Nearly One-Third of iPhone Users Still Have 4-Inch Screens

[I7guy]

Taking a one handed selfie with your arm stretched out. As you squeeze your finger to click the volume button, the thumb holding the opposite side can easily activate the lock button instead.

Or you can set the timer.

 

[Q-Dog]

This is crazy. Before the iPhone 6 and 6 plus, they were reporting everyone was dying to have a larger iPhone , now that we have larger iPhones, now they are saying people want the smaller iPhone !! Which one is it ?

Lots of folks were never "dying to have a larger iphone" despite what you may have heard.
[doublepost=1454772869][/doublepost]

Has it ever occurred to them that these 30% users just find the iPhone to be simply too expensive to upgrade?

I bet the majority like the 4.7 inch form factor, but just don't want to splash the cash for a mere .7" of extra screen.

It isn't too expensive. It is too big. We bought a 6s, and I just don't like the size. My wife kept it because she can carry it in a purse, but she also would prefer a smaller size. If a 4" version of the 6s had been available, we would have bought 2 of them.

 

[nottorp]

Btw, since it's mentioned countless times in this thread: why is Apple Pay so interesting? It's just a contactless payment method. All my cards have contactless payment already. Is it actually useful in the US?

 

[a0me]

You are listing tech specs. I am aware of those. What can I do with it that I can't now??

You can use Apple Pay.
You can have twice as much pictures, videos and apps in your phone.
You can have a couple of apps in the background that won't need to relaunch every single time you bring them back.
You can also unlock your phone and authorize payments and apps instantly, you can take better pictures and videos both with the front and the back cameras, you can download and stream stuff faster, and for longer on a single charge.
I don't care about tech specs and what I mentioned above are new features and significant improvements that people can experience.

 

[SteveW928]

The 6s 16GB costs the same as 5s 32GB used to when it was released. For me, the first reasonable capacity is 64GB (because of the lack of 32), so it's even more expensive.

If the price stays the same in your country then yeah, lucky you, I guess. It is definitely currency fluctuations, but somehow for other brands the market will verify the absurdly high prices and bring them down to what people are actually willing to pay. For Apple it does not. No wonder they have about 4% market share.

As a result Apple services are crap. Most don't work, others are pitiful (like godawful maps). So why should people pay a fortune for an iPhone with crappy experience, when the situation on Android is exactly the opposite?

Agreed on the capacity thing. Having 16 GB be the base model is just lame, especially for a premium priced product. And, it's ultimately a user-experience issue, something Apple is supposed to be tops at (but isn't any longer). That's because the bean-counters and marketing are now in control, and user-experience is job #2 (or #3, or #4?) behind profit maximization, etc. i.e.: Apple is starting to become more like every other tech company in the world.

And, that's where I disagree... Android IS NOT the opposite. Apple is just becoming a bit more like Android. While I'll agree that something here or there might be superior on Android, IMO, they aren't even close yet (despite Apple's recent blunders).

And, where the heck do you get the 4% marketshare thing? My gosh, Apple's computer line has had 10%+ market share for decades (even more now), and their mobile market dwarfs the computer business. I think you need to revisit your numbers, as I have no clue where you'd have gotten such an idea. (They might not have the *majority* of the market in simple metrics like 'units shipped' but they have a majority in actual usage metrics, and a runaway majority in profits from the industry. BTW, Apple makes more money in one quarter on iPhone sales than Android has in it's entire history.)

Btw, since it's mentioned countless times in this thread: why is Apple Pay so interesting? It's just a contactless payment method. All my cards have contactless payment already. Is it actually useful in the US?

I'm guessing this is a USA thing for the most part. The USA is quite behind in terms of electronic payments. In Canada we've had such cards for as long as I've been here too (since 2007). But, I guess *if* one could have every kind of card in their phone/watch so they'd never have to deal with cards at all, that might be handy. I don't think we're there yet, so IMO, this is more novelty at this point. It's useful when I no longer need a wallet, or maybe when I hardly ever have to take it out (maybe I'll always have to carry some kind of ID).

You can use Apple Pay.
You can have twice as much pictures, videos and apps in your phone.
You can have a couple of apps in the background that won't need to relaunch every single time you bring them back.
You can also unlock your phone and authorize payments and apps instantly, you can take better pictures and videos both with the front and the back cameras, you can download and stream stuff faster, and for longer on a single charge.
I don't care about tech specs and what I mentioned above are new features and significant improvements that people can experience.

The big thing is compatibility with current versions of the OS. For example, my iPad 2 (or an iPad mini) is now nearly unusable in a productive way, even though they still run the current OS. That's primarily due to RAM, and a bit the CPU/GPU.

The primary reason I won't just buy an iPhone 5s to fill my 4" wishes, is that it's older technology which will quickly become obsolete after another OS update or two. I wouldn't buy ANY iOS device currently that didn't have 2 GB of RAM and at least an A8 or A9, preferably the latter.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Some of those people who upgraded to the 6 or 6S might have instead upgraded to an up to date 4" iPhone if one had been available.

But as long as they upgraded, Apple didn't lose a sale. I find it hard to believe that Apple is losing tens of millions of sales by not offering a 4" phone.

 

[SteveW928]

But as long as they upgraded, Apple didn't lose a sale. I find it hard to believe that Apple is losing tens of millions of sales by not offering a 4" phone.

True, they just don't have as happy of a customer (which is worth?). But, they might be losing sales on people who wait as long as possible to upgrade, or people like me who won't buy the 4.7" so currently don't have an iPhone.

 

[AppleScruff1]

True, they just don't have as happy of a customer (which is worth?). But, they might be losing sales on people who wait as long as possible to upgrade, or people like me who won't buy the 4.7" so currently don't have an iPhone.

I have no doubt they have lost some sales, but how many? No sarcasm intended, but I also know people who will only by a flip phone and I'm sure Apple could care less about the lost sales. People will buy what Apple offers or they will find something else that better suits their needs. The larger iPhones broke all sales records. It appears that Apple gained a lot of Android users just because they made a bigger phone.

No matter what any company makes the old adage holds true, you can't please everyone.

 

[SteveW928]

I have no doubt they have lost some sales, but how many? No sarcasm intended, but I also know people who will only by a flip phone and I'm sure Apple could care less about the lost sales. People will buy what Apple offers or they will find something else that better suits their needs. The larger iPhones broke all sales records. It appears that Apple gained a lot of Android users just because they made a bigger phone.

No matter what any company makes the old adage holds true, you can't please everyone.

I'd actually guess more than many think. And, Apple never sold flip-phones, but they used to sell optimal sized smart-phones. The basically recognized the market want (legitimate, IMO) for bigger phones, and then went all in, leaving behind the size they argued for so long was optimal (and, BTW, I agree with what they were arguing). It was just that many are willing to make a *tradeoff* of the optimal for more screen space, depending on how they use the device - especially people who use one as their primary computing device.

The problem with the sales record thing, is that maybe they'd have broken it even more if they had included a 4" model. I think their sales would have gone up either way, the question is which way more? We don't know, because Apple never ran the experiment. And, I'm completely for ALSO having the bigger screen models. It isn't an either/or.

What Apple did, was kind of like if when there had been a demand for smaller tablets from the market, they had made the mini and dropped the original 10" size. That sound silly, but that's what they did with phones. Or, it would be a bit like saying they shouldn't have made the iPad Pro because only a small segment of the market would want one (actually, far less than would want a 4" iPhone).

And, that brings us to the rotten core of this problem (pun intended!). If you're putting user-experience first, you don't sell old technology (aside from a sell-out at new model introduction), or make your product line decisions based on profit maximization and marketing up-sell strategies. You make the best stuff, period, suited to particular purposes and market demands, and sell them at a good profit margin. i.e.: old-Apple vs new-Apple (and this latter will be their demise if they don't course-correct).

 

[AppleScruff1]

I'd actually guess more than many think. And, Apple never sold flip-phones, but they used to sell optimal sized smart-phones. The basically recognized the market want (legitimate, IMO) for bigger phones, and then went all in, leaving behind the size they argued for so long was optimal (and, BTW, I agree with what they were arguing). It was just that many are willing to make a *tradeoff* of the optimal for more screen space, depending on how they use the device - especially people who use one as their primary computing device.

The problem with the sales record thing, is that maybe they'd have broken it even more if they had included a 4" model. I think their sales would have gone up either way, the question is which way more? We don't know, because Apple never ran the experiment. And, I'm completely for ALSO having the bigger screen models. It isn't an either/or.

What Apple did, was kind of like if when there had been a demand for smaller tablets from the market, they had made the mini and dropped the original 10" size. That sound silly, but that's what they did with phones. Or, it would be a bit like saying they shouldn't have made the iPad Pro because only a small segment of the market would want one (actually, far less than would want a 4" iPhone).

And, that brings us to the rotten core of this problem (pun intended!). If you're putting user-experience first, you don't sell old technology (aside from a sell-out at new model introduction), or make your product line decisions based on profit maximization and marketing up-sell strategies. You make the best stuff, period, suited to particular purposes and market demands, and sell them at a good profit margin. i.e.: old-Apple vs new-Apple (and this latter will be their demise if they don't course-correct).

I didn't mean to come across as arguing against the 4" phone, I was just commenting on the numbers. No doubt they will sell some 4" phones, and maybe more if the specs are identical to the bigger ones. The 5C didn't fare too well vs the 5, but maybe they were priced too high. It will be interesting to see how Apple prices the new 4" model and how it stacks up spec wise. If it only has 1GB of RAM and is $100 cheaper than it's larger siblings, how well will it sell?

 

[Glideslope]

Based on the purely anecdotal evidence of friends, family, co-workers that I've talked to, I would disagree. Many are clinging on as the 6/6S is perceived as too big for their hands. I think if Apple could get the 4.7 into a smaller frame, that might assuage some fears as well as make the device more pocketable and manageable in the hand. Who knows, I love the 5.5" screen of the Plus myself, but I think it could be more manageable with less bezel.

Logical position. However, as 34% of current iPhone users still use a 4" device, IMO this = the "rumored" cut in 6s production in Q3.

 

[SteveW928]

I didn't mean to come across as arguing against the 4" phone, I was just commenting on the numbers. No doubt they will sell some 4" phones, and maybe more if the specs are identical to the bigger ones. The 5C didn't fare too well vs the 5, but maybe they were priced too high. It will be interesting to see how Apple prices the new 4" model and how it stacks up spec wise. If it only has 1GB of RAM and is $100 cheaper than it's larger siblings, how well will it sell?

I have my doubts about whether they can accomplish both objectives (budget model and 4" true iPhone) together. I think if they try, it might be a bit like the 5c, which while not a failure, didn't do as well as it should have. Cook said the other day that they aren't interested in budget phones, which, I suppose would mean it will be a more true 4" iPhone. But, then what have they been doing selling the 5s, 6, 6+, etc. in the last few years... that seems like budget-model type stuff to me.

Yea, if it only has 1 GB of RAM, it won't do well. It would have to be a LOT less than $100 less before I'd be interested. Same problem with the 5c, IMO. Storage was more the issue there. I'd have bought one, but I can't really do 8 GB.

One can deal with some advanced features missing, if they must have a budget model - but the limitations can't be things which kill it's core usefulness, such as storage, GPU/CPU, and RAM. I have to be able to fit my apps and actually use it, and it has to work reasonably well with the current OS. That's why the older model budget-line thing doesn't work well, nor creating a new model with too low of specs to perform well on a current (or future couple) OS.

 

[Glideslope]

I was one of those during the iPhone 6/6+ size rumors that was adamant that anything bigger than a 4" was silly big. But being as I always upgrade every two years I braced myself and jumped in the iPhone 6 pool. Now I could never go back. The 4.7" screen is quite comfortable even w/ my tiny hands. And love the extra real estate. I'm not alone here.

My point is I don't think too many 6/6s users are going to migrate back to a 4". A new 4" won't eat into 4.7" iPhones. They'll live together just like S,M,L pizzas on a menu.

Yes, I can agree. Perhaps I should have stated "Rumored 30% Q3 6s production cut due to anticipation of the 34% of iPhone 4" users upgrading to 5se?"

 

[AppleScruff1]

I have my doubts about whether they can accomplish both objectives (budget model and 4" true iPhone) together. I think if they try, it might be a bit like the 5c, which while not a failure, didn't do as well as it should have. Cook said the other day that they aren't interested in budget phones, which, I suppose would mean it will be a more true 4" iPhone. But, then what have they been doing selling the 5s, 6, 6+, etc. in the last few years... that seems like budget-model type stuff to me.

Yea, if it only has 1 GB of RAM, it won't do well. It would have to be a LOT less than $100 less before I'd be interested. Same problem with the 5c, IMO. Storage was more the issue there. I'd have bought one, but I can't really do 8 GB.

One can deal with some advanced features missing, if they must have a budget model - but the limitations can't be things which kill it's core usefulness, such as storage, GPU/CPU, and RAM. I have to be able to fit my apps and actually use it, and it has to work reasonably well with the current OS. That's why the older model budget-line thing doesn't work well, nor creating a new model with too low of specs to perform well on a current (or future couple) OS.

I forgot about the 8GB storage on the 5C, and that was only $100 cheaper than the 16GB 5. A budget model should be a budget model, not a $100 price difference. I don't see Apple doing a phone in the $350-$450 price range, and IMO, that's all the 5C was worth.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

You can use Apple Pay.
You can have twice as much pictures, videos and apps in your phone.
You can have a couple of apps in the background that won't need to relaunch every single time you bring them back.
You can also unlock your phone and authorize payments and apps instantly, you can take better pictures and videos both with the front and the back cameras, you can download and stream stuff faster, and for longer on a single charge.
I don't care about tech specs and what I mentioned above are new features and significant improvements that people can experience.

Well actually I cannot use Apple Pay as it isn't availability in my country and I am not sure if I would if I could.

The other stuff you mention. Basically the same just a bit of the typical higher faster further that every company does to improve the current products. Which is fine of course. I am not saying Apple shouldn't improve their products. Just not enough to me for spending money on their overpriced products again.

 

[Bonsai1214]

today i learned i am part of the 1.68%.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I think the plus is too big! And 4.7" is hard to hold in one hand. I can barely fit my fingers around to grip it, its soooo big. But the 4S with the 3.5" screen feels so good in my hand. It slides so easily into my pocket. Sometimes it's not the size of the phone but the motion in the ocean. Wait.. We're still talking about phones right? LoL
[doublepost=1454652008][/doublepost]I don't even want a 4" screen phone. I bet I'm the only person who wants a 3.5" phone.
I like the iPhone 6 round edge because it's great for swiping back but I can't enjoy it because I don't like using my 6 without a case. It's too slippery.
The 4S was the best design and form.
I don't think they'll ever make a phone that looks like again tho.
Maybe I can buy one on the cheap.

Actually, you may find out the 5s is easier to hold on to. It's not wider, but longer. It's also thinner.
And TouchID is a big plus. The upcoming 5se may be worth trying if you are planning on replacing your current iPhone.

 

[Mac 128]

This is crazy. Before the iPhone 6 and 6 plus, they were reporting everyone was dying to have a larger iPhone , now that we have larger iPhones, now they are saying people want the smaller iPhone !! Which one is it ?

You'll get your answer 8 seconds in ...

 

[SteveW928]

You'll get your answer 8 seconds in ...

That was priceless!

 

[Henk Poley]

Even the 3.5" iPhone was ever so slightly too big, if you wanted to reach the opposite corner.

 

[iluvgadgets]

You'll get your answer 8 seconds in ...

 

[SteveW928]

Even the 3.5" iPhone was ever so slightly too big, if you wanted to reach the opposite corner.

I suppose, but there is some point at which the screen becomes too small to be useful (like the Apple Watch), and the 4" and 3.5" iPhones are pretty close to the same overall physical dimensions. I'm not opposed to a bigger than 4" screen if it could be fit into an iPhone 5 sized (or smaller) overall physical unit. But, I also get along fine with my 3.5" iPod touch, so yea, 3.5" is probably big enough to be useful.

 

[StoneJack]

Its same as having 11, 13 and 15 inch notebooks.
The 11 inch model is fine but Pro will have better hardware, all use same software.
iPads have just moved to 3 tier structure as well, Mini, iPad and iPad Pro, using same software, different hardware.
Desktop macs: mini, iMac, Pro.
In this regards, a cheaper Sport version of Apple Watch will have to come.

Phones also will be in 4, 4.7 and 5.5 inch variety, all use same software, have different hardware, larger ones having better hardware (like OIS and maybe dual lenses). No brainer

 

[SteveW928]

Its same as having 11, 13 and 15 inch notebooks.
The 11 inch model is fine but Pro will have better hardware, all use same software.
iPads have just moved to 3 tier structure as well, Mini, iPad and iPad Pro, using same software, different hardware.
Desktop macs: mini, iMac, Pro.
In this regards, a cheaper Sport version of Apple Watch will have to come.

Phones also will be in 4, 4.7 and 5.5 inch variety, all use same software, have different hardware, larger ones having better hardware (like OIS and maybe dual lenses). No brainer

Most of that is marketing driven though, not technical. The only time it's technical is when the bigger case actually allows better hardware (in regard to size). I guess my argument on the phone, though, is that bigger = better doesn't necessarily apply. If they were all 100% equal, and all cost exactly the same, I'd buy the 4" model. The same wouldn't apply to the other situations, necessarily.

For example, if a Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro were identical in hardware and cost, I'd take the mini if it were quiet enough, and then the Mac Pro next. I not even consider the iMac (even though that's what I'm currently using). And, if the iPad mini, iPad, and iPad Pro were all identical in hardware and price, I'd pick the normal iPad, as that's the size that is useful to me. I'd also pick the 11" laptop, as the portability is most important to me. Similarly, the 4" iPhone is the size that is useful to me, no matter the cost and I'd like it to have the same hardware within technical limitations.

Aside from possibly battery limitations (which could be solved with a slight bit of under-clocking, but it only needs about 10 hours of typical life, not the same as the Plus). With THAT much space, it's obviously going to have more battery life.

 

[RichardC300]

And I thought people hated contracts??? Wasn't there great fanfare when T-Mobile dropped contracts and became the "Uncarrier" ?

Here's the deal... on-contract you paid $199 down and the other $450 was hidden inside your monthly phone bill. You were paying the full price of the iPhone all along... you just didn't realize it.

Today... you don't have to pay anything down at the time of purchase... and you simply pay $650/24 each month.

And the service portion of your bill will be lower since they're not hiding the misnamed "subsidy" in there anymore. Now you actually see how much of your bill is for service and how much is for the phone itself.

The point is... you'll be paying the same amount of money... just in a different way.

So if you think the loss of contracts means you'll never be able to afford an iPhone ever again... that is some strange thinking!

If you could afford an iPhone the old way... you can afford one the new way too.

Hm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what AT&T offers. But to move to AT&T Next for my next iPhone and get the lower service portion, that would require me dropping my grandfathered unlimited data plan, correct? I'll have to see how all this pans out closer to this September, because our plan has 5 phones on it.