I suspect Apple’s research and experience tells them otherwise.
Or the beancounters like how "thinner" needs less aluminum for unit cost savings, less battery for unit cost savings, etc... AND know that a segment of the market LOVES form factor changes so they can show total strangers they have the latest. 💰💰💰
Isn't another key part of THIS rumor cutting the camera to a single lens but maintaining the "same great price" or so as the Pro model it is expected to replace in the lineup? If that's true, there's cost savings over some kind of consumer gain/want fulfillment. Keeping same great price would then imply margin expansion. Did Research say that a gripe is "Too many/much camera?"... "We want ONE corner lump for improved wobble on countertops instead of two or three"???
The play on Research leading to thinner should have anecdotal proof in countless threads showing complaints about how current iPhones are "too thick." Until there are rumors of a thinner phone that start becoming plausible, we see no such posts. There is abundant voices ready to complain about anything around here. Where are broad complaints from last few years about the phone being too thick? That should be obvious and yet, nothing shows.
What is visible in abundance is desire for
some option to make the camera bump flush and if that involves creating more space inside by adding a few millimeters instead of subtracting them, fill that space with more battery. If we see a
LOT of that, I'd think this Apple Research would see a lot of that too.
Let's ask ourselves what have we seen more of: calls for thinner phones vs. calls for flush cameras/more battery? And if we clearly know the answer to that question- and I believe just about ALL of us do- so should Apple Research.
The BIG PROBLEM with giving the market what it wants in this topic is it might involve adding a little more aluminum for a little more cost and more battery for a little more cost. Modern Apple seems increasingly focused on fattening the sky high margin even more than it already is... which is accomplished by
reducing cost of products and/or charging more for them... or
BOTH!. 💰💰💰
But let's suppose that Apple Research sees at least an equal market want for "thinner" and "flush cameras/more battery." Even at a 50:50 split assessment of market wants, why only choose to develop the "thinner" option? If the research shows the market wants phone evolutions to
both, why not make BOTH to feed market demands? Why be drawn to only "thinner?" Again, one plausible answer to that question is that "thinner" is more profitable per unit sold... while the other option might require spending another dollar or three to deliver THAT new iPhone.
Apple has a long history of just doing whatever Apple wants to do and "we" buy anyway... even rationalize sometimes bad choices to each other like they are genius choices (until Apple finally fixes errors themselves)... so perhaps they are just going with the more profitable option vs. actually delivering on what the research shows as bigger wants... because that may add a few bucks to cost of each unit. That has to seem as plausible as this idea that in spite of not seeing a large wall of "too thick" gripes around here, Apple Research has somehow found that that is indeed a big issue among iPhone owners to address... again.
I'll conclude with a "what if" question: What if Apple rolled out this thinner iPhone AND rolled out a modestly thicker one that flush-fit the cameras and fills the added space with more battery? Which phone would probably get the most buyers? I suspect we all at least think we know the answer to that question too. Is it this one?
