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 6c' Said to Have Slightly Larger Battery Than iPhone 5s and 2GB of RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2GB of RAM? Nice!
I'm really hoping that iOS 10/X is a juggernaut that will utilize all of this RAM.
I'm really hoping that iOS 10/X is a juggernaut that will utilize all of this RAM.
It amazes me that the iPhone 6 ever had 1GB of RAM. 6 is still an extraordinary phone, but it would have been just about perfect with 2GB of RAM.
Is Apple finally getting the hint that these phones need more than 1 days worth of battery use? I imagine everyone would be fine with 3mm thicker phone for another days worth of charge.
Considering the 5C outsold all of the Android competition during its time on the market, that's the kind of fail Apple is looking for.
So in summary we want a phone that is at least $200 cheaper than the 6s but apart from screen size matches the 6s features?
I am not sure what you are referring to. The iPhone 5s currently sells for $450.
Omitting 3D touch seems to be a poor choise if Apple wants developers to utilize the tech
I actually have fairly normal/large-sized hands (I wear a size 12 shoe), but thanks for commenting.
I think that is a mistake too. I get using plastic over aluminum but the whole thing about not putting in all of the features into a brand new phone is a bad idea. It means devs can't take full advantage of 3D touch at the same degree they'd like to.
You are aware that 4-inch iPhones actually currently exist and developers currently make/have been making apps for them for, I don't know, 3+ years?
Aside from the bone head move by a now former Apple employee leaving the iPhone 4 at a bar, were there this many leaks of that phone? Was Apple better off having the phones made by Samsung? Is there a way for Apple to design AND build a working finished product in-house at HQ, announce it to the world early in the year and then have it sent to the manufacturer to be mass produced?
I don't know to me 64 gigs is kind of the sweet spot. If they could only charge an extra $100 to go from 32 to 128 which in theory they could since it shouldn't cost more than $100 difference I'd be down with that. $150 is getting too steep to me.
WOW! I can't wait for this. They added 72mAh battery to it - when will these outstanding technological leaps forward stop? Maybe they'll toss us a bone and add ANOTHER amazing color.
Exactly. And 16GB would be perfect for someone like my mom who uses it for calls, texts, email, and the occasional game or photo. I need a 4" or smaller phone simply because I can't use the iphone 6/s one-handed, but am desperate to upgrade to at least 64GB.
One has to imagine that they're building this phone not just to have a cheap option but to satisfy pent-up demand for smaller phones. If they're going up to 2GB RAM, it's hard to imagine they'll MAX the storage at 16GB.
The only way to prevent leaks nowadays would be the Watch approach: create it entirely in-house, then announce it officially. THEN start production.
A product of the iPhone's scale and demand? I'm not sure that's possible.
i guess with 4" screen and that resolution, mostly we are good with battery life. A9 very efficient CPU than A7 - i guess.
you missed his sarcasm
what he means by default iOS 9/10 consumes so much storage so better to go to the next level.
Because they're targeting a market that wants a smaller (but still powerful) phone even more than they're targeting a market that wants a cheaper phone?
Also apple is not really going cheap. iPhone still start at $450 and upwards.
For the money they are upgrading the specs. and still have up sell with 4.7"/5.5" screens.
and industry slightly different with carriers and consumers are going away from contract in US which is the biggest market and other parts of the world you do not get any subsidy. $650 vs $450 makes lot of difference.
iPhones does not keep resale value nowadays - another point
I usually buy the top end of my Apple products (just picked up an iPad Pro 128GB WiFi+LTE) but I can see the need for a lower end iPhone, priced like the iPod Touch: $199. Price it too high and you won't win over those looking for an entry level price nor will you get those who already buy an iPhone on the higher end.
It should be directed at teens who's parents just give them their 3 year old used iPhones but concede to buying them an iPod Touch for their birthday or Christmas. Make the iPhone C range essentially an iPod Touch with an LTE radio and get rid of the iPod Touch lineup entirely.
It should be directed at teens who's parents just give them their 3 year old used iPhones but concede to buying them an iPod Touch for their birthday or Christmas. Make the iPhone C range essentially an iPod Touch with an LTE radio and get rid of the iPod Touch lineup entirely.
Last edited:
Gods, yes. Worse, iOS 9 seems to swap out to disk when it's short on memory, in a way that 7 and 8 didn't. I can start the day with half a GB of free storage space and be getting "out of memory" errors by mid-afternoon, without having downloaded a thing or taken a single photo.
I couldn't disagree more. I am an adult power user who works in the tech industry (and even develops apps). I usually buy at the high end, but am physically incapable of tapping the far side of the screen (let alone the top) of the iPhone 6/6s while holding it securely in the same hand -- something I do dozens of times per day with my 5s, and frequently have no choice but to do.
I've been anxiously awaiting a way to get more powerful hardware in a package small enough for me to use. When the rumors about this new phone first surfaced, I had been about to start researching what it would take to switch to Android.
Small screen and low-end are separate markets, and I hope Apple addresses them separately.