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.
Apple Appears to Have Ditched Plans for 4-Inch 'iPhone 6c' in 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK, so you 'made me look' back to try and figure out what that point was. If I'm reading it correctly, you're saying that Apple is (now?) simply about profit maximization? If so, they are doomed, so I hope that isn't the case.
And no, we're not arguing that Apple should make every conceivable product... the argument is that people bought 4" iPhones in record number, just as they have 4.7" ones, etc. The key is *iPhone* not *they made a bigger screen*. And, I think there are a lot of people who wish they still had a 4" model, who would have purchased that instead of the 4.7" had they had the choice.
So, it might be the other way around actually... 4" *is* more optimal in size for a cell-phone, but market demand and profit drove Apple to create a larger screen. The question is why they didn't keep a smaller (more optimal) size as well. Then, the question becomes... has Apple lost it's way (i.e.: profit maximization), or just blundered in terms of meeting market-demand, while over-simplifying the product line a bit too much.
And yea, until there is a serious competing product, Apple could release an oval iPhone in only pink with green polkadots, and it would still sell record numbers. Until there is an alternative, 'voting with wallet' isn't a meaningful driver.
The logic of these sales numbers is misleading. 5s and 5c were by many regarded as old wine in a new bottle. Same form factor, and still much too small for many people. Some oft them, like you actually went out of their way (and comfort zone) and switched to Android.
Does that mean that there’s no market for a smaller (4”) iPhone? No!
Apple’s refusal to offer anything larger than 4” created huge pent-up demand for a bigger iPhone, especially obvious in the 2013/2014 season. This demand was eventually fulfilled with the iPhone 6 and resulted in a huge surge in sales for the latter. In my opinion this effect makes for at least a big part of the high sales numbers for the iPhone 6.
Right now, we are riding a wave towards bigger screen sizes. And a big wave it is. But there will be others. There’s no one way current forever.
This works the other way around as well. The longer Apple refuse to offer a smaller and fresh “high-end” phone, pent-up demand will build up again. And they are going to address it at some point. I'm not saying a smaller iPhone will be as "big" as a big one. But I believe it will be worthwhile for Apple.
I somewhat agree with your general thesis that the pent-up demand might be seen in the numbers. But, I also think that's too simplistic. Like in my above comment, I think it's the iPhone in general, that is increasing in popularity, even if it were oval with and pink with green polkadots. (OK, yea, that's an exaggeration, and doing something like that would probably damage their numbers... but my point is that with no serious alternative, many of us would still buy one.)
First, it might well be that many were frustrated because Apple didn't make a bigger phone... went to Android... discovered the grass wasn't greener... and returned.
Second, the 'bigger screen' thing isn't just being driven by consumers wanting what Android (or other phones) have, it's being driven (especially on a global scale) by the fact that for many, the phone is their only Internet device. If the phone is your only device, many other factors (which I think Apple was correct on) of optimal-whatever kind of go out the window. Does it fit in your pocket well? Who cares, I need a bigger screen. Does my thumb reach? Who cares, I need a bigger screen. Is it as structurally sound? Who cares, I need a bigger screen. So, that's much more a reality Apple needed to face, than meet a fickle market demand. (We long-time Apple fans sure hope and pray Apple isn't now just chasing fickle market demands!)
But, the fact also remains that there are many of us who have a tablet or laptop, and want a PHONE! I've been to the store many times and have held an iPhone 6. It's barely acceptable, but I'd rather have a 4". If Apple refuses to make anything smaller than a 4.7", I suppose eventually I'll have to get one, just to remain within the Apple eco-system. But, there isn't anything in the sales data that says anything about this, because they've given us no option for the numbers to decide.
And, even if they made a 4" and it didn't sell as well as the 4.7", I'd still urge Apple to keep it in their lineup. For crying out loud, they just came out with the Apple Watch. If they can keep THAT niche of a product in the lineup, they can certainly keep a 4" iPhone. That said, Apple has made some pretty bad product line-up decisions in the last several years... so it's still a bit up in the air whether Apple gets it any longer. I think the next couple of years are going to be the tell-tale of whether it's the beginning of the end for Apple or not.
Exactly.
The shorter version is: there are huge numbers of poor Chinese people. Most of them can't afford an iPad and a smartphone, and Asians like big screens because of their awkward space-consuming language. These two factors mean that the iPhone 6 was very attractive to them, which is why Cook marketed it to them so much. As a bonus, there are also plenty of poor in other parts of the world who would have also bought it as a compromise phone/tablet.
But for those of us who can afford both an iPhone and an iPad, the iPhone 6 is a compromise too far. It's too unwieldy, and if Apple don't bring out a flagship phone the same size as the iPhone 5, I think their sales will suffer badly.
One of my theories is that Apple will release 3 premium models with the 7 in three sizes. Then the 4" model moves down one every year, with a new 4" model being introduced with 8. So every whole number update introduces 3 sizes, while the "S" updates only update the top two sizes. That way the mid-priced and low-priced iPhones are 4" screens, while keeping the larger screens at the premium level without a mid-priced phone that canibalizes the flagship phones because it looks exactly the same.
I also believe Apple engineered the 6 in three sizes, built prototypes for all three to test them, and would be ready to put the 4" 6 into production almost immediately, without any kind of supply chain ramp-up. They're already ordering 4" screens for the 5S, 5C and iPod Touch, so what if the iPod Touch was just a smoke screen to mask the supply chain ramp up for the 4" 6? This assumes when Apple upgraded the Touch internals they made similar modifications to the 4" 6. So it's really the 6C that subsidizes the iPod Touch.
Anyway the possible scenarios are endless.
Last edited:
Well, it isn't just in China... the 'West' is falling quickly, so if you're not yet seeing similar effects here yet, it's just a matter of time.... and here in the US/Canada and a few other places, we're the exception. But, yea, that's totally the major factor driving bigger screens. (Sure, there are other factors like women with purses, and guys that don't care, and people who just want a bigger single device, and people who just spec-shop, etc. But, those numbers are too insignificant to really affect the numbers in a huge way.)
Unfortunately, I'm not so sure about your last paragraph (at least any near-term significance in the numbers). As I've said, until there is a viable alternative, we just kind of have to put up with whatever Apple sells. Most people aren't going to go without a smart-phone, and after they try Android, they'll be back. It would have to get pretty bad at Apple (or being forced by their company, etc.) before they will willingly leave. I'll probably just start carrying a man-purse before it comes to that.
I hope that isn't how Apple is thinking, because screen-size shouldn't be related to being 'high end' vs 'low end'. Maybe there is some cost differential involved in a bigger screen, but we folks wanting a 4" screen also want high-end. (i.e.: if it comes down to it, I'd pay as much for a 4" iPhone equivalent to the 6+ if the hardware specs besides the screen are equal).
The other problem is that if that is really how Apple is thinking, they'll have the same problem as the 5c. I'd buy a 5c, except that it isn't even nearly enough storage space, and I want better specs.... so it's the 5s. Again, screen-size has nothing to do with low-end or entry-level.
While I agree with you in general, a bigger screen costs more than a smaller one. Android is the one that positioned their most expensive flagship phones with the largest screens. Apple is following suit. They've already established this pattern with the 6 and 6 Plus. Granted the Plus has a few more bells and whistles, and I would expect the 4" 6 to have fewer features than the 4.7" 6.
The scenario I have presented is one of realistic market sales. They will likely sell fewer 4" screens than they do 4.7" screens worldwide. Since most phones tend to be purchased on two year upgrade cycles and Apple tends to update their phones on the exact same cycles, offering a 4" flagship phone every two years makes sense. Why spend money and effort to update it marginally every year when it's the smallest segment of your business? What I've proposed is that it's screen size makes a perfect way to differentiate it from the "S" models, and if the latest and greatest "S" offers something you want, you'll just have to wait another year. That's the price a customer pays for being in the smallest market segment. It's really very similar to the iPod Touch situation. As for the free phone always being a 4" phone, well that makes sense too, because it presumably is the cheapest to make. And why would Apple give away the thing that drives its biggest market segment, i.e. a larger screen, for free? They wouldn't.
While I'm with you and would pay a premium for a 4" 6 phone (just like I paid a premium for the Black MacBook), I also think this is a reasonable and logical solution, one that keeps the smallest market segment of 4" users reasonably updated, while not cannibalizing from the flagship models (which may themselves be cannibalizing from iPads such that they require a premium), and giving consumers quality phones at the entry level, and allows them to quickly change direction depending on the current direction of the larger screen trend.
I do agree that Asians tend to have a higher preference for bigger screens (as they for the gold color option). This is something that I finde noticeably even here in Europe. But I don't think that the "poor Asian masses" that you allude to are Apple's target demographics. Or their actual user demographics at all. iPhone 6 by itself is just too expensive for these people (for whom it might be their only internet device). I mean...
$700, the equivalent of an iPhone 6/6+ today will buy you:
1. a PC or 15 inch Laptop
2. an Android tablet
3. an inexpensive smartphone
combined!
Brand name (Lenovo, Samsung, Microsoft), not no-name.
I won't dispute that a few will still opt for the perceived higher quality, prestige, "bling" factor or whatever Apple / an iPhone carries, even if that means foregoing the purchase of a PC. But I doubt it's a big factor.
Last edited:
Well, and many do that (probably just the inexpensive smartphone), or Apple's sales would be even higher. But, that perceived better quality isn't just about build-quality... it's about actual usage and productivity. A cheap anything that doesn't work well isn't worth the savings. Even poor people, who realize that, strive for quality. Plus, they probably need a phone anyway, so they just make the phone their primary device... and that's how many get Internet (the laptop or tablet w/o Internet is fairly useless today).
You really are twisting in the wind to try and "win" this argument that you lost with your opening reply.
I'm willing to accept your defeat since you're at the point of moving the goalposts for a second time now.
What next? I exist on the same planet as Apple and I once suggested that someone might prefer an iPhone, ergo "point validated" again?
The point was as simple as "If apple don't make a 4" iPhone when I am ready to upgrade the 5S I currently have then I will not buy whatever else it is they have (likely iPhone 6 size and bigger)".
I'm really not seeing how your point that "Apple still gets my money" is validated, or is your point that Apple still has me in the ecosystem? That's two fundamentally different points.
You don't like being told you're wrong, do you? Does it happen often?
Actually, I think I've clearly won the argument. You missed my point and proved it at the same time. Nothing further to discuss.
Goodness me, I just realised this was all a massive trolling.
It really can't be the alternative. No one is that silly to think that they can't ever be wrong after making big assumptions. If it is, then I'm deeply sorry for your burden.
Not trolling at all. If you don't understand the point, there's not much I can say. And keep the snide comments out of it. I didn't insult you.
I think it's pointless for them to chase after every single complaint customers make. I feel like the iPad Mini was a response to people complaining about iPads being too expensive and that there wasn't a smaller option (and now they don't even bother putting the latest processor in them), and the iPhone 6's were a response to people complaining that the iPhone was too small. Apple used to ignore that stuff and make the best products they could. Now it seems like they're losing focus. I'd rather see a few great products than a ton of junk, which is what all of Apple's competitors do and is part of what has historically set Apple apart. They're still better than most, but they don't stand out as much as they once did.
Not that you shouldn't listen to customers at all, you absolutely should, but sometimes I think it's true that customers don't really know what they want. This goes back to my point about how no matter what Apple does, people will complain. What they SHOULD do, I think, is figure out what size and shape of phone is genuinely best in terms of comfort in your hand, durability, and ease of use given how iOS is designed, and then make that one phone. Or, if they recognize that people want larger phones (and I think it's safe to say that most people don't want a 3.5" screen at this point), redesign iOS to make more sense with a larger screen, which it doesn't right now because the back button for every app is in the top left of the screen. That, I think, is more like what Steve Jobs would have done (and did, in fact, because while he was CEO they only ever released one new iPhone at a time), and again is what set Apple apart for so long. They'll never do that, so I suppose two screen sizes isn't a bad compromise, but that would make more sense with their supposed business philosophy.
There just seem to be some things they're doing now that come across like something a company like Toshiba would do instead of Apple, like having about a million Apple Watches or twelve base model laptop configurations (yep, count them, twelve, or six if we don't count storage/processor options). When did we go from Steve Jobs's grid of four computers to this? Working at Simply Mac (an Apple retailer) I can assure you that most customers have no idea which laptop to pick because they don't see a whole lot of difference between them. People are so afraid of technology because not only is it complicated, but just choosing a device is often more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, they don't have to stick to doing every single thing that Steve Jobs would have done, but a lot of why he launched Apple into the stratosphere is because of this stuff, and the fact he recognized it when no one else did.
My point is I'd rather see a few great products from Apple than a bunch of bad ones, and I think three screen sizes for iOS devices and four screen sizes for laptops is excessive. It doesn't even remotely appear like Apple has done any sort of testing to figure out what screen size works best given the tasks people do on their respective devices when you see all these options that don't need to exist.
Since you complain so much about the larger iPhones, have you tried using an iPhone 6 versus a 5? Even though the 6's screen size is bigger, I have to give Apple some credit here- the 6 doesn't actually feel that much bigger than the 5, at least in my opinion.
I think there needs to be a bit of balance. Steve was maybe a bit too strict on that, but it sure seems like now the product-chain and marketing folks at Apple are running amok.
For example, yes the iPad mini was a response to market demand as far as I can tell. But, it was a good response in many ways. While it isn't very optimal for doing a lot of stuff I use a tablet for (which is why I still have a standard size iPad, even though I'm quite envious of my wife's mini...). If you, say, use it to type documents on a flight, because you don't sit in first-class and laptops just don't fit, then you'll need a standard, not a mini. But, if you mostly watch videos and read books with it (like a Kindle), then the mini is far superior. And, those are two very large usage cases for the iPad.
Likewise, Steve was certainly right about the optimal size for a smart-phone, in terms of using it like a phone and one-handed use. That fact didn't change because the market started to make bigger phones. Bigger phones are driven by people willing to trade-off that ease of use in that way, to get more screen real-estate to do more with the phone, despite the downsides. And, that's OK, so long as it doesn't go too far. And, IMO, one aspect of 'too far' is when you get rid of the original optimal design.
I have gone "all the way", having ditched my iPhone for an iPad mini as my "take-everywhere device". Which also happens to be considerably less expensive than the iPhone,
Sure, I am definitely not the average user in this regard - but I might give the iPhone another shot, if/once Apple release a new 4" device or (probably not going to happen) even smaller.
Not so much from product development focus as from a marketing point of view.
For instance, keeping the iPad mini 2, which is virtually identical to the 3 (I have never experienced the fingerprint sensor to be a big selling argument on the current iPad mini), while sandwiching a new previous-gen 32gig version in between the "16 old" and the "16 old" - an utter mess.
Their product development still seems rather focused - yet their way of keeping older generation models seems to have changed. I think the "old Apple" would have boldly got rid of (most configurations of the) MacBook Air - save for maybe an entry-level 13" inch Air for the education market - with the release of the new 12".
Last edited:
For sure... the keeping older models around is (or has been already?) going to come back to bite them. For example, until a couple weeks back, they were still selling iPad minis new. That's a product that, out of the box, can't really run the current OS and provide a good user experience. What the $#@*($ are they thinking? And, soon, their whole product line will move to 2GB RAM and those 512K devices will be hurting even more (probably starting with iOS 10).
This ultimately comes down to focusing on marketing and profits vs user-experience, IMO. And, if that's the case, Apple's done... because Apple's magic (i.e.: differentiator that made them successful) has always been user-experience.
Well put regarding Jobs being a bit over-the-top and Apple more recently being too lax on their standards. And same goes for your comments on the Mini. I would totally agree with you and have bought a Mini myself instead of my Air 2- if it weren't for it having a dated processor the moment I buy it. Call me snobby, but I don't like buying things that are dated before the box is open, and the Mini 3 clearly plays second fiddle to the Air 2 in Apple's mind. That's why I like when Apple makes top-of-the-line, awesome stuff, and why Macs are still my favorite Apple products. There's just so much less pandering to the masses with Macs than with iOS devices, even though there are too many models in my opinion (when are they going to get rid of that 13" Pro from 2012???)
If we're talking about optimal one-handed use, I'd agree that the 3.5" or 4" screen was much better. But for most people, I would say the 6 is a good balance between usable one-handed navigation and having a larger display for your content. I love my 6 Plus's display for video and reading and all, but I'm sometimes doubtful about my choice. I might go to the 4.7" size when I upgrade next.
But this is the whole point- maybe it's putting too much faith in Apple, but shouldn't they be the ones testing things out to figure out what will work best for their customers? To me, it's like when people order something at a nice restaurant and completely change it from how it is on the menu- isn't this company supposedly the expert at what they do? I mean if you don't think they are, you should probably spend your money elsewhere. But as it is, I tend to figure that the company should make it easier on their customers to decide. Not that you should have no choices at all, but lately Apple seems to be offering about as many as their competitors.
Oh don't get me wrong, Apple is by no means making the sort of garbage that Toshiba churns out in my opinion. But I DO think they are losing focus, both in marketing and in product development. Working at Simply Mac, I've seen an absurd number of iPhone 5c's that come in with the screens popped out of place, blue or red-screening, and generally doing bizarre things that I wouldn't expect from Apple.
They still do some fantastic work- while I like the iPhone 6 design and prefer a slightly bigger phone, I think the 5s is the best design so far (it's not glass on both sides, it has a Retina display, its camera doesn't protrude, the back of the black phone doesn't scratch easily). I also really love my iPad Air 2 and 13" Retina MacBook Pro's designs and the design of the new MacBook, even if it's a few years ahead of its time right now. But the protruding camera on the 6's, the 5c in general, and the rather ugly bezel of the MacBook Air that overstayed its welcome are all pretty disappointing.
100% agree on the marketing. I'm glad they FINALLY got rid of the iPad Mini 1, but the iPod Touch 5 was the "latest" iPod Touch for far too long, the 5c shouldn't be sold anymore, the 13" Pro with a CD drive should be LONG gone, and the Air is starting to look a bit archaic with its 4 GB of RAM and, as I mentioned, less impressive design than the Pro's and the new MacBook (at least I find it less impressive). Pretty sure that when Jobs was around, they admittedly had the bad habit of not updating some products for years (*cough* Mac Pro), but that they NEVER sold the last-generation model for a lower price. Apple's brand once screamed quality. Now it... kind of does. But if you buy a cheaper product that the salesman at the store says "is no different except for the processor, it's not that big a deal," you'll get a lousy experience with the product, and I think that could start hurting them down the line when people realize that not all Apple products are screaming-fast out of the box like they used to be.
Exactly! Apple's #1 concern used to be user-experience. And, in the past, if you opted to buy the very bottom model of their product line-up, you still had a good experience. Sure, maybe you had to add some RAM, or change-out the storage not too far down the road, but that was a possibility, and not too expensive (in fact, I used to often recommend the entry model and 3rd party upgrades to save some money).
But, now that most of the product line can't be upgraded, it isn't the consumer's responsibility to go, "Hmm, I could buy this entry-level model, but then it's not going to work well, so I'll spend the extra $100 (or whatever) to get the model that really works." That's Apple's problem, because as you said, it's going to come back to bite them. And that bite is going to be far worse than the $100 (or whatever) they made in profits THIS quarter.
A wise business recognizes this. Unfortunately, most CEOs, whether they recognize it or not, are driving by spreadsheets or shareholder demands. Jobs wasn't. If Cook can't follow in Jobs' shoes in that regard, Apple is in for a problematic future.
I am not sure where I will find a high end 4" phone, that's what kept me with Apple. But now that they don't offer one anymore I will have to switch to the best 4" phone I can find. I was so hoping they would come out with an updated version of one this year.