Apple to Begin Trial Production of iPhone 5S for Earlier Than Expected Launch?

[samcraig]

Carrier subsidies should just end. When iPhone was first released on AT&T there was no subsidy. I think I paid $399 for a 4GB model in September of 2007. I believe the subsidy started with iPhone 3G.

No subsidies, no contracts. No contracts and people could simply upgrade as often as they wanted to or could afford to, paying the full cost of the phone.

The fundamental problem with this is - there's no "good" incentive to buy an unsubsidized phone from the carrier. Because your monthly bill is the same if you do or don't subsidize. The carriers should all have two pricing structures - one if you're under subsidy (2 years ONLY per new device) or one if you bring your own phone and/or are past the "pay back" of 2 years.

I doubt it will happen though. Subsidizing a phone keeps people on their network.

 

[xofruitcake]

iPhone 5S will use the rest of the 4" Retina Display inventory while iPhone 6 will introduce a new 5" screen and adopt the CinemaScope aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

Though the iPhone 6 will share the same 4.87" x 2.3" height and width dimensions of iPhone 5, it will feature a reduction of the bezel thickness on the top and bottom of the phone, allowing for the extension of the screen.

The "Home" bottom will be designed and re-sized to accommodate this change.

The iPad Mini 2 will be launched at the same time with a "Retina Display" of 1536x1152 with 245 PPI, A6 chip and 1GB RAM. Keep in mind that it WON'T have the full-sized iPad's resolution of 2048x1536. That is being saved for iPad Mini 3 to be released in 2014.

Note the "quick" turnaround for releasing iPad Mini 2 in March/April 2013 serves two purposes.

One, it allows Apple to not only catch up, but SURPASS its competitors in display supremacy for the 7" tablet class. Note that the iPad Mini 2's 245 PPI will be the highest offered, taking the crown away from the NOOK HD which has a 1440x900 screen and 243 PPI.



By separating the launch dates by six months, Apple will be able to increase the tempo of planned obsolescence in the iPad lines without obliquely doing so like when it released iPad 4 just seven months after iPad 3.

I beg to differ about the in-between screen resolution. If you remember the Ipad 3 launch event, they talked about why they pick a strange resolution of 2048x1536 for Ipad 3 resolution. They made it very clear that easy migration of apps is an important aspect of why they pick that resolution. If 1.5x base resolution work, they would have picked that for Ipad 3 already. The weight and high cost to manufacture Ipad 3 and Ipad 4 is a direct result of the screen panel that require 2 back light instead of one and the additional backlight require bigger battery.. And the screen and additional battery drive the manufacturing cost up to the roof.

----------

The fundamental problem with this is - there's no "good" incentive to buy an unsubsidized phone from the carrier. Because your monthly bill is the same if you do or don't subsidize. The carriers should all have two pricing structures - one if you're under subsidy (2 years ONLY per new device) or one if you bring your own phone and/or are past the "pay back" of 2 years.

I doubt it will happen though. Subsidizing a phone keeps people on their network.

you can buy the phone and use Straightalk or one of those bring your own phone plan that charge $45 a month for unlimited talk and 3G..

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

iPhone 5S will use the rest of the 4" Retina Display inventory while iPhone 6 will introduce a new 5" screen and adopt the CinemaScope aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

That aint gonna happen.

 

[brdeveloper]

Now CEOs will prepare their strategies for a 6-month window and bonuses will come twice a year (for them). Nice!

 

[blerns3]

Well...after the iPad 3--->4 quick turnaround, this doesn't surprise me. I know it's different because it's a phone and most buy it at a subsidized price with 2 year contracts but whatever. If you can't afford to get a new one until your contract is up, then don't. If you can, power to you. I wish I could, but my 5 will definitely be my phone for 2 years, unless I can get like a 45 day early upgrade towards the end of the contract.

 

[tuamtuem]

Tim Cook is an extraordinary person in the supply chain management. He can make the product available in many countries within the short period of time.

This is the best way to try to push users to use the iOS as much as possible. I think he is following the Samsung strategy, which result in the dramatically growth of Android device.

but I don't like this

 

[Razeus]

I don't mind either way.

Personally I'd prefer annual hardware updates WITH iOS updates every 6 months that add new features, enhance current ones, and fix long standing ones.

I would also like them to hire desktop software people again if there are any left that aren't working on an iOS project.

 

[samcraig]

[/COLOR]

you can buy the phone and use Straightalk or one of those bring your own phone plan that charge $45 a month for unlimited talk and 3G..

I was talking about the 3 major carriers - Sprint, Verizon and ATT

BTW - was I the only one that at first glance thought this was a legal thread after seeing the word "trial"

 

[gadget123]

If there was two iPhones a year I'd just buy the one. No point updating twice in a year.

 

[metsjetsfan]

Didn't schiller look somewhat unenthusiastic at the keynote, would be funny if this is why.

 

[Sedrick]

Think about this: It would put Apple on a 2 phones per year release instead of 1 every year with the 'S' being a re-hash/update of the first just like it is now. It would also let Apple release the 'S' model with the same OS version (6, in this case) as the first.

Face it, upping the OS number every year is becoming pointless with the small changes/additions we're seeing these days.

It would put iOS on a 2 year cycle with some real changes at release to match the new hardware every second year.

No, I don't expect it to happen, but it's a thought.

 

[olowott]

Seriously, even all the iphone 5 orders have not been delivered yet and not launch in other major countries.

Come On

 

[patseguin]

If they keep doing such quick product upgrades leaving new buyer sin the lurch, I'm going to bail.

 

[mdelvecchio]

When and if it's released, unless it's a leap like the ipad 4 proved to be ( and it might well be) then I'm not going to bite.
...
I'll stick with my 5 if it's minor stuff.

nobody would expect you to upgrade from a 5 to a 5S. normal people dont expect to upgrade their phones every single year.

----------

This report is a bunch of BS, but if it were true, it would backfire big time on Apple. The media and public backlash might do Apple in.

doom. any day now.

 

[BuckusToothnail]

That'll never happen. An unlocked iPhone would$650-$899. The overwhelming majority of current iPhone users would think long and hard before dropping 3-4 times their initial investment into another iPhone, especially when comparing them to subsidized prices on other phones.

There is no way Apple would cut their own throat by ending carier subsidies.

I think you're forgetting that the "$650-$899" retail cost for the iPhone is mostly artificially inflated and used as a deterrent for anyone considering an "unlocked" phone, almost "forcing" customers to sign up for the two-year carrier contract.

Apple, along with most smartphone manufacturers, are fine with this strategy because they rely on the carriers to promote their phones. In the US, it's not even possible to buy an iPhone from Apple without a carrier contract.

Now compare the iPhone 5s "$650-$899" retail price to the price of Google's Nexus 4 made by LG.

First off, the Nexus 4 has a 4.7" display, 1280x768 resolution and 2GB of RAM, all better specs than the iPhone 5, as well as NFC (near field communication) and wireless charging capabilities, which the iPhone 5 doesn't.

However, the Nexus 4 is retailing for only $299 UNLOCKED and WITHOUT a contract. That's less than HALF the cost of the iPhone 5. However, it's only that price IF you buy it from the Google Play store, which is only avaiable in selected countries.

In the countries where Google Play isn't available, LG is the distributor and setting the price. In Europe, the price for an unlocked Nexus 4 will be EUR 599 or more than TWICE the price of buying it from Google, and bringing it much closer to the unlocked price of the iPhone 5.

Of course you can get it "cheaper" in thoese "LG countries" if you buy it from a carrier and sign the long-term contract.

So that just goes to show you that these "$650-$899" prices for unlocked iPhone and other smartphones are DELIBERATE mark-ups by the manufacturers who are in bed with the carriers to get people to buy from the carriers and sign the contracts.

The manufacturers don't need to charge "$650-$899" for their smartphones to make money on them and in fact, don't really expect to sell many at that price anyway. It's all to just funnel sales to the carriers who then promote these phones over other options. Typical "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" business strategy.

Now if we ever see the government OUTLAW these type of carrier subsidies, then you'll see the prices of these unlocked smartphones tumble down to what they really should be, which is around what the Nexus 4 is selling for.

 

[mantan]

I think you're forgetting that the "$650-$899" retail cost for the iPhone is mostly artificially inflated and used as a deterrent for anyone considering an "unlocked" phone, almost "forcing" customers to sign up for the two-year carrier contract.

Apple, along with most smartphone manufacturers, are fine with this strategy because they rely on the carriers to promote their phones. In the US, it's not even possible to buy an iPhone from Apple without a carrier contract.

Now compare the iPhone 5s "$650-$899" retail price to the price of Google's Nexus 4 made by LG.

First off, the Nexus 4 has a 4.7" display, 1280x768 resolution and 2GB of RAM, all better specs than the iPhone 5, as well as NFC (near field communication) and wireless charging capabilities, which the iPhone 5 doesn't.

However, the Nexus 4 is retailing for only $299 UNLOCKED and WITHOUT a contract. That's less than HALF the cost of the iPhone 5. However, it's only that price IF you buy it from the Google Play store, which is only avaiable in selected countries.

In the countries where Google Play isn't available, LG is the distributor and setting the price. In Europe, the price for an unlocked Nexus 4 will be EUR 599 or more than TWICE the price of buying it from Google, and bringing it much closer to the unlocked price of the iPhone 5.

Of course you can get it "cheaper" in thoese "LG countries" if you buy it from a carrier and sign the long-term contract.

So that just goes to show you that these "$650-$899" prices for unlocked iPhone and other smartphones are DELIBERATE mark-ups by the manufacturers who are in bed with the carriers to get people to buy from the carriers and sign the contracts.

The manufacturers don't need to charge "$650-$899" for their smartphones to make money on them and in fact, don't really expect to sell many at that price anyway. It's all to just funnel sales to the carriers who then promote these phones over other options. Typical "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" business strategy.

Now if we ever see the government OUTLAW these type of carrier subsidies, then you'll see the prices of these unlocked smartphones tumble down to what they really should be, which is around what the Nexus 4 is selling for.

You make some very valid points.

But Apple is still going to expect to traditional profits off the iPhone. It's currently their most profitable item. Are consumers going to be willing to spend even $399 or $499 for an iPhone?

Maybe a couple of years ago when the iPhone 4 was far and above the competition. But with others closing the gap, each company would have to compete on price more than they'd like to.

 

[BuckusToothnail]

I beg to differ about the in-between screen resolution. If you remember the Ipad 3 launch event, they talked about why they pick a strange resolution of 2048x1536 for Ipad 3 resolution. They made it very clear that easy migration of apps is an important aspect of why they pick that resolution. If 1.5x base resolution work, they would have picked that for Ipad 3 already. The weight and high cost to manufacture Ipad 3 and Ipad 4 is a direct result of the screen panel that require 2 back light instead of one and the additional backlight require bigger battery.. And the screen and additional battery drive the manufacturing cost up to the roof.

The 1536x1152 resolution wouldn't work as well as a "Retina Display" for the full-sized iPad with the 9.7" screen because the PPI would only be 198.

However, the 1536x1152 resolution on the iPad Miní's 7.9" screen would work great as it would give it a PPI of 245, which is very comparable to the 264 PPI of the iPad 3 and 4 with the 2048x1536 resolution.

 

[patseguin]

I've always been one of those crazy people who bought every Apple release. i.e. 4th gen iPad. If they come out with a 5s I will NOT buy it unless they put in some other must-have hardware feature. They really need to overhaul iOS if they want people to remain interested in their products. W8 and Android and offering viable options now.

 

[DrumApple]

Macbooks are the best thing they make, and the only apple products I still use.

They are heavy, and sport terrible mirror screens imho.

 

[TouchMint.com]

No more screen size changes! My horrible design abilities could not handle it!

 

[jmcrutch]

You don't have to buy every release. You truly don't.

 

[darky90]

I was a bit disappointed in the 5. I was really hoping they would work more on the ios like having more features that android has, like widgets. Instead, it's pretty much the same thing as a 4s but taller and slightly lighter, and I guess faster... I was looking forward to getting a 5s but now I guess I'll wait until my phone begins to fall apart on me than to go for a new phone when my contract ends.

 

[MJD Dawg]

Well, it might be if you're able to make structural changes on the design that result in much better yields.

"We've changed the shape of the back slightly as Foxcon's yields are terrible" is a bad news story. "Here's the new iPhone!" is a good news story, broadly.

I don't expect it would be a significant change, but there are surely ways to simplify the assembly, and if you throw in a minor spec bump then you look like the good guy. The computing hardware doesn't seem to be the issue, the case is.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was actually slightly thicker, and there was no black anodised option. If they give it a better battery then it would ward off criticism, but make it *much* easier to make.

This is exactly my first thought!

With all the issues on the iPhone 5 regarding aluminum softness and type of anodization used, speeding up transition to the 5S using a stronger aluminum (or other metal) and thicker/stronger anodization makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[hamkor04]

still got 3GS
New plan A- wait until 5s (that will be epic change 3gs to 5s)
plan B - i'll get used to by that time or will have new Galaxy S4

 

[nonamelive]

Oh, Apple. Could you please keep your original pace? I just got my iPhone 5 from gray market for about $1200! WTF!