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.
Leaked Images Provide First Look at Purported Rear Shell of 'iPhone 6c'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're not obvious. I think people would choose the 5s as is over a plastic 6 because the 5s LOOKS better. The general consumer isn't going to think to themselves: "Hmm, the 6c has better internals than the 5s. I'll get that!"
No. It would be: "Wow that's stupid. I can get a nice phone for $450, or a plastic phone for $550. Boy, Apple is stupid! Why the h*** would I want that plastic crap over the nice 5s!"
I think a majority of people bought the 5c because they are thrifty shoppers, not because they just LOVED the 5c. (Yes, I know those people exist though).
If the 5s came out as-is for free, I wouldn't be surprised if it sold the same amount as a 6c.
Apple's trend is not what you described. Apple's trend would be to offer the 5s in plastic for free. (But, if that was the case, I still don't know what they would do for the 6. Just sell the 6 of today for $100 less?)
Apple's trend is exactly as I described.
When the 5c first came to market, the 4s was still available as the bottom tier phone.
5 was slightly tweaked, wrapped in plastic and called the 5c.
5s was a glossier looking 5 with all the latest internals and features.
It's going to be the same thing this time around, exactly as I described in above.
They didn't wrap the 4s in plastic. They're not going to wrap the 5s in plastic. The s phone never changes. It's the number with no s phone that becomes the c.
A new numbered phone is released. It hangs around for one year, then it gets wrapped in plastic and called the c. The c phone sticks around for two years (like the 5c has done) then gets retired (because it's essentially been around for three years now - one as the number and two as the number with a c attached). By that time the newer numbered phone has been out for a year so then it gets wrapped in plastic, dubbed c, and the whole process continues as expected.
Unless Apple ditches the c approach altogether, that's how the creation of c phones will go. You will never see a s turn into a c because the s is the pinnacle of what they were trying to achieve with that particular make of phone. They wrap the first effort in plastic to try and differentiate it from the superior s model when the s comes to market.
Yes, I see your point. But the 4s was a different size than the 5; even though the 5 was wrapped in plastic against the 4s, it was still bigger and easy to differentiate the two. People had a solid choice: small phone $450 (SMALL!!!! Slower...but $450.), plastic phone $550 (CRAP!!!!), or $650 5s (OOOoooooooh. I'll buy that.) Quite genius.
With this coming September the 5s will be available for *free and we know from the photo that there will be a plastic case for it. (The only unknown is the internals.) They cannot offer the 5s as-is, with a plastic phone the same size with different internals... The differentiator (sp.) for the general public would be the build materials, and not the size.
Hence, in your scenario, I think the thrifty shoppers (which I suspect was the majority of 5c buyers) will simply pick up the 5s as-is, and NOT a plastic 6 the same size as 5s. Therefore, I don't think Apple's decision makers would do that; they want profit.
Encouraging people to either spend $450 on a beautiful, yet older, phone; or $650 for the BEST phone there is doesn't seem to be Apple's MO based on two years ago with the 5c release.
Last year you had 6 (BRAND NEW!!!), 5s (YES!!! I love 4"! And Beautiful!! Save $100!), and 5c (CRAP!!!!!!...but free.... and 8gb.... F.U. Apple... but I'll buy it)
Now, wouldn't it make more sense for Apple to offer the 5s in plastic for $450? It's a two year old phone, and Apple can save some money by putting it in plastic.
(Again, I still don't know what the middle-tier will be, but I am hoping that it's some sort of 6 internals in a 4" frame. I would be happy if you were right, because a 6 in a 4" plastic shell would be cool. But keeping the 5s as-is will be just too attractive for people deciding between a 5s and plastic 4" 6, and it just doesn't make sense.)
Last edited:
This is interesting, and what I would prefer.
But I feel Apple will follow a similar model to what they did with the 5S/5C when those were revealed, especially if the 6C uses the A8 chip (or the same internals as the iPhone 6, rather than the 5S):
6S+ : 299$
6S : 199$
6C (iPhone 6 internals) : 99$
Discontinue the 6/6+,
Now here's something crazy I think Apple may do - discontinue the 5S...and make the 5C the 0$ model (even though it already is the 0$ model...at least in Canada)
My reasoning is that there is No need for a "low end" model to have a premium build, especially if the 6C ends up being the model priced right above it
It can be similar to the 5S, 5C, 4S pricing (and how the 5 was discontinued) with the "6S+" model thrown in for the higher end pricing
Going to be interesting to see what happens. I know my above reasoning doesn't make sense when one considers the ageing A6 and what implications that would have moving forward...
But just a postulation.
I believe the primary business / strategic imperative for Apple in planning the autumn 2015 iPhones is to drive the adoption of Apple Pay. I'm confident that at the end of 2015 all iPhones for sale in the United States will support Apple Pay. The logical way to do that is for a new low-end 4" iPhone to take the $0 (subsidized) place in the lineup. It would logically be as inexpensive as Apple can reasonably make it while supporting Apple Pay. That would require using parts that will not then be cutting edge and which are not expensive: A8 chip, either the 4S/5/5C camera or the 5S camera, etc. The case could be an adaptation of the 5C case. The logic board and battery would have to be new designs, but not new technology. Everything else would be off the shelf and at least one year older than the parts going into the 6S and 6S plus.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not suggesting a 4" plastic 6 internal alongside a 5s as-is in September? (4.7" 6s, 4" plastic 6, 4" aluminum 5s)
If so, then that is different than the 2013 lineup: 4" 5s, 4" 5c, 3.5" 4s.
Another way to look at the difference between 2013 and your scenario for 2015:
2013: premium build largest, plastic build largest, premium build smaller.
2015 you: premium build largest, plastic build smaller, premium build smaller.
The size differences don't match at the low and middle tiers between years. Again, I would be happy for Apple to continue the 5s as-is, but that doesn't make sense unless they have a premium build 6 at 4" (which I don't think will happen). I hope Apple surprises me with a plastic 4" six internal, but it doesn't make sense across the tiers.
Hell, maybe Apple will have TWO plastic phones in September. That would be "fun".
Last edited:
So 6s, 6, and a 5sc (basically)
Just to make an addendum: the $450 phone would have 5s internals just with Apple pay with that scenario (I think): no 6 parts. I'll laugh to myself if they call it a 6c because of Apple Pay but has 5s parts: Just like that guy who laughed out loud when Johnny said "unapologetically plastic" during 2013 keynote.
Okay, so that's what I was wondering this entire time: Can the NFC be used with A7? Does the A8 HAVE to be used with an NFC chip...
If A7 with NFC, that's the 6c.
If A8 with NFC, they wouldn't sell that for $450... would they?
Hah
I'm glad Darcy clarified because a plastic 6 would be very very surprising and unlikely, seeing that we already have seen a plastic 5s shell in photos. I was arguing with Darcy about the wrong information
d'ohShoot, a 6 in plastic for $450? Dream on... Hah
There is only one outcome that will be boring: 5sc, 6 as-is, 6s. I'm looking forward to what happens in September with middle and bottom tiers.
I doubt there would be a hardware incompatibility using the NFC chip with an A7. However, the iOS code for using the NFC chip was written to run on an A8 or later. I'm not sure it could run on an A7. That might just be an issue of a recompile or it might require rewriting libraries. I don't have any inside information on that.
Why not? What do you think is Apple's cost for the A7 and the A8?
I've read some opinions that they aren't that much different in cost... I just assume that Apple will charge the most for as little technology as possible... ...Assumption may be flawed...
Has Apple a history of "gifting" consumers with better technology at the same price? (Meaning: giving the $450 consumer a bump from A7 to A8.)
Hah
I'm glad Darcy clarified because a plastic 6 would be very very surprising and unlikely, seeing that we already have seen a plastic 5s shell in photos. I was arguing with Darcy about the wrong information
Shoot, a 6 in plastic for $450? Dream on... Hah
There is only one outcome that will be boring: 5sc, 6 as-is, 6s. I'm looking forward to what happens in September with middle and bottom tiers.
You're comparing the 6c of tomorrow to the 5c of today, which makes no sense. You should be comparing it to the 5c of last year, when it was a mid tier phone with two size options and cost considerably more.
The 6c will not be a budget phone. That will be the 5s. Just like this all went down nearly two years ago. It's the exact same situation, where you switch the number 4 for the number 5 and the number 5 for the number 6.
It could not be simpler or more obvious. I don't understand why people can't see this clearly. But oh well.
I also believe that, after the transition to the A9, the difference in the price that Apple will have to pay to Samsung or TMSC for A7 versus A8 chips will be small. Because the A7 is a 28nm part and the A8 is a 20nm part, it is possible that, depending on yields, the marginal cost of manufacturing for Samsung and TMSC could be lower for the A8 than for the A7 (which doesn't necessarily mean they would charge Apple less, but they might).
Apple provide better technology every year, generally at the same price point, occasionally at a lower price point.
My expectation is different. I expect the 6C to be the cheapest iPhone that Apple can reasonably make that will reasonably support Apple Pay.
I think the situation is not at all like the situation two years ago. Today, Apple has a business / strategic imperative to encourage the use of Apply Pay, which did not exist two years ago. I will be stunned if Apple will sell any iPhone in the United States or Canada or the UK at the end of 2015 which does not support Apply Pay.
It is possible that Apple might continue to sell the iPhone 5S in India and other developing markets that probably will not see Apply Pay immediately.
Last edited:
One thing people aren't mentioning as much are contracts. $99 or free for cheaper end iPhones? That helps add more people to the fold. I don't think I see Apple Pay in my time anytime soon. I have Samsung Pay in the fold soon once Samsung releases it. I doubt I buy a 6C or 6S+ or 6S because it really has to be very good and cost effective enough to sell the S6 Edge. I'll stick with my 5C/iPad/S6E Combo.
People thought the 5c would be the cheapest phone Apple can make when it was first rumoured. They were wrong.
Apple Pay will be a feature of the 6c since the 6c will be the 6 wrapped in plastic. The 5s will still be available and cheaper than the 6c. The end.
Good point. I forgot that he 5c had better battery and front camera. Maybe they will add something to replace the "downgrade" to plastic.
----------
Kill me now.
The whole idea behind the "c" model is to move away from the perception the original model had - the 5, and soon the 6 - to make room for the "s" model, which shares a similar look to the previous, non-s phone.
To do so, they first wrap it in colourful plastic, which gives it a whole new look and a different type of appeal.
They also iron out any of the major kinks the original phone first had on release. So if the battery was notoriously bad, they'll take measures to fix that. These are tweaks more so than upgrades - the kinds of things that would have been in place from day one of the original if they'd just had more time to test and develop it before release. (Another important reason why the "s" model never becomes a "c" model - it's had an extra year of development compared to the original in the same industrial design configuration, so they have all the time they needed to iron out kinks, which is why the "s" models always tend to last longer and have fewer problems than their original, non-s counterparts).
They also reduce the storage configurations to two, lower end choices (so you won't see a 128GB 6c, for example).
And finally they lower the price one peg, into the mid-tier range.
The 6s takes top tier pricing with three storage size ranges and the 5s goes down to the lowest pricing with only one storage size (I'm guessing 16GB this time but it could well be 8GB).
You can think of the "c" as a "downgrade" to plastic if you like, but it's really all about differentiation from the "s" model.