Mr_Grey

tommy0guns said:

Mr_Grey said:

AppleInsider is probably backing the wrong horse in the naming game here.  It's been said before by me and many others, but "iPhone 6c" makes absolutely zero sense as a name for this purported device.  It's is a ridiculous name for a device that has none of the iPhone 6 level features, and doesn't (as far as we know) come in multiple colours.  

I'm not convinced on "iPhone 5se" either, but it makes some kind of sense for a device that is based on an iPhone 5s.  

The iPhone 6 has A8, 1 GB ram, 8mp camera, NFC, finger print. What is the 6c rumored to have?

The bolded items are irrelevant to the definition.  Apple's customers don't generally buy the phone based on spec'y things like that.  

The primary selling feature of the iPhone 5 was the new screen size
The primary selling feature of the iPhone 5s was TouchID
The primary selling feature of the iPhone 6 was the larger screen.
The primary selling feature(s) of the iPhone 6s was Force Touch and a stronger body material.  

The new smaller iPhone, if it exists, is therefore much more a "5" than a "6" it seems to me.  It certainly doesn't seem that it will have any of the features that were the primary selling points of the iPhone 6 or 6s.  It will however have TouchID and the same screen dimensions and general size of the iPhone 5.  

It's all speculation at this point anyway.  It could turn out to have ForceTouch for example.  That alone would justify the "6." Or all this could be diversion and neither name will be used.  No one really knows and Apple has a history of doing wacky things.  

It does also kind of make sense marketing-wise that it might be "iPhone 5se" because the target market is exactly those people out there with an iPhone 5 in their hands right now.  Those are the people that Apple is hoping to push to upgrade with this device.  I think the segment of the market that is going to downgrade from a 6 series phone to a smaller phone is probably very small.  This is an upgrade for iPhone 5 users.  

AppleInsider is probably backing the wrong horse in the naming game here.  It's been said before by me and many others, but "iPhone 6c" makes absolutely zero sense as a name for this purported device.  It's is a ridiculous name for a device that has none of the iPhone 6 level features, and doesn't (as far as we know) come in multiple colours.  

I'm not convinced on "iPhone 5se" either, but it makes some kind of sense for a device that is based on an iPhone 5s.  

I'm starting to think that DigiTimes has such a reputation for this kind of nonsense that some of their "sources" are actually involved in pranking them with fake news.  It's certainly something I would do if I were in that position, if only for the laughs of seeing one's "scoop" travel around the world.  

If Ireland has been doing this in good faith since 2004 (and they have), even if the ruling goes against them, the CFO is right that the appropriate amount to charge Apple is still "zero."  The only way Apple owes money is if the ruling is retroactive, which it clearly shouldn't be, or at least couldn't be, if the EU actually wants to be "fair."  

The CFO is 100% right.  It took the EU years to even find the time to care about this issue let alone start proceedings, and during all that time Ireland was under the impression that they were within the law.  Apple was also acting in good faith the whole time, and obeying the relevant laws the whole time.  There is certainly no fault on Apple's part. 

Retro-active payments would be punitive.  Unless they can prove that it was all some kind of nefarious plot to evade the law (and I highly doubt the evidence exists for that), they should not be charging them retroactively.  Certainly not 11-12 years worth.   

"iPhone 6c" makes absolutely no sense at all as a name for this purported product.  Whatever it's called it's almost a certainty that it won't be called that.