Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sorry if I'm late to the party, but has anyone speculated on the battery life if they use a 5S chassis with new technology? Don't you get a pocket sized phone with better battery life?

I'm not sure if it would be better battery life, but I don't think it would be much worse. The battery size between the 5s and 6s is pretty close, so unless the new board and such take up more room than the 5s ones did, it should be similar.

It's a bit odd to me, as I've seen articles saying the A8 (iPhone 6) reduced power consumption by 50% over the A7, yet with similar battery size, the 5s and 6 got similar life. That doesn't make much sense... but anyway, what should matter isn't case size, but battery size comparison (assuming the battery size of a 5s case with 6s guts would remain similar).
 
Sorry if I'm late to the party, but has anyone speculated on the battery life if they use a 5S chassis with new technology? Don't you get a pocket sized phone with better battery life?

You only get better battery life if you don't expect Iphone 7 performance out of your Iphone 7c.

If indeed you get Iphone 6s performance (using an underclocked A10 you indeed would get tremendous battery life). But that would be a big waste of a scarce chip. So, they'd likely use the A9 instead.

A slightly underclocked A9 would get you a bit less than Iphone 6s performance with great battery life; the same clock rate would give a worse battery life than the 6s (since it's notably smaller).
 
I think Ming just throws out the next "iPhone 5C" rumor every year. She sprays the wall with all kinds of predictions, taking credit for the few that come true and getting a pass from everyone for the many that miss.
 
So we had iPad, then iPad mini. iPhone, iPhone * Plus. Now iPad Pro (probably should have gone with Plus to be honest as it's an iOS product not Mac/OSX). Some people would like a smaller iPhone again, hopefully with similar specs so iPhone mini now?
 
A slightly underclocked A9 would get you a bit less than Iphone 6s performance with great battery life; the same clock rate would give a worse battery life than the 6s (since it's notably smaller).

I'm not sure why you're talking about A10, but as for the the battery sizes: 5s - 1570 mAh 6s - 1715 mAh
That's some, but it's not that much. I'd certainly take that percentage less battery life... can't speak for everyone.

(If they want to clock it down a bit to make battery life equal... I'd be OK with that too... or even better, some software setting so we could pick. It's really more feature equivalence I'm concerned with. i.e.: same camera, touch ID, RAM, Apple Pay, etc.)

So we had iPad, then iPad mini. iPhone, iPhone * Plus. Now iPad Pro (probably should have gone with Plus to be honest as it's an iOS product not Mac/OSX). Some people would like a smaller iPhone again, hopefully with similar specs so iPhone mini now?

I don't care what they call it, but that's not really a good parallel. The mini actually is kind of a sub-standard iPad size in terms of interacting with the UI, typing, etc. It's just a bit too small. That said, I love it, and I might actually replace my iPad 2 with one next time. But, in doing so, there will be disadvantages (and advantages). I don't use my iPad as my primary mobile device anymore, so I think I can get away with it... otherwise, a normal sized iPad would be a must.

A 4" iPhone is kind of the optimal size for a phone when all things are factored. Bigger sizes provide more screen real-estate, which is great if you're depending more and more on your phone being your primary device. But, there are a LOT of us who use the phone as a support device, not the primary device. As I said in another thread, there are VERY FEW things that I'd use an iPhone for where it would matter much between a 4" and 4.7", so I'd rather have the more convenient package and hand-holdable size.

IMO, it would be more like if Apple suddenly started making only 15" and 17" laptops, saying bigger screens are better because look at desktops (21" +). And, people cried out for 13" ones back, and someone said, oh, you want a Macbook mini? Heh. No, while we don't deny someone might want a 17" Macbook, we just want our good old Macbook sizes back! Actually, worse than that... maybe like they started making only 17" and 19" laptops, as at least 15" is arguably pretty normal for a laptop size.
 
What?! that IS his opinion - Please correct yourself and/or apologise.

in my opinion would be polite if they'd said "People hate reachability and they never want to have to use it again."

He made it seem like it was a fact.

Apologize? Lol I don't wanna live on this sensitive and politically correct plannet anymore where you can't even criticize anyone without being "rude" lmao. Give me a break
 
Just an idea to float, based off a few rumours - if they want to differentiate the device without the 'c' designation to avoid the issues this presented for the 5c, maybe marketing it as portable/durable could be a solution.

Instead of calling it mini, they could do something like an 'iPhone 6 Sport'
The name is already 'appled' by the Watch, and if it were smaller and perhaps waterproof along with the new stronger glass it would present new opportunities both in developed markets (unique features) and developing ones too (lower price). Maybe it will come with an A8, but if they could pair that with the M9 then they could waffle on about how the smaller screen doesn't need the A9 but it's still powerful for fitness etc etc. Plus if this was launched ~March with a waterproof Watch Sport it would tie in nicely.

I'm surprised about the camera - the unit in the 5s is ageing and I doubt they'd use exactly the same one. The camera in the 6 is also 8mp, and if leaks aren't detailed enough to communicate improvements such as Focus Pixels this might be ambiguous until release.
LTE-A would be nice too.

Anyway just a thought
 
In my opinion, the 4 inch iphone should be...

a current generation iphone design, in a 4 inch form factor with slightly lower internal specs.

Apple can skimp on somethings and still sell the "iphone mini" as a full featured iphone.

Where can Apple skimp...

use last generation's camera

use last generation's cpu/ram

use screen with lower resolution and dpi

These are things that most users won't miss.

Apple can not skimp on...

features like 3D touch

chipsets of cellular, wireless connectivity

or any other features deemed necessary for the user experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solarmon
They may have a lot of SKUs for a particular model... but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

A person walks into an Apple Store and gets asked the following questions:

Phone? -- "iPhone 6S"
Size? -- "64GB"
Color? -- "Space Gray"
Carrier? -- "Verizon"

Done.

Who cares if there are actually 48 different SKUs for the iPhone 6S? Apple's inventory system keeps track of that. You don't have to worry about that. You're not a robot.

All you need to do is pick your phone, your capacity, your color and your carrier.

Think of it as one phone that comes in 3 capacities, 4 colors, and 4 carriers... instead of 48 separate phones.

Apple's problems in the 90's came from having too many terrible products.

That's different than having a few products that come in different colors or whatever.


You're talking about "Apple's inventory." What about Target? Best Buy? etc... Sure it's easy at Apple HQ for online orders or even an Apple Store just dealing with Apple product.

Imagine being a buyer with those companies and dealing with that inventory (and transition of new inventory on a yearly basis.) Margins are already super-slim with Apple products and they can't just blow them out and liquidate like they can with another brand.
 
In my opinion, the 4 inch iphone should be...

a current generation iphone design, in a 4 inch form factor with slightly lower internal specs.

Apple can skimp on somethings and still sell the "iphone mini" as a full featured iphone.

Where can Apple skimp...

use last generation's camera

use last generation's cpu/ram

use screen with lower resolution and dpi

These are things that most users won't miss.

Apple can not skimp on...

features like 3D touch

chipsets of cellular, wireless connectivity

or any other features deemed necessary for the user experience.


Hmm - Honestly, I think it's most likely that everything will be basically iPhone 6 level and I'd be SHOCKED if 3D touch is on the 4" phone.

I personally hope 3D touch is not on the 4" anyhow, but if I were betting I'd still wager it won't be there as it has to be more expensive and be a thickness/weight creator (as we just learned on the 6 to 6s run)

Side note: I personally am fine with iP6 level guts. Do I want better? Sure...but I'm not expecting it. Ultimately, I just want a somewhat modern (more modern than 5s obviously) 4" iPhone with Apple Pay.
 
You're talking about "Apple's inventory." What about Target? Best Buy? etc... Sure it's easy at Apple HQ for online orders or even an Apple Store just dealing with Apple product.

Imagine being a buyer with those companies and dealing with that inventory (and transition of new inventory on a yearly basis.) Margins are already super-slim with Apple products and they can't just blow them out and liquidate like they can with another brand.

I don't think Target or Best Buy has warehouses full of unsold Apple products at the end of the year. If they do... that's a problem with their inventory logistics.

If anything... Apple products spend the least amount of time sitting on a shelf. People buy them... a lot of them.

Apple sold over 500,000 iPhones every day last quarter. Think about that for a moment. Half a million units every day. No... there isn't unsold stock just sitting around that 3rd party retailers are stuck with.

So I certainly don't think Apple should stop offering four colors of iPhones in multiple capacities just to keep the number of SKUs down.

And again... this is nothing like the problems Apple was facing in the 90's

Back then Apple had a bunch of products that no one was buying. And they were losing money.

Quite a bit different than today, huh? ;)
 
Side note: I personally am fine with iP6 level guts. Do I want better? Sure...but I'm not expecting it. Ultimately, I just want a somewhat modern (more modern than 5s obviously) 4" iPhone with Apple Pay.

There isn't that much difference between the 5s and the 6, especially where it counts. The main reason it needs to be more like a 6s is so that it has 2GB RAM (Unless they make a new version of the A8 for it.) But, yea, aside from that, it's not so much that I think I *have* to have an A9... but I want the features of the 6s without being 4.7".

That said, I also don't think I care much if I have 3D touch. I suppose once it becomes so widely used that app developers start counting on it being there, we'll need it. But for now, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solarmon
In my opinion, the 4 inch iphone should be...

a current generation iphone design, in a 4 inch form factor with slightly lower internal specs.

Apple can skimp on somethings and still sell the "iphone mini" as a full featured iphone.
Is there any particular reason why you think the 4" iPhone should have inferior technical specifications compared to its big brothers? Why not rather make it an equally awesome member of the family? Get the best device, no matter what screen size you prefer.
 
Is there any particular reason why you think the 4" iPhone should have inferior technical specifications compared to its big brothers? Why not rather make it an equally awesome member of the family? Get the best device, no matter what screen size you prefer.
Ultimately I would hope they do this. However, I can't see Apple supporting three models at every price point:

$199 - 8mini, 8, 8 plus
$99 - 7s mini, 7s, 7s plus
$0 - 7 mini, 7, 7 plus

That's a lot of skus, and obviously slightly different price variations to account for the sizes. By default the 4" display iPhone is always going to be the least expensive of the line-up.

Then there's the size -- the 5.5" obviously has more room than the 4.7" which gives it a bigger battery. But the 4" is going to be starved for space, which means in some cases, it's not going to be able to physically contain all the latest bells and whistles of the flagship phone. At least not initially until some components are further miniaturized. I doubt Apple will make the 4" phone any thicker than the 4.7, or 5.5, unless it has a completely unique design, like the 5c.

So that sort of relegates the 4" screen to at least the mid-tier pricing. Upgrade everything possible with each new generation, but leave out some features that just don't fit, like the Taptic Engine, and keep selling it in the middle priced between last year's 4.7" and 5.5" phones, but continue to improve it every generation rather than dropping it down to the bottom tier -- or alternately, sell only the phones that people want on the lowest tier. If entry level phone buyers want larger phones over smaller, or they want those cheap larger phones at the expense of the mid, and top-tier phones, then Apple might drop the 4" phone down to the bottom as the only offering.

I expect Apple to sell both the 6 & 6 plus at the bottom next year to get the last of the Android cheapskate holdouts, and depending on how that plays out in cannibalizing the 6s & 7, may or may not continue.

So something like this:

$299 7 Plus
$199 7
$199 6S Plus
$149 6S mini
$99 6S
$99 6 Plus
$0-49 6

If the mini is sold at the bottom, then maybe it's sold for $0 and the larger 6 would be sold for $49 accounting for the screen premium. The good news is offering the mini mid-cycle is that it's already running a little behind the current phone, so by the time it's depreciated, it makes sense at the bottom. It also encourages early adopters to make a strong choice -- get the latest and greatest regardless of size, or wait 6 months, thus likely keeping the new iPhone launches high sales events that make wall street so happy. Keeping the base phones at 16GB is also smart because it effectively adds $100 to the cost of each phone, as upgraders know the value of extra storage. Perhaps Apple will eventually price the memory upgrades at $50 increases rather than $100, giving them wider price differentiation between models and tiers.
 
Last edited:
Hmm - Honestly, I think it's most likely that everything will be basically iPhone 6 level and I'd be SHOCKED if 3D touch is on the 4" phone.

I personally hope 3D touch is not on the 4" anyhow, but if I were betting I'd still wager it won't be there as it has to be more expensive and be a thickness/weight creator (as we just learned on the 6 to 6s run)

Side note: I personally am fine with iP6 level guts. Do I want better? Sure...but I'm not expecting it. Ultimately, I just want a somewhat modern (more modern than 5s obviously) 4" iPhone with Apple Pay.

Features as important as 3D touch would be a deal breaker for alot of people. If Apple were to go that route, they would be selling a budget iphone. Apple does not do "budget" products well.
 
Last edited:
Is there any particular reason why you think the 4" iPhone should have inferior technical specifications compared to its big brothers? Why not rather make it an equally awesome member of the family? Get the best device, no matter what screen size you prefer.

I was looking at it from Apple's/business point of view. I pointed out where Apple could cut corners, to preserve it's fat profit margins while still preserving the user experience.

Apple has proven time and time again that great software can go along way in eliminating a hardware's short comings.

I'm very confident that Apple could come out with a 4" iphone with "inferior specs" to it's big brothers and it would run and work just as well.

Also, if you look at other Apple product lines, macbook pros, macbook airs etc., they've been able sell these products with varying specs and they sell well.
 
Features as important as 3D touch would be a deal breaker for alot of people. If Apple were to go that route, they would be selling a budget iphone. Apple does not do "budget" products well.

Perhaps for flagship dorks here on the forum (I'm one, I admit) but you have to remember everyone keeps telling me nobody even wants 4" phones anymore. It is highly likely that the people that do just want the smaller phone don't care about things like 3D touch...which honestly is a fairly "meh" gimmick for right now.

For me personally I just want an updated iPhone 5s with Apple Pay and I'll be happy for a good long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solarmon
By default the 4" display iPhone is always going to be the least expensive of the line-up.

But the 4" is going to be starved for space, which means in some cases, it's not going to be able to physically contain all the latest bells and whistles of the flagship phone.

If entry level phone buyers want larger phones over smaller, or they want those cheap larger phones at the expense of the mid, and top-tier phones, then Apple might drop the 4" phone down to the bottom as the only offering.

Keeping the base phones at 16GB is also smart because it effectively adds $100 to the cost of each phone, as upgraders know the value of extra storage. Perhaps Apple will eventually price the memory upgrades at $50 increases rather than $100, giving them wider price differentiation between models and tiers.

First note that you're talking about carrier pricing, it's probably better to talk about ACTUAL prices, as what carriers charge is rather irrelevant (as you're paying a lot more over the years, it's just hidden in a whopper bill).

But, I guess my question is, why is the 4" going to be the cheapest? I know that's what they do with some devices, but it would seem to me the 4" and 4.7" could be a similar price if they have feature parity... or, to put it another way, if components cost similar amounts, this is more about size preference than one being an upgrade. For example, maybe the 6s Plus costs more with that screen, but it would be a downgrade for me, not an upgrade. I don't consider it a higher-end model (aside from a couple features).

And, we keep using 'entry level' language. Again, I'm fine if Apple offers a 6c or 7c type device, but what many of us here are asking for isn't about entry level or cost, it's a matter of size. And if Apple wants to simplify the product line, then IMO, drop the 4.7" and just have a 4" and 5.5". The 4.7" is kind of a silly size, trying to still be a phone, but really too big. The 5.5" makes sense, as people who buy that are expecting a phablet.

I've also argued elsewhere, that the 16 GB iPhone actually doesn't make sense beyond the spreadsheets. It's BAD for user experience, and so IMO, no it's not a good idea, AT ALL! The old Apple (you know, the successful one), put user-experience first. The 'new' Apple is riding on that success. If they forget that, they'll quickly not be as successful. And, while I'll agree that $50 price jumps might make a bit more sense, it ultimately isn't about the money at the low end. The idea of starting at 32 GB should be so that anyone who buys a premium smart-phone shouldn't be faced with immediately having to learn techniques to keep their device in some free space.

Features as important as 3D touch would be a deal breaker for alot of people.

Yes, if I had to make the decision, I'd do 100% feature parity between 4", 4.7" and 5.5" *Maybe* there is some excuse for something like the image stabilization if it just won't fit in the 4" or 4.7" for reasonable physical reasons. (That said, there is no reason Apple has to keep making these devices thinner anymore... they are thin enough.)

I expect that 3D touch will become important somewhere down the road, but currently it isn't a feature I care much about. But, yea, for the sake of feature parity, I'd include it. Even if it increased the thickness of the 4" a bit.

I was looking at it from Apple's/business point of view. I pointed out where Apple could cut corners, to preserve it's fat profit margins while still preserving the user experience. ... I'm very confident that Apple could come out with a 4" iphone with "inferior specs" to it's big brothers and it would run and work just as well.

I don't think they need to cut those corners to preserve profit margin. It's more about the up-sell. The problem is, Apple is venturing too much into putting up-sell over user-experience. That, IMO, is a HUGE mistake. The part costs are going to be nearly identical between a 4" and a 4.7". Maybe the 5.5" costs a bit more to make.

I'm also sure they could make an 'inferior' model that worked well... except that many of the crucial things aren't the CPU/GPU speed, but stuff like RAM, the camera, touch ID, NFC, etc. Those things WILL impact the user-experience in a BIG way.

It's probably cheaper and easier for Apple to just put a 6s into a 4" case.... the reason it *wouldn't* be the same would be for model differentiation if they decide to make a 'budget' model or step-pricing.

In other words, a non-feature-parity 4" is a marketing decision, not a technical or cost one.

Perhaps for flagship dorks here on the forum (I'm one, I admit) but you have to remember everyone keeps telling me nobody even wants 4" phones anymore. It is highly likely that the people that do just want the smaller phone don't care about things like 3D touch...which honestly is a fairly "meh" gimmick for right now.

For me personally I just want an updated iPhone 5s with Apple Pay and I'll be happy for a good long time.

Who is this everyone?

What I see in most forums (not just here) are people screaming for a 4" iPhone... and then a few trolls in there just causing trouble. I don't see anyone arguing why Apple shouldn't make one. And there seems to be plenty of demand.

IMO, this 'everyone' seems more like people saying all TVs need to be 4K, or 3D or VR is the big next thing, or laptops need to add touch-screens, etc. In other words, silliness.

re: 3D touch - I can see how eventually when all apps use it, AND people get used to it, that it will be a nearly required feature. But, yea, for now it's mostly a gimmick (just an eventually useful one). Think of it a bit like right-click on mice. (Or, I should say, like right-click on mice back when it was more just a few pro-apps that used it to access special features without going to the menus.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: solarmon
What I see in most forums (not just here) are people screaming for a 4" iPhone... and then a few trolls in there just causing trouble. I don't see anyone arguing why Apple shouldn't make one. And there seems to be plenty of demand.

Apple sold over 180 million iPhones since they launched the 4.7" and 5.5" phones. That's more than they've ever sold before during the same period of time in any other year. Some of those were the older 4" iPhone 5S and 5C... but the overwhelming majority were the newer iPhone 6 in two new larger sizes.

So it looks like the new larger sizes are a hit, right? Or is it just because that was the only two sizes of the new flagships?

I'm sure some people begrudgingly choose a 4.7" iPhone because that's the smallest size of the new flagship. But I'd love to know how many people actually wanted the 4.7" phone because they were tired of the smaller 4" phone.

For every story we hear about people wanting a 4" iPhone... there's another story about iPhone users having pent up demand for larger phones ever since other vendors started going down that road.
 
Apple sold over 180 million iPhones since they launched the 4.7" and 5.5" phones. That's more than they've ever sold before during the same period of time in any other year. Some of those were the older 4" iPhone 5S and 5C... but the overwhelming majority were the newer iPhone 6 in two new larger sizes.

So it looks like the new larger sizes are a hit, right? Or is it just because that was the only two sizes of the new flagships?

I'm sure some people begrudgingly choose a 4.7" iPhone because that's the smallest size of the new flagship. But I'd love to know how many people actually wanted the 4.7" phone because they were tired of the smaller 4" phone.

For every story we hear about people wanting a 4" iPhone... there's another story about iPhone users having pent up demand for larger phones ever since other vendors started going down that road.

I've heard about surveys that indicate around 20% of iPhone buyers (potential? current owners?) want a 4". I'm not sure on the details though... like is that based on the current lineup, or if all sizes were flagship models, etc.

And, yes, there is a demand for larger phones... hence why most of aren't arguing Apple should go smaller again, just that they should *include* a smaller model.

I think initially there was a certain amount of spec-war aspect to it. Phones just started making a bit bigger screens to have a bigger number on the feature card.

But, there are a couple of good reasons for the larger phones. First, some people do work a lot more from their phone, enough so to make up for the size-tradeoff. And, especially in other countries, many are using iPhones as their sole computing device. Obviously, in that case, you want the most screen you can get (while still being usable as a phone).

Of course, those are legitimate reasons. But, I think it's also legitimate that there are people who use a phone as an accessory to their work-flow, who value the smaller size and one-handed efficiency aspects. I'm one of those folks. And, I think we're a reasonable sized market.
 
Is there any particular reason why you think the 4" iPhone should have inferior technical specifications compared to its big brothers? Why not rather make it an equally awesome member of the family? Get the best device, no matter what screen size you prefer.
Yes, agreed. However, I've been taking great photos since the iP3, and the 5S phone ain't nothing to sneeze at...so, if they stick with at least 5 level camera, I'm good.
 
I've heard about surveys that indicate around 20% of iPhone buyers (potential? current owners?) want a 4". I'm not sure on the details though... like is that based on the current lineup, or if all sizes were flagship models, etc.

And, yes, there is a demand for larger phones... hence why most of aren't arguing Apple should go smaller again, just that they should *include* a smaller model.

I think initially there was a certain amount of spec-war aspect to it. Phones just started making a bit bigger screens to have a bigger number on the feature card.

But, there are a couple of good reasons for the larger phones. First, some people do work a lot more from their phone, enough so to make up for the size-tradeoff. And, especially in other countries, many are using iPhones as their sole computing device. Obviously, in that case, you want the most screen you can get (while still being usable as a phone).

Of course, those are legitimate reasons. But, I think it's also legitimate that there are people who use a phone as an accessory to their work-flow, who value the smaller size and one-handed efficiency aspects. I'm one of those folks. And, I think we're a reasonable sized market.

It's going to sell like condoms in a flop house!
 
Yes, agreed. However, I've been taking great photos since the iP3, and the 5S phone ain't nothing to sneeze at...so, if they stick with at least 5 level camera, I'm good.

True, but again, to summarize what I see on this:

The big thing is 2 GB of RAM - OR - it better be pretty darn cheap (cause you're going to need a new one a LOT sooner)

So, that means either:

A) It needs to be a budget model... at a low cost with lots of features trimmed off so as not to cannibalize.

or

B) It needs to be a proper 4" sibling to the 4.7" and 5.5" iPhones.

I think Apple should do both. But, given their recent track record, they'll screw it up and do neither. It will probably be a nerf'd model for slightly less cost. I won't be buying that... informed people won't, but some will... self-fulfilling prophecy. A model that kinda sells, but not all that great either. Apple waffles about doing it again for a few years... rinse and repeat.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.