rare comment

anothermacguy said:

I hope they don't just take this as customers want cheaper phones. Me and several of my colleagues just didn't like the trend of big ridiculous phones. I traded my 6 in for the SE because I hated the size and the power button on the side was a deal breaker. I want an "Air" like option, a truly updated form factor with all of the modern components. The SE has everything I want, but just wish it was thinner and had force touch. I would pay $600 + for that.

Fully agree with this and think that, going forward, the smallest form factor will continue to have the latest processor and, as soon as they can, the latest features (force touch, etc.). So the idea that there will be only two updated phones this fall seems wrong - the SE is not a second-tier phone, it is just the smallest form factor of the current technology as much as is feasible. When the 7 (or 6SE, or whatever) comes out, the 5SE (or whatever new name it has) will also get the latest A series processor. FWIW, I also bought an SE because I wanted the smaller size and better battery. And, moreover, this accelerated my upgrade cycle whereas I would normally have waited until the fall for the next phone to update my 6. Anything that helps smooth the blockbuster release cycle must be helpful as the logistic hurdles on the iPhone releases must be killer.

There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh

Growth seems simple to calculate but is not always - the measuring period is also relevant. For example, measuring growth quarter by quarter is obviously flawed - we know that many products are seasonal (for example, the iPhone's large holiday sales). So we don't get worried when we see a decline from the holiday quarter to the next. But comparing year-on-year isn't necessarily correct either. For the iPhone, especially given the historic "S" tick-tock approach, perhaps the right approach is to blend TWO years rather than year-on-year. I know there is a little bit of moving the goalposts in this but, at the same time, the S factor is nearly always mentioned when trying to explain iPhone sales figures and it seems a bit odd to highlight but not address the issue. Just a thought. And this gets all screwed up if iPhone 7 is really just an iPhone 6SE...

As much as moving from a biannual form factor clock will reduce the urgency of upgrading, it also has some real benefits. Note that any benefits to customers also benefit the company in the long run by building loyalty and good will. 1. longevity. By making it clear that the phone is valuable and useful for more than two years, it makes it easier for consumers to justify holding their phones for longer. Satisfied customers may not make for immediate sales increases but they do increase the likelihood that there will be sales in the future. Simply on a "daily" basis, keeping a phone longer makes it cheaper. Also, for some portion of customers, the fear of purchasing later in the cycle should be eased if they have less concern about being a generation behind (noting, of course, that the larger technical leaps have often been in the S years). 2. shortages. Apple has had a high class but significant burden - the demand for new phones at launch has been crushing. Balancing tooling and manufacturing line demands to cover the massive launch sales and yet not be idle on a more normalized basis must be unbelievably hard. By taking away some of the "newness", perhaps Apple can smooth out its production. I'm sure there was plenty of overtime and airfreight associated with the shortages (which we have even seen with the SE, most recently). 3. luxury. As Apple expands into luxury goods, suggesting the long-term appeal of certain designs makes good sense as it has been a bit self-contradictory to hold up a design as outstanding and then ditch it two years later. I think the SE is an example of this. There can still be modest changes from time to time (polished v matte edges on the SE) with large changes less frequently under this approach. Note that the Mac line seems to follow this approach also. 4. authenticity. By limiting the frequency of changes, it increases the credibility of future claims of big changes. In other words, if every year is "all new", it's hard to say "no, really, this year is SUPER new." It's easier to seem genuine when updates are less frequent or proclaimed as significant. Personally, I hope these rumors are true as I bought them a couple months ago and so ordered an SE to replace my 6 on the assumption that I won't have serious buyer's remorse in September.

I hope that they also add a "trim" feature. I often forget to turn off workout tracking and think that it would be useful (and relatively simple to implement) to have a way to "trim back" the duration of the recorded workout to the actual workout length. Consistent with the new pause feature, more accuracy in recorded workouts would be nice and non-intrusive. I think that there would just be a scrub bar showing time and, underneath, some sort of activity graph to show effort (heartrate, pace, or whatever the applicable metric is for the activity) so one can more precisely match the actual end time and not pick up cool-downs or similar. For more detail on this idea, see: http://q10a1.blogspot.com/2015/09/watch-os-workout-app-idea.html