If you can't see that they are the same crappy part with the same crappy, protruding lens and the same crappy, white [failing] plastic inserts and the same crappy, stamped aluminum shell, well, I can't help you with that.
Of course the link I posted was to an "iPhone 6 clone from China". That's the whole point. The "purported" image "leak" is the back panel from that cheap, crappy Chinese knockoff. This is not a part from Apple.
Do you folks honestly believe that Apple is going to use cheap, crappy plastic as antenna separators? If you do, I think you aren't paying very close attention.
Two words for this story: "Link" and "Bait"!
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Everybody keeps freaking out about the "ugly band lines" and the "protruding" lens". If you actually look at the pics, you can see the white band is partially peeled off, showing a channel. Which makes sense. Look at the back of the 5s:
Gee! Well looky here! Ugly thick band on the side… but NO thick band on the back. Could it be that there's ANOTHER LAYER of material that will go on TOP of the back that will blend in and hide the bands on the back, and also be thick enough to NOT have the camera lens protrude???
This is a rumor site. This is like getting angry at a movie rumor site that got the plot wrong.
I mean seriously.
Dude, I'm chilled. And, yes, this is a "rumor" site. However, rumors or not, these "reporters" are supposed to be "professionals". I submit that there is no "pro" in their titles at all. Rather than being leaders, they are simply followers, ready to dive on whatever "insider information" comes fraudulently strolling in the door.
The link I posted has been available for over a week, and that knockoff was first shown earlier than that (here is another from mid July). I am not a reporter, nor am I a terribly good researcher. However, it took me exactly 10 seconds to type "iPhone 6 knockoff" into my little Googly thing and see an identical part on a functional knockoff that has been in the wild for at least a month. In the fast-paced world of smartphone tech, a month is forever!
This "rumor" is just poor, and should already be disqualified as trivial garbage for anyone with eyes. A far better story could have been written around the shoddy quality of Chinese "iPhone" knockoffs, with clear proof that the part was from one and that it wasn't holding up terribly well.
Which brings up …
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Sorry for the brashness of my post. I'm not trying to be a dick. Just pointing out the terribly obvious.
I've made my point and will slink back into my cave, now.
Some here seem delusional not believe this ...protruding,ugly band iPhone is not in fact what will be what I s paraded out on Step 9.
Do I think it's elegant? Nope. But as they say, its what's inside that counts. Beauty is only skin deep.
So if this device has great new features, then that's all that matters. ....if not the is going to be a run on discounted 5s's if they decide to keep it at discounted cost
Instead of glass cutouts like Apple has featured on the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s, Apple appears to be using a new design to allow the internal antennas to work through the handset's metal exterior.
Or the backside inlays could be textured / colored glass. As is the Magic Trackpad and as are all MacBook Pro trackpads.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
No iPhone camera to date has stuck out from the back panel, though Apple's fifth-generation iPod touch has adopted that style.
I don't care either way. No, the lens ring isn't pretty. But no, it just isn't that important.
And anybody who makes a big deal out of it just might be trolling. Just maybe.
I can't imagine Jony Ive designing such a ghastly piece of work. The thick bands, the protruding lens. It's a disaster, the worst looking iPhone since the 3GS. Not to mention the screen and its huge surrounding bezel area making it an unwieldy beast.
Actually, it looks quite the improvement over the 5s.
I was shocked to see how mishmash the rear of the iPhone 5 looked after the perfect front/rear symmetry of the iPhone 4.
Per others on here and links to other blogs, it is a knock-off and not a genuine iPhone 6, so my following comments are about the state of the phone itself, not its authenticity:
The damage suggest that this phone is going through some form of torture testing. The white (plastic?) frames surrounding the upper and lower cut-outs at the top and bottom of the phone are both obviously broken off. In the top-most, close-up picture of the lens and flash, you can see the white frame fractured above and to the right of the flash (roughly at 2 o'clock position from the flash). It is obviously jagged and not normal. To the left of the break you can see the phone's metal frame exposed. This is visible going all the way back to the left side, around the phone's edge on the camera lens side, and then going back to the right (underneath the lens), to roughly a centimeter or so from the phone's right side, where the plastic is present again (see 2nd, full picture).
Also, as can be seen in the 3rd picture, the center black apple logo has been picked at/deformed on its right side (along the edge of the "bite" curve in the logo) and also on the bottom of the logo, between the two base "humps" or "feet" of the apple.
One other item of note: within the black apple logo, there seems to be a white shadow of an identical apple logo, though shifted down. However, this white shadow seems to have different positions in the 2nd and 3rd pictures: in the second one, the leaf at the top of the white, shadowed logo appears to be nearly exactly aligned with the black leaf above it. But in the 3rd picture (closer up), the white left is offset left of the black leaf. Perhaps this is just due to the angle of the camera, it not being centered on the apple logo in that 3rd picture, whereas it is centered on the logo in the 2nd picture. What does this mean? I have no clue.
It isn't sloppy it is good engineering. Eventually you have to improve your optics to get substantially better cameras in cell phones. Goods optics require space.
It is an absolutely stupid idea. They could always keep the case thicker to cover the camera entirely and add more battery volume at the same time.
Proves nothing. Also, it isn't a protruding FLASH, it's a camera LENS.
Now where is my bottle of "Troll-away...?"
hmmm. Maybe the 5.5 isn't coming after all
Good to see that you've finally seen sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It isn't sloppy it is good engineering. Eventually you have to improve your optics to get substantially better cameras in cell phones. Goods optics require space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttollerton
I can't get over the idea of a protruding camera lens. I won't say "sloppy" but it really just seems a little unpolished for Apple's flagship product that has always been svelt, balanced, and symmetrical. Call me skeptical until Sept 9.
Not good enough.
Apple sacrificed weight, thickness and heat dissipation with the iPad 3, which was a mistake. A protruding lens is probably a mistake, but I will reserve my final judgement for the finished article.
This is a rumor site. This is like getting angry at a movie rumor site that got the plot wrong.
I mean seriously.
Dude, I'm chilled. And, yes, this is a "rumor" site. However, rumors or not, these "reporters" are supposed to be "professionals". I submit that there is no "pro" in their titles at all. Rather than being leaders, they are simply followers, ready to dive on whatever "insider information" comes fraudulently strolling in the door.
The link I posted has been available for over a week, and that knockoff was first shown earlier than that (here is another from mid July). I am not a reporter, nor am I a terribly good researcher. However, it took me exactly 10 seconds to type "iPhone 6 knockoff" into my little Googly thing and see an identical part on a functional knockoff that has been in the wild for at least a month. In the fast-paced world of smartphone tech, a month is forever!
This "rumor" is just poor, and should already be disqualified as trivial garbage for anyone with eyes. A far better story could have been written around the shoddy quality of Chinese "iPhone" knockoffs, with clear proof that the part was from one and that it wasn't holding up terribly well.
Which brings up …
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Sorry for the brashness of my post. I'm not trying to be a dick. Just pointing out the terribly obvious.
I've made my point and will slink back into my cave, now.
Pleased to hear it. You're making much ado about nothing.
Comments
If you can't see that they are the same crappy part with the same crappy, protruding lens and the same crappy, white [failing] plastic inserts and the same crappy, stamped aluminum shell, well, I can't help you with that.
Of course the link I posted was to an "iPhone 6 clone from China". That's the whole point. The "purported" image "leak" is the back panel from that cheap, crappy Chinese knockoff. This is not a part from Apple.
Do you folks honestly believe that Apple is going to use cheap, crappy plastic as antenna separators? If you do, I think you aren't paying very close attention.
Two words for this story: "Link" and "Bait"!
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Everybody keeps freaking out about the "ugly band lines" and the "protruding" lens". If you actually look at the pics, you can see the white band is partially peeled off, showing a channel. Which makes sense. Look at the back of the 5s:
Gee! Well looky here! Ugly thick band on the side… but NO thick band on the back. Could it be that there's ANOTHER LAYER of material that will go on TOP of the back that will blend in and hide the bands on the back, and also be thick enough to NOT have the camera lens protrude???
*sigh*
*facepalm*
Chill out holmes.
This is a rumor site. This is like getting angry at a movie rumor site that got the plot wrong.
I mean seriously.
Dude, I'm chilled. And, yes, this is a "rumor" site. However, rumors or not, these "reporters" are supposed to be "professionals". I submit that there is no "pro" in their titles at all. Rather than being leaders, they are simply followers, ready to dive on whatever "insider information" comes fraudulently strolling in the door.
The link I posted has been available for over a week, and that knockoff was first shown earlier than that (here is another from mid July). I am not a reporter, nor am I a terribly good researcher. However, it took me exactly 10 seconds to type "iPhone 6 knockoff" into my little Googly thing and see an identical part on a functional knockoff that has been in the wild for at least a month. In the fast-paced world of smartphone tech, a month is forever!
This "rumor" is just poor, and should already be disqualified as trivial garbage for anyone with eyes. A far better story could have been written around the shoddy quality of Chinese "iPhone" knockoffs, with clear proof that the part was from one and that it wasn't holding up terribly well.
Which brings up …
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Sorry for the brashness of my post. I'm not trying to be a dick. Just pointing out the terribly obvious.
I've made my point and will slink back into my cave, now.
Do I think it's elegant? Nope. But as they say, its what's inside that counts. Beauty is only skin deep.
So if this device has great new features, then that's all that matters. ....if not the is going to be a run on discounted 5s's if they decide to keep it at discounted cost
Oh, and I forgot the ¡
Instead of glass cutouts like Apple has featured on the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s, Apple appears to be using a new design to allow the internal antennas to work through the handset's metal exterior.
Or the backside inlays could be textured / colored glass. As is the Magic Trackpad and as are all MacBook Pro trackpads.
No iPhone camera to date has stuck out from the back panel, though Apple's fifth-generation iPod touch has adopted that style.
I don't care either way. No, the lens ring isn't pretty. But no, it just isn't that important.
And anybody who makes a big deal out of it just might be trolling. Just maybe.
I can't imagine Jony Ive designing such a ghastly piece of work. The thick bands, the protruding lens. It's a disaster, the worst looking iPhone since the 3GS. Not to mention the screen and its huge surrounding bezel area making it an unwieldy beast.
Actually, it looks quite the improvement over the 5s.
I was shocked to see how mishmash the rear of the iPhone 5 looked after the perfect front/rear symmetry of the iPhone 4.
Was a backward step IMHO.
But this is a step forward from the 5 at least.
I still think that the back cutouts are going to be glass, just like the 5/5s. IMO.
The damage suggest that this phone is going through some form of torture testing. The white (plastic?) frames surrounding the upper and lower cut-outs at the top and bottom of the phone are both obviously broken off. In the top-most, close-up picture of the lens and flash, you can see the white frame fractured above and to the right of the flash (roughly at 2 o'clock position from the flash). It is obviously jagged and not normal. To the left of the break you can see the phone's metal frame exposed. This is visible going all the way back to the left side, around the phone's edge on the camera lens side, and then going back to the right (underneath the lens), to roughly a centimeter or so from the phone's right side, where the plastic is present again (see 2nd, full picture).
Also, as can be seen in the 3rd picture, the center black apple logo has been picked at/deformed on its right side (along the edge of the "bite" curve in the logo) and also on the bottom of the logo, between the two base "humps" or "feet" of the apple.
One other item of note: within the black apple logo, there seems to be a white shadow of an identical apple logo, though shifted down. However, this white shadow seems to have different positions in the 2nd and 3rd pictures: in the second one, the leaf at the top of the white, shadowed logo appears to be nearly exactly aligned with the black leaf above it. But in the 3rd picture (closer up), the white left is offset left of the black leaf. Perhaps this is just due to the angle of the camera, it not being centered on the apple logo in that 3rd picture, whereas it is centered on the logo in the 2nd picture. What does this mean? I have no clue.
Han shot first. I mean seriously.
Here's hoping for no sticky-out lens. If it does, Apple will have sacrificed looks just to make it thinner.
But on the flip side, at least it'll be a better camera so they will have sacrificed looks for function which is very un-Apple.
Just look at the unnecessarily thin iMac with the horribly repositioned SD card slot.
This is without question or debate.
But on the flip side, at least it'll be a better camera so they will have sacrificed looks for function which is very un-Apple.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
“APPLE IS FORM OVER FUNCTION THEY HAVE TERRIBLE HARDWARE”
“THE LENS IS STICKING OUT APPLE IS SACRIFICING FORM”
SD is thin enough that it could have easily remained on the side. I don’t get that at all.
It isn't sloppy it is good engineering. Eventually you have to improve your optics to get substantially better cameras in cell phones. Goods optics require space.
It is an absolutely stupid idea. They could always keep the case thicker to cover the camera entirely and add more battery volume at the same time.
Proves nothing. Also, it isn't a protruding FLASH, it's a camera LENS.
Now where is my bottle of "Troll-away...?"
hmmm. Maybe the 5.5 isn't coming after all
Good to see that you've finally seen sense.
Proves nothing. Also, it isn't a protruding FLASH, it's a camera LENS.
Now where is my bottle of "Troll-away...?"
hmmm. Maybe the 5.5 isn't coming after all
Good to see that you've finally seen sense.
It isn't sloppy it is good engineering. Eventually you have to improve your optics to get substantially better cameras in cell phones. Goods optics require space.
I can't get over the idea of a protruding camera lens. I won't say "sloppy" but it really just seems a little unpolished for Apple's flagship product that has always been svelt, balanced, and symmetrical. Call me skeptical until Sept 9.
Not good enough.
Apple sacrificed weight, thickness and heat dissipation with the iPad 3, which was a mistake. A protruding lens is probably a mistake, but I will reserve my final judgement for the finished article.
Can't wait for the 5.5" iPod Pro.
If you can't wait, Apple are selling iPods today. Problem solved.
Chill out holmes.
This is a rumor site. This is like getting angry at a movie rumor site that got the plot wrong.
I mean seriously.
Dude, I'm chilled. And, yes, this is a "rumor" site. However, rumors or not, these "reporters" are supposed to be "professionals". I submit that there is no "pro" in their titles at all. Rather than being leaders, they are simply followers, ready to dive on whatever "insider information" comes fraudulently strolling in the door.
The link I posted has been available for over a week, and that knockoff was first shown earlier than that (here is another from mid July). I am not a reporter, nor am I a terribly good researcher. However, it took me exactly 10 seconds to type "iPhone 6 knockoff" into my little Googly thing and see an identical part on a functional knockoff that has been in the wild for at least a month. In the fast-paced world of smartphone tech, a month is forever!
This "rumor" is just poor, and should already be disqualified as trivial garbage for anyone with eyes. A far better story could have been written around the shoddy quality of Chinese "iPhone" knockoffs, with clear proof that the part was from one and that it wasn't holding up terribly well.
Which brings up …
Hmm, went back to look at your site more closely, and it could well be the same thing.
To be fair to AI they are reporting a different source from that link, who claimed it was an iPhone 6. Dickson's credibility should be shot, though.
Sorry for the brashness of my post. I'm not trying to be a dick. Just pointing out the terribly obvious.
I've made my point and will slink back into my cave, now.
Pleased to hear it. You're making much ado about nothing.