Time for Apple to give customers a choice The time has come for the release of more than one IPhone at a time. a high end IPhone with a bigger screen and several extra features might be the answer . Let the customer choose. The days of the one a year iPhone are over. Choice is ultimate to customer satisfaction
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 Rumored to Debut 4.8-Inch 'iPhone Math' in June
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
why do guys care about the looks of women? In fact, top programmers all work with unix, which includes Linux (as a clone) or Mac OS X
A microkernel OS is probably more stable than a monolithic kernel OS (Linux). Performancewise, it might be a little worse
A microkernel OS is probably more stable than a monolithic kernel OS (Linux). Performancewise, it might be a little worse
I don't want a larger iPhone. I am currently using a 3GS and that is the perfect size for me.
Of course the name Math is translated wrong.
Of course the name Math is translated wrong.
I'd buy an iPod Touch Biology lol
----------
the hell do you do for a living
He's a burglar
That's a bit harsh there, mate. After using Windows for almost 2 decades, I switched to Mac in the fall of 2011. And I'm a mechanical engineer by degree, enterprise app developer by training, and currently a product manager by role and responsibility. Switching to Mac doesn't make me a superficial moron that cares only about looks. It makes me someone who cares about the stability of his OS and the form factor of his primary computing system. My MBP rarely ever crashes (maybe once every 2 months) while my Dell crashes every 2 weeks. Admittedly, I really like Windows 7 (and in some aspects, I think it has better usability than OS X). But functionality also depends on reliability and a Mac+OS X beats a PC+Windows on most days.
Regarding your link to mobile app crashes though... that's really interesting. I don't use Android, but I do experience app crashes on my iP4 very often. It's hard to argue with the stats quoted in that Forbes article.
They should release iPhone Sexy next. The phone that makes you sexy. It's worth a 1000 bucks, but hey, you can't put a price on sexiness.
Why would it be 'desperation' for Apple to experiment with different forms, but not for Samsung?
Absolutely NO reason. People reply with "please apple don't do this" as if they will be forced to buy the phone?
I for 1 cannot wait for this phone, it will be awesome.
I really think that from a business standpoint, the larger iPhone makes sense. It already has been established that there is a market for phones of that size (4.8+). There is no reason why Apple cannot expand its current lineup to target it, unless they feel that the market is not significant enough to warrant the initial investment required. Would this larger iPhone cannibalize sales from its smaller siblings, or the iPad mini? Which one has a higher profit margin? Hmm.
Remember, iDevices are Apple's cash cows. Period. This is not the same as the netbook issue: a lower quality device made to fit a particular price point. Apple can deliver a larger, high-quality device to fit a different customer base than the one that purchases their existing iPhone line. And it would not need dramatically different components to achieve this. But the above considerations have to be reconciled. The devices' purpose have to be clear. I theorize that their main reasoning for the iPad mini's differentiation from the iPad is the "one-hand" use thing. They can and did sell that. This would be harder to do on an iPhone "maxi". What would be the reason for it to exist? What problem would it solve? What could you do with it that you cannot do with the 5? I believe that Apple is asking (and hopefully, answering) these questions (or they already did).
In any case, by Apple having 3 iPhone sizes they would be able to somewhat hedge that bet, and see which product is the most popular. Much like they did with the MBP line, they might be able to eliminate one in the future to promote simplicity, cost-cutting, and mitigate any (possible/existing) fragmentation (much to my chagrin-the MBP17" was the single best computer I've ever had/want). This would give Apple flexibility, without having to stray too far from their product line philosophy. They don't need to do every size imaginable, but they could "keep it simple" with three (well, 6 if you count white and black) models still.
I think this would (mainly) create two tiers of customer preferences (portable devices): large and small. For example:
small: iPhone 4s/5 - iPad mini - 13"MB (Air-Pro)
large: iPhone 4.8+ - iPad - 15 (17") MB
I think that, for a type of customer, a larger iPhone would obviate the iPad mini, but not the iPad (or an iPad maxi (13")) This type of customer values screen size over (relative) portability.
Those who value overall size and portability over screen size, could still get the original/5 iPhone and iPad mini.
In any case, I would love to see the three-tier category approach return to Apple, like they used to have for so many years:
iPhone mini, iPhone, iPhone+
iPad mini, iPad, iPad+ (13?)
MBA 11", 13", (15"?)
MBP 13", 15", 17"
Desktops-"good, better, best"
However, Apple has been moving towards a Sith-like rule of 2 for a while:
iPhone4/4s, iPhone5
iPad mini, iPad
MBA 11", 13"
MBP 13", 15" (killed the 17")
iMac 21", 27"
mac mini, mac mini server
Given that, for them to have a bigger phone means killing the 4s or the 5 (which I find unlikely). So, we're back to where we started. Will they break tradition and add a size for their cash cows? Hmmm.
Remember, iDevices are Apple's cash cows. Period. This is not the same as the netbook issue: a lower quality device made to fit a particular price point. Apple can deliver a larger, high-quality device to fit a different customer base than the one that purchases their existing iPhone line. And it would not need dramatically different components to achieve this. But the above considerations have to be reconciled. The devices' purpose have to be clear. I theorize that their main reasoning for the iPad mini's differentiation from the iPad is the "one-hand" use thing. They can and did sell that. This would be harder to do on an iPhone "maxi". What would be the reason for it to exist? What problem would it solve? What could you do with it that you cannot do with the 5? I believe that Apple is asking (and hopefully, answering) these questions (or they already did).
In any case, by Apple having 3 iPhone sizes they would be able to somewhat hedge that bet, and see which product is the most popular. Much like they did with the MBP line, they might be able to eliminate one in the future to promote simplicity, cost-cutting, and mitigate any (possible/existing) fragmentation (much to my chagrin-the MBP17" was the single best computer I've ever had/want). This would give Apple flexibility, without having to stray too far from their product line philosophy. They don't need to do every size imaginable, but they could "keep it simple" with three (well, 6 if you count white and black) models still.
I think this would (mainly) create two tiers of customer preferences (portable devices): large and small. For example:
small: iPhone 4s/5 - iPad mini - 13"MB (Air-Pro)
large: iPhone 4.8+ - iPad - 15 (17"
) MBI think that, for a type of customer, a larger iPhone would obviate the iPad mini, but not the iPad (or an iPad maxi (13")
) This type of customer values screen size over (relative) portability.Those who value overall size and portability over screen size, could still get the original/5 iPhone and iPad mini.
In any case, I would love to see the three-tier category approach return to Apple, like they used to have for so many years:
iPhone mini, iPhone, iPhone+
iPad mini, iPad, iPad+ (13?)
MBA 11", 13", (15"?)
MBP 13", 15", 17"
Desktops-"good, better, best"
However, Apple has been moving towards a Sith-like rule of 2 for a while:
iPhone4/4s, iPhone5
iPad mini, iPad
MBA 11", 13"
MBP 13", 15" (killed the 17"
)iMac 21", 27"
mac mini, mac mini server
Given that, for them to have a bigger phone means killing the 4s or the 5 (which I find unlikely). So, we're back to where we started. Will they break tradition and add a size for their cash cows? Hmmm.
If they make a 4.8 inch screen or a size other then 3.5 and 4.0 then the simple solution would be what they are already doing on older apps on the iphone 5. simply keep the pixel density the same as current phones, but add more screen area and make those black barred out when using an app not upgraded to work with the bigger screen.
But if they do make a bigger screen phone they should keep the screen ratio the same as the iphone5. I love that videos are using the whole screen with no black bars. It might look wierd at first, but I think people would get used to it quickly. Plus if they could lower the borders on the top and bottom, they could keep the phone shorter but have a taller screen.
But if they do make a bigger screen phone they should keep the screen ratio the same as the iphone5. I love that videos are using the whole screen with no black bars. It might look wierd at first, but I think people would get used to it quickly. Plus if they could lower the borders on the top and bottom, they could keep the phone shorter but have a taller screen.
Unless I'm confused, this isn't really true. iOS can actually run apps in the background and does, but there are a lot of restrictions on what your app can do in the background and when it can run. An iOS app will enter sleep after 5 minutes in the background, but depending on what type of app yours qualifies as, it can wake up on a timer or from a significant location change. But only certain app categories can wake up on a timer under Apple rules.
I have a beta app (from Testflight) on my iPhone that tracks my movements everywhere in the background. It wakes up and checks the location whenever I move a certain distance. And unless I'm mistaken, Google Maps runs in the background during turn-by-turn navigation.
But from what I've heard, Android does (without restrictions) run apps fully in the background. I can't imagine this being a good thing in the hands of irresponsible app developers, but I think Apple should move a little in this direction.
Last edited:
Yeah, Apple should just sell off and give the money back to the investors. It's hopeless, according to those who don't understand the difference between innovation and disruption.
Make your life easier, open your User CP and add him to your Ignore list. That's what I did.
That's what I did too, I can't believe people are giving this guy the time of day.
The way I understand it, all apps freeze to ram without eating up any CPU cycles whenever they're not in the foreground, but some apps can access a service (for lack of a better word) that allows certain things to continue running even when they're minimized (once again, for lack of a better word). GPS tracking is one of them, as is music, and...er...some other stuff I can't remember off the top of my head.
I'll see if I can dig up that link I found that explains it all. It's pretty clever, if not a little limited in some ways.
edit: Here you go.
Or if you prefer a more complicated explanation...
Mobile phone sizes 2007, and 2013
Thinking about screen sizes, I remember that back when the iPhone came out, the goal of every cell phone manufacturer was to make their phone smaller, smaller, smaller. I sometimes wonder if a design goal of the original iPhone was that it be as small as possible while still functioning the way the designers envisioned. The iPhone comes out, is not the smallest thing on the market by a long shot but shows that small is not the end-all-be-all feature for a cell phone, and then into this newly created space for larger phones come people willing to make larger phones. And now Apple will have to decide if it wants to make larger phones, too.
Thinking about screen sizes, I remember that back when the iPhone came out, the goal of every cell phone manufacturer was to make their phone smaller, smaller, smaller. I sometimes wonder if a design goal of the original iPhone was that it be as small as possible while still functioning the way the designers envisioned. The iPhone comes out, is not the smallest thing on the market by a long shot but shows that small is not the end-all-be-all feature for a cell phone, and then into this newly created space for larger phones come people willing to make larger phones. And now Apple will have to decide if it wants to make larger phones, too.
You didn't really just post that, did you?
More buggy features is somehow awesome? Really?
Yes, they should glue every new technology onto the phone whether its ready or not, whether there's a general market demand for it or not. Release buggy crap in order to get more customer satisfaction, profits... Oh wait... They already kick the field's asses on everything except units of crap sold.
Actually, that's not proof you own a Mac. Especially with the default apps in the Dock, looks like you walked into an Apple store, downloaded Chrome, logged into MacRumors to post...
Steam sucks on a Mac. It f's everything up. I blame Steam for that, not the Mac. I kill it, my Mac goes back to running smooth and stable. Just as an fyi, what Macbook and OS version are you using?
As far as Macs being more unstable than Windows, I disagree. Flatly. My experience has been the opposite, by a long shot, with 95,98, Me (worst of all), XP, and 7. To be fair, 7 is not bad (way more stable), but still nowhere as stable as OS X (again, in my experience).
BTW, OS X is based on UNIX, and I found it to be very similar to Linux in many respects..
"The iPhone is a little kid's toy specifically designed for preteen girls and men with small hands (Read: Small endowments)." Hahahaaha, nice. Be happy and give thanks for your "gifts".
