A lot of people don't believe there were any trade offs. There reasoning, just like with netbooks, is, "If blah blah can do it then so can Apple." They aren't looking at the tradeoffs that are part of all technology. Thankfully Apple doesn't give in to gimmicky and/or half-assed solutions simply because a vocal minority wants it, like fingerprint scanners years ago, or because it's momentary popular, like the netbook. They waited and perfected Touch ID and the iPad, respectively.
So the question remains: What is Apple waiting for? More efficient display tech and/or smaller bezel option with IGZO? Higher res display which means the iOS UI and Xcode to be updated? Some other internal technology not yet available, like a digitizer without having a dramatic impact on device cost? Something else(s) entirely?
So, if we are going to use our phone in a different way than there is a place for a 5.5" iPhablet. Holding your phone next to your head is not done if you care about your well being.
Anyway. I am taking this very serious. I want to hear an explanation from Apple. I am not spending 800€ for a device that puts my well being at risk. No matter how cool that device is. A feature phone and iPod Touch look like the best alternative to me. I can't see myself fiddling with a headset.
There was a TV show that claimed that because the dots placed on a patients head to line up the radiation treatment for cancer lined up with the antenna in her cell phone that the phone must have caused the cancer. While is not how science works - and they didn't apparently consider the fact that both cell phones and medical equipment are designed to be operated by human hands and the fact that two unrelated pieces of equipment happen to have roughly the same shape and size is basically a coincidence - but not by random chance, by design, wight the coincidence being the brain tumor that happened to be in an area of the brain accessible from the same location as a cell phone is used.
Even an epidemiological study that shows twice the cancer brain tumor rate in cell phone users and non cell phone users does not establish a causal relationship between the two - although it would warrant further investigation.
Also consider the fact that you are constantly bathed in electromagnetic radiation from numerous sources constantly - including form the Sun and from cosmic radiation, AM and FM radio, etc. So unless you have a population who has spent most of their lives living inside a lead lined bunker it takes quite a bit of data and very careful study to link any one thing to a specific cancer.
Thought you'd learn your lesson to not say definitives after looking like a complete idiot last October when you screamed, argued, talked down to people and bragged about your vast knowledge of marketing and supply chains by saying that apple would a) never release a more expensive iPad mini and b) never lower the price of the existing mini.
What I was wrong about was Apple raising the price of the iPad mini to $399...which was unimaginable and still a really poor move.
It was a given that the original mini would go down in price and I never said anything to the contrary.
All of that aside, it has nothing to do with idiotic claims that Apple is even considering releasing A) and a new iPod Touch at the same time or within a few weeks of an iPhone, a new iPod Touch AT ALL, C) a new iPod Touch with LARGER FRIGGING SCREEN than the new iPhone.
Its not happening. None of them are. I will happily lambast myself for being wrong....but I'm not wrong.
These are my questions. Why is 2014 the year for a bigger iPhone but not 2012 or 2013?
Why is that a question at all? I can't imagine why you believe you could even ask such a thing, or come up with a relevant answer.
I think I know the answer, but it won't be acceptable to you, because YOU are looking for someone to tell you that 2014 is the year because Apple is trying to copy other manufacturers and give customers what is in most high demand.
The iPod Touch-esque design is the dead give away. If Apple could have made an iPhone this slim 2 years ago, or 4 years ago...they would have. In fact, if the could make a 4" iPhone this slim, they probably still would. I'm not getting into more details as I already see this going RIGHT OVER your head.
That would be utterly ridiculous. And it won't happen.
I don't see any room for today's 1st gen iPad mini after gen 2 becomes available. Apple can't afford to lower the price on it AT ALL to maintain acceptable margin (this is not an iPhone).
All of that aside, it has nothing to do with idiotic claims that Apple is even considering releasing a new iPod Touch AT ALL.
Its not happening. None of them are. I will happily lambast myself for being wrong....but I'm not wrong.
Even an epidemiological study that shows twice the cancer brain tumor rate in cell phone users and non cell phone users does not establish a causal relationship between the two - although it would warrant further investigation.
Correlation does not equal causation, in other words.
Anyway. I am taking this very serious. I want to hear an explanation from Apple. I am not spending 800€ for a device that puts my well being at risk. No matter how cool that device is. A feature phone and iPod Touch look like the best alternative to me. I can't see myself fiddling with a headset.
Why don't you ask the other phone vendors first. And you do realize regular cell phones do the same "damage".
Considering the fact that I smoke (though not as much as years ago), I drink like a fish, and the number of contaminents with which I come into contact on a daily basis just through living a regular life in the modern world -- my iPhone is hardly a big concern on the the health meter.
And everyone dies. Personally, I could die tomorrow, I don't care. I won't know anyways.
I was thinking the same thing, I do not smoke, but my dad smoked 2 packs a day from age 16 to 55 when he stop after having surgery on his nose, his chest x-ray was almost completely black at the time and the doctors could not figure out how he was even breathing. He did not eat well and loved his sweets and had a triple bypass at 65, today at 85, his lungs are completely clear and his cholesterol is at 125 and take only a baby aspirin, and he is in good health other than the aches and pains an 85 yr would have after working a hard life. I can not imagine all the things he was exposed to at work and no of those things seem to have affected him. Also my grandfather on my dad's side work in the steel mills shoving coal into the coke ovens for 40 yrs and live to he was 75 and he only drank wine and the doctors use to tell him he would die soon if he did not stop smoking and drinking. He live for another 20 yrs. he die of old age, no bad things killed him.
I once heard if you are predestine to have cancer or some other disease then all the bad things can speed it up, but if you are otherwise in perfect health and do not have any of the bad genes then the bad things may not effect you and my dad and grandfather are proof. Unless my dad was suppose to live to 120 and may die at 90, so he may have lost some years. But he most like will pass away due to not being able to do the things he likes because of all his work related injuries and dies of boredom.
The human body is so complex and it has ability to repair itself from all the bad things we do to it, they have no clue where the affect they are seeing is due to the outside influence or the person was going to have the issues anyway. The medical communities can not explain why one person has issue and other one see none. Just look at all the warning on Drugs these days, depending on who you are you could die from taking any number of drugs on the market today.
Well I remember back in the 80's people was worried about radiation from monitors and all these companies sold radiation shield for your monitors, and they had proof if you spent 8 hr a day in front of a monitors you would get cancer some point in your life. Yeah the monitor radiation epidemic did not happen.
Oh BTW my dad has one of those original Motorola Brick Cell (5 Watts) phone from the late 80's and carried it for 5 yrs and has had a cell phone ever since and his brain is fine these days as well, I know people his age who never had a cell phone and their brains are scrabbled eggs.
A single LED flash is likely I believe. I could not understand why Apple needed the dual LEDs. They do look cool but why not just shift the color of a single bright LED as needed like a Philips Hue rather than have two different LEDs? Alternately why not design dual LEDs as a single unit? In general you never want multiple light sources with different colors for photography because it can lead to color fringing of shadows when taking closeup pictures.
These are my questions. Why is 2014 the year for a bigger iPhone but not 2012 or 2013?
That's the easier question to answer: because it was the right time for Apple. The deeper question is the specify why it's not the right time. It could be all about the tech or it could be as mundane as Apple not wanting to move until they are sure it's not just another flash in the pan, like netbooks. Remember when people wondered why Apple didn't make a netbook or did add LTE at the soonest possible time? I do, and yet Apple was eventually proved to be right for not making a netbook or jumping on the 1st and 2nd gen LTE chips.
Will be interesting to see how Schiller announces this. With the iPad mini he spent most of his time taking about how you can see more content because the screen is bigger than the 7" 16:9 Android tablets. With the iPhone 5 it was all about being able to comfortably use with one hand. My guess is Apple will pretend the one handed use comment never existed.
Possibility, but we've had plenty of discussions about the width of the side bezel, thickness of the device and curvature of the edges that can allow the screen to be bigger without it still not being about as functional as it is right now. Based on my calculations 4.4" seemed like the upper limit but that's just estimations and guesses piled on each other; the only way to truly know is to build a device and test it.4.7" is above my projected range but it's only 0.3" on the diagonal which is only an additional 0.15" wider. Perhaps Apple found that to be just as usable or they are doing a tradeoff like with the additional thickness and weight of the iPad 3 when going Retina, but that analogy only works if they will be able to make it more one-handed friendly in the future.
I am not satisfied with the idea of Apple using the same resolution as in the iPhone 5S today (or simply going to a 1920x1080 resolution which people want because it's what one's HDTV uses). I wonder if Apple will break down the wall again with resolution, and perhaps for the final time. I don't think it's necessary but some do say that 326 PPI isn't good enough. Perhaps the 5.5" rumour is also true — which I don't think could ever be one-handed so I'm even considering that as an option for my needs — and they want to use the 326 PPI there which makes the new resolution about 1566x876, and then the same resolution on the 4.7" which means the PPI is 380 PPI. This type of scaling makes sense if you look at the iPad line. You can shrink the resolution to a smaller physical size much better from a usability standpoint than you can if you were to expand it.
Now all that could take a year or more to idealize the OS, apps and the IDE for the new resolution but I think it's something more than that. I think Apple will use the additional space to offer something else. Perhaps even something we've never thought of. I guess we'll have to wait for September (or earlier) to find out.
Also consider the fact that you are constantly bathed in electromagnetic radiation from numerous sources constantly - including form the Sun and from cosmic radiation, AM and FM radio, etc.
There is a reason the FCC requires the cell antenna to be on the bottom end of the phone - so it is further away from your brain. But honestly you should use either a headset or the speaker phone feature to be safer. Ironically, when people use a headset or BT car function they often have their phone in their pocket radiating their testicles. Perhaps that will help to reduce over population in the future.
Let's play a game- how many times can pmz be proven wrong this morning?
Heard that before...
Reading comprehension doesn't suit you.
How many dollars did the iPad mini 1st generation decrease the day the Reina Mini became available?
0.
Which is exactly what I was getting at in 2013. I did not see it as possible for the Retina Mini to come in at $299, AND for the iPad mini 1 to continue existing at ANY LOWER PRICE POINT. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you wasted time digging up to then misrepresent.
I did not believe Apple would dare slap Retina on the mini and raise the price by $100. But they did. THAT I was absolutely wrong about.
I was NOT WRONG at all about the clear cut obvious statement that Apple would not lower the price of the first gen mini. They couldn't, and didn't. I figured it would be discontinued, but that was based on the common sense prediction that the Retina Mini would replace it at $299....which it did not.
A lot of people don't believe there were any trade offs. There reasoning, just like with netbooks, is, "If blah blah can do it then so can Apple." They aren't looking at the tradeoffs that are part of all technology. Thankfully Apple doesn't give in to gimmicky and/or half-assed solutions simply because a vocal minority wants it, like fingerprint scanners years ago, or because it's momentary popular, like the netbook. They waited and perfected Touch ID and the iPad, respectively.
So the question remains: What is Apple waiting for? More efficient display tech and/or smaller bezel option with IGZO? Higher res display which means the iOS UI and Xcode to be updated? Some other internal technology not yet available, like a digitizer without having a dramatic impact on device cost? Something else(s) entirely?
According to Kuo,
It won't be IGZO,
The best guess
Is LTPS.
Which was in short supply and inadequate for Apple's needs all through 2013, according to various sources.
Comments
A human hand to evolve longer fingers?
Recent studies show that holding your phone next to your head does impact your brain and DNA:
A solution is to use a headset.
So, if we are going to use our phone in a different way than there is a place for a 5.5" iPhablet. Holding your phone next to your head is not done if you care about your well being.
Anyway. I am taking this very serious. I want to hear an explanation from Apple. I am not spending 800€ for a device that puts my well being at risk. No matter how cool that device is. A feature phone and iPod Touch look like the best alternative to me. I can't see myself fiddling with a headset.
There was a TV show that claimed that because the dots placed on a patients head to line up the radiation treatment for cancer lined up with the antenna in her cell phone that the phone must have caused the cancer. While is not how science works - and they didn't apparently consider the fact that both cell phones and medical equipment are designed to be operated by human hands and the fact that two unrelated pieces of equipment happen to have roughly the same shape and size is basically a coincidence - but not by random chance, by design, wight the coincidence being the brain tumor that happened to be in an area of the brain accessible from the same location as a cell phone is used.
Even an epidemiological study that shows twice the cancer brain tumor rate in cell phone users and non cell phone users does not establish a causal relationship between the two - although it would warrant further investigation.
Also consider the fact that you are constantly bathed in electromagnetic radiation from numerous sources constantly - including form the Sun and from cosmic radiation, AM and FM radio, etc. So unless you have a population who has spent most of their lives living inside a lead lined bunker it takes quite a bit of data and very careful study to link any one thing to a specific cancer.
Thought you'd learn your lesson to not say definitives after looking like a complete idiot last October when you screamed, argued, talked down to people and bragged about your vast knowledge of marketing and supply chains by saying that apple would a) never release a more expensive iPad mini and b) never lower the price of the existing mini.
What I was wrong about was Apple raising the price of the iPad mini to $399...which was unimaginable and still a really poor move.
It was a given that the original mini would go down in price and I never said anything to the contrary.
All of that aside, it has nothing to do with idiotic claims that Apple is even considering releasing A) and a new iPod Touch at the same time or within a few weeks of an iPhone,
a new iPod Touch AT ALL, C) a new iPod Touch with LARGER FRIGGING SCREEN than the new iPhone.
Its not happening. None of them are. I will happily lambast myself for being wrong....but I'm not wrong.
These are my questions. Why is 2014 the year for a bigger iPhone but not 2012 or 2013?
Why is that a question at all? I can't imagine why you believe you could even ask such a thing, or come up with a relevant answer.
I think I know the answer, but it won't be acceptable to you, because YOU are looking for someone to tell you that 2014 is the year because Apple is trying to copy other manufacturers and give customers what is in most high demand.
The iPod Touch-esque design is the dead give away. If Apple could have made an iPhone this slim 2 years ago, or 4 years ago...they would have. In fact, if the could make a 4" iPhone this slim, they probably still would. I'm not getting into more details as I already see this going RIGHT OVER your head.
…people still believe utter nonsense.
That’s not a point in its favor.
Let's play a game- how many times can pmz be proven wrong this morning?
Heard that before...
Even an epidemiological study that shows twice the cancer brain tumor rate in cell phone users and non cell phone users does not establish a causal relationship between the two - although it would warrant further investigation.
Correlation does not equal causation, in other words.
Why don't you ask the other phone vendors first. And you do realize regular cell phones do the same "damage".
Battery life, weight...
Considering the fact that I smoke (though not as much as years ago), I drink like a fish, and the number of contaminents with which I come into contact on a daily basis just through living a regular life in the modern world -- my iPhone is hardly a big concern on the the health meter.
And everyone dies. Personally, I could die tomorrow, I don't care. I won't know anyways.
I was thinking the same thing, I do not smoke, but my dad smoked 2 packs a day from age 16 to 55 when he stop after having surgery on his nose, his chest x-ray was almost completely black at the time and the doctors could not figure out how he was even breathing. He did not eat well and loved his sweets and had a triple bypass at 65, today at 85, his lungs are completely clear and his cholesterol is at 125 and take only a baby aspirin, and he is in good health other than the aches and pains an 85 yr would have after working a hard life. I can not imagine all the things he was exposed to at work and no of those things seem to have affected him. Also my grandfather on my dad's side work in the steel mills shoving coal into the coke ovens for 40 yrs and live to he was 75 and he only drank wine and the doctors use to tell him he would die soon if he did not stop smoking and drinking. He live for another 20 yrs. he die of old age, no bad things killed him.
I once heard if you are predestine to have cancer or some other disease then all the bad things can speed it up, but if you are otherwise in perfect health and do not have any of the bad genes then the bad things may not effect you and my dad and grandfather are proof. Unless my dad was suppose to live to 120 and may die at 90, so he may have lost some years. But he most like will pass away due to not being able to do the things he likes because of all his work related injuries and dies of boredom.
The human body is so complex and it has ability to repair itself from all the bad things we do to it, they have no clue where the affect they are seeing is due to the outside influence or the person was going to have the issues anyway. The medical communities can not explain why one person has issue and other one see none. Just look at all the warning on Drugs these days, depending on who you are you could die from taking any number of drugs on the market today.
Well I remember back in the 80's people was worried about radiation from monitors and all these companies sold radiation shield for your monitors, and they had proof if you spent 8 hr a day in front of a monitors you would get cancer some point in your life. Yeah the monitor radiation epidemic did not happen.
Oh BTW my dad has one of those original Motorola Brick Cell (5 Watts) phone from the late 80's and carried it for 5 yrs and has had a cell phone ever since and his brain is fine these days as well, I know people his age who never had a cell phone and their brains are scrabbled eggs.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
A single LED flash is likely I believe. I could not understand why Apple needed the dual LEDs. They do look cool but why not just shift the color of a single bright LED as needed like a Philips Hue rather than have two different LEDs? Alternately why not design dual LEDs as a single unit? In general you never want multiple light sources with different colors for photography because it can lead to color fringing of shadows when taking closeup pictures.
That's the easier question to answer: because it was the right time for Apple. The deeper question is the specify why it's not the right time. It could be all about the tech or it could be as mundane as Apple not wanting to move until they are sure it's not just another flash in the pan, like netbooks. Remember when people wondered why Apple didn't make a netbook or did add LTE at the soonest possible time? I do, and yet Apple was eventually proved to be right for not making a netbook or jumping on the 1st and 2nd gen LTE chips.
Possibility, but we've had plenty of discussions about the width of the side bezel, thickness of the device and curvature of the edges that can allow the screen to be bigger without it still not being about as functional as it is right now. Based on my calculations 4.4" seemed like the upper limit but that's just estimations and guesses piled on each other; the only way to truly know is to build a device and test it.4.7" is above my projected range but it's only 0.3" on the diagonal which is only an additional 0.15" wider. Perhaps Apple found that to be just as usable or they are doing a tradeoff like with the additional thickness and weight of the iPad 3 when going Retina, but that analogy only works if they will be able to make it more one-handed friendly in the future.
I am not satisfied with the idea of Apple using the same resolution as in the iPhone 5S today (or simply going to a 1920x1080 resolution which people want because it's what one's HDTV uses). I wonder if Apple will break down the wall again with resolution, and perhaps for the final time. I don't think it's necessary but some do say that 326 PPI isn't good enough. Perhaps the 5.5" rumour is also true — which I don't think could ever be one-handed so I'm even considering that as an option for my needs — and they want to use the 326 PPI there which makes the new resolution about 1566x876, and then the same resolution on the 4.7" which means the PPI is 380 PPI. This type of scaling makes sense if you look at the iPad line. You can shrink the resolution to a smaller physical size much better from a usability standpoint than you can if you were to expand it.
Now all that could take a year or more to idealize the OS, apps and the IDE for the new resolution but I think it's something more than that. I think Apple will use the additional space to offer something else. Perhaps even something we've never thought of. I guess we'll have to wait for September (or earlier) to find out.
I love this.
There is a reason the FCC requires the cell antenna to be on the bottom end of the phone - so it is further away from your brain. But honestly you should use either a headset or the speaker phone feature to be safer. Ironically, when people use a headset or BT car function they often have their phone in their pocket radiating their testicles. Perhaps that will help to reduce over population in the future.
Let's play a game- how many times can pmz be proven wrong this morning?
Heard that before...
Reading comprehension doesn't suit you.
How many dollars did the iPad mini 1st generation decrease the day the Reina Mini became available?
0.
Which is exactly what I was getting at in 2013. I did not see it as possible for the Retina Mini to come in at $299, AND for the iPad mini 1 to continue existing at ANY LOWER PRICE POINT. Which is exactly what I said in the quote you wasted time digging up to then misrepresent.
I did not believe Apple would dare slap Retina on the mini and raise the price by $100. But they did. THAT I was absolutely wrong about.
I was NOT WRONG at all about the clear cut obvious statement that Apple would not lower the price of the first gen mini. They couldn't, and didn't. I figured it would be discontinued, but that was based on the common sense prediction that the Retina Mini would replace it at $299....which it did not.
If you're going to be ass, be an accurate ass.
How many dollars did the iPad mini 1st generation decrease the day the Reina Mini became available?
0.
30
The mini was originally priced at $329.
According to Kuo,
It won't be IGZO,
The best guess
Is LTPS.
Which was in short supply and inadequate for Apple's needs all through 2013, according to various sources.