New A9-Based 4-Inch iPhone Expected to Launch Early 2016 With Apple Pay and Colorful Metal Casing

[Mac 128]

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).

Yes I'm aware the $0, $99 & $199 are carrier prices. It's just a common shorthand for discussing the tiers. Just add $600 to the price of each, and you'll get the full price. Maybe we can just use A/B/C.

Regardless, the reason the 4" iPhone will always be the cheapest is because of the three sizes, the 4" uses the smallest battery, the smallest screen, less aluminum, and if it's the same thickness (or thinness depending on how you look at it), then it likely will not be able to contain all of the flagship features (like a Taptic Engine). So, that by default means it will actually cost less to build, and therefore can be sold for less, while maintaining the margins.

The 5.5" screen is likewise more expensive because it has a larger screen and battery. Unless you mean to say the slight variation in screen and battery size between the three models does not change the cost of the components at all, and Apple is arbitrarily pricing the different sized phones at different rates. I don't believe that at all.

Hence the 4" phone will always be the cheapest phone of those three sizes (all else being equal). However, since it will fall technologically between the 6S and 7, despite having the cheapest screen and battery, then they can price it above the 6S which has a more expensive screen and battery but last year's tech; but still less then the 6S Plus because that screen and battery surely must offset the the newer tech. Who knows maybe the 6 mini will be priced above the 6S Plus, but I somehow doubt Apple will position it there since the 6 Plus is the same price as the 6S is now.

 

[SteveW928]

Unless you mean to say the slight variation in screen and battery size between the three models does not change the cost of the components at all, and Apple is arbitrarily pricing the different sized phones at different rates. I don't believe that at all.

Yea, I actually kind of do mean to say that. The difference in cost for Apple is minuscule... maybe a dozen dollars for the screen extras in the 5.5" Plus. The pricing is all about marketing, up-sells, and positioning.

However, since it will fall technologically between the 6S and 7...

I'm not sure how it falls between the 6s and 7. It seems to me like we're debating where it should fall between the 5c and 6s, with some of us arguing it should be EQUAL TO the 6s. Just because it's released in TIME between the 6s and 7 is kind of irrelevant, IMO.[/QUOTE]

 

[oldmacs]

I'm hoping A9 and 2GB... otherwise, its really not better than the 5S. The A8 is not really that much better than the A7, so putting an A8 and 1GB of ram in would be hopless :/ A8 and 2GB maybe.. but honestly I wish it was just a 6S Mini... Perhaps Apple's money making will be out of only updating the 4 inch model every 2 years instead of every year, and I wouldn't mind that personally given I really only update when my phone can no longer run the latest iOS. .

3D touch would be good, but honestly, 2GB of ram would be better than that.

 

[Mac 128]

I'm not sure how it falls between the 6s and 7. It seems to me like we're debating where it should fall between the 5c and 6s, with some of us arguing it should be EQUAL TO the 6s. Just because it's released in TIME between the 6s and 7 is kind of irrelevant, IMO.

If it falls between the 5c and 6S then that's pretty much a 6. And the 6 will be the bottom of the entry level "C" tier next year, when the 7 is released -- and I don't see Apple selling for "free" on contract (no matter what it costs to make). If the 4" phone is going to be successful, and cater to upgraders who want a smaller phone, it will need to be at least on the 6S "B" tier next year when the 7 comes out. But that doesn't mean that's what Apple will do. They may indeed make it a speed bumped 6, positioned at the low end of the "B" tier priced below the 6S because of the perception of screen size relating to price, whether it does or not.

Frankly I think we've already seen what Apple intends to do via the iPod Touch update, where they put the latest A8 chip in it just before the A9 was introduced. If the 4" is truly a mid-cycle product, then giving it the A9 makes perfect sense as in 3-6 months it will no longer be the flagship. And that may indeed still put it at the bottom of the 6S "B" tier. However, what I think will make it truly successful is if they are able to future proof the 4" a little better since it will have a longer cycle life with refreshes between the flagship releases. To that end, I would expect it to incorporate some of the intended 7 upgrades, which makes it a better phone than the 6S, so putting it in the middle to high end of the "B" tier, if not the bottom of the "A" tier, despite the size of the screen, even though I don't think they will physically be able to put every new feature the 6S has, and will have to offset it in other ways to justify a higher price. This will ultimately improve Apple's margins from a relatively large percentage of customers who may stubbornly cling to the budget models just to retain the size. I know I will, even though I can easily afford the 6S Plus.

 

[SteveW928]

If it falls between the 5c and 6S then that's pretty much a 6. And the 6 will be the bottom of the entry level "C" tier next year, when the 7 is released -- and I don't see Apple selling for "free" on contract (no matter what it costs to make).

Yes, I guess that's what I'm fearing... that it might be a 6, hardware-wise. What I was saying is that you mentioned it would fall, technologically, between the 6s and 7 (and I see why you're saying that from later on in the comment)... to which I was saying that even if it's equal, it's not *between* the 6s and 7, and it's more likely it's going to be less than a 6s if the rumors are true. So, *technologically* it won't fall between the 6s and 7.

And, part of this whole complaint for me is that there shouldn't be these tiers. Apple shouldn't be selling nearly obsolete technology as new, unless it's a fire-sale quickly after a new release. The 5s shouldn't be the 'entry level' model, because people who buy it will soon have a bad experience, either in poor performance when iOS updates (and the 5s falls into the barely acceptable camp, like my iPad 2 did when iOS 8 hit), or becoming obsolete too early.

Or, as a really good example, Apple was still selling new iPad mini (the original version), AFTER they released iOS 8, which effectively nerf'd them. They might make a few bucks off the sale, but they get a bad user experience, and likely an unhappy customer. i.e.: stupid short-term bean-counter type thinking!

And, the reason I like to look at the actual costs, vs on-contract costs, is because the 'free' stuff is just psychological marketing cloudy stuff. They could be paying people $100 to come and get one and still make a boatload of money. It's irrelevant whether it's $100 vs free if the actual cost is $600 vs $700. It's simply a $100 price gap between models. (Well, and it's not really Apple doing it, but the carriers... Apple is just going along with it.)

If the 4" phone is going to be successful, and cater to upgraders who want a smaller phone, it will need to be at least on the 6S "B" tier next year when the 7 comes out. But that doesn't mean that's what Apple will do. They may indeed make it a speed bumped 6, positioned at the low end of the "B" tier priced below the 6S because of the perception of screen size relating to price, whether it does or not.

First, 'be successful' and 'cater to the upgraders' and 'want a smaller phone' don't necessarily all go together. A 4" iPhone can stand on it's own as a high-end product, OR Apple could position it as a budget phone. But those are probably often two completely different market segments. And, I agree that it has to be AT LEAST a 6s... that's what I've been arguing. I'm not sure it can cater to both, though.

And, I also agree that might not be what Apple will do. Given Apple's recent track record, I'd almost bet they won't do the right thing.

That's why so many of us long-time Apple evangelists have been screaming out warnings about the 'new' Apple. I assume because of your avatar and handle, maybe you're one of us?

(I started with the Mac in 1986... and have worked many of the years in-between as, primarily, a Mac consultant. I've never been more worried about Apple... not even in the mid-90s! Yet, most people seem to think because sales are great, all is well... including, I think, the management at Apple. IMO, they are blinded by success.)

Frankly I think we've already seen what Apple intends to do via the iPod Touch update, where they put the latest A8 chip in it just before the A9 was introduced. If the 4" is truly a mid-cycle product, then giving it the A9 makes perfect sense as in 3-6 months it will no longer be the flagship. And that may indeed still put it at the bottom of the 6S "B" tier. However, what I think will make it truly successful is if they are able to future proof the 4" a little better since it will have a longer cycle life with refreshes between the flagship releases. To that end, I would expect it to incorporate some of the intended 7 upgrades, which makes it a better phone than the 6S, so putting it in the middle to high end of the "B" tier, if not the bottom of the "A" tier, despite the size of the screen, even though I don't think they will physically be able to put every new feature the 6S has, and will have to offset it in other ways to justify a higher price. This will ultimately improve Apple's margins from a relatively large percentage of customers who may stubbornly cling to the budget models just to retain the size. I know I will, even though I can easily afford the 6S Plus.

Wow, you're an optimist! I hope you're right, depending on what features get left out. But, I worry it's not going to be an A9 or have 2GB RAM (my main concern), or that the camera isn't going to be the latest (a strong secondary concern, for me). I'm hoping it, at least, will have NFC and Touch ID, as I can hardly believe they'd leave that out given the push for Apple Pay... but stranger things have happened.

 

[PBRsg]

I don't agree they should have the exact same specs. For instance, the laws of physics dictate that smaller devices have less surface area for dissipating heat. I have no problem with there being 5-10% speed differences between different iPhone models based on clock speed alone. Or if they dropped a graphics core because of the lower screen resolution, that would be acceptable. If the OIS was only possible because of some size limitation, then I would be ok with that. Many people thought that was the reason last year as the 6 Plus was slightly thicker. This year the 6s is the same thickness of the old 6 Plus and it didn't get any OIS.

Although if thickness is the problem then I would simply prefer Apple stop making everything so damn thin. I understand that it helps drive innovation but we're reaching the limit of what is ergonomic. This 4" device sounds thicker with the 5s design. That means there's probably no reason they couldn't put 3D Touch into it. The energy efficiency of the A9 vs the A7 is pretty significant, so they could reduce the battery capacity to make room just like they did with the 6s. After all, the thickness helps makes up for the volume loss of a bigger device and quite honestly the fact that they're keeping it thick makes me wonder if there is more to this phone than we expect.

Apple probably would have made more money if they had kept the 4" size and priced it like this in 2014: $199 for the iPhone 6 Mini, $249 for the iPhone 6, and $299 for the iPhone 6 Plus. They would get a lot of people buying the mid-range size and make an extra $50 to boot. Then they could keep the smaller size at the same price point. The main thing I wonder about is if they couldn't get the 4" size to match the design of the others because they couldn't quite get it thin enough, but if that's right then that doesn't explain these reports of a 5s type design.

I don't have a problem with small differences between the models, but I don't think the 4", for example, should get the processor from the year before.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don't have a problem with small differences between the models, but I don't think the 4", for example, should get the processor from the year before.

It likely will though, sorry.

The margins don't scale linearly for Apple and they make a lot more money with the bigger phones so there will be an incentive to keep the 4" slightly "below" the other models to continue to encourage up-sell.

Additionally, the margins continue to rise on the older internal hardware that keeps getting cheaper to manufacture as you go along, so you get better margins on both the big & new phone and old and small phone sides of it.

It's FULL bean counter mode on literally every Apple decision these days. Sucks.

 

[solarmon]

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.



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 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.



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.)

Yes. I don't understand-- except when money is tight -- why anyone would get a 16G smartphone...just not enough memory. I have a 128G iPhone 6 and 128G ipad mini...both are already more than half full.

 

[billy the fish]

Not sure about the source's reliability, but there is a market for a "cheaper" 4" iPhone for sure ...

You mean as well as the 5c And 5s which they currently sell...

 

[SteveW928]

You mean as well as the 5c And 5s which they currently sell...

... and shouldn't be!

 

[tresmith]

It likely will though, sorry.

The margins don't scale linearly for Apple and they make a lot more money with the bigger phones so there will be an incentive to keep the 4" slightly "below" the other models to continue to encourage up-sell.

Additionally, the margins continue to rise on the older internal hardware that keeps getting cheaper to manufacture as you go along, so you get better margins on both the big & new phone and old and small phone sides of it.

It's FULL bean counter mode on literally every Apple decision these days. Sucks.

Great points and that's what I was trying to get across in a previous post. Apple can make a 4 inch "full feature" phone with lower specs that no one will really notice as long as they include the most important features.

In other words, other than the screen size, as long as Apple keeps the user experience the same across the models then no one will complain.

 

[Mac 128]

Additionally, the margins continue to rise on the older internal hardware that keeps getting cheaper to manufacture as you go along, so you get better margins on both the big & new phone and old and small phone sides of it.

Yes and no. The more parts Apple can supply to all three phones, the better, since the 4.7 & 5.5 inch phones will e the biggest sellers, the more they can duplicate in the 4, they greater the discount on volume. The older the parts get, some will get cheaper if they are off-the-shelf variety that remains in mass production for other products besides Apple's, but for everything else that is custom manufactured for Apple, and shared with no other Apple products, the volume discounts will be lost, while the manufacturing costs remain the same, meaning they could actually get more expensive. And if Samsung and Android move on from other standard components Apple maybe using, it could get very expensive to support these older designs.

So while I totally agree bean counter mode will apply, Apple has to position the phone to address as many potential 4" customers as possible, which is why it can't be a top tier model, but also can't be a bottom tier model. The closer the phone is to sharing more parts with the 6S & forthcoming 7, the better for everything. Where they will save is not including features that simply won't fit into the smaller case design.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yes and no. The more parts Apple can supply to all three phones, the better, since the 4.7 & 5.5 inch phones will e the biggest sellers, the more they can duplicate in the 4, they greater the discount on volume. The older the parts get, some will get cheaper if they are off-the-shelf variety that remains in mass production for other products besides Apple's, but for everything else that is custom manufactured for Apple, and shared with no other Apple products, the volume discounts will be lost, while the manufacturing costs remain the same, meaning they could actually get more expensive. And if Samsung and Android move on from other standard components Apple maybe using, it could get very expensive to support these older designs.

So while I totally agree bean counter mode will apply, Apple has to position the phone to address as many potential 4" customers as possible, which is why it can't be a top tier model, but also can't be a bottom tier model. The closer the phone is to sharing more parts with the 6S & forthcoming 7, the better for everything. Where they will save is not including features that simply won't fit into the smaller case design.

I guess I'm not sure of your point. We agree.

...Except on this,

...since the 4.7 & 5.5 inch phones will e the biggest sellers

...which is complete speculation and is not necessarily going to be the case - It depends upon what the 4" offering actually is! If it's some bottom feeder 5C upgrade, I'd agree...but again - They have never sold a flagship (or really anything close) 4" alongside larger ones. Uncharted territory. Should be interesting.


I continue to be of the mind that the 4" phone will not be bottom tier, nor will it be top tier.

It will be basically an iPhone 6 (which, to your point, shares a ton of components with the 6s) in a 4" case.

 

[Mac 128]

...which is complete speculation and is not necessarily going to be the case - It depends upon what the 4" offering actually is! If it's some bottom feeder 5C upgrade, I'd agree...but again - They have never sold a flagship (or really anything close) 4" alongside larger ones. Uncharted territory. Should be interesting.

I continue to be of the mind that the 4" phone will not be bottom tier, nor will it be top tier.

It will be basically an iPhone 6 (which, to your point, shares a ton of components with the 6s) in a 4" case.

Well, it's not complete speculation. There's numerous surveys that demonstrate the current 4" iPhone base is likely somewhere around 20-33%, with the 4.7 & 5.5 inch phones accounting for the rest. Even if the 4" iPhone is a huge success I don't see it passing the 50% mark.

And again, I think the new 4" iPhone will have to be much closer to a 6S without some of the space eating features like the taptic engine and 3D Touch, but with the A9, graphics chip, possibly cameras, and likely 2GB RAM, though I can see them saving money there too.

The problem with it just being a 6, is I think Apple intends to sell the 6 and 6Plus as the entry level phones in order to draw the last of the Android crowd from the low-end. If the 4" is no better than Apple's entry level phone, then it won't appeal to the higher end customer base, who will hang onto the 4.7" screens. So it has to be at least a 6S in all but the impossible to squeeze into the case aspects, and to offset that, it should have a few minor improvements which will debut in the 7 as well. This is just my opinion and Apple has a way of taking the cheap way out, despite themselves. But I guess it all depends on just what their market research actually shows about the 4" customers.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Well, it's not complete speculation. There's numerous surveys that demonstrate the current 4" iPhone base is likely somewhere around 20-33%

Any survey itself is speculative as people have never been able to walk in to an Apple store and have complete (or really close) feature parity across all 3 sizes. Only then will we have any usable on this. But of course, we aren't sure Apple will even try for feature parity across all 3 sadly.

The problem with it just being a 6, is I think Apple intends to sell the 6 and 6Plus as the entry level phones in order to draw the last of the Android crowd from the low-end. If the 4" is no better than Apple's entry level phone, then it won't appeal to the higher end customer base, who will hang onto the 4.7" screens.

The biggest market that the 4" might steal from is from the 4.7" iPhones themselves.

Remember, anyone really interested mainly in smaller size and portability is by that very nature less likely to care about every single latest spec.

People like me (which are in this category) want a reasonable camera, Apple Pay (which is not new anymore) and good battery life and performance. Not cutting edge mind you, just updated and more modern than the 5s is at this point.

For me, if they just spec bump the 5s internals & camera a bit and add Apple Pay I'd be at the Apple Store literally today. I actually prefer the 5s case to the 6/6s gen (slippery as a river rock)

 

[hokieputter]

Hopefully whatever they release will be more "6s mini" than 6c. A9, 2 GB RAM, Apple Pay, same camera as the 6s, etc.

 

[Mac 128]

The biggest market that the 4" might steal from is from the 4.7" iPhones themselves.

Remember, anyone really interested mainly in smaller size and portability is by that very nature less likely to care about every single latest spec.

Exactly, which is why I don't believe the 4" will ever be a bigger seller than the 4.7 & 5.5 combined. But maybe it will outsell the 5.5", which is OK because it presumably has the highest margins of all.

And I'm sure there will be some cannibalism, but the reality is, when the 6 came out, there was still a perfectly serviceable 5S being offered for even less money. In fact, that's when I bought my 5S. If the 3.5"/4" crowd truly didn't care about specs, then none of them would have upgraded to the 6, or 6S. Aside from Speed and Apple Pay which surveys show is being used by a very small minority of Apple customers, as Apple Pay is slowly adopted in the market place, there aren't that many must-have features. So the sales of the 5S should have exploded at the expense of 6 sales. And considering the performance of my 5S, should have held on to them, waiting for replacement, instead of upgrading to the 6S. That fort of indicates that most of those who upgraded did so for the latest features. That's not to say many don't like, and will happily switch back given some feature parity, but it's hard to say how many differences they are willing to accept.

So actually, the timing is right for the 4" upgrade. As Apple Pay is increasingly available, that will be something customers will not want to be without. I don't think 3D Touch has proven itself as a must-have yet. Better 6S cameras would be a nice touch. And, if the dropping of the 3.5mm jack comes to fruition, the 4" would make an excellent testing ground, to make use of the maximum internal space possible. Of course, it might signal to the competitors too soon about what's coming in the 7, or if the idea flops entirely, allow Apple to sidestep a potential mistake with their flagship phone.

 

[macduke]

I don't have a problem with small differences between the models, but I don't think the 4", for example, should get the processor from the year before.

Yeah, I don't think anyone wants that. But at least the A8 is a damn good processor, at least when paired with 2GB of RAM. So I'm at least hoping for that so my wife can get a phone that will last her a little while longer.

 

[SteveW928]

Any survey itself is speculative as people have never been able to walk in to an Apple store and have complete (or really close) feature parity across all 3 sizes. Only then will we have any usable on this. But of course, we aren't sure Apple will even try for feature parity across all 3 sadly.

For sure, and I can't say I know the details of these surveys. If it were just a question like, what screen size do your prefer.. maybe with some options, that's not the same as standing in a store with actual product in hand to recognize how it feels, etc. Also, I think the majority of people are just going to upgrade each couple of years to the latest thing Apple offers, no matter what it is, within reason. So, you're absolutely correct in that we just don't know the numbers... but from everything I've seen and experienced, it's a sizeable group. As I've mentioned before, my gut says it would be close to the 4.7" in sales numbers if there were true feature parity... while most surveys put it at ~20ish percent. Either way, that's plenty to justify such a model!

The biggest market that the 4" might steal from is from the 4.7" iPhones themselves.

Remember, anyone really interested mainly in smaller size and portability is by that very nature less likely to care about every single latest spec.

People like me (which are in this category) want a reasonable camera, Apple Pay (which is not new anymore) and good battery life and performance. Not cutting edge mind you, just updated and more modern than the 5s is at this point.

For me, if they just spec bump the 5s internals & camera a bit and add Apple Pay I'd be at the Apple Store literally today. I actually prefer the 5s case to the 6/6s gen (slippery as a river rock)

I agree for the most part. While I harp on feature parity, that's more about the principal of it. If it were 'close enough' I'd probably still go for it. IMO, the non-negotiable is 2GB of RAM, which probably means an A9 (there are no 2GB A8 right?).

Exactly, which is why I don't believe the 4" will ever be a bigger seller than the 4.7 & 5.5 combined. But maybe it will outsell the 5.5", which is OK because it presumably has the highest margins of all.

I think it would easily outsell the 5.5" The existence of that model is actually a good argument for the existence of the 4" model, as the 5.5" doesn't sell that many, if pure numbers are the concern. It serves a more speciality market, as would a 4" (if that is also a speciality market instead of the main market). I think the bigger question would be which would sell more, the 4" or 4.7".

So the sales of the 5S should have exploded at the expense of 6 sales. And considering the performance of my 5S, should have held on to them, waiting for replacement, instead of upgrading to the 6S.

Well, there are a lot of people who just buy the latest model, so that has to be factored in. But, yes, that's a data point for sure. If everyone hated the 4.7" as much as I do, then 5s sales should have skyrocketed. The bigger issue today, is that buying a 5s might put one too quickly into obsolesce, more than purely a feature comparison. (That's what has been holding me back. A good friend with even more tech experience and track record in these things warned me about the 2GB thing when I was considering a 5s earlier in the year. I think he's right.)

So actually, the timing is right for the 4" upgrade. As Apple Pay is increasingly available, that will be something customers will not want to be without. I don't think 3D Touch has proven itself as a must-have yet. Better 6S cameras would be a nice touch. And, if the dropping of the 3.5mm jack comes to fruition, the 4" would make an excellent testing ground, to make use of the maximum internal space possible. Of course, it might signal to the competitors too soon about what's coming in the 7, or if the idea flops entirely, allow Apple to sidestep a potential mistake with their flagship phone.

I'm kind of doubting the jack thing, as much of it was based off a need for Apple's obsession with thin. But, as Rob over at Today in iOS pointed out, Apple already has much thinner devices with an 1/8" jack. And, IMO, it would be a pretty gutsy move for which I can see no real reason. It's not something I'd necessarily oppose, ***IF*** there were some good industry standard replacement. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

I guess I do agree that they could get away with non-full feature parity, such as dropping 3D Touch... maybe bumping down the clock-speed a bit if battery performance were an issue. But, otherwise I'm not sure what it would make sense drop outside of purposely *TRYING* to make it a lesser model, for marketing purposes (which would be a dumb decision, but not totally unexpected from Apple these days).

 

[mr.bee]

Remember, anyone really interested mainly in smaller size and portability is by that very nature less likely to care about every single latest spec.

People like me ....

Stop generalising or projecting your own needs onto others.

I bought an iPhone 6S after my 5 and I hate it. The thing is too big and too heavy. I want to have a smaller version again with cutting edge technology.

 

[Keirasplace]

Hopefully whatever they release will be more "6s mini" than 6c. A9, 2 GB RAM, Apple Pay, same camera as the 6s, etc.

And 30-50% less battery life than the 6s, if you want the same speed. Because that's the difference in volume there will be; and people will undoubtedly bitch about that, no question. So, they'll have to cut the clock, some functions, and possibly use a different screen tech to save battery life.

 

[Keirasplace]

Stop generalising or projecting your own needs onto others.

I bought an iPhone 6S after my 5 and I hate it. The thing is too big and too heavy. I want to have a smaller version again with cutting edge technology.

if you "hate it", then you should have returned it; which most reasonable people would (you know... HATE...).

I'm guessing you're not really hating it and merely dislike certain aspects of it, like the size.

 

[oldmacs]

And 30-50% less battery life than the 6s, if you want the same speed. Because that's the difference in volume there will be; and people will undoubtedly bitch about that, no question. So, they'll have to cut the clock, some functions, and possibly use a different screen tech to save battery life.

Not really... The biggest power consumer on iOS devices (As I understand) is the screen. Bigger screen = more power consumption and thus the need for a bigger battery. With a smaller screen you're saving a bit on battery.

if you "hate it", then you should have returned it; which most reasonable people would (you know... HATE...).

Or maybe he thought that he'd get used to it, and realised he hated it once the return period was over.

 

[SteveW928]

And 30-50% less battery life than the 6s, if you want the same speed. Because that's the difference in volume there will be; and people will undoubtedly bitch about that, no question. So, they'll have to cut the clock, some functions, and possibly use a different screen tech to save battery life.

I don't think it's that much (see one of my earlier posts comparing actual mAh battery sizes between the two... I didn't run the math, but it looked more like 10-20%. And, then there is what oldmacs said about screen size impact on battery, which if true (and seems reasonable) would further decrease the gap.

But, yea, that's a valid point, IF the batter life would go too far under what is somewhat typical for iPhones. For example, doesn't the 6s Plus go longer than the 6s? When we say 'feature parity' I don't think most of us are being that wooden about it.

I understand the challenge of maybe including 3D Touch, but even that could be done by making it just slightly thicker (which isn't a problem for me, at least... it's the other dimensions that are the problem!).

if you "hate it", then you should have returned it; which most reasonable people would (you know... HATE...).

I'm guessing you're not really hating it and merely dislike certain aspects of it, like the size.

Even so, if they want an iPhone, then they are stuck with it until Apple makes a better 4". Maybe they hate it, but not quite enough to go Android. (Again, IMO, a very reasonable position.)

 

[Mac 128]

I guess I do agree that they could get away with non-full feature parity, such as dropping 3D Touch... maybe bumping down the clock-speed a bit if battery performance were an issue. But, otherwise I'm not sure what it would make sense drop outside of purposely *TRYING* to make it a lesser model, for marketing purposes (which would be a dumb decision, but not totally unexpected from Apple these days).

The marketing purpose is to get people who want a smaller phone to compromise and give up their existing wired headphones, and hopefully buy a pair of wireless headphones, or a pair of Lightning headphones. Since most people use Apple's "free" headphones, exclusively with their Apple products, this is not likely to be a major issue for most. Also, I would think the 4" users have been some of the biggest adopters of the Watch, a device which requires wireless headphones, if only to get Pay -- I know that was a major factor in my decision. So there's likely a not insignificant group of Watch users, who already have wireless headphones, for whom the elimination of the headphone jack is not going to be an issue. Again, the reason Apple would drop it, is because they need the space. Think about it -- they're going to probably make the new 4" iPhone at least as thin as the larger ones. And, they're going to have to cram new hardware into it, and get at least the same battery power as the 5S it's replacing. That's kind of a tall order, so reclaiming every single square mm of space inside that phone is going to be important -- thinness aside. All those other devices that Apple currently makes now which are thinner and still have a 3.5mm jack don't do half of what the iPhone does. And that's another reason I think the new 4" will have the A9, if only to get the most energy efficient processor they can put inside the phone. I can see them limiting RAM before they skimp on a chip which will allow them to use a smaller battery.

But, yea, that's a valid point, IF the batter life would go too far under what is somewhat typical for iPhones. For example, doesn't the 6s Plus go longer than the 6s? When we say 'feature parity' I don't think most of us are being that wooden about it.

I understand the challenge of maybe including 3D Touch, but even that could be done by making it just slightly thicker (which isn't a problem for me, at least... it's the other dimensions that are the problem!).

Apple has solved this problem with the "Hunchback of Notre battery". The 6 Plus and 6S Plus doesn't need an extended battery case, because they do run much longer than the 6/6S under normal use. The new 4" will be challenged because I doubt they will want to make it thicker than the 6S. So while I don't really expect to ever see a 6S Plus Apple battery case, I would expect to see one for the new 4". And with that new case, you already need an adapter just to use the 3.5mm headphone jack with any set of wired headphones other than Apple's.