cornchip wrote: »
Some bros just like the smaller phone size. I'm one. I've held the 6 a few times, but it really is quite a bit bigger. In a couple years when I upgrade my 5 I would seriously consider a 4" were they to offer one.
theothergeoff wrote: »
and I think the iphone 7 family will be that 3 size shipment, with a iphone 6 feature set shoved into a 4" 5c (7c) plastic body, a 6s, and a 7 and 7plus.
mstone wrote: »
I really don't get Force Touch. How does one know there is a hidden contextual menu that can be invoked?
sog35 wrote: »
are you real life? You should just buy a flip phone.
iPhone6 is not even close to a phablet.
sog35 wrote: »
it will happen when they can double all levels.
We won't see 32/64/128 because you are giving the 64/128 buyers a raw deal. You would be giving them less incremental memory per dollar then the 6 cycle.
I can see 32/128/256 - but not until at least iPhone7 in 2016
sog35 wrote: »
I'm being serious. Why not? Literally TENS of MILLIONS of people only need 16GB and love it.
The 16GB phone is already the best bang for the buck. It has the lowest profit margin of all the iPhones. So why would you want to make the lowest memory tier even CHEAPER????
Apple can barely keep up with demand the first 4-6 months of release. After 6 months you can get iPhones at $50-$100 discounts. So if you really really really need a 32GB iPhone for $650 all you need to do is wait 6 months when the demand goes down. If you can't wait than STFU and pay up.
Tim Cook: We can't keep up with iPhone demand! What should we do.
Smarty pants: We should give more free GB of memory. That should do it.
Well, that's a challenge for Apple then. That said, IMO it would fit, if it did not need to be the thinnest lightest ever!
I'm in the camp that prefers a smaller screen size phone also.
Same here. Never go back.
I read the article somewhere lately on a study and 16GB iPhone took 60% of iPhone sale. Tell me that Apple will drop it.
I agreed. I never need more than 16GB for every iPhone I bought so far except 6S. It's because 64GB for $100 from 16GB made me feel it's a good deal even though I didn't need it. I got around 100 apps, 3-4GB of music, pictures and video clips, but still got aound 2-3GB left on my 16GB iPhone 5. I don't store entire music library in my phone or load whole bunch of high graphic games in it either. I optimized pictures size locally and store full size on iCloud. 16GB would meet most people's requirement with some storage managements (remove crappy pix, video, store enough music to listen for a few hours or stream it, don't install many high graphic games and do delete old messages, emails sometimes...)
The 5c is thicker than the 6, and without the screen demands, the battery demands are smaller.
I'll bet you dollars for donuts that the 'tech' (chipset) in the current 5c is not smaller than in the 6.
And with the watch, the smaller form factor need is even smaller for those who need to be 'cutting edge'
as the flag ship... doubtful, but my guess is they will likely release a new 4" 6c or 7c (color, cheap) with 'last years' chipset.
When i held the 6+ for the first time, I thought I made a mistake. It was just too big.
However, after about 9 months of it, it really seems ok. Now, when i hold my wife's 6, it seems rather small. I will stick with 5.5 iPhones.
For those who likes smaller phones, it won't seem that big when you use the 6 (4.7inches) for few months.
Apple is never going to release a new 4" phone, ever again. I'm sure Apple has asked the following questions when trying to figure out the target customer, and the logic is utterly obvious. Really, not rocket science:
I don't see how any reasonable person can believe it makes any sense whatsoever for Apple to release a new, smaller phone. It does not expand their reach in the least. Quite the opposite- if anything, it would downsell to a few people who would'e gotten a more expensive iPhone instead.