Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Leaked Matte Case was a Real iPhone 3G S Case?

shvartsies said:
My thoughts:

Apple hasn't announced iPhone 3,1. Anyone else catch that?
Possibly a matte OLED (maybe iChat) iPhone pro ish thing released holiday season. For some reason the 3g S doesn't seem like a TRUE sequel. My guess: 32gb iPhone pro with iChat and oled screen and matte case for around 600 dollars Christmas time. (or 500 if at&t drops price of unsubsidized by 100)
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Apple is not going to go around and release yet another iPhone in 6 months, after modifying the guts of the current phone. This is basically a new phone with the same shell, yet so many people are flipping s**t because it looks the same. Who cares. The PowerBook G4 and the Macbook Pro classic looked nearly the same, but the similarities were only skin deep. This obsession over matte finish, OLED displays (when I think MOST of the people here desiring OLED know NOTHING about the technology, they only like it because it is 'new'), front facing cameras, and all that other junk is just mind blowing.

Do you guys think this hardware just makes itself overnight? No, lots of R&D goes into these products, and Apple does not owe you a visual refresh upon every iteration of the device! Just like the uMBP and uMB will remain looking the same for a long time now. Compare the PowerMac G5 to the current Mac Pro's, they look a LOT alike. Quit getting hung up over what the outside of the phone looks like, you have no idea whether or not matte would have truly been functional, you just want something different for absolutely no functional reason. Get a case if its THAT big of a deal.
 
The leaked matte case design was clearly marked with a new model number A1303 and FCC ID BCGA1303A. Based on the official records released yesterday, this FCC ID does correlate to the new iPhone 3G S:

These model numbers and FCC ID's follow no obvious progression so it seems unlikely that someone simply got lucky in guessing.
Click to expand...

This is misinformed speculation. You don't have to "guess" the FCC ID; it's all public record. These guys had the 3GS FCC ID over two years ago.
 
lol, I swear. Most of guys are living in some dream world. There will be no "real thing" in 6 months, nor at the end of this month. The hardware refresh in the 3GS is what we are getting. It is what it is. Get over it.

There will be no front facing camera
There will be no matte backing
There will be no iChat (unless made an app for all iPhones)
There will be no OLED display
Steve Jobs will not be making an appearance announcing the "real iPhone".
What you've seen is what you're getting.

The current refresh is real and here to stay. Face reality. You're grown men.
 
Forget that matte black finish plastic I want them to bring back the brushed aluminum, from the original iPhone. That stuff was almost scratch proof and held up really well without any case at all.
 
Is the glossy back homogenous, or is the gloss some sort of transparent coating? (I haven't hacked mine apart so I wouldn't know...). What I'm getting at is, might the matte black be what it looks like before it's been glossed up?
 
Razeus said:
lol, I swear. Most of guys are living in some dream world. There will be no "real thing" in 6 months, nor at the end of this month. The hardware refresh in the 3GS is what we are getting. It is what it is. Get over it.

There will be no front facing camera
There will be no matte backing
There will be no iChat (unless made an app for all iPhones)
There will be no OLED display
Steve Jobs will not be making an appearance announcing the "real iPhone".
What you've seen is what you're getting.

The current refresh is real and here to stay. Face reality. You're grown men.
Click to expand...
Ahh, this brings back memories from 10 years ago when George Lucas announced the title of the upcoming "The Phantom Menace". There was a huge number of people who were adamant that this couldn't possibly be the real title, and refused to believe it. When the teaser trailer came out and didn't have the full title attached, just "Episode I", they said "Ha! It WAS a fake title. They'll announce the real title soon, you'll see". When the full length trailer was released, it had the full title and so did all the posters. "Nope", they said. "This is fake. It's a working title, like 'Blue Harvest' was. Wait and see. George is clever like that." Eventually the movie was released, still under the name "The Phantom Menace", but I'm sure that there's still a handful of people out there still waiting for the "real" title to be revealed.

Anyway... maybe this is some sort of tick-tock strategy from Apple. They could alternate between refreshing the exterior and the interior, so that everyone who simply must have the latest thing will have to keep shelling out tons of money. They did quite a lot with the internal hardware this time, and there's really not a lot more they can do for now, so they might have figured that updating the exterior would be a waste. Next time it'll be a new sexy design but with less updates internally... maybe front facing cam and FM radio, not nearly enough to make all previous iPhone owners go out and buy a new one, but if there's a new sexy design (after all you'll be really sick of the current one after two consecutive years with it), there's enough incentive to update again.
 
Braindead360 said:
My guess is that they left it out so that they could include it into the next iPhone, which will most likely release next year. That way they can say, "Hey! You have an iPhone... Oh wait, you have that old ugly 3GS one. Too bad. We just released the newer, faster, and sexier iPhone 3GM (Matte).
Click to expand...

They wouldn't name it "3GM", sounds like a bankrupt automaker. :D

They should call it "3G S&M". For speed and matte of course. ;)
 
Anuba said:
Ahh, this brings back memories from 10 years ago when George Lucas announced the title of the upcoming "The Phantom Menace". There was a huge number of people who were adamant that this couldn't possibly be the real title, and refused to believe it. When the teaser trailer came out and didn't have the full title attached, just "Episode I", they said "Ha! It WAS a fake title. They'll announce the real title soon, you'll see". When the full length trailer was released, it had the full title and so did all the posters. "Nope", they said. "This is fake. It's a working title, like 'Blue Harvest' was. Wait and see. George is clever like that." Eventually the movie was released, still under the name "The Phantom Menace", but I'm sure that there's still a handful of people out there still waiting for the "real" title to be revealed.
Click to expand...
This isn't a movie, its a product. Yet for some reason, people feel Apple needs to refresh the appearance of the device upon every iteration, making the manufacturing process more expensive for no reason. They tried aluminum and the signal quality wasn't as good, so they moved to plastic and tossed in 3G, signal quality is better and device feels 'thinner'. But thats not enough, now people want matte. It never ends.

Look at the uMB and uMBP, they will look like that for a long while now, despite the insides getting tweaks. The PowerBook G4 looked like the Macbook Pro classic, with the exception of internal hardware (and iSight, I know). The PowerMac G5 looks like the Mac Pro except for internals. The iMac's have looked the same for a while despite new insides. The Mac Mini has always looked the same despite new insides. See where I am going with this? Apple will not rework the look of an already functional device on every iteration when there is NO functional reason to do so, and if anyone knows that it should be Apple fans.
 
Artifact

As everybody now knows, on the 3Gs iPhone, Apple is putting a clear anti-smudge coating on the cases. While this does not make the cases "matte" it is likely that it affected the way the flash or other light source reflected off the case, and thus gave a more subdued or "matte" appearance in the photo.

Based on this theory, I would conclude that Apple never really considered a flat finish, or matte case. It is merely a photographic artifact.
 
uberamd said:
See where I am going with this? Apple will not rework the look of an already functional device on every iteration when there is NO functional reason to do so, and if anyone knows that it should be Apple fans.
Click to expand...
Long time Apple fans will know that Apple used to revamp designs like crazy. Between 1998 and 2007 (roughly) there was a huge number of redesigns and at least four distinctive "eras" (the semi-translucent plastic in all colors of the rainbow era, the clear plastic era, the white era and the metal era). The iMac evolved from a rainbow colored blob to a lampshade to a white slab to an aluminium slab, and the last three of those happened with 2 year intervals (2002, 2004, 2006). They have *never* held on to designs as long as they have with the cheese grater PowerMac/Mac Pro... it's, what, 6 years old now? The Mac Mini is several years old too, and so is the Mighty Mouse. Not to mention the borderline antique ACD 30".

They seem to have entered a new phase where there's really nowhere they can go. They like the minimalist alumin(i)um design and can't come up with anything better, but at the same time they're worried that people will eventually get tired of it and look elsewhere. No design is entirely timeless and one day these Macs will feel as stale as 90's clothes do today.

I agree with you that these designs will probably remain relatively unchanged for a few more years, but don't try to sell the idea that this is typical of Apple, they most certainly *don't* have a history of dwelling on designs for very long. Their current approach is unprecedented.

As for Apple delivering on "functional", meh... they're spotty in that department. Minimalism often takes precedent over functionality. Their monitors, for instance, can't be height adjusted or swiveled to portrait mode. That's an open and shut case of minimalist aesthetics dancing all over functionality.
 
Anuba said:
I agree with you that these designs will probably remain relatively unchanged for a few more years, but don't try to sell the idea that this is typical of Apple, they most certainly *don't* have a history of dwelling on designs for very long. Their current approach is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Recently, they have been sticking to the visual looks. So why would they divert away from that and every year release a new iPhone look that requires entirely new accessories? Again, as of recent (after all, we are not living in the past are we?) Apple has kept their looks the same, and since we are living in the present, it makes sense that they continue that. So it is typical of Apple now? Yes.

iMac since 2007 has looked the same. Mac Mini since 2005 has looked the exact same. PowerMac G5 since 2003 has looked the same up to the Mac Pro of 2009 (with the exception of the drive bay). PowerBook G4 looked like the Macbook Pro up until late 2008. And the Xserve has looked basically the same since 2002. Now, when looking at those systems its clear to see that, as you said, Apple is slowing its design reinvention. So, i ask you, why would the iPhone fall outside of that?
 
angemon89 said:
a)it would have distinguished it from the 3G
b)it looks much nicer
Click to expand...

c)it would be easier to hold.

ALL good reasons. Here's a possible solution:

Why doesn't one of the companies that sell "skins" for phones sell a "skin" that's textured or matte, providing a better grip and a nicer/different look?

Iif the "skin" gets finger stains, you just replace it. A skin would provide grip much more compactly than an entire case (though some nice ones are on the market)

As for a), i agree. I can't imagine why a new product would be introduced without some visually distinguishing characteristic. My guess: Either apple had to pull the matte backs at the last minute for some technical reason, or they're going to introduce it in the near future, though I can't figure out how they'd predicate that change.
 
uberamd said:
Recently, they have been sticking to the visual looks. So why would they divert away from that and every year release a new iPhone look that requires entirely new accessories?
Click to expand...
Umm... because they love to sell the accessories all over again? Ever seen this little doohickey called iPod Nano?

apple-ipod-nano-first-second-third-and-fourth-generations-side-by-side.jpg


Not one accessory, aside from the Universal Dock, is compatible between Nano generations. And the Nano went through 4 generations in just 3 years. The iPhone was revamped after one year. Yet you're still trying to sell the notion that if one didn't see with crystal clarity that they wouldn't change the iPhone case design this time, one doesn't know Apple. That is one giant after-the-fact construct if you ask me.

Again, as of recent (after all, we are not living in the past are we?) Apple has kept their looks the same, and since we are living in the present, it makes sense that they continue that. So it is typical of Apple now? Yes.

iMac since 2007 has looked the same. Mac Mini since 2005 has looked the exact same. PowerMac G5 since 2003 has looked the same up to the Mac Pro of 2009 (with the exception of the drive bay). PowerBook G4 looked like the Macbook Pro up until late 2008. And the Xserve has looked basically the same since 2002. Now, when looking at those systems its clear to see that, as you said, Apple is slowing its design reinvention. So, i ask you, why would the iPhone fall outside of that?
Click to expand...
First, you're suggesting that Apple's history is irrelevant and we should only look at their most recent work. Then you're suggesting that you can extrapolate their future from their most recent work. You don't see the logical fallacy in this at all?

The only thing we can conclude with any certainty is that it's hopeless to second guess them, because the minute you think you have them pinned they shoot off in some unexpected direction.
 
Anuba said:
Is the glossy back homogenous, or is the gloss some sort of transparent coating? (I haven't hacked mine apart so I wouldn't know...). What I'm getting at is, might the matte black be what it looks like before it's been glossed up?
Click to expand...

Plastic molds work the other way. First they're smooth and once the tool is final they put in the acid-like substance to get the matte in the mold.
 
Anuba said:
Umm... because they love to sell the accessories all over again? Ever seen this little doohickey called iPod Nano?

apple-ipod-nano-first-second-third-and-fourth-generations-side-by-side.jpg


Not one accessory, aside from the Universal Dock, is compatible between Nano generations. And the Nano went through 4 generations in just 3 years. The iPhone was revamped after one year. Yet you're still trying to sell the notion that if one didn't see with crystal clarity that they wouldn't change the iPhone case design this time, one doesn't know Apple. That is one giant after-the-fact construct if you ask me.


First, you're suggesting that Apple's history is irrelevant and we should only look at their most recent work. Then you're suggesting that you can extrapolate their future from their most recent work. You don't see the logical fallacy in this at all?

The only thing we can conclude with any certainty is that it's hopeless to second guess them, because the minute you think you have them pinned they shoot off in some unexpected direction.
Click to expand...

Yeah they rework the Nano all the time, but its an inexpensive device. When you look at unsubsidized retail prices of the devices, the iPhone is $600/700 where as the nano is 150-200. Reworking a cheap, relatively single purpose device is easier on the consumer vs completely redesigning a $600/700 multi-purpose device every year. And I don't want to ignore the past, but I am looking at where Apple is now, and based on the now, an entire design rework seems nonsensical, at least every year.
 
Isn't it possible that someone had insider information from FCC? He could make a mockup with the real FCC id.
 
placeholder rumor

Does anyone else remember the rumor about the 5 placeholders for the iphone, where 2 were for the b+w 16gb and 2 were for the b+w 32 gb iphones. And the fifth one was an undiclosed size. I doubt the fifth one was for the 8gb iphone 3g because it was already an option. and if they were to do things this way why would they not make a new placeholder for the older 16gb iphone 3g hmmmmmm mabe a new iphone in the near future???
 
shvartsies said:
My thoughts:

Apple hasn't announced iPhone 3,1. Anyone else catch that?
Possibly a matte OLED (maybe iChat) iPhone pro ish thing released holiday season. For some reason the 3g S doesn't seem like a TRUE sequel. My guess: 32gb iPhone pro with iChat and oled screen and matte case for around 600 dollars Christmas time. (or 500 if at&t drops price of unsubsidized by 100)
Click to expand...

I thought the same the first moment. I guess we have to wait and see when it's released. If the 3GS is not the 3,1 then it might be possible to wait a little longer.

Matte and OLED would be great. But it's also possible that they wait until next year for those features.

Way too many rumors this year. Where's the 4GB iPhone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back