I'm guessing: 3mp Camera, Turn-by-turn GPS directions (With google maps and street view enabled), 32GB, PAYG plan, front facing 1.3 MP camera, Nike+ support, etc.
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.
iPhone 3G Generation 2 Coming?
- Thread starter akarmenia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think I heard somewhere that the metal back interfering was a myth? Not too sure to be honest.
And yes, I think we'll see storage upgrades early next year.
But the next incarnation is what I'm interested in. Funny how the iPhone 1st gen is called iPhone 2g, and iPhone 2nd gen is iPhone 3g. Nice pattern, but somehow I don't think we'll see the iPhone 3rd gen having 4g!
Really? I've never seen any info saying it was a myth. If it is, then they should definitely bring the metal-back back. I really like the look of my 1st gen. However, if it doesn't interfere, then why is the antenna on the first gen surrounded by black plastic?
Carbon Fiber please.
That would be very cool.
Who knows? If that is the case, then I'd like to see a back more like the 1st gen, with metal and plastic. Just makes it feel for luxurious.
Maybe Apple will go wild and have a glass back. They seem to have an obsession with glass at the moment.
I've often wondered this myself. The whole point of the plastic backing on the first gen was for the radios correct? So why did everyone seem to confess the reason for a full plastic back because of interference issues?
The metal probably does play some role... for instance, in similar generations, WiFi reception has almost always been better on iBooks and Macbooks (plastic -- this is before the latest unibody ones) than Powerbooks and MBP's (Aluminum).
I think there is also a bit of Apple RDF involved. When Apple made a one button mouse, one button mice were simpler. Then they walked in and introduced a multi-button mouse and lauded the advantages of such a design.
As for metal and plastic...
- The TiBook was supposed to be amazing because of this great metal they used (at a time when Aluminum was also on the market) and then it got quietly replaced with Aluminum, which was suddenly better in spite of not being as "space age" sounding.
- The iBook and MacBook, which have always had better wifi receptivity than the metal pro 'books, quietly get replaced by an alunimum Macbook, just at the time when more and more people are using cellular data cards in their notebooks, for which the new aluminum enclosure should also presumably be worse.
- The iPods have gone back and forth... the full size iPod went from plastic and metal to metal. The iPod nano went from all plastic, to all metal, to plastic and metal (I think?), back to all metal. The iPod shuffle went from plastic to metal. The iPhone went from metal to plastic. I think it would be just as easy to speculate that Apple did all this for aesthetics more than any particularly motivating inherent benefit of one of the two materials.
I don't know that they have any kind of sophisticated strategy behind all this. I think a big part of it is marketing. It's just like auto reviews. The same reviewer touts the "inherent stability of the I6 design," when talking about BMW, while saying that a V-block engine is "smoother" when talking about Mercedes, and saying something else equally inconsistent when talking about a Porsche boxer four. There just is no logical complete picture.
For that matter, if plastic is so much better than metal, why did RIM suddenly start putting metal blackberries on the market?
That being said, I only have owned the metal, and I quite like it. Very durable. feel no temptation to use a case, whatsoever.
so uh..i'm still waiting for the iPhone to introduce itself to the Verizon Wireless network.
f**k family plans. my dad says he loves Verizon when all i've had was problems with my phones and terrible service at my friends' houses, even in my own house i don't get service.
f**k family plans. my dad says he loves Verizon when all i've had was problems with my phones and terrible service at my friends' houses, even in my own house i don't get service.
If it's any consolation, I'm sure you won't be living in that house anymore by the time the iPhone is available with Verizon.
If it's any consolation, I'm sure you won't be living in that house anymore by the time the iPhone is available with Verizon.
people are whispering that there will be a verizon iphone at mw09...
I suspect this is more a case of Apple trying to get a cheaper rate for these things, ATT saying no, and Apple stubbornly just not including them. ATT seems perfectly willing to include MMS and tethering with other phones. I know that I think the rates for those two things in particular are unreasonable, and I would not pay for them anyway. When the iPhone came out, the rate plan was exceptionally good by most smartphone standards, and it even included 200 IMs.
If it's any consolation, I'm sure you won't be living in that house anymore by the time the iPhone is available with Verizon.
living in the house doesn't matter too much, it's about affording the iPhone's monthly payment. if i could pay for it, i would have it.
people are whispering that there will be a verizon iphone at mw09...
people are whispering a lot of things. if the iPhone comes to Verizon, i will be a happy man. any one else wonder why MW is RIGHT after christmas? odd planning if you ask me.
Doubt it. The current price-points are in line with other comparable phones. I don't think we'll see that kind of price drop until at least 2010. There's just no reason for that kind of price-drop at this point in time.
I do like the 4GB rumor- it makes some sense. Apple can get a whole bunch of new users that were afraid of the $199-$299 initial purchase price, and then make a bunch of new money on their iTunes and App Store purchases. It's like Gilette's model: sell the initial razor for $7.99, and then sell the blades at much higher prices.
Totally. But I guess it would lack that satisfying heavy feeling that my 1st gen has from the metal back.
Not really, because you obviously misunderstand the argument. No one is challenging the claim that AT&T's profits are diminished by the iPhone 3G subsidy - everyone has agreed on that, actually. Please note:
Instead, a careful reading reveals that the argument is first that AT&T is "loosing money", and second that because of this, they will not release a new iPhone until they have "made their money back" on the iPhone 3G subsidy.
The first argument suggests that they aren't making a profit at all. Obviously, that is completely untrue. You can link to every article you want that quotes the $900 million figure and think "oh wow, this proves it, $900 million is a HUGE deal!" In reality, any amount of money is senseless without a context. Sure it is a lot of money, but compared to what? For example, in the context of government spending, it's a fraction of a percent (0.005%). The government spends over $2 trillion per year. In the case of AT&T, their profits well cover the cost of the subsidy. Not only have they reported a profit of over $3 billion, but they have reported a profit margin that exceeds the previous year - a year completely absent of any iPhone subsidies, mind you. So, the idea that AT&T is losing money is far from the truth.
The second argument is that AT&T needs to make back their money before they subsidize another iPhone. Obviously to do that they would need to make $900 million to offset the cost of the subsidy. Well, the facts show that they have already made their money back. They have reported a profit of $3.23 billion. Not only did they make the required $900 million just to break even, but they made another $3.23 billion on top of that. So the argument that they haven't made their money back on the subsidy is completely false. Furthermore, AT&T won't indiscriminately give out subsidies for another iPhone. They have well defined upgrade eligibility requirements that are in place to guarantee through contract that AT&T makes a profit before they pay another subsidy. You can be sure that any current customer that receives a subsidy for a new iPhone has already well repaid the subsidy and then some.
I've also already explained the price of their stock and how it isn't statistically significant with respect to the effect of the iPhone 3G.
^ You're a stubborn as a mule. You don't seem to understand that if you look at the 3G investment only, then AT&T has not made back its investment yet. They put money into the 3G investment, and they won't get it back until they've held users to the term of their contract - that's what is being said by those financial statements. You're looking at their general financial portfolio and going "look, they still made money." Well of course they did, they have many revenue streams.
The argument (which you still don't seem to understand), is that AT&T is going to have to hold people on contract until about 2010 (according to my sources) for the iPhone investment to pay off (i.e. making back the subsidies AND paying for the cost of network upgrades that the 3G required, as well as the other administrative costs associated with bringing millions of customers over to AT&T specifically for the iPhone). That's the point. That's what your link says.
Here is my question: did you ever read what you linked?
The argument (which you still don't seem to understand), is that AT&T is going to have to hold people on contract until about 2010 (according to my sources) for the iPhone investment to pay off (i.e. making back the subsidies AND paying for the cost of network upgrades that the 3G required, as well as the other administrative costs associated with bringing millions of customers over to AT&T specifically for the iPhone). That's the point. That's what your link says.
Here is my question: did you ever read what you linked?
Sorry, but the whole "3G only" idea is only in illusion. The reality is that an investment is an investment and money money. AT&T will spend $600 million in advertising this year which brings in new customers. Should we consider only "those customers" and the costs of signing them to AT&T when thinking about whether or not the investment in advertising has paid off?
Any money AT&T invests into network upgrades is an investment into their company, not the iPhone, and they are going to do that with or without it. Perhaps you are under the delusion that 2.3 million new iPhone customers required some major overhaul or investment into their network. AT&T currently has 74.9 million customers, meaning that new iPhone customers represent only 3.1% of their total network infrastructure. Do you honestly think that AT&T would not have otherwise expanded their network by 3% without the iPhone, and that the associated cost of such is not only attributed directly to the iPhone but but has some out-of-proportion cost associated with it?
As for as the "administrative costs associated with bringing millions of customers over to AT&T specifically for the iPhone" - that is nothing more than the subsidy, which is the only direct cost of the iPhone to AT&T. And if you think that there is some significant cost to bringing in a new customer, think again. AT&T gets a $16 fee and charges two months worth of service for a new customer to spend half an hour in store and sign a piece of paper.
I've already pointed out that it doesn't really matter from what sources AT&T makes their money back on the $900 million subsidy since money is money. Even then, however, I've already demonstrated how AT&T will make the $900 million back specifically from any iPhone 3G customer in no more than 7 months. In a year, AT&T stands to make billions in revenue from these customers alone:
2,300,000 3G customers * 12 months * $80/month/customer (conservative average bill) = $2.21 billion
That is more than enough to cover the subsidy. Even if you factor in a maximum of $40/month per customer (which I have shown in a previous post) in network and administrative costs, you have:
$2.21 billion - 12 months * $40/month/customer = $1.1 billion profit
This will be by the end of July 2009. That is more than enough to cover the cost of a subsidy to all of these customers when probably less than 30% of which will qualify for a subsidy in the first place.
AT&T has well covered their investment in the iPhone 3G. AT&T will recoup their investment specifically from 3G customers in a couple months' time, and by next summer will have paid off handsomely. Any investment into AT&T's network would be completed regardless of the iPhone, especially when iPhone customers only represent 3.1% of their total network infrastructure.
Any money AT&T invests into network upgrades is an investment into their company, not the iPhone, and they are going to do that with or without it. Perhaps you are under the delusion that 2.3 million new iPhone customers required some major overhaul or investment into their network. AT&T currently has 74.9 million customers, meaning that new iPhone customers represent only 3.1% of their total network infrastructure. Do you honestly think that AT&T would not have otherwise expanded their network by 3% without the iPhone, and that the associated cost of such is not only attributed directly to the iPhone but but has some out-of-proportion cost associated with it?
As for as the "administrative costs associated with bringing millions of customers over to AT&T specifically for the iPhone" - that is nothing more than the subsidy, which is the only direct cost of the iPhone to AT&T. And if you think that there is some significant cost to bringing in a new customer, think again. AT&T gets a $16 fee and charges two months worth of service for a new customer to spend half an hour in store and sign a piece of paper.
I've already pointed out that it doesn't really matter from what sources AT&T makes their money back on the $900 million subsidy since money is money. Even then, however, I've already demonstrated how AT&T will make the $900 million back specifically from any iPhone 3G customer in no more than 7 months. In a year, AT&T stands to make billions in revenue from these customers alone:
2,300,000 3G customers * 12 months * $80/month/customer (conservative average bill) = $2.21 billion
That is more than enough to cover the subsidy. Even if you factor in a maximum of $40/month per customer (which I have shown in a previous post) in network and administrative costs, you have:
$2.21 billion - 12 months * $40/month/customer = $1.1 billion profit
This will be by the end of July 2009. That is more than enough to cover the cost of a subsidy to all of these customers when probably less than 30% of which will qualify for a subsidy in the first place.
AT&T has well covered their investment in the iPhone 3G. AT&T will recoup their investment specifically from 3G customers in a couple months' time, and by next summer will have paid off handsomely. Any investment into AT&T's network would be completed regardless of the iPhone, especially when iPhone customers only represent 3.1% of their total network infrastructure.
Though you eloquently defend your invalid argument, it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong. It makes no difference if other facets of AT&T are profitable. Those funds do not apply to, and are completely independent of the iPhone. You are completely overlooking what those financial statements are saying and taking numbers out of context to try and prove a point. And you aren't proving it. I'm just glad you aren't the CEO of my company.
Then you are welcome to be specific in explaining what is wrong. Of course, you won't be able to because it's not.
Listen. If you knew the first thing about business you would know your claim that money is money is incorrect. It's just not how businesses are run. You can try to justify your point, but no matter how you try it won't happen. It's just painfully obvious that you don't understand balance sheets, financial statements, or simply anything about how a business is run. Money isn't money and that is the basis for your whole argument. Sorry, buddy but you just don't get it. Like I and others have tried to help you understand, just because AT&T may be in the black, it doesn't mean a specific product is profitable. And they don't just take money from one sector of their business to through it at another. It's like a sinking ship- you don't unplug one hole to plug up another. It's time to stop hijacking this thread. I'd be happy to try and help you understand the way businesses operate by PM is you are interested. This conversation is getting way off topic.
Totally. But I guess it would lack that satisfying heavy feeling that my 1st gen has from the metal back.
I really do want a carbon fiber iPhone now. Maybe, just maybe, I might buy an extra iPhone and try modding one with a carbon fiber background.