
But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.
You labor under a false impression. Apple changes designs in order to maximize profits. That is the reason they change designs. They keep the same design if it would yield the highest profits. They change designs if it would yield the highest profits. That is the one and only reason Apple does anything.
Exactly. The only reason they did it before was because they never had an iPhone 2. It went iPhone, 3G, 3gs, 4. So the iphone 4 was the fourth one. The iPhone 5 would be the sixth one, so the naming would be all wrong.
They will/should not call it the iPhone 5! And why hasn't any of these big tech reporters/analysts hit up on this?
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
The next version will be iPhone AK47
(Android Killer versions 4 through 7)
How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?
Because it is marketing-speak. You think that Apple's target customers know the info you presented? You think that the majority of them care?
It is marketing-speak. The next iPhone will be the 5. Otherwise, the vast majority of people will wonder why Apple skipped a number when they go in to buy.
"The i6 is $200, the i4S is $100."
"But what about the i5?!?!?"
Nope. Calling it the i6 is just foolish.
The iPod underwent so many major redesigns because it kept getting smaller each year. The design iterations were driven by function and not fashion. There were a couple of missteps (the fatty, the buttonless shuffle) and reversals that also added to the mix.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Good thoughts, but the only way they could call it the 4G is if they kept the same form factor with the tiny screen and glass back.
Maybe the 4G will be the value line, keeping the same design, with a deluxe i5 released at the same time?
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Not going to happen. S comes after G in the alphabet. Among the other reason (the one stated by Apple themselves) that they wouldn't be doing it.
The numbering doesn't represent a sequence. The 3G name came from the technology implemented. The follow on was called the 3GS because it was a faster phone. IHone 4 may have been trying to establish a sequence after the fact, but then comes along the 4S. So obviously Apple doesn't put much faith into applying sequential numbers to products.
Here is something for you, the next iPhone will be called iPhone 4G. Can you guess why? Guys it is all marketing, the next iPhone could be called iPhone 69 if Apple thought it would sell phones. What will sell phones is tying the technology to the name, thus iPhone 4G.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). Apple even went out of the way to mention that 4G isn't well defined at this point (partially due to marketing and disagreements about the spec itself). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)
Any thoughts?
His speculation on multiple new iPads just seems weird. There is no precedence of Apple diversifying a product line in that way.
So he says a new iPad with higher resolution but gimped processor, and one with a better processor and gimped resolution. As if Apple would make two sets of improvements and not allow the consumer to have both in one package? Seriously?! Who can read that and think he isn't off his rocker?
I predict the 16GB iPad 2, with and without 3G, will remain in production and be sold for $400+ brand new and the iPad 3 will replace the existing iPad 2 pricepoints.
Now, can I get paid for my brilliant predictions?
I don't know why analysts think that Apple will expand the iPad line, to most non-tech consumers, it's confusing enough. When I visit my Apple store I see throngs of people pondering what memory size and color and if they need 3G service. Then their head starts smoking.
I especially like the conversations where the customer is asking why there are no 4G iPads. They obviously have no idea what 4G is but they know it's one more than 3G. It's like an updated version of Spinal Tap. "This one goes to 11". By then I see the specialist sighing and try to explain it. Then the customer asks the dumbest question of all: "When is the (insert next generation Apple product here) coming out?"
Why not iPhone LTE?
One word: Sprint.
Not saying it won't HAVE LTE, just that it wouldn't be called that.
A few more words: Apple didn't release the "iPhone HSPA" or the "iPhone HSDPA". Apple chooses the broad term for a level of telephony, not a branch of it (LTE, for example).
if it doesn't come with a 5" screen, a 10 GHz processor, a 20 Megapixel camera, 1080p video recording, a battery that lasts 10 months on standby, a metaphysical keyboard, 4G+ network capability, all-universe model, and an actual personal assistant, it will be a flop!
1080p, no way I'd shell out for that crap, it'll need to have at least a 2K camera, and pref a 4K cam at least as good as a current RED.
Probably they'll revive some NeXT (and porsche) names and produce the iPhone 4S Turbo, and there will be rumors of a Nitro.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)
Any thoughts?
I think an LTE iPhone is going to take more time to solve the heavy battery requirements for the 4g network. Location services is killing the battery right now on the 4S, so imagine if you were on an LTE network. Just ask the guys at Engadget who reviewed the Galaxy Nexus on Verizon. This is what they said about battery life:
And then there's the battery life. It's well known that LTE can put a real hurting on phone longevity and that appears to be the case here as well, our Nexus struggling to hold on to a charge in day-to-day use with all antennas firing. We've as of yet had very limited time with the thing, but in our 24 hours of intensive testing we had to reach for the charger multiple times. Using Google Navigation with LTE enabled? The battery drained so fast our in-car charger couldn't keep up, leaving us unsure of which exit to take off the 101.
Can someone give me a good argument as to what was wrong with the buttonless Shuffle? You would think that with Apple's current fascination with 'Thin and Light', they want to move people in that direction. After all, the Classic hasn't had a meaningful redesign in years, why not do the same with the Shuffle? They can always use the Nano to try out new designs - Given recent iterations, this seems to be the case.
Too many idiots bought them and lost the headphones that came with them, or wanted to use other headphones that didn't support the controls for the shuffle.
One word: Sprint.
Is this really a problem? I've always considered Sprint to be 4th among US carriers, despite what the data suggests. GSM is a global standard, but Sprint followed Verizon's lead and hopped on the CDMA train. While this may have advantages, they'll always be fighting with VZ for customers and it doesn't take much thought to figure out who would win that battle.
Also, CDMA in its current form doesn't really have a future (in the US anyways) so now they have to get off old tech and jettison a losing fourth-generation network strategy (WiMax) and invest large amounts of money to transition sites or build up their network.
As to your point, it's not like any of the carriers have an alternative. Once they can offer the iPhone they're essentially stuck. People broke contracts just to get the iPhone, if Sprint got pissed and wanted out, people could just as easily leave. Loyalty to Apple far outweighs any commitment people have to a carrier.