2GB A8 is on the ipad mini 4 and ATV4, anywho as long as it has 2gb of ram id go for it, they could claim better performance then the iphone 6 series. Although a9 would be very welcome
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New A9-Based 4-Inch iPhone Expected to Launch Early 2016 With Apple Pay and Colorful Metal Casing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2GB A8 is on the ipad mini 4 and ATV4, anywho as long as it has 2gb of ram id go for it, they could claim better performance then the iphone 6 series. Although a9 would be very welcome
Just curious what you feel 2GB RAM is going to get us in a 4" display phone? I mean if you had to have one or the other, it looks like you would settle for the A8, with 2GB RAM rather than the A9 with 1GB RAM?
Hmm, I sure hope that wouldn't be the main driver... but I do get the space thing. I'd rather see them make it a bit thicker, but yea, it's Apple, so you might be right. I still think it's a bad idea, as while I probably use wireless 80% of the time with my iPod touch, I'm still glad it has an actual 1/8" jack (for example, when I fly). Or, sometimes wireless just doesn't work properly. And, I really hate the idea of Lightening headphones... it's one thing to have a proprietary connector for charge/sync etc, but IMO, another for something like headphones. But, again, with Apple, who knows?
If it were something like USB 3 headphones, and there were some industry push to go digital with audio equipment in that way in general, then maybe I'd agree.
And, re: Notre battery, I think that's meant to be a special-case (no pun intended) accessory, not meant to get people through a typical day. That's one thing I highly respect Apple for, design-wise (and hopefully it isn't changing!), is that they realize that typical-day-length between charges is a critical component of any device without swappable batteries. Please, please don't diverge from that!
OK, then I might be *OK* with it, though I'd still really like as much feature parity as possible. The big thing for me is that it isn't a hobbled little-brother product (though having one of those might be good for 'budget' entry product line too), but a reasonable 4" model in the lineup. What exactly they have to do to get there, if anything, I'm OK with... if it's for technical reason, not market-positioning ones (i.e.: trying to cover all the bases with that one model... hobbling it to make it a budget device and not compete with the 4.7").
But, it has to be a 2GB, otherwise, just get a 5s.
Yes! Because, if you get a 1 GB device, you're pretty much ensuring it's going to obsoletely more quickly than the 2 GB, because that is the main factor which makes iOS devices fairly unusable as iOS development marches on.
I'm just not sure I agree. My Mom is still using her original iPad 2, and I'm still using my iPad 3. Every now and then I pull out my original iPad, and it works just fine too. My 5S does everything I need aside from Pay. So does the iPhone 4 I was previously using, albeit slow -- and that's the main reason I upgraded. It seems like when RAM becomes an issue, it's for things like multitasking and PIP, and dual app display. All things that would just be pointless on a 4" screen. I'm just not seeing where 1GB RAM would hold me back. Especially when 2GB RAM would require greater battery life, something a new 4" phone would be challenged with. Moreover to your concern with accelerated obsolescence, I would argue that the new 4" is likely going to be intentionally crippled, meaning, 4" users ill get somewhat screwed as a compromise for the size, and anybody who wants a current iPhone is going to be upgraded more frequently anyway than those who are buying the larger flagship releases.
There's got to be a more polite tone with which to express your point isn't there?
(Seriously - read your first line out loud to yourself - really comes across as rude)
I'm on YOUR side and also prefer the smaller phones and am literally dying for a 4" update.
I really want a flagship 4" device, but I don't think it will happen. Read the whole thread and you'll see where I've commented on why, but the long and short is that there's more margin for Apple in most cases by using the small devices as up-sells for the larger ones (both in size, capacity, features, etc)
They are using some very basic and time tested retail techniques to drive up-sells.
The smaller phones also serve them well as a place to keep using older component designs that continue to be cash cows for another cycle or 2.
Do they need to make the 4" using slightly older components? No. But will they? Most likely until they prove otherwise, but Apple = Bean Counting these days, so that's the safe guess.
Last edited:
As am I, and it's no longer a good experience. It was fine up until iOS 8, when they basically upped the RAM requirements for the OS to perform acceptably. It's still kind of usable, but a whole different (bad) experience. The 512K based devices really shouldn't have made the move past iOS 7... Apple was kind of stuck though, as they were still selling a number of 512K devices new, and did for quite some time. So, they picked marketing and practicality over user-experience and 'doing the right thing'... i.e.: the 'new' Apple.
And typing!
I can *get by* with diminished performance in other aspects... and have since iOS 8 update. Fortunately, Apple made some of that a bit better under iOS 9, though my iPad 2 still feels like a dog. But, the typing response is now quite choppy and slow. That makes it, for practical use, not a great experience and quite unproductive.
Well, it currently wouldn't. But, given Apple's track record, it probably will once iOS 10 is released, 11 at best. By the time iOS 10 comes along, most of the line will be 2 GB, and Apple will move on, leaving all 1 GB devices with a 2nd class experience.
And, it's the whole argument here that the 4" SHOULD NOT be compromised or relegated to not being part of that flagship line. I know you're saying it probably won't be a flagship model... and you might be right... and we're saying it should be.
Yep, agreed. The 'new' Apple where profits and marketing rule (run over) user experience and doing it right. What they do here will be another good test-case.
For sure, it has little to do with costs, battery life, etc. and probably not much to do with design. It's all about marketing and product positioning. The question is more whether Apple is listening to users and still paying attention to user experience, or trying to max out short-term profits.
Have you looked at the rest of Apple's lineup? Few people ever seem to complain about the sizes available elsewhere in the lineup.
iPhone: 4.7" or 5.5"
iMac: 21" or 27"
MBP: 13" or 15" (Sometimes people say they want 17"... but according to Apple, fewer than 0.1% of purchases were for the 17" when it was offered.)
MB: 12"
MBA: 11" or 13"
iPad: 10"
iPad Mini: 8"
iPad Pro: 12"
Display: 27" (I see people sometimes wishing for bigger displays here...)
Apple Watch: 38mm or 42mm (honestly this seems kind of silly... less than 10% difference between the two... no other Apple product has such a tiny difference in size available.)
The iPads have 3 sizes to fit very different needs. Phones do too. Main complaint is that their isn't main feature parity. That is what I expect them to rectify. Main low hanging fruit is Apple Pay. Gotta have that on all their own phones.
This is really weird... it's supposed to be Apple's major selling point against Android, and yet Apple periodically seems to crap all over themselves on it for no particular reason. IE, what the hell is up for force sensitivity? Right now, they have four different ways it works:
1 - Trackpads on Macs
2 - Touch screens on iPhones and Apple Watch
3 - Pens on iPad Pro
4 - No way at all for a lot of devices, including some new ones.
Normally when Apple adds a feature it looks more like:
1 - New products have the new feature.
2 - Old products don't have the feature.
So when Apple adds a new feature, developers immediately take advantage of it and then also have a work around for people with older products, because the developer can be certain that the feature will be available on all future products.
With force sensitivity, developers have no idea what's up. Apple is randomly including it on some devices but not others, and even across devices that have it, Apple is choosing extremely different implementations for each device.
With the force stuff I think they are trying different things for the different contextual use cases to see what sticks.
Beyond the pen usage, I find it all sort of "meh" personally. I have a 6S and after about a week I totally forgot that 3D touch was there, especially since so many simple interaction opportunities for it were missed. I occasionally remember it when I accidentally invoke it, but for me at least it's nowhere close to a "must have" right now.
It's often less important on something you're not holding in your hand, where the 'fit' to holding it comfortably and reaching with thumb, etc. aren't as important. The thing pushing bigger screen sizes is screen real-estate, but it's a tradeoff over comfort and some usability (in trade for other usability).
Many people are willing to make that trade-off, but I think it would be best if Apple didn't force it. There are a lot of us who use the phone, more like a smart-phone, and not a computer replacement. For us, we'd rather have the more optimal size.
But, your last sentence as I've quoted above, highlights the problem well. IMO, it should be *IRRELEVANT* that only 0.1% of people purchase something, if it plays an important role in your overall user eco-system. I'm not saying a 17" laptop is necessary, but if it is fairly necessary for even a tiny portion of the user-base, then it's something they should very carefully consider... not just cut it because the pie-slice doesn't look big enough at the bean-counter meeting.
I should also add, that if it were more important, I would complain about stuff, like the iMac sizes... the smaller one isn't as high powered, isn't expandable, etc... while it's IMO, big enough for most desks. So, unless I want a massive device, I have to get a Mac Pro. But, in this case, having a 27" iMac isn't as make-or-break, so it's not a big complaint point for me.
I think the assumption here, is that Apple is still thinking about this stuff in a logical manner, with user-experience being the most important factor. I'm pretty sure the bean-counters and marketing department now rule. And, user-experience is now more an accident than a art/science.
It wasn't necessary, though. 0.1% of people wanted it. And when it was no longer offered, those people got the 15", possibly with an external screen, or an iMac, instead.
Manging the entire supply chain of hundreds of parts for the few dozen that were sold each month was a pointless waste of money. Apple was losing money from the overhead of simply offering the 17" option.
Having said that, I wish I could get a 17" rMBP. I'm surprised that so few people were buying them. But I'll live with the 15" instead. I'll buy an external display if/when I end up feeling sad without the 24" display of my iMac.
Heh, maybe that wasn't such a great example. I think most of the people who were using them were professionals trying to make one-machine-fits-all. But, it was kind of big to be a laptop anymore, once laptops stopped being boat-anchors. AND (probably most important), the cloud and OSs have made it WAY easier to use multiple machines without a lot of file-management overhead. So, the 17" MBP really isn't very necessary at all. (Heck, one can use an iPad and 15" MBP and have more screen space.
But, my point was for necessary products. When a product is sufficiently necessary, it shouldn't be cut, IMO, even if it's losing money that's gained by the overall eco-system. I think the 4" iPhone is a necessary product, no matter the percentage of the pie, or cost to develop another model (which, in this case, should be quite minimal).