It wasn't a very smart insult. Most mods at most sites would have thrown you off right away. I'm a bit more liberal.
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
More importantly, why the heck does anyone care?
Apple will release phones in the future. Maybe lots of different phones over the decades. Maybe they'll only release a couple more and drop out of the market. No one knows.
But the name of whatever phones they release just doesn't matter. It's like the 4S. The people who were disappointed because it wasn't named iPhone 5 are simply too shallow for words. The phone has specific features and characteristics. Either you think those features and characteristics are what you want or you don't. The name just shouldn't matter one whit.
Would a Ferrari Scuderia be any less awesome of a car if it were called the Ferrari Rigatoni? You people are all WAY too hung up on silly name games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Yeah, coming out with ONE new phone per year (or 18 months, as was the case for the last update) is just absolutely ridiculous, right? Can you name me ONE company that updates on a slower cycle than that? It seems every company producing android phone has a new device every couple weeks. How much do you want them to 'stretch it out'? This industry moves insanely fast, and as far as I can tell Apple is the only company with predictable, stable release cycles that are definitely much slower than the norm. Maybe when you come back down to reality you'd realize how ridiculous your complaint sounds, how disconnected from reality you are, and how much of a troll you seem to be with the 'Apple fans must be stupid to xxx' garbage.
And, yet, the top three phones (by sales volume) in the country last quarter were the three Apple iPhones. Why should Apple release new phones any faster?
Because I can count Apple's numbering system, which is pretty clear. And that's what matters.
Um…
1, 3, 3, 4, 4… and supposedly 5 comes after that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If Apple named the first iPhone the iPhone 1, or some such thing, then people would have had an expectation that the second would be called the 2, or perhaps the II. But Apple didn't do that. It was just the iPhone.
So you first bring up the idea that "Apple might name it based on what people expect it to be named, so they might call it the 5"… and then you shoot that idea in the foot yourself.
Quote:
But now they have four generations of phone with that naming scheme.
No, they have used three naming schemes.
Quote:
why go against that?
Because it's completely and utterly wrong and makes absolutely NO sense. It's exactly what anyone would have said about the iPhone 3G before launch. "Oh, what's it going to be called?" "Well, I'd imagine it would be 'iPhone 2'."
Quote:
but they chose to stick with 4,
They had never DONE that before. You can't stick with something if you've never applied the glue in the first place.
Quote:
You guys do understand that LTE is a very rare bird outside of the US? What will people in countries where there is no LTE think if the phone is named that? Unlike other manufacturers, Apple keeps the same name all over the world.
Indeed, which is why "iPhone 6" is much higher on my list than "iPhone LTE".
Quote:
Which naming convention for the phone that 6 would fall into is that?
The third one that Apple has used. I'll go over them again.
First naming scheme: based on generation
Second naming scheme: based on telephony
Third naming scheme: based on speed
Fourth naming scheme: based on generation
Fifth naming scheme: based on speed
Sixth naming scheme: based on…?
What CAN it be? Well, it can be generation or telephony. Why do I throw out speed? Because 'iPhone 4SS" sounds terrible and brings up stormtrooper references in the media.
Look, of all people, I have no idea why you can't see this. I don't need to say that you're one of the smartest and most logical people on the forums; people know that. I love reading your back and forth with… (crap, I forget who that was now. The one staunchly anti-Apple guy that has been here a while. Was it GatorGuy?); it's great stuff to read.
I've already shown why '5' makes absolutely no sense when compared to Apple's historic naming conventions. I don't necessarily expect or want you to start gunning for "iPhone 6" like me (because there's obviously no guarantee of that; all rumors are just rumors), but I at least want you (and everyone) to see why "iPhone 5" makes as much sense as "iPhone Taiyaki" for the name of the next model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari
Maybe it's my monitor or that the phones aren't shown in perfect relation to each other, but the green areas aren't the same size on those two phones. The green on the Samsung phone is about 1/8" narrower and 5/8" shorter than on the iPhone. That give a false representation of the screen size.
That's an optical illusion created when two objects of identical size are compared in the same frame of reference as two differently sized objects.
Unless, of course, you cut those green sections out in Photoshop and pasted them on top of one another and found that they're actually different. Then it's just an image creation error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
I vote NO on the 5" screen. 4" maximum.
I vote "No" on any larger screen; just parroting the rumors.
Quote:
When is the iPhone 5 supposed to be released?
I think October, but some people won't accept anything but July. They forget, of course, all the people who will be angry at the 'less than a year' cycle.
Quote:
I hope after Qualcomm releases their new LTE 28nm chips. They should be more power efficient.
We know of screens (ok, one) that have the image almost from edge to edge, unlike current screens. Right now, there is about 0.1875" at each edge of the image to the edge of the phone. If they could drop that to 0.0625", they would have gained 0.125" of room.
So, right now, the 3.5" screen is actually 1.94" x 2.91".
A 4" inch screen would be ....................2.22" x 3.33"
The difference in width is just 0.28". This is just over 0.25". Apple could make a phone with a 4" screen that was just a bit over 0.15" wider than now, hardly noticeable. It would be longer, but that doesn't enter the hold-ability test. It would also be almost as easy to reach each corner of the screen for people with smaller than average hands.
I don't see a problem here, just benefits.
I think you have it right here. Although if the aspect ratio of the screen changed, they could go even bigger... I would imagine a larger screen to basically be:
1. the same width as the current screen
2. the same dot pitch as the current screen
3. be taller than the current screen.
The home button could move to the back of the device (maybe the Apple logo becomes the home button) if there isn't enough space on the front or if shrinking the button to make space makes it too hard to use.
Current applications could be letterboxed in if they don't support making use of the extra screen space. This would preserve their aspect ratio and current rendered size. Some current applications could automatically make use of the extra space depending on the type of views they use and the properties set on those views. At any point that an application is using certain APIs (such as displaying a web page or video) this could automatically make full use of the larger screen without developers doing anything. Certainly, there would be instant wins:
- a larger screen that marketing dept wants since all the competition is going that way
- the phone is not necessarily different in physical dimensions (or at least not significantly so)
- current apps looks exactly the same as on current iPhones
- built in apps (safari, mail, videos, etc) make full use of the screen
- it is easy for developers to choose to make use of the entire screen in most apps (those that use standard cocoa views; harder for games and such)
Your making a false analogy here by talking about refurbishing a car vs. buying a new one.
A more correct analogy would be:
If the manufacturer of the Chevy came out with a new model with a new engine, new headlights and mirrors, a new radio and an all new interior, but kept the body of the car 90% the same as last years model ... it would in fact be a whole new car, just as the iPhone 4s is a whole new phone.
No, actually you are making a false analogy.
First of all, the exterior design of the iPhone 4S is identical to the iPhone 4. There are no new headlights, or new mirrors.
Secondly, you can't say that an all new interior in a car equates to them re-jigging the internals of the iPhone. The interior of a car is something you physically interact with whenever you drive the car, unlike the inside of a phone which you never see.
The closest comparison you could draw would be the following:
Body of Car = External iPhone casing/screen
Interior of Car = iOS user interface
Under the hood of the car = iPhone hardware
Since the case remained the same, and iOS 5 is available for the 3GS and 4, the original comparison the was drawn for the Chevy is quite spot on.
I am surprised that it is not out-selling the iPhone 4, actually, as mass market items tend to.
It's cost is not $0. It has a sticker price which is more expensive than the contract price. What happens with the release of the iPhone 5 is that the contract offers more features - better data - for a $0 iPhone 3GS, and less features for a $0 iPhone 4.
This is standard outside the US. Its the way cheaper ticket priced Android phones sell.
We need to get over developing countries vs non-developing countries. Probably the middle income groups in China and India are richer than the bottom 20+% in the US. If Apple wants to extend it's market it will keep the 3GS everywhere. See it as a model - with a design philosophy ( non-retina, curved) different from the higher models. They can update the insides going forward.
As for the design, I love it, Much better than the 4 series.
That contract malarky - once again - makes sense only in the US. In any case it is the carriers who determine that price, not Apple.
Not a problem, no real issue. It works. There is an issue with OpenGL 2.0, but the solution is simple. Build your game for the mass market. If a game needs the latest hardware, people will buy the hardware for it if it is any good.
The real reason to not get rid is that it is selling. Possible 20M units a year, or more this year.
I don't understand your reasoning at all here. $0 is $0 no matter how you look at it. And it's a big error to repeat the incorrect statement that has the US as the only country with contracts. That's not even close to being true. Contracts may not be as popular everywhere as they are in the US and Canada, but they're almost everywhere, and quite a few people get them. So get over the idea that contract price doesn't matter, because it does.
And when you're talking about a contract, there is nothing cheaper than $0. The major reason why carriers charge more for iPhone contracts isn't because of the subsidy, as you may believe, but because of the expected amount of use. If they charged by the subsidy, the contract for a 3GS would be substantially more than for a 4S, and it is not.
What matters is the price in hand. And next year, when the 4 is at $0, then there is no point to having a 3.5 year old phone in the line-up. However well the 3Gs would be selling at that point, the 4 would sell much better.
And Apple m at not agree that is want to get every person in the world as a customer. By not having phones in differing sizes, and rushing out LTE, they've shown that they don't care about everyone, just the large majority, which they do appeal to now. I do agree that my old 3G does feel smoother in the hand, but that hasn't stopped a lot more 4?s being sold than 3S's and 3GS's, not to mention the sales of the 4S (Oh, I did, didn't I?).
By your thinking, they should have kept the 3G as well. People who have the 3GS are very lucky that it accepts iOS 5, even though not every feature is supported. It's JUST fast enough, and has barely enough RAM. The screen sucks when compared to the newer models though. We compared my daughter's 3G and 3Gs to her new 4S, and her reaction to the new screen was simply: "Wow!". That's the case for everyone who saw my 4 when compared to my 3G. The screen on my 4S looks almost exactly like the one on my 4, and that's good.
Apple will release phones in the future. Maybe lots of different phones over the decades. Maybe they'll only release a couple more and drop out of the market. No one knows.
But the name of whatever phones they release just doesn't matter. It's like the 4S. The people who were disappointed because it wasn't named iPhone 5 are simply too shallow for words. The phone has specific features and characteristics. Either you think those features and characteristics are what you want or you don't. The name just shouldn't matter one whit.
Would a Ferrari Scuderia be any less awesome of a car if it were called the Ferrari Rigatoni? You people are all WAY too hung up on silly name games.
As I said earlier, I don't really care, it won't change my buying plans. But as this seems to be a discussion about naming, as much as anything else, then it's something interesting to argue about.
So you first bring up the idea that "Apple might name it based on what people expect it to be named, so they might call it the 5"? and then you shoot that idea in the foot yourself.
No, they have used three naming schemes.
Because it's completely and utterly wrong and makes absolutely NO sense. It's exactly what anyone would have said about the iPhone 3G before launch. "Oh, what's it going to be called?" "Well, I'd imagine it would be 'iPhone 2'."
They had never DONE that before. You can't stick with something if you've never applied the glue in the first place.
Indeed, which is why "iPhone 6" is much higher on my list than "iPhone LTE".
The third one that Apple has used. I'll go over them again.
First naming scheme: based on generation
Second naming scheme: based on telephony
Third naming scheme: based on speed
Fourth naming scheme: based on generation
Fifth naming scheme: based on speed
Sixth naming scheme: based on??
What CAN it be? Well, it can be generation or telephony. Why do I throw out speed? Because 'iPhone 4SS" sounds terrible and brings up stormtrooper references in the media.
Look, of all people, I have no idea why you can't see this. I don't need to say that you're one of the smartest and most logical people on the forums; people know that. I love reading your back and forth with? (crap, I forget who that was now. The one staunchly anti-Apple guy that has been here a while. Was it GatorGuy?); it's great stuff to read.
I've already shown why '5' makes absolutely no sense when compared to Apple's historic naming conventions. I don't necessarily expect or want you to start gunning for "iPhone 6" like me (because there's obviously no guarantee of that; all rumors are just rumors), but I at least want you (and everyone) to see why "iPhone 5" makes as much sense as "iPhone Taiyaki" for the name of the next model.
First of all, most of your arguments are just denials of what my arguments are, which doesn't give them much weight. The argument about speed is only partly correct. The 3G naming had nothing to do with speed. It was just the acknowledgement of 3G service being added to the phone, as that was one of the most asked for features. The 3GS was specifically named for speed. The 4 was named that way because...? Well, not because of speed, but pretty obviously because of a completely new body and screen. But not given a name that specifically stated that. The 4S might be thought of as a speed indicator, but Apple didn't say.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason? They've never named the phone for the generation, or the 3G would have been the 2, the 3GS would be the 3, and yes, by coincidence the 4 would be the 4, but the 4S would be the 5. Not the case of course.
If you're right, and they are naming them for speed now, then the next phone, which should, as far as we know, be much faster, would be called the what?6S? Makes no sense.
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming. The next phone would be the 5, and after that, the 5S. Then we could have the 6, and then the 6S.
At least, that would be consistent. Using the first phone, and calling it the 1 as you did, makes no sense, because it was never given any number. You're giving it one, which doesn't count.
First of all, the exterior design of the iPhone 4S is identical to the iPhone 4. There are no new headlights, or new mirrors.
Secondly, you can't say that an all new interior in a car equates to them re-jigging the internals of the iPhone. The interior of a car is something you physically interact with whenever you drive the car, unlike the inside of a phone which you never see.
The closest comparison you could draw would be the following:
Body of Car = External iPhone casing/screen
Interior of Car = iOS user interface
Under the hood of the car = iPhone hardware
Since the case remained the same, and iOS 5 is available for the 3GS and 4, the original comparison the was drawn for the Chevy is quite spot on.
Actually, there are minor differences between the exterior of the 4 and 4S. In holding both of mine, you can easily see the differences between the SS band of the old one vs the new. You can also see where they moved the mute button over.
But it's more than just changing the seats somewhat. It's changing to an entirely new engine with twice the HP and torque. Changing the transmission and drive train. Changing the emission controls and computer system, etc. even if the exterior just had minor changes in the doors and the side mirrors, any auto magazine would consider this to be a car with major new changes, and the company would modify the name for that.
Well, not because of speed, but pretty obviously because of a completely new body and screen.
Then it would have been called "iPhone BS". For Body & Screen. Or the iPhone HSDPA+.
Quote:
The 4S might be thought of as a speed indicator, but Apple didn't say.
Transitive property of equality. iPhone 3GS. S was speed. iPhone 4S is an iPhone. S means speed on iPhone names.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason?
Quote:
They've never named the phone for the generation,
\
All those emoticons at once was my face when I read that.
Quote:
yes, by coincidence the 4 would be the 4,
So? they've "never named for generation" but the iPhone 4 exists, so that argument is out the window instantaneously. If the iPhone 4 wasn't named after its generation, what does the 4 stand for?
Quote:
If you're right, and they are naming them for speed now,
I never said that, I said they swap and stack naming schemes.
Quote:
?then the next phone, which should, as far as we know, be much faster, would be called the what?6S? Makes no sense.
Is this all just one big joke? I am I on Candid Camera? How? could you possibly derive that?
Quote:
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming.
All right, instead of me trying to disprove "5", could you please give at least one reason "5" makes sense as a name?
Quote:
You're giving it one, which doesn't count.
Oh dear heavens, a triple-meaning pun sentence. I know you didn't intend it, but it was hilarious. Kudos.
Then it would have been called "iPhone BS". For Body & Screen. Or the iPhone HSDPA+.
Transitive property of equality. iPhone 3GS. S was speed. iPhone 4S is an iPhone. S means speed on iPhone names.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason?
\
All those emoticons at once was my face when I read that.
So? they've "never named for generation" but the iPhone 4 exists, so that argument is out the window instantaneously. If the iPhone 4 wasn't named after its generation, what does the 4 stand for?
I never said that, I said they swap and stack naming schemes.
Is this all just one big joke? I am I on Candid Camera? How? could you possibly derive that?
All right, instead of me trying to disprove "5", could you please give at least one reason "5" makes sense as a name?
Oh dear heavens, a triple-meaning pun sentence. I know you didn't intend it, but it was hilarious. Kudos.
You really are stretching. Even you must know that most of what you are saying makes no sense.
By the way, I NEVER said 6. I said 5. 6 makes no sense at all.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Again. You haven't give any reasons why you think what you do, whatever that may be. You're just being negative about everything. You "suggest" a couple of things, but don't back them up with any reasons. For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't. The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
What I think is that you're just deliberately being difficult. You haven't said anything helpful here. So you think they make up names as they go, without having any interest in continuing a naming convention? Just almost random, whatever seems to be the "thing" that year? If that's your answer, and it seems to be from your:
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes."
then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Okay, these are your reasons:
Quote:
But "5" seems to be a better bet than "6". Why would Apple skip a number here.
In this one, there's no reasoning beyond "a better bet". I have no idea why you think you can dismiss my straight logic as being nebulous when you've said this. As for the second sentence, I refer you to the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. There's no iPhone 2.
Quote:
And I would imagine that if you asked most people, they would think the next phone will be named the 5.
This is just about the only legitimate reason you've given. Or the closest thing to one, at any rate. Apple doesn't tend to follow what people "think the name might be", though. People mocked "iPad" at first, and I remember iTab, iSlate, and my personal favorite, Slice (as in Apple Slice) were preferred over it.
Quote:
If so, and the new phone has a bigger screen, and thus a new body, it could be named the "5".
Your reason here is 'because it has a bigger screen and a new body, it could be named the 5". Could you explain what, aside from receiving a 5" screen, would make this make any sense? The iPhone 4 had a 3.5" screen. It wasn't called the iPhone 3.5.
Quote:
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
I think that here is where the inherent problem lies. You say the "4 [got] two generations". No. That's not how it works. New hardware equals a new generation. Period. You say they would "skip a generation" by giving it a "6". So…
Okay, the rest of this hinges on your explanation of the meaning of "iPhone 4", which you've yet to give. I can't rebut what you haven't said (well, I can, but that's insanely rude and just putting words in people's mouths).
Quote:
If you ask Joe Public what the next phone will be called, almost every one will say the iPhone 5. why go against that?
I return to my point about the prerelease names of the iPad. The same question could be asked of any of them, the situation there is simply more nebulous. There is nothing about the next generation of iPhone that can say '5'. There was everything about the first iPad that could have said "slate", "tab", or "slice".
Quote:
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming.
What IS this 'marketing reason'?
Quote:
For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't.
That's right. Good thing I never said that, then.
Quote:
The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
So you're not going to explain why you think they named the iPhone 4 the "iPhone 4" (other than its generation number), then. Why not?
Quote:
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes." then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
I think you've missed the part where it's visibly apparent that they've done that. I'll go over it again.
1st gen iPhone: Named for generation.
2nd gen iPhone: Named for telephony.
3rd gen iPhone: Named for speed, carrying over telephony designation.
4th gen iPhone: Named for generation.
5th gen iPhone: Named for speed, carrying over generation designation.
You really are stretching. Even you must know that most of what you are saying makes no sense.
By the way, I NEVER said 6. I said 5. 6 makes no sense at all.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Again. You haven't give any reasons why you think what you do, whatever that may be. You're just being negative about everything. You "suggest" a couple of things, but don't back them up with any reasons. For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't. The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
What I think is that you're just deliberately being difficult. You haven't said anything helpful here. So you think they make up names as they go, without having any interest in continuing a naming convention? Just almost random, whatever seems to be the "thing" that year? If that's your answer, and it seems to be from your:
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes."
then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
His points are not only valid but crystal clear. It's the 6th generation iPhone and nothing about it would be representative of 5th generation.
You said you can count but nothing about the 2013 iPhone will be 5th generation. Not the OS. Not the Apple A* chip, which appears to have been numbered to follow the iOS version. Not the ITU cellular generation. Not even the basic body design.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with the generation at this point. It has to do with the fact that Apple has been using the basic body design for two generations of phone, and is naming them that way.
But they haven't. The iPhone 4 was the 3rd basic body design so based on your logic the 6th generation iPhone will be called the iPhone 4 if the basic body design changes. Surely you didn't mean to imply that.
We have a precedence for the the same basic body design to last for 2 cycles with the 2nd cycle getting an 'S' appended to its name. So if you really think the 6th generation iPhone for 2013 will be iPhone 5 then you have to think the 7th generation iPhone for 2014 will be iPhone 5S. That is wrong in so many ways.
Personally I don't care what they call it but I do care that people aren't thinking about it rationally.
Nice debate! Really can't argue, with the both of you. Many valid points; I'm wondering, could the following make any sense?
If they release a larger iPhone, but keep the current 3.5" as well, will they market it as .... For the new larger iPhone and the 'old' model iPhone Classic?
Or how about 3 screen sizes, creating a S, M and L version?
Earlier I opted for year of release, but was pointed out by melgross that nobody would want a '2012 iPhone' in the year 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I think he's right with that.
The reason is that it'll be the 6th iPhone. Is that not the only reason there could possibly be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No, unlike you, I can count.
Ok, let's count. It's been gone through before but I'll try and be super, super clear for you.
ONE: iPhone
TWO: iPhone 3G (note, not the third iPhone!)
THREE: iPhone 3GS
FOUR: iPhone 4 (Isn't the universe full of coincidences?)
FIVE: iPhone 4S
SIX: iPhone 6
Of course, I can't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It wasn't a very smart insult. Most mods at most sites would have thrown you off right away. I'm a bit more liberal.
Fair play, you were big enough not to throw your weight around but it wasn't meant to be a smart insult. It wasn't meant as an insult at all. It was my genuine reaction as an unfathomable response. I'm fairly sure you aren't clinically insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
You seem to be making my point for me. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
'The generation has nothing to do with the numbering, that's pretty clear?' Why on earth is the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4 then? I hate to sound incredulous, but...well, I'm incredulous. I cannot fathom your reasoning here.
You actually seem to believe the iPhone 4 was so named because it followed the 3GS. That's...it's just...are you serious?
You're right that it is entirely possible Apple won't call this year's iPhone the 'iPhone 6', but they would have every good reason to do so. What they would have absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to call it is 'iPhone 5'. It's neither the 5th iPhone nor the 5th design.
Nice debate! Really can't argue, with the both of you. Many valid points; I'm wondering, could the following make any sense?
If they release a larger iPhone, but keep the current 3.5" as well, will they market it as .... For the new larger iPhone and the 'old' model iPhone Classic?
Or how about 3 screen sizes, creating a S, M and L version?
Earlier I opted for year of release, but was pointed out by melgross that nobody would want a '2012 iPhone' in the year 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I think he's right with that.
The 4" iPhone will be called iPhone 4. Duh!
The fourth case design for the 3.5" iPhone will be called the iPhone 4. Duh-doy!
The iPhone 4S with LTE will be called the iPhone 4S 5.1 Gen Epic 4G II LTE Lite Maxi Classic.
You're right that it is entirely possible Apple won't call this year's iPhone the 'iPhone 6', but they would have every good reason to do so. What they would have absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to call it is 'iPhone 5'. It's neither the 5th iPhone nor the 5th design.
I think you have the best summation. I don't think iPhone 6 sounds very good and think they could split the line into two size variations, so who knows what they will call it but calling it the iPhone 5 with no logic to back up that claim simply makes no sense.
I don't understand your reasoning at all here. $0 is $0 no matter how you look at it. And it's a big error to repeat the incorrect statement that has the US as the only country with contracts. That's not even close to being true. Contracts may not be as popular everywhere as they are in the US and Canada, but they're almost everywhere, and quite a few people get them. So get over the idea that contract price doesn't matter, because it does.
And when you're talking about a contract, there is nothing cheaper than $0. The major reason why carriers charge more for iPhone contracts isn't because of the subsidy, as you may believe, but because of the expected amount of use. If they charged by the subsidy, the contract for a 3GS would be substantially more than for a 4S, and it is not.
I don't think you get my reasoning. I am aware of contracts outside the US, that is what I am talking about. The US form of contract is not the same as the rest of the world.
Lots of people here say something like "The 3GS costs $0". That, to people outside the US, is meaningless, because here every single phone costs $0 if you pay more for the contract.
See it as a form of loan. The price of the phone is "subsidised" at the start, but you pay for it with the contract. And the contract - which is what the phone stores, and carriers are really selling - will have different data rates, roaming charges, texts per month, voice calls per month etc. included for "free". Going over the limit gets surcharges for all of that, but you get a warning text.
I pay £45 a month, and the iPhone was <£100 as I recall, in my next iteration getting the 4S - soon now as I am out of contract this month - I will reduce the contract to £25 a month, and take the hit in the cost of the phone up front, as I don't use anywhere near 900 minutes a month. Probably I call people 2-3 times a day. I may add a £5 international free roaming for Ireland.
This will make the 4S more expensive up front, but it will cost less over 2 years. A shorter contract also puts up the sticker price of the phone.
Since the contract is what is being sold the phone is - to the carriers - almost incidental. However the iPhone did change that a bit, as people got higher contracts not because they made lots of calls but to reduce the original cost of the phone. Which is, as I found out, is a mugs game.
A long explanation but I hope people get this. The 3GS is not $0, it is $0 on some contracts in one country in the world. The 4S might as well be said to sell at £0 here. Which it does on certain contracts.
Here is an example: O2 in the UK selling the 4S at £0, on some contracts.
Actually, there are minor differences between the exterior of the 4 and 4S. In holding both of mine, you can easily see the differences between the SS band of the old one vs the new. You can also see where they moved the mute button over.
But it's more than just changing the seats somewhat. It's changing to an entirely new engine with twice the HP and torque. Changing the transmission and drive train. Changing the emission controls and computer system, etc. even if the exterior just had minor changes in the doors and the side mirrors, any auto magazine would consider this to be a car with major new changes, and the company would modify the name for that.
I'd hardly compare moving the SS band and the mute switch to restyling a cars mirrors or headlights. You can't tell me the 4S is in any way more physically appealing than the 4 because of those minute changes. The upgrade from 4 to 4S was also like doubling the horse power, but cutting the gas mileage in half lol.
There's nothing wrong with the current iPhone design, but i'm ready for something new. I'm glad i'm on the two year cycle where I will most likely be upgrading every time there is a change in hardware. I don't know what I want it to look like, but I'm sure Apple will tell me
Comments
It wasn't a very smart insult. Most mods at most sites would have thrown you off right away. I'm a bit more liberal.
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
More importantly, why the heck does anyone care?
Apple will release phones in the future. Maybe lots of different phones over the decades. Maybe they'll only release a couple more and drop out of the market. No one knows.
But the name of whatever phones they release just doesn't matter. It's like the 4S. The people who were disappointed because it wasn't named iPhone 5 are simply too shallow for words. The phone has specific features and characteristics. Either you think those features and characteristics are what you want or you don't. The name just shouldn't matter one whit.
Would a Ferrari Scuderia be any less awesome of a car if it were called the Ferrari Rigatoni? You people are all WAY too hung up on silly name games.
Yeah, coming out with ONE new phone per year (or 18 months, as was the case for the last update) is just absolutely ridiculous, right? Can you name me ONE company that updates on a slower cycle than that? It seems every company producing android phone has a new device every couple weeks. How much do you want them to 'stretch it out'? This industry moves insanely fast, and as far as I can tell Apple is the only company with predictable, stable release cycles that are definitely much slower than the norm. Maybe when you come back down to reality you'd realize how ridiculous your complaint sounds, how disconnected from reality you are, and how much of a troll you seem to be with the 'Apple fans must be stupid to xxx' garbage.
And, yet, the top three phones (by sales volume) in the country last quarter were the three Apple iPhones. Why should Apple release new phones any faster?
Because I can count Apple's numbering system, which is pretty clear. And that's what matters.
Um…
1, 3, 3, 4, 4… and supposedly 5 comes after that?
If Apple named the first iPhone the iPhone 1, or some such thing, then people would have had an expectation that the second would be called the 2, or perhaps the II. But Apple didn't do that. It was just the iPhone.
So you first bring up the idea that "Apple might name it based on what people expect it to be named, so they might call it the 5"… and then you shoot that idea in the foot yourself.
But now they have four generations of phone with that naming scheme.
No, they have used three naming schemes.
why go against that?
Because it's completely and utterly wrong and makes absolutely NO sense. It's exactly what anyone would have said about the iPhone 3G before launch. "Oh, what's it going to be called?" "Well, I'd imagine it would be 'iPhone 2'."
but they chose to stick with 4,
They had never DONE that before. You can't stick with something if you've never applied the glue in the first place.
You guys do understand that LTE is a very rare bird outside of the US? What will people in countries where there is no LTE think if the phone is named that? Unlike other manufacturers, Apple keeps the same name all over the world.
Indeed, which is why "iPhone 6" is much higher on my list than "iPhone LTE".
Which naming convention for the phone that 6 would fall into is that?
The third one that Apple has used. I'll go over them again.
First naming scheme: based on generation
Second naming scheme: based on telephony
Third naming scheme: based on speed
Fourth naming scheme: based on generation
Fifth naming scheme: based on speed
Sixth naming scheme: based on…?
What CAN it be? Well, it can be generation or telephony. Why do I throw out speed? Because 'iPhone 4SS" sounds terrible and brings up stormtrooper references in the media.
Look, of all people, I have no idea why you can't see this. I don't need to say that you're one of the smartest and most logical people on the forums; people know that. I love reading your back and forth with… (crap, I forget who that was now. The one staunchly anti-Apple guy that has been here a while. Was it GatorGuy?); it's great stuff to read.
I've already shown why '5' makes absolutely no sense when compared to Apple's historic naming conventions. I don't necessarily expect or want you to start gunning for "iPhone 6" like me (because there's obviously no guarantee of that; all rumors are just rumors), but I at least want you (and everyone) to see why "iPhone 5" makes as much sense as "iPhone Taiyaki" for the name of the next model.
Maybe it's my monitor or that the phones aren't shown in perfect relation to each other, but the green areas aren't the same size on those two phones. The green on the Samsung phone is about 1/8" narrower and 5/8" shorter than on the iPhone. That give a false representation of the screen size.
That's an optical illusion created when two objects of identical size are compared in the same frame of reference as two differently sized objects.
Unless, of course, you cut those green sections out in Photoshop and pasted them on top of one another and found that they're actually different. Then it's just an image creation error.
I vote NO on the 5" screen. 4" maximum.
I vote "No" on any larger screen; just parroting the rumors.
When is the iPhone 5 supposed to be released?
I think October, but some people won't accept anything but July. They forget, of course, all the people who will be angry at the 'less than a year' cycle.
I hope after Qualcomm releases their new LTE 28nm chips. They should be more power efficient.
Oh, I believe that's an absolute given.
They had never DONE that before. You can't stick with something if you've never applied the glue in the first place.
GOLDEN! Maybe its a well-known American saying. Never heard it, thanks.
We know of screens (ok, one) that have the image almost from edge to edge, unlike current screens. Right now, there is about 0.1875" at each edge of the image to the edge of the phone. If they could drop that to 0.0625", they would have gained 0.125" of room.
So, right now, the 3.5" screen is actually 1.94" x 2.91".
A 4" inch screen would be ....................2.22" x 3.33"
The difference in width is just 0.28". This is just over 0.25". Apple could make a phone with a 4" screen that was just a bit over 0.15" wider than now, hardly noticeable. It would be longer, but that doesn't enter the hold-ability test. It would also be almost as easy to reach each corner of the screen for people with smaller than average hands.
I don't see a problem here, just benefits.
I think you have it right here. Although if the aspect ratio of the screen changed, they could go even bigger... I would imagine a larger screen to basically be:
1. the same width as the current screen
2. the same dot pitch as the current screen
3. be taller than the current screen.
The home button could move to the back of the device (maybe the Apple logo becomes the home button) if there isn't enough space on the front or if shrinking the button to make space makes it too hard to use.
Current applications could be letterboxed in if they don't support making use of the extra screen space. This would preserve their aspect ratio and current rendered size. Some current applications could automatically make use of the extra space depending on the type of views they use and the properties set on those views. At any point that an application is using certain APIs (such as displaying a web page or video) this could automatically make full use of the larger screen without developers doing anything. Certainly, there would be instant wins:
- a larger screen that marketing dept wants since all the competition is going that way
- the phone is not necessarily different in physical dimensions (or at least not significantly so)
- current apps looks exactly the same as on current iPhones
- built in apps (safari, mail, videos, etc) make full use of the screen
- it is easy for developers to choose to make use of the entire screen in most apps (those that use standard cocoa views; harder for games and such)
Your making a false analogy here by talking about refurbishing a car vs. buying a new one.
A more correct analogy would be:
If the manufacturer of the Chevy came out with a new model with a new engine, new headlights and mirrors, a new radio and an all new interior, but kept the body of the car 90% the same as last years model ... it would in fact be a whole new car, just as the iPhone 4s is a whole new phone.
No, actually you are making a false analogy.
First of all, the exterior design of the iPhone 4S is identical to the iPhone 4. There are no new headlights, or new mirrors.
Secondly, you can't say that an all new interior in a car equates to them re-jigging the internals of the iPhone. The interior of a car is something you physically interact with whenever you drive the car, unlike the inside of a phone which you never see.
The closest comparison you could draw would be the following:
Body of Car = External iPhone casing/screen
Interior of Car = iOS user interface
Under the hood of the car = iPhone hardware
Since the case remained the same, and iOS 5 is available for the 3GS and 4, the original comparison the was drawn for the Chevy is quite spot on.
I am surprised that it is not out-selling the iPhone 4, actually, as mass market items tend to.
It's cost is not $0. It has a sticker price which is more expensive than the contract price. What happens with the release of the iPhone 5 is that the contract offers more features - better data - for a $0 iPhone 3GS, and less features for a $0 iPhone 4.
This is standard outside the US. Its the way cheaper ticket priced Android phones sell.
We need to get over developing countries vs non-developing countries. Probably the middle income groups in China and India are richer than the bottom 20+% in the US. If Apple wants to extend it's market it will keep the 3GS everywhere. See it as a model - with a design philosophy ( non-retina, curved) different from the higher models. They can update the insides going forward.
As for the design, I love it, Much better than the 4 series.
That contract malarky - once again - makes sense only in the US. In any case it is the carriers who determine that price, not Apple.
Not a problem, no real issue. It works. There is an issue with OpenGL 2.0, but the solution is simple. Build your game for the mass market. If a game needs the latest hardware, people will buy the hardware for it if it is any good.
The real reason to not get rid is that it is selling. Possible 20M units a year, or more this year.
I don't understand your reasoning at all here. $0 is $0 no matter how you look at it. And it's a big error to repeat the incorrect statement that has the US as the only country with contracts. That's not even close to being true. Contracts may not be as popular everywhere as they are in the US and Canada, but they're almost everywhere, and quite a few people get them. So get over the idea that contract price doesn't matter, because it does.
And when you're talking about a contract, there is nothing cheaper than $0. The major reason why carriers charge more for iPhone contracts isn't because of the subsidy, as you may believe, but because of the expected amount of use. If they charged by the subsidy, the contract for a 3GS would be substantially more than for a 4S, and it is not.
What matters is the price in hand. And next year, when the 4 is at $0, then there is no point to having a 3.5 year old phone in the line-up. However well the 3Gs would be selling at that point, the 4 would sell much better.
And Apple m at not agree that is want to get every person in the world as a customer. By not having phones in differing sizes, and rushing out LTE, they've shown that they don't care about everyone, just the large majority, which they do appeal to now. I do agree that my old 3G does feel smoother in the hand, but that hasn't stopped a lot more 4?s being sold than 3S's and 3GS's, not to mention the sales of the 4S (Oh, I did, didn't I?).
By your thinking, they should have kept the 3G as well. People who have the 3GS are very lucky that it accepts iOS 5, even though not every feature is supported. It's JUST fast enough, and has barely enough RAM. The screen sucks when compared to the newer models though. We compared my daughter's 3G and 3Gs to her new 4S, and her reaction to the new screen was simply: "Wow!". That's the case for everyone who saw my 4 when compared to my 3G. The screen on my 4S looks almost exactly like the one on my 4, and that's good.
More importantly, why the heck does anyone care?
Apple will release phones in the future. Maybe lots of different phones over the decades. Maybe they'll only release a couple more and drop out of the market. No one knows.
But the name of whatever phones they release just doesn't matter. It's like the 4S. The people who were disappointed because it wasn't named iPhone 5 are simply too shallow for words. The phone has specific features and characteristics. Either you think those features and characteristics are what you want or you don't. The name just shouldn't matter one whit.
Would a Ferrari Scuderia be any less awesome of a car if it were called the Ferrari Rigatoni? You people are all WAY too hung up on silly name games.
As I said earlier, I don't really care, it won't change my buying plans. But as this seems to be a discussion about naming, as much as anything else, then it's something interesting to argue about.
Um?
1, 3, 3, 4, 4? and supposedly 5 comes after that?
So you first bring up the idea that "Apple might name it based on what people expect it to be named, so they might call it the 5"? and then you shoot that idea in the foot yourself.
No, they have used three naming schemes.
Because it's completely and utterly wrong and makes absolutely NO sense. It's exactly what anyone would have said about the iPhone 3G before launch. "Oh, what's it going to be called?" "Well, I'd imagine it would be 'iPhone 2'."
They had never DONE that before. You can't stick with something if you've never applied the glue in the first place.
Indeed, which is why "iPhone 6" is much higher on my list than "iPhone LTE".
The third one that Apple has used. I'll go over them again.
First naming scheme: based on generation
Second naming scheme: based on telephony
Third naming scheme: based on speed
Fourth naming scheme: based on generation
Fifth naming scheme: based on speed
Sixth naming scheme: based on??
What CAN it be? Well, it can be generation or telephony. Why do I throw out speed? Because 'iPhone 4SS" sounds terrible and brings up stormtrooper references in the media.
Look, of all people, I have no idea why you can't see this. I don't need to say that you're one of the smartest and most logical people on the forums; people know that. I love reading your back and forth with? (crap, I forget who that was now. The one staunchly anti-Apple guy that has been here a while. Was it GatorGuy?); it's great stuff to read.
I've already shown why '5' makes absolutely no sense when compared to Apple's historic naming conventions. I don't necessarily expect or want you to start gunning for "iPhone 6" like me (because there's obviously no guarantee of that; all rumors are just rumors), but I at least want you (and everyone) to see why "iPhone 5" makes as much sense as "iPhone Taiyaki" for the name of the next model.
First of all, most of your arguments are just denials of what my arguments are, which doesn't give them much weight. The argument about speed is only partly correct. The 3G naming had nothing to do with speed. It was just the acknowledgement of 3G service being added to the phone, as that was one of the most asked for features. The 3GS was specifically named for speed. The 4 was named that way because...? Well, not because of speed, but pretty obviously because of a completely new body and screen. But not given a name that specifically stated that. The 4S might be thought of as a speed indicator, but Apple didn't say.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason? They've never named the phone for the generation, or the 3G would have been the 2, the 3GS would be the 3, and yes, by coincidence the 4 would be the 4, but the 4S would be the 5. Not the case of course.
If you're right, and they are naming them for speed now, then the next phone, which should, as far as we know, be much faster, would be called the what?6S? Makes no sense.
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming. The next phone would be the 5, and after that, the 5S. Then we could have the 6, and then the 6S.
At least, that would be consistent. Using the first phone, and calling it the 1 as you did, makes no sense, because it was never given any number. You're giving it one, which doesn't count.
No, actually you are making a false analogy.
First of all, the exterior design of the iPhone 4S is identical to the iPhone 4. There are no new headlights, or new mirrors.
Secondly, you can't say that an all new interior in a car equates to them re-jigging the internals of the iPhone. The interior of a car is something you physically interact with whenever you drive the car, unlike the inside of a phone which you never see.
The closest comparison you could draw would be the following:
Body of Car = External iPhone casing/screen
Interior of Car = iOS user interface
Under the hood of the car = iPhone hardware
Since the case remained the same, and iOS 5 is available for the 3GS and 4, the original comparison the was drawn for the Chevy is quite spot on.
Actually, there are minor differences between the exterior of the 4 and 4S. In holding both of mine, you can easily see the differences between the SS band of the old one vs the new. You can also see where they moved the mute button over.
But it's more than just changing the seats somewhat. It's changing to an entirely new engine with twice the HP and torque. Changing the transmission and drive train. Changing the emission controls and computer system, etc. even if the exterior just had minor changes in the doors and the side mirrors, any auto magazine would consider this to be a car with major new changes, and the company would modify the name for that.
The 3G naming had nothing to do with speed.
I said that one was telephony, not speed.
The 4 was named that way because...?
Generation number.
Well, not because of speed, but pretty obviously because of a completely new body and screen.
Then it would have been called "iPhone BS". For Body & Screen. Or the iPhone HSDPA+.
The 4S might be thought of as a speed indicator, but Apple didn't say.
Transitive property of equality. iPhone 3GS. S was speed. iPhone 4S is an iPhone. S means speed on iPhone names.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason?
They've never named the phone for the generation,
All those emoticons at once was my face when I read that.
yes, by coincidence the 4 would be the 4,
So? they've "never named for generation" but the iPhone 4 exists, so that argument is out the window instantaneously. If the iPhone 4 wasn't named after its generation, what does the 4 stand for?
If you're right, and they are naming them for speed now,
I never said that, I said they swap and stack naming schemes.
?then the next phone, which should, as far as we know, be much faster, would be called the what?6S? Makes no sense.
Is this all just one big joke? I am I on Candid Camera? How? could you possibly derive that?
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming.
All right, instead of me trying to disprove "5", could you please give at least one reason "5" makes sense as a name?
You're giving it one, which doesn't count.
Oh dear heavens, a triple-meaning pun sentence. I know you didn't intend it, but it was hilarious. Kudos.
I said that one was telephony, not speed.
Generation number.
Then it would have been called "iPhone BS". For Body & Screen. Or the iPhone HSDPA+.
Transitive property of equality. iPhone 3GS. S was speed. iPhone 4S is an iPhone. S means speed on iPhone names.
So you think they might go to 6? For what reason?
All those emoticons at once was my face when I read that.
So? they've "never named for generation" but the iPhone 4 exists, so that argument is out the window instantaneously. If the iPhone 4 wasn't named after its generation, what does the 4 stand for?
I never said that, I said they swap and stack naming schemes.
Is this all just one big joke? I am I on Candid Camera? How? could you possibly derive that?
All right, instead of me trying to disprove "5", could you please give at least one reason "5" makes sense as a name?
Oh dear heavens, a triple-meaning pun sentence. I know you didn't intend it, but it was hilarious. Kudos.
You really are stretching. Even you must know that most of what you are saying makes no sense.
By the way, I NEVER said 6. I said 5. 6 makes no sense at all.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Again. You haven't give any reasons why you think what you do, whatever that may be. You're just being negative about everything. You "suggest" a couple of things, but don't back them up with any reasons. For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't. The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
What I think is that you're just deliberately being difficult. You haven't said anything helpful here. So you think they make up names as they go, without having any interest in continuing a naming convention? Just almost random, whatever seems to be the "thing" that year? If that's your answer, and it seems to be from your:
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes."
then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Okay, these are your reasons:
But "5" seems to be a better bet than "6". Why would Apple skip a number here.
In this one, there's no reasoning beyond "a better bet". I have no idea why you think you can dismiss my straight logic as being nebulous when you've said this. As for the second sentence, I refer you to the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. There's no iPhone 2.
And I would imagine that if you asked most people, they would think the next phone will be named the 5.
This is just about the only legitimate reason you've given. Or the closest thing to one, at any rate. Apple doesn't tend to follow what people "think the name might be", though. People mocked "iPad" at first, and I remember iTab, iSlate, and my personal favorite, Slice (as in Apple Slice) were preferred over it.
If so, and the new phone has a bigger screen, and thus a new body, it could be named the "5".
Your reason here is 'because it has a bigger screen and a new body, it could be named the 5". Could you explain what, aside from receiving a 5" screen, would make this make any sense? The iPhone 4 had a 3.5" screen. It wasn't called the iPhone 3.5.
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
I think that here is where the inherent problem lies. You say the "4 [got] two generations". No. That's not how it works. New hardware equals a new generation. Period. You say they would "skip a generation" by giving it a "6". So…
Okay, the rest of this hinges on your explanation of the meaning of "iPhone 4", which you've yet to give. I can't rebut what you haven't said (well, I can, but that's insanely rude and just putting words in people's mouths).
If you ask Joe Public what the next phone will be called, almost every one will say the iPhone 5. why go against that?
I return to my point about the prerelease names of the iPad. The same question could be asked of any of them, the situation there is simply more nebulous. There is nothing about the next generation of iPhone that can say '5'. There was everything about the first iPad that could have said "slate", "tab", or "slice".
The only thing that seems to make sense is the marketing reason for naming.
What IS this 'marketing reason'?
For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't.
That's right. Good thing I never said that, then.
The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
So you're not going to explain why you think they named the iPhone 4 the "iPhone 4" (other than its generation number), then. Why not?
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes." then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
I think you've missed the part where it's visibly apparent that they've done that. I'll go over it again.
1st gen iPhone: Named for generation.
2nd gen iPhone: Named for telephony.
3rd gen iPhone: Named for speed, carrying over telephony designation.
4th gen iPhone: Named for generation.
5th gen iPhone: Named for speed, carrying over generation designation.
6th gen iPhone: Named for…
You really are stretching. Even you must know that most of what you are saying makes no sense.
By the way, I NEVER said 6. I said 5. 6 makes no sense at all.
I gave several reasons why 5 makes sense. It seems as though you haven't read them.
Again. You haven't give any reasons why you think what you do, whatever that may be. You're just being negative about everything. You "suggest" a couple of things, but don't back them up with any reasons. For example, show where every phone so far designates the generation. You can't, because it doesn't. The only phone that seems to do that is the 4. That's one phone out of five. So it means nothing. It's coincidence. Coincidence does exist, you know.
What I think is that you're just deliberately being difficult. You haven't said anything helpful here. So you think they make up names as they go, without having any interest in continuing a naming convention? Just almost random, whatever seems to be the "thing" that year? If that's your answer, and it seems to be from your:
"I said they swap and stack naming schemes."
then I guess you think Apple has no long term plans.
His points are not only valid but crystal clear. It's the 6th generation iPhone and nothing about it would be representative of 5th generation.
You said you can count but nothing about the 2013 iPhone will be 5th generation. Not the OS. Not the Apple A* chip, which appears to have been numbered to follow the iOS version. Not the ITU cellular generation. Not even the basic body design.
It has nothing to do with the generation at this point. It has to do with the fact that Apple has been using the basic body design for two generations of phone, and is naming them that way.
But they haven't. The iPhone 4 was the 3rd basic body design so based on your logic the 6th generation iPhone will be called the iPhone 4 if the basic body design changes. Surely you didn't mean to imply that.
We have a precedence for the the same basic body design to last for 2 cycles with the 2nd cycle getting an 'S' appended to its name. So if you really think the 6th generation iPhone for 2013 will be iPhone 5 then you have to think the 7th generation iPhone for 2014 will be iPhone 5S. That is wrong in so many ways.
Personally I don't care what they call it but I do care that people aren't thinking about it rationally.
If they release a larger iPhone, but keep the current 3.5" as well, will they market it as .... For the new larger iPhone and the 'old' model iPhone Classic?
Or how about 3 screen sizes, creating a S, M and L version?
Earlier I opted for year of release, but was pointed out by melgross that nobody would want a '2012 iPhone' in the year 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I think he's right with that.
Uh, why? You have to have a good reason.
The reason is that it'll be the 6th iPhone. Is that not the only reason there could possibly be?
No, unlike you, I can count.
Ok, let's count. It's been gone through before but I'll try and be super, super clear for you.
ONE: iPhone
TWO: iPhone 3G (note, not the third iPhone!)
THREE: iPhone 3GS
FOUR: iPhone 4 (Isn't the universe full of coincidences?)
FIVE: iPhone 4S
SIX: iPhone 6
Of course, I can't count.
It wasn't a very smart insult. Most mods at most sites would have thrown you off right away. I'm a bit more liberal.
Fair play, you were big enough not to throw your weight around but it wasn't meant to be a smart insult. It wasn't meant as an insult at all. It was my genuine reaction as an unfathomable response. I'm fairly sure you aren't clinically insane.
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
So the first named phone was the 3G. Nothing to do with generation there. The next is (almost wrote "was") the 3GS. Not named after the generation, but after "speed". The 4 followed the 3 series, also getting two generations in with the 4S. So why would anyone think that Apple will change and skip to 6?
You seem to be making my point for me. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
The problem you guys are having with this is that the generation phone has nothing to do with the numbering. That's really pretty clear. The first phone was simply the iPhone, like someone's father is named Sr., but only after his son is given his name, and then the kid is jr.
'The generation has nothing to do with the numbering, that's pretty clear?' Why on earth is the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4 then? I hate to sound incredulous, but...well, I'm incredulous. I cannot fathom your reasoning here.
You actually seem to believe the iPhone 4 was so named because it followed the 3GS. That's...it's just...are you serious?
You're right that it is entirely possible Apple won't call this year's iPhone the 'iPhone 6', but they would have every good reason to do so. What they would have absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to call it is 'iPhone 5'. It's neither the 5th iPhone nor the 5th design.
Nice debate! Really can't argue, with the both of you. Many valid points; I'm wondering, could the following make any sense?
If they release a larger iPhone, but keep the current 3.5" as well, will they market it as .... For the new larger iPhone and the 'old' model iPhone Classic?
Or how about 3 screen sizes, creating a S, M and L version?
Earlier I opted for year of release, but was pointed out by melgross that nobody would want a '2012 iPhone' in the year 2014, or 2015 for that matter. I think he's right with that.
The 4" iPhone will be called iPhone 4. Duh!
The fourth case design for the 3.5" iPhone will be called the iPhone 4. Duh-doy!
The iPhone 4S with LTE will be called the iPhone 4S 5.1 Gen Epic 4G II LTE Lite Maxi Classic.
You're right that it is entirely possible Apple won't call this year's iPhone the 'iPhone 6', but they would have every good reason to do so. What they would have absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to call it is 'iPhone 5'. It's neither the 5th iPhone nor the 5th design.
I think you have the best summation. I don't think iPhone 6 sounds very good and think they could split the line into two size variations, so who knows what they will call it but calling it the iPhone 5 with no logic to back up that claim simply makes no sense.
I don't understand your reasoning at all here. $0 is $0 no matter how you look at it. And it's a big error to repeat the incorrect statement that has the US as the only country with contracts. That's not even close to being true. Contracts may not be as popular everywhere as they are in the US and Canada, but they're almost everywhere, and quite a few people get them. So get over the idea that contract price doesn't matter, because it does.
And when you're talking about a contract, there is nothing cheaper than $0. The major reason why carriers charge more for iPhone contracts isn't because of the subsidy, as you may believe, but because of the expected amount of use. If they charged by the subsidy, the contract for a 3GS would be substantially more than for a 4S, and it is not.
I don't think you get my reasoning. I am aware of contracts outside the US, that is what I am talking about. The US form of contract is not the same as the rest of the world.
Lots of people here say something like "The 3GS costs $0". That, to people outside the US, is meaningless, because here every single phone costs $0 if you pay more for the contract.
See it as a form of loan. The price of the phone is "subsidised" at the start, but you pay for it with the contract. And the contract - which is what the phone stores, and carriers are really selling - will have different data rates, roaming charges, texts per month, voice calls per month etc. included for "free". Going over the limit gets surcharges for all of that, but you get a warning text.
I pay £45 a month, and the iPhone was <£100 as I recall, in my next iteration getting the 4S - soon now as I am out of contract this month - I will reduce the contract to £25 a month, and take the hit in the cost of the phone up front, as I don't use anywhere near 900 minutes a month. Probably I call people 2-3 times a day. I may add a £5 international free roaming for Ireland.
This will make the 4S more expensive up front, but it will cost less over 2 years. A shorter contract also puts up the sticker price of the phone.
Since the contract is what is being sold the phone is - to the carriers - almost incidental. However the iPhone did change that a bit, as people got higher contracts not because they made lots of calls but to reduce the original cost of the phone. Which is, as I found out, is a mugs game.
A long explanation but I hope people get this. The 3GS is not $0, it is $0 on some contracts in one country in the world. The 4S might as well be said to sell at £0 here. Which it does on certain contracts.
Here is an example: O2 in the UK selling the 4S at £0, on some contracts.
http://shop.o2.co.uk/mobile_phone/pa..._4S_16GB_Black
Actually, there are minor differences between the exterior of the 4 and 4S. In holding both of mine, you can easily see the differences between the SS band of the old one vs the new. You can also see where they moved the mute button over.
But it's more than just changing the seats somewhat. It's changing to an entirely new engine with twice the HP and torque. Changing the transmission and drive train. Changing the emission controls and computer system, etc. even if the exterior just had minor changes in the doors and the side mirrors, any auto magazine would consider this to be a car with major new changes, and the company would modify the name for that.
I'd hardly compare moving the SS band and the mute switch to restyling a cars mirrors or headlights. You can't tell me the 4S is in any way more physically appealing than the 4 because of those minute changes. The upgrade from 4 to 4S was also like doubling the horse power, but cutting the gas mileage in half lol.
There's nothing wrong with the current iPhone design, but i'm ready for something new. I'm glad i'm on the two year cycle where I will most likely be upgrading every time there is a change in hardware. I don't know what I want it to look like, but I'm sure Apple will tell me