That's your opinion. The evidence at the moment is the pictures. It seems to be cheap based on pictures.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Possible Photos of Plastic Rear Shell from Apple's Lower-Cost iPhone [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's your opinion. The evidence at the moment is the pictures. It seems to be cheap based on pictures.
They're pictures, and not exactly crystal clear ones at that. You can't judge materials, build quality etc from PICTURES that may not even be real!
Wow... this forums astounds me at times.
Um chill. It's an opinion. What else are forums for? I am standing by my opinion, based on the evidence set before me, that these particular iPhone cases are real and not up to Apple's taste and sensibility standards.
Prove me wrong! lmao.
I lol'd. You think Rolexes and Ferarris aren't marked up like crazy? Or that if they were mass produced.. or not hand-built.. (Ferarris especially), they couldn't be sold much more cheaply?
You give manufacturers far too much credit.. And Rolexes are for idiots.
BMW, Mercedes, Porche all made 'budget' versions of their cars
Every single high end fashion label have a mid (and even lower) end version
Same goes for watch makers
I don't know why not iphone. Nokia proved that it can be done, not that I would get a windows phone, but their 920/720/520 lineup is impressive
Plain and simple this iPhone for most purposes should be viewed as a direct replacement for the iPod touch. One look at the iPods dwindling sales figures year over year can attest to that. Need further proof look at the colors they will offer.
If Apple knows anything it's marketing and the market is becoming saturated. If they offer this phone with decent capabilities which they will probably an iPhone 5 in plastic then they will basically introduce 5 to 10 million kids and teenagers directly into their ecosystem. This gives them a competitive advantage for the future as well as an immediate entry into Asia.
If Apple knows anything it's marketing and the market is becoming saturated. If they offer this phone with decent capabilities which they will probably an iPhone 5 in plastic then they will basically introduce 5 to 10 million kids and teenagers directly into their ecosystem. This gives them a competitive advantage for the future as well as an immediate entry into Asia.
Cheap because it has bright colours? The iPod has bright colours - is that a "cheap" product in your view?
Cheap because it's made from plastic? There's no evidence it's made of plastic. You can't tell that from the photo's. It could be carbon fibre or another composite material.
When has Apple ever made a cheap and tacky product. I can't think of any. Even the cheaper products are usually beautifully made.
I'm not criticising you. Just please don't jump to any conclusions. Have a little faith.
The iPod colours are far better than this, even the new 'pastel' ones which are much worse than they used to be. There is a world of difference between bright and florescent dayglow. These colours are the same as the ones used in tacky children's toys or florescent marker pens. They are just horrible.
As for having a little faith, I think a lot of us lost that when we saw iOS 7 and the new Mac Pro. It always used to be the case that Apple products were almost universally accepted as beautiful. Their current design trends seem to be more of an 'acquired taste'.
I just hope they offer this phone in black and white.
Last edited:
Just thought I'd post this picture. What do you guys think? Real or fake?
![attachment.php]()
That is very obviously a 3D render.
Do you have a basement in your house? Go down and look at the posts holding up the beams. Notice the height adjustment bolts at the top of the post that holds the beam up. Those threads are what is holding up the beams, not the post itself. Now, would you rather those threads, no more than a few millimetres wide, of those bolts be made of metal or plastic?
Have you seen the final version of the iPhone Lite? No? I didn't think so. These could be test colours, they could be prototypes, they could be experimenting with tones. Let's have a little balance please.
Is it just me, or does the phone look like it's considerably smaller than the iPhone5? Just an observation.
They said Michael Eisner went the same way without Frank Wells. We know what happened.
Is Ive without Jobs really like Simon without Garfunkel?
----------
Perhaps, but do they have to go back to 3.5" to keep the price down?
yuck! when apple's rivals are moving towards the aluminum phones why is apple switching to plastic.
Build of cheap iPhone, leaked pics look crap
Processor will probably be same as iPod Touch 5, out of date, but still works.
Low quality screen/smaller screen, well compaired to new phones (HTC ONE), iPhone 5 has a below average screen, so expecting worse than for iCheap (cheap iPhone).
Low camera, yeah the iCheap will probably have a crappy camera, I am basing this off of iPh5, I expect the iCheap to be worse than iPh5, around iPod 5 specs.
Build of cheap iPhone, leaked pics look crap
Processor will probably be same as iPod Touch 5, out of date, but still works.
Low quality screen/smaller screen, well compaired to new phones (HTC ONE), iPhone 5 has a below average screen, so expecting worse than for iCheap (cheap iPhone).
Low camera, yeah the iCheap will probably have a crappy camera, I am basing this off of iPh5, I expect the iCheap to be worse than iPh5, around iPod 5 specs.
iCheap! how original.
The thing is, it is just on papers at this time, while what i wrote were facts
iCheap! how original.
The thing is, it is just on papers at this time, while what i wrote were facts
Yeah it used to, look at the N4, in Australia it is half the price of an iPhone. Look at Moto X, that is the most hyped phone for H2 of 2013 (Not iPhone because it is a S edition to the line up), that has mid-range specs, and will probably have very fast updates, probably go for around 200-300$ in Australia if released here (almost quarter of iPhone cost).
The "cheap phones", are getting fast, the flagship android is a cheap phone. But the iCheap, won't be cheap, just cheaper, because Apple like giving premium.
Can't tell if the iCheap original comment was sarcasm? If not thankyou
But I am quite good at predicting Apple, and it will most likely be that. MAYBE It will have the iPH5 specs, actually, that is more likely.----------
Agreed, I can't see the speaker grill, where is it? Those dots aren't the speakers, I believe those would be pogo pins.
Last edited:
Another reason for a lower-cost iPhone
The lower-cost iPhone could help Apple shorten the life cycle of all iPhones, reduce each model's total production cost, and reduce their software support burden. Right now, Apple sells each iPhone model for three years. A lower-cost iPhone could provide the same range of prices while eliminating the "free third year" for all models, which might help lower Apple's costs. By allowing Apple to shorten the 3-year lifecycle to just 2 years.
Think of iPhone production costs this way: the iPhone 5 will be just as difficult to manufacture in 2014 as it was in 2012. The complexity of assembly is fixed, so time on the assembly line is fixed, and time is money. So the third year of iPhone 5 production probably won't be as profitable as the first year because it will be "free" with carrier subsidy in many markets. Maybe even after lower component costs and economy of scale are factored in.
Then there's also the burden of iOS support for older models. iOS 8 will ship on iPhone 5 in 2014 if Apple sticks to the 3-year iPhone lifecycle. I'm sure there's some way of calculating the software engineering cost of supporting older hardware, and I'm sure Apple would be keen to reduce that cost. For example, Apple would need to spend a certain amount of QA, debugging, and maintenance programming out of their iOS 8 development budget in 2014 on iPhone 5 support. In the iPhone 5 "free year" with lower revenue. When the iPhone 6S will Apple's top model, generating the fattest profits.
So how would the lower-cost iPhone shorten the iPhone lifecycle? By allowing Apple to move all iPhones to a 2 year lifecycle. The high-end iPhone would never be "free." The low-end iPhone would be "free" in its second year of production. But, because its construction will be simpler and component costs lower, the low-end iPhone could be more profitable in its "free" second year than the high-end iPhone would be in its "free" third year.
And if Apple wants to be really aggressive about moving users to the latest iPhone as soon as their contracts are up, Apple could also cut back iOS support for older models to 2 years. Older phones would still work, but they wouldn't run the latest version of iOS. Lower support costs, easier and faster development of next-gen features without the need for backward compatibility with 3 year old iPhones.
Tick tock. A 2 year lifecycle would fit in perfectly with the 2 year cell phone contract period (in the US anyway), and with the the N + NS model naming scheme. And the lower-cost iPhone would make that possible. And if Apple really wants to cut costs on the lower-cost iPhone, they might not even upgrade the hardware over its 2 year lifecycle. Just cosmetic changes like case colors, iPod touch-like strap, etc.
I'm sure that there are many reasons why this might not work. For example, the capital expenditure of the equipment for making iPhone enclosures would be amortized over only 2 years and over a smaller number of units. That might make a 2-year plan unworkable by increasing the per-unit cost.
And of course there's the whole iPad lifecycle and iOS support strategy to work out too...
The lower-cost iPhone could help Apple shorten the life cycle of all iPhones, reduce each model's total production cost, and reduce their software support burden. Right now, Apple sells each iPhone model for three years. A lower-cost iPhone could provide the same range of prices while eliminating the "free third year" for all models, which might help lower Apple's costs. By allowing Apple to shorten the 3-year lifecycle to just 2 years.
Think of iPhone production costs this way: the iPhone 5 will be just as difficult to manufacture in 2014 as it was in 2012. The complexity of assembly is fixed, so time on the assembly line is fixed, and time is money. So the third year of iPhone 5 production probably won't be as profitable as the first year because it will be "free" with carrier subsidy in many markets. Maybe even after lower component costs and economy of scale are factored in.
Then there's also the burden of iOS support for older models. iOS 8 will ship on iPhone 5 in 2014 if Apple sticks to the 3-year iPhone lifecycle. I'm sure there's some way of calculating the software engineering cost of supporting older hardware, and I'm sure Apple would be keen to reduce that cost. For example, Apple would need to spend a certain amount of QA, debugging, and maintenance programming out of their iOS 8 development budget in 2014 on iPhone 5 support. In the iPhone 5 "free year" with lower revenue. When the iPhone 6S will Apple's top model, generating the fattest profits.
So how would the lower-cost iPhone shorten the iPhone lifecycle? By allowing Apple to move all iPhones to a 2 year lifecycle. The high-end iPhone would never be "free." The low-end iPhone would be "free" in its second year of production. But, because its construction will be simpler and component costs lower, the low-end iPhone could be more profitable in its "free" second year than the high-end iPhone would be in its "free" third year.
And if Apple wants to be really aggressive about moving users to the latest iPhone as soon as their contracts are up, Apple could also cut back iOS support for older models to 2 years. Older phones would still work, but they wouldn't run the latest version of iOS. Lower support costs, easier and faster development of next-gen features without the need for backward compatibility with 3 year old iPhones.
Tick tock. A 2 year lifecycle would fit in perfectly with the 2 year cell phone contract period (in the US anyway), and with the the N + NS model naming scheme. And the lower-cost iPhone would make that possible. And if Apple really wants to cut costs on the lower-cost iPhone, they might not even upgrade the hardware over its 2 year lifecycle. Just cosmetic changes like case colors, iPod touch-like strap, etc.
I'm sure that there are many reasons why this might not work. For example, the capital expenditure of the equipment for making iPhone enclosures would be amortized over only 2 years and over a smaller number of units. That might make a 2-year plan unworkable by increasing the per-unit cost.
And of course there's the whole iPad lifecycle and iOS support strategy to work out too...
Last edited: