I see a Sasquatch in that photo. Seriously, way to "prove" it by taking a blurry, angled photo so that the FCC ID cannot be seen and verified (or not).
Has anyone noted the single speaker grille? I've always assumed that the two on current phones were right and left stereo. Is new one to be mono to lower cost? Also, am very curious what they will call this. Lite has too many negative connotations. Nano seems too small for a phone this big. Discuss.
@dasaman69, provocative as always, but I'll bite anyway. This is classy plastic, even if it's fake. It looks like an approach Apple might take, and one that no one else has, as far as I know. Square sides, rounded edges, flat back, tasty material and colors.
It's still cheap plastic and criticized by many on here of other manufacturers that use it. It's hypocrisy no matter what words you use.
Has anyone noted the single speaker grille? I've always assumed that the two on current phones were right and left stereo. Is new one to be mono to lower cost? Also, am very curious what they will call this. Lite has too many negative connotations. Nano seems too small for a phone this big. Discuss.
Current ones are mic and speaker with no stereo. The iPad mini may still be the only stereo IDevice.
It looks passable in white but the colors we've seen so far all looked atrocious.
If, and only if, this phone is real, I would hope it only comes in black and white, as those are the only colors that will look somewhat high end with this plastic.
The lime, mustard, and blue colors all looked vomit inducing and cheap.
Those colors are best done with aluminum as seen with the iPod Nano over the past years.
Yep, when it comes to colors, we really are in subjective territory. I can't believe the blues, bronzes, coppers, reds and yellows people get on their cars these days. "Vomit inducing" is going a bit far, though. Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
I agree that the material makes a big difference, matte aluminum anodized vs. plastic dye, for instance. But I'm pretty sure that here is one place where Apple will research their target markets' preferences. Western tastes might be marginalized at first.
1. An example of an incorrect emotional response: the iPad mini will never sell at that price, Apple is crazy for charging that much for a screen with that pixel density and a tablet with only 16 GB, etc., etc., ignoring the two emotional factors that would make the mini start rivaling the iPad in sales–its look and feel. The thing is so damned charming it is irresistible. Left-brainers can't see this from pictures. They may "get it" when they go to the store. Right brainers can get it from the pictures alone.
2. How something looks is not subjective. This is a fallacy often used as a defense by people with no taste.
3. Glad I'm not your therapist too.
There simply is no such thing as incorrect emotional response. People emote as they do. Unless they are faking it, the response is natural but neither correct nor incorrect. So you're not qualified to be a therapist.
To say that colors but not looks are subjective, with such certainty too, makes you less likely to be right-brained. On the other hand, you have a history of making stuff up. So perhaps you're right-brained after all.
Yep, when it comes to colors, we really are in subjective territory. I can't believe the blues, bronzes, coppers, reds and yellows people get on their cars these days. "Vomit inducing" is going a bit far, though. Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
I agree that the material makes a big difference, matte aluminum anodized vs. plastic dye, for instance. But I'm pretty sure that here is one place where Apple will research their target markets' preferences. Western tastes might be marginalized at first.
What's vomit inducing aren't the colors themselves, but how the colors look with the plastic.
Very cheap and Toys-R-Us-ish.
Apple has never made colored plastic devices like that and for good reason. Why would they start now?
This isn't a rant against fun colors. I like the colors Apple has used for the iPod Nanos over the past years.
The problem I have is how disgustingly cheap they look with this plastic. Honestly they look like the $0.15 iPhone cases you can get on Amazon from non-descript Chinese retailers. I would NOT want Apple to make devices like that.
... the latest rumor has Apple abandoning the iPhone 5 in order to offer simply the "5S" and "lite." ...
This makes sense to me. This year, the iPhone "lite" could have the iPhone 5 components in a lower-cost shell, and the "5S" could get some upgraded components (fingerprint sensor touchscreen, improved camera, dual LED camera flash, A7 processor, etc.) Apple could then stop producing the iPhone 4, 4S, and 5, and sell the following iPhone lineup (prices in US Dollars):
64 GB iPhone "5S" ($399, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
32 GB iPhone "5S" ($299, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "5S" ($199, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "lite" ($99, in multiple colors)
8 GB iPhone "lite" ($0, in black only)
The "lite" model might replace the 1-year old and 2-year old high-end iPhone while preserving the same pricing structure. Apple would only need to build each year's tricky, narrow-tolerance, high-end iPhone for one year, then most of its components would go into the next-year "lite" model. The main differentiator between high-end and low-end models would be some kind of must-have feature, like a fingerprint-sensing touchscreen. Presumably that component would be more expensive than the regular touchscreen, so using the regular screen would keep the "lite" model costs down. And of course, the "lite" model's plastic case would have slightly greater internal volume than the high-end model's aluminum (liquidmetal?) ultra-slim case. So assembly would be easier, therefore faster, therefore cheaper. Apple might still be able to maintain high margins even on the "lite" model.
And it's possible that Apple could drop the oddball numbering scheme. There would just be "the new iPhone" and "the new iPhone 'lite'." No more numbers, like with all Mac lines, all iPods, and all iPads. Customers would no longer be offered the last-year or the 2-year-ago models. Each year the new iPhone and iPhone "lite" would replace the old models. Easier, simpler, and consistent with Apple's other product lines. (My guess is that the high-end and low-end iPhones will eventually be called "iPhone" and "iPhone L" respectively.)
The two-model strategy could also help Apple's production contractors with build capacity. Instead of 3 iPhone models, there would only be two, so they could build more of the high-end and low-end models without necessarily increasing floor space or hiring more employees.
I think this could work, but then again, I'm no spreadsheet jockey.
This makes sense to me. This year, the iPhone "lite" could have the iPhone 5 components in a lower-cost shell, and the "5S" could get some upgraded components (fingerprint sensor touchscreen, improved camera, dual LED camera flash, A7 processor, etc.) Apple could then stop producing the iPhone 4, 4S, and 5, and sell the following iPhone lineup (prices in US Dollars):
64 GB iPhone "5S" ($399, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
32 GB iPhone "5S" ($299, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "5S" ($199, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "lite" ($99, in multiple colors)
8 GB iPhone "lite" ($0, in black only)
The "lite" model might replace the 1-year old and 2-year old high-end iPhone while preserving the same pricing structure. Apple would only need to build each year's tricky, narrow-tolerance, high-end iPhone for one year, then most of its components would go into the next-year "lite" model. The main differentiator between high-end and low-end models would be some kind of must-have feature, like a fingerprint-sensing touchscreen. Presumably that component would be more expensive than the regular touchscreen, so using the regular screen would keep the "lite" model costs down. And of course, the "lite" model's plastic case would have slightly greater internal volume than the high-end model's aluminum (liquidmetal?) ultra-slim case. So assembly would be easier, therefore faster, therefore cheaper. Apple might still be able to maintain high margins even on the "lite" model.
And it's possible that Apple could drop the oddball numbering scheme. There would just be "the new iPhone" and "the new iPhone 'lite'." No more numbers, like with all Mac lines, all iPods, and all iPads. Customers would no longer be offered the last-year or the 2-year-ago models. Each year the new iPhone and iPhone "lite" would replace the old models. Easier, simpler, and consistent with Apple's other product lines. (My guess is that the high-end and low-end iPhones will eventually be called "iPhone" and "iPhone L" respectively.)
The two-model strategy could also help Apple's production contractors with build capacity. Instead of 3 iPhone models, there would only be two, so they could build more of the high-end and low-end models without necessarily increasing floor space or hiring more employees.
I think this could work, but then again, I'm no spreadsheet jockey.
Looking forward to late CQ3 this year...
Funny how nobody ever thinks that disk size will increase that much. Anyway those are US contract prices, not the real prices. I see the iPhone "lite" as being much cheaper off contract than the 5 and 4s would have been. Otherwise this is pointless.
And fingerprint technology is not going to sell anything.
I hope Apple shocks everyone and prices it cheaper than expected. If Cook has decided they need to go down market, then go all the way.
As in what? Less than Free? Because that's what the 8 GB model is going to cost w/ a 2 year contract. iPhones are not for 13 year olds to go buy at Walgreens.
If history is any reference, iPhone lite is just nonsense. If they are trying to do a paradigm shift from the past, this being stacked with cheap androids will just make Applelook substandard.
I am somehow not convinced with this cheap Iphone strategy.
Maybe that is because you are completely clueless. Apple built the 3G, and the 3GS. They were both molded plastic, and were wildly successful for years. There was nothing cheap about them at all. Many people preferred that design over the iPhone 4 thru 5. Certainly far more durable and practical.
As for "cheap". These new iPhone Lites are not cheap. They are LESS EXPENSIVE than the iPhone 5S will be. And guess what? There are 2 "Cheap" price points well established by Apple for them to enter: Free & $99 w/ contract.
Funny how nobody ever thinks that disk size will increase that much. Anyway those are US contract prices, not the real prices. I see the iPhone "lite" as being much cheaper off contract than the 5 and 4s. Otherwise this is pointless.
And fingerprint technology is not going to sell anything.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. They WILL be slightly cheaper, probably $399 for the 8GB and $449 for the 16 GB, off contract.
But that is not the point. It is has NEVER been the point, to sell an off contract iPhone for $300 or less...such thing is impossible and could never exist.
Every single article, including this one, that insists on mentioning "EMERGING MARKETZ" as the purpose of this device, are completely and totally wrong. As out to lunch as one could be.
As in what? Less than Free? Because that's what the 8 GB model is going to cost w/ a 2 year contract. iPhones are not for 13 year olds to go buy at Walgreens.
.
As in less than the 4 off contract. Probably free on contract, as usual.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JedidiaLongtree
I can be wrong but I think this is the first leak when the cutout for the sim tray is clearly visible.
Yep. It looks like its from further down the assembly line compare to other leaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69
I DONT WANT ALL THESE APPLE PRODUCT LEAKS
I love those leaks, bring more please.
It's cheap plastic.
The video link from the previous article on this topic had shown the sim tray cutout.
Those legal notices destroy the otherwise clean look.
Weren't they in a lighter shade than that, on more recent white iPhones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
The video link from the previous article on this topic had shown the sim tray cutout.
Do you mean this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44biradk84Y?
It's still cheap plastic and criticized by many on here of other manufacturers that use it. It's hypocrisy no matter what words you use.
Yep, when it comes to colors, we really are in subjective territory. I can't believe the blues, bronzes, coppers, reds and yellows people get on their cars these days. "Vomit inducing" is going a bit far, though. Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
I agree that the material makes a big difference, matte aluminum anodized vs. plastic dye, for instance. But I'm pretty sure that here is one place where Apple will research their target markets' preferences. Western tastes might be marginalized at first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
1. An example of an incorrect emotional response: the iPad mini will never sell at that price, Apple is crazy for charging that much for a screen with that pixel density and a tablet with only 16 GB, etc., etc., ignoring the two emotional factors that would make the mini start rivaling the iPad in sales–its look and feel. The thing is so damned charming it is irresistible. Left-brainers can't see this from pictures. They may "get it" when they go to the store. Right brainers can get it from the pictures alone.
2. How something looks is not subjective. This is a fallacy often used as a defense by people with no taste.
3. Glad I'm not your therapist too.
There simply is no such thing as incorrect emotional response. People emote as they do. Unless they are faking it, the response is natural but neither correct nor incorrect. So you're not qualified to be a therapist.
To say that colors but not looks are subjective, with such certainty too, makes you less likely to be right-brained. On the other hand, you have a history of making stuff up. So perhaps you're right-brained after all.
What's vomit inducing aren't the colors themselves, but how the colors look with the plastic.
Very cheap and Toys-R-Us-ish.
Apple has never made colored plastic devices like that and for good reason. Why would they start now?
This isn't a rant against fun colors. I like the colors Apple has used for the iPod Nanos over the past years.
The problem I have is how disgustingly cheap they look with this plastic. Honestly they look like the $0.15 iPhone cases you can get on Amazon from non-descript Chinese retailers. I would NOT want Apple to make devices like that.
Apple = Aluminum + Glass
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... the latest rumor has Apple abandoning the iPhone 5 in order to offer simply the "5S" and "lite." ...
This makes sense to me. This year, the iPhone "lite" could have the iPhone 5 components in a lower-cost shell, and the "5S" could get some upgraded components (fingerprint sensor touchscreen, improved camera, dual LED camera flash, A7 processor, etc.) Apple could then stop producing the iPhone 4, 4S, and 5, and sell the following iPhone lineup (prices in US Dollars):
64 GB iPhone "5S" ($399, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
32 GB iPhone "5S" ($299, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "5S" ($199, in black/slate or white/aluminum)
16 GB iPhone "lite" ($99, in multiple colors)
8 GB iPhone "lite" ($0, in black only)
The "lite" model might replace the 1-year old and 2-year old high-end iPhone while preserving the same pricing structure. Apple would only need to build each year's tricky, narrow-tolerance, high-end iPhone for one year, then most of its components would go into the next-year "lite" model. The main differentiator between high-end and low-end models would be some kind of must-have feature, like a fingerprint-sensing touchscreen. Presumably that component would be more expensive than the regular touchscreen, so using the regular screen would keep the "lite" model costs down. And of course, the "lite" model's plastic case would have slightly greater internal volume than the high-end model's aluminum (liquidmetal?) ultra-slim case. So assembly would be easier, therefore faster, therefore cheaper. Apple might still be able to maintain high margins even on the "lite" model.
And it's possible that Apple could drop the oddball numbering scheme. There would just be "the new iPhone" and "the new iPhone 'lite'." No more numbers, like with all Mac lines, all iPods, and all iPads. Customers would no longer be offered the last-year or the 2-year-ago models. Each year the new iPhone and iPhone "lite" would replace the old models. Easier, simpler, and consistent with Apple's other product lines. (My guess is that the high-end and low-end iPhones will eventually be called "iPhone" and "iPhone L" respectively.)
The two-model strategy could also help Apple's production contractors with build capacity. Instead of 3 iPhone models, there would only be two, so they could build more of the high-end and low-end models without necessarily increasing floor space or hiring more employees.
I think this could work, but then again, I'm no spreadsheet jockey.
Looking forward to late CQ3 this year...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
This is nice, but Apple really needs a larger model.
No, people need to stop thinking that they need a larger phone.
If you want a larger screen and it's so important to you, get an Android POS.
If he has to do that it proves his pint, not yours.
Funny how nobody ever thinks that disk size will increase that much. Anyway those are US contract prices, not the real prices. I see the iPhone "lite" as being much cheaper off contract than the 5 and 4s would have been. Otherwise this is pointless.
And fingerprint technology is not going to sell anything.
They're legit.
As in what? Less than Free? Because that's what the 8 GB model is going to cost w/ a 2 year contract. iPhones are not for 13 year olds to go buy at Walgreens.
No they don't. Sales figures prove that even without the overwhelming logic.
Maybe that is because you are completely clueless. Apple built the 3G, and the 3GS. They were both molded plastic, and were wildly successful for years. There was nothing cheap about them at all. Many people preferred that design over the iPhone 4 thru 5. Certainly far more durable and practical.
As for "cheap". These new iPhone Lites are not cheap. They are LESS EXPENSIVE than the iPhone 5S will be. And guess what? There are 2 "Cheap" price points well established by Apple for them to enter: Free & $99 w/ contract.
Nary a leak different.
Probably not a production model.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. They WILL be slightly cheaper, probably $399 for the 8GB and $449 for the 16 GB, off contract.
But that is not the point. It is has NEVER been the point, to sell an off contract iPhone for $300 or less...such thing is impossible and could never exist.
Every single article, including this one, that insists on mentioning "EMERGING MARKETZ" as the purpose of this device, are completely and totally wrong. As out to lunch as one could be.
As in less than the 4 off contract. Probably free on contract, as usual.