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

Let's play "What feature is apple holding back from the 5 to force you to go 5s?"

I don't think a 128GB iPhone is too crazy when you consider it's an all-in-one device. HD video, music, apps (games can be huge), Pictures, etc.

But now that they have a year of iCloud under their belt, I don't think they'll be as pressured to make high-capacity devices. I'd rather see them improve iCloud's functionality and reliability.

That being said, I'm still going to buy the biggest capacity iPhone they offer.
 
acosmichippo said:
But now that they have a year of iCloud under their belt, I don't think they'll be as pressured to make high-capacity devices. I'd rather see them improve iCloud's functionality and reliability.
Click to expand...

I fail to see what iCloud has to do with storage available on the phone. For the vast majority of people, iCloud is nothing more than backup space and it uses data if used when not on WiFi.
 
mcman77 said:
I do also believe Haswell is ready for launch but we'll have to wait until the end of life cycle for Ivy bridge, again for money reasons.
Click to expand...

While it may be ready now, it probably wasn't ready at the launch of Ivy Bridge. Anybody that's followed processor development for more than a few years recalls years when launches of one proc or another was delayed due to yield issues. Life cycles exist to allow for the natural development of technology to keep up with consumer demand, not just to milk more money out of them. Marketing and seasonal demands are of course factors, but technology advancement is the main driving factor.

mcman77 said:
There are plenty examples in many products that the same strategy is applied. Don't you think that once they created 8gb they could of create 64 as well? Or do you genuinely believe they needed to further test it for 4 years or so before released?
Click to expand...

Lol, you clearly know nothing about NAND flash and how it's assembled. When 8GB embedded NAND MLC chips were produced, no, there was not a 64GB option as well. They did not test it for four years, they had to wait for manufacturers to size down their processes to be able to shove 64GB into the same size package as 8GB. That took a few more years. Then after that, they had to wait until the parts were being built at a high enough volume to meet Apple's demand. They also had to wait on the price to come down to prevent the price of an iPhone from being $1200.

They also have to wait on consumer demand. For example, many of us bought the 64GB last year, it was much easier to buy 64GB than it was 32 or 16. I hear stories of 64GB iPhones sitting on shelves. The fact is, the demand for it isn't that great yet. So while 128GB is now both technologically feasible and cheap enough (according to my research within $4 of last years price of a 64GB chip) Apple may decide the low demand for a 64GB phone will mean a 128GB phone will be in less demand and therefore not make one. NOT because they are holding out on us, but simply because they won't sell enough.
 
Last edited:
cyks said:
I fail to see what iCloud has to do with storage available on the phone. For the vast majority of people, iCloud is nothing more than backup space and it uses data if used when not on WiFi.
Click to expand...

Because with a quality cloud service, you don't need to carry everything with you. You can have a local cache of frequently-used stuff, and access the rest via the cloud. True, iCloud isn 't as fully-featured as it could be (although it is far more than a "backup service"), and that's why I said I'd like to see improvements in it. Yes, it uses data. We're talking about smartphones; that's what they do.
 
acosmichippo said:
Because with a quality cloud service, you don't need to carry everything with you. You can have a local cache of frequently-used stuff, and access the rest via the cloud. True, iCloud isn 't as fully-featured as it could be (although it is far more than a "backup service"), and that's why I said I'd like to see improvements in it. Yes, it uses data. We're talking about smartphones; that's what they do.
Click to expand...

Considering we're talking about the need for 128GB iPhones, that's a bit more data than the average Joe would care to download... especially since WiFi isn't always available.
 
rushluvr said:
It took till what? The 3rd generation just to be able to send an MMS? That wasnt ready till the 3rd iphone? Dumb phones were doing that years before LOL. Other examples of things that were plenty ready but Apple left out of previous gen iphones are copy/paste, LED light, Flash and Java, turn by turn navigation, LTE and probably another dozen I cant think of right now.
Click to expand...

Well lets firstly de-americanize your history.
MMS was on the iPhone 3G (iOS2) when it was launched internationally.
You guys got screwed by your carriers till iOS3 over that feature same with data tethering.

Flash was clearly not ready, it was so not ready Adobe killed it, instead of battling another round of Flash will be ready ready next time we promise press. Java (oops there is another security hole) isn't even ready for the desktop let alone a phone.

LTE, well yeah maybe it was ready but seeing how the Phablet was a response to making the phone big enough to a fit the LTE chip in and a big enough battery to power it. I can see why some OEM's decided to wait.

Copy/paste well yeah pay that as odd.
 
blufire95 said:
I think it will a typical "S" Version:
-better Camera (12MP etc.)
-better Video (2160p aka 4K)
-Quadcore A6 like in the 4th Generation iPad
-better Battery Life
-better speakers
-faster cellular
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but there's absolutely no chance we see 4k video anytime soon on mobile devices.
 
dukeace2094 said:
I'm sorry but there's absolutely no chance we see 4k video anytime soon on mobile devices.
Click to expand...

/agree.

There's no reason to have film quality video on a phone... especially when the vast majority of users not only don't need it, but wouldn't have a way of properly displaying it if they did.

Then, of course, there's the issue of storage. 4K video would eat through ANY available drive in no time. Uncompressed, 4K could take as much as 1TB (yes, that's TERA) for a minute of footage. They'd have to heavily, heavily compress it - and, if they were to do that, there'd be no reason to film in 4K since quality would drop.
 
cyks said:
/agree.

There's no reason to have film quality video on a phone... especially when the vast majority of users not only don't need it, but wouldn't have a way of properly displaying it if they did.

Then, of course, there's the issue of storage. 4K video would eat through ANY available drive in no time. Uncompressed, 4K could take as much as 1TB (yes, that's TERA) for a minute of footage. They'd have to heavily, heavily compress it - and, if they were to do that, there'd be no reason to film in 4K since quality would drop.
Click to expand...

Hell, the only reason we can even test with it is because of services like Googles up and coming fiber network. Even that has to compress the video out of 4k.
 
romanator said:
Pardon the harshness, but why bother posting then?
Click to expand...

why pardon the harshness? dude is clearly just looking to stir the pot, and probably upset that he now has to use a different forum to make out with his samsung in public.

to the OP, I'm sure I speak for many when I say that the main thing that will compel (force seems a littlle dramatic) me to buy the next iPhone will be the keynote announcing it.

in 5 years of iPhones, not a single one has offered an absolute must have feature over the previous model. each has been a must have by virtue of being available, upgrade happy Apple slut that I am.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
You have no proof of that, but it doesn't make much sense given they were able to add a boatload of features to the iPad 2 and keep the same price points.
Click to expand...

None of us have any proof of anything. It's obviously conjecture. But it does make sense becuase by the time you get to the 2nd generation there are a lot of manufacturing efficiencies that weren't there in the first generation...so costs are down and you can turn up the feature set. And its FAR more believable than thinking Apple thought a large number of iPad owners would drop their iPads and flock to the Apple store to buy the iPad 2 JUST to finally have a camera! :eek:


:rolleyes:
 
John Adams said:
Lol. Sure they were. Same price as iPad 2. Lol.
Click to expand...

By the time the iPad 2 was released, Apple already had the factory tooling in place and the costs for other parts were coming down. There are a lot of efficiencies in the second generation of any device that weren't there in the first release. So yeah, cost.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
You're contradicting yourself. First you said Apple can't possibly think that a large number of iPad 1 owners would buy the iPad 2 just to have a camera, but then admitted that a large number of iPhone 4 owners would buy the 4S just to have Siri.
Click to expand...

No, you're reading wrong. I never said that. I'm saying the same thing applies. User's aren't going to dump their iPhone 4 just to buy the 4S for Siri.
 
LTE. I ditched my iP4 for an Android because I have been traveling a lot and needed LTE for my mobile hotspot. VPN was too slow for me over 3G. I can't wait to switch back.
 
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