Tons of people one 8 or 8+, it is a very popular phone
The most unpopular iPhone in history is by far the 5c, which I owned in yellow
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.
OnLeaks: Budget iPhone X to Have 6-Inch Screen With Notch, Single Rear Camera, and Aluminum Frame
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tons of people one 8 or 8+, it is a very popular phone
The most unpopular iPhone in history is by far the 5c, which I owned in yellow
Still no one explains how 6.1" Screen Works. Same 19.5 : 9 Ratio? How do the grids work? Enlarged version of the 5.8" iPhone X display?
Or are Apple going to split the iPhone Lineup into two Category like iPad?
The iPhone SE with 5" and 6.1", both with single Camera unit, LCD based, no 3D Touch ( as with current iPhone SE ), and may be only with A10?
While the X get Plus Size variants at 6.5" Screen.
( I do hope they all get at least 3GB Memory )
Or are Apple going to split the iPhone Lineup into two Category like iPad?
The iPhone SE with 5" and 6.1", both with single Camera unit, LCD based, no 3D Touch ( as with current iPhone SE ), and may be only with A10?
While the X get Plus Size variants at 6.5" Screen.
( I do hope they all get at least 3GB Memory )
Even though I currently have an X, I would definitely be interested in this phone? Aluminum back? Yes, thank you. I don’t care about wireless charging. And the dual camera setup on the X does not take good low light photos anyway so I don’t see the point in continuing to pay the premium price for the X.
It says a lot and not in a good way when $700-800 is considered a “good value” by some for iPhone buyers.
No SE2?
[doublepost=1527871778][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1527871778][/doublepost]
It a budget iPhone, you don't expect good stuff at these price points! I stick with the main line iPhones for additional $300-$500 more! Offers latest technology and top of line luxury status. What midschool students and older students use if they want to be in the "popular group" of students!
There was a time, like 2016, when you could expect good stuff or at least the latest stuff at these price points!!! At this rate, a “budget” iPhone will run close to $1,000 by 2022. I guess by then, the iPhone’s share of market in some European countries will be like 1-2%.
Might it feature an A11 and be priced at $599? A report today said the top of the line new ARM chips were as about as fast as an A10, so this would still be an advanced device. That would also help differentiate it from the OLED X.
Honestly it could have a fingerprint sensor under the display. And the reason I say that is for 2 reasons. 1. Apple just filed patents for under screen Touch ID. 2. It won’t have 3D Touch and if I remember correctly Apple was having a hard time implementing Touch ID into the X because of the 3D Touch.
[doublepost=1527872851][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1527872851][/doublepost]
Says aluminum frame not back. It will still have a glass back for wireless charging.
What people don’t realise it, Apple is making this 6.1” iPhone like this on purpose.
1. Most people don’t want a phone bigger than 5.8” which is the ideal size even according to Apple. But if you can’t afford a 5.8, you settle for 6.1” which is less for most and only a benefit for a few.
2. Single lens. So you buy the X.
3. Heavier. So you buy the X.
4. Thicker. So you buy the X.
5. Different colours. So it is noticeable you don’t have a X.
6. About same battery or maybe slightly worse.
7. There will be a price difference. But unlikely more than USD 200-250. So all the reasons above will make you reconsider buying a gimped phone to just save a few cents a day during the period of ownership.
This is actually perfect marketing and strategy wise. And hats off to Apple for this.
However, not having 3D Touch may not be done on purpose. Apple plans to get rid of 3D Touch from all 2019 iPhones. The tech being used in the 6.1” iPhone is a bit different screen wise. And it doesn’t support 3D Touch. The same tech will be used in all iPhones 2019 onwards.
1. Most people don’t want a phone bigger than 5.8” which is the ideal size even according to Apple. But if you can’t afford a 5.8, you settle for 6.1” which is less for most and only a benefit for a few.
2. Single lens. So you buy the X.
3. Heavier. So you buy the X.
4. Thicker. So you buy the X.
5. Different colours. So it is noticeable you don’t have a X.
6. About same battery or maybe slightly worse.
7. There will be a price difference. But unlikely more than USD 200-250. So all the reasons above will make you reconsider buying a gimped phone to just save a few cents a day during the period of ownership.
This is actually perfect marketing and strategy wise. And hats off to Apple for this.
However, not having 3D Touch may not be done on purpose. Apple plans to get rid of 3D Touch from all 2019 iPhones. The tech being used in the 6.1” iPhone is a bit different screen wise. And it doesn’t support 3D Touch. The same tech will be used in all iPhones 2019 onwards.
You’re obviously not looking outside the spectrum. Apple has one of the largest iPhone line up’s they have ever had, offering a price point and iPhone model for everyone, all the way from the entry-level SE to the iPhone X. There’s something in between that can be of interest with a price point that meets everybody else a different expectations. Just Because you have preferences, doesn’t mean everybody else will share yours.
Honestly if I need to pay 800$ for a “budget” device so I will happy pay 200 bucks over it for the top range one.
Not really...I consider the iPhone X good value.
Something like the Note 8 is a terrible value because it's almost $1,000, runs Android, and isn't supported by Samsung.
The 6.5-inch upcoming iPhone X Plus model pixel resolution should be 1242x2688 @3x (screen pixel density at the same 458 ppi as the 5.8-inch iPhone X), meaning a 414x896 points [logic] resolution.
It's easy to calculate 824x1792 comes around 6.1-inch at 326 ppi (LCD pixel density used in every retina iPhone models minus Plus). And @2x, apps on this screen would display identical interface as on the 6.5-inch Plus model.
My bet: it's not an iPhone, it's the new [micro tablet] iPod Touch.
"popular group"? Keeping up with the Jones? Trapped in peer pressure. When you grow up. this won't matter as much.
The pricing of smartphones has gotten totally ridiculous. OnePlus has the right idea, but they have limited distribution channels and carrier support in the US.
We started at $500 on the OG iPhone, and then it jumped to $650 and stayed there for what, 6 or 7 years? Every high end smartphone was $650. Technology, in theory, should get cheaper, and yet now the high end devices have crept up even higher, with the typical high end smartphone starting at $700 and often $800, depending on the model. The iPhone X pushed it to $1000, and now we seem to be going up from there.
To Apple's credit, they do have really good longevity, which is something that a lot of people don't consider when buying a phone. Between their industry-leading in-store service to replace batteries that have worn out, or repair the damage when the occasional kludgy moron thought it was a good idea to walk about with a naked iPhone and broke a screen, and their long software update support cycle, it's much more realistic to keep an iPhone going for 4-5 years than it is for virtually any Android device.
Meanwhile, in the midrange phone department, you can buy a really nice phone like the Moto G for $250, and there are great options in the $400 to $500 range. However, carriers just aren't carrying most of these devices, and often cripple the unlocked phones by witholding VoWiFi and sometimes VoLTE support.
Most consumers would be perfectly happy with a $250-$400 Android phone or a $500 iPhone if Apple would just make such a thing. At the same time, with the various new spectrum coming online, buying a year old phone is a stupid idea, due to all the new banding, and the iPhone still hasn't caught up with B14 and B71, which it completely missed in 2017.
For the pricing, I blame the installment plans in the US market. Installment plans are selling phone to people who cannot afford them, and is making everyone think in dollars per month, not the actual price they are paying for stuff. If people actually had to buy their phones outright up front, then I think the prices would come way down, and the manufacturers would be focusing more on value and longevity than on the flashiest most ridiculous features.
And yes, just like I dished out about $700 for my S7, I'll probably dish out $800+ for my next phone, whether it is a Galaxy S10 or an iPhone XI, which will largely depend on Apple offering a model of the XI with the Qualcomm X20 and 4x4 MIMO. If they go all Intel, yeah, to hell with them and I'll stay on Samsung's bloated phones just for the Qualcomm X20 or X24.
So that brings me to my last point. Phone manufacturers have forgotten that our pocket computers need a good signal. At least Apple seems to have forgotten about that. While most other manufacturers use entirely Qualcomm radios, Apple's stupid little feud with Qualcomm is resulting in Apple selling a lot of iPhones that suck at actually getting a signal. The Qualcomm iPhones are pretty good, but they are way behind in radio technology due to Intel being way behind.
We started at $500 on the OG iPhone, and then it jumped to $650 and stayed there for what, 6 or 7 years? Every high end smartphone was $650. Technology, in theory, should get cheaper, and yet now the high end devices have crept up even higher, with the typical high end smartphone starting at $700 and often $800, depending on the model. The iPhone X pushed it to $1000, and now we seem to be going up from there.
To Apple's credit, they do have really good longevity, which is something that a lot of people don't consider when buying a phone. Between their industry-leading in-store service to replace batteries that have worn out, or repair the damage when the occasional kludgy moron thought it was a good idea to walk about with a naked iPhone and broke a screen, and their long software update support cycle, it's much more realistic to keep an iPhone going for 4-5 years than it is for virtually any Android device.
Meanwhile, in the midrange phone department, you can buy a really nice phone like the Moto G for $250, and there are great options in the $400 to $500 range. However, carriers just aren't carrying most of these devices, and often cripple the unlocked phones by witholding VoWiFi and sometimes VoLTE support.
Most consumers would be perfectly happy with a $250-$400 Android phone or a $500 iPhone if Apple would just make such a thing. At the same time, with the various new spectrum coming online, buying a year old phone is a stupid idea, due to all the new banding, and the iPhone still hasn't caught up with B14 and B71, which it completely missed in 2017.
For the pricing, I blame the installment plans in the US market. Installment plans are selling phone to people who cannot afford them, and is making everyone think in dollars per month, not the actual price they are paying for stuff. If people actually had to buy their phones outright up front, then I think the prices would come way down, and the manufacturers would be focusing more on value and longevity than on the flashiest most ridiculous features.
And yes, just like I dished out about $700 for my S7, I'll probably dish out $800+ for my next phone, whether it is a Galaxy S10 or an iPhone XI, which will largely depend on Apple offering a model of the XI with the Qualcomm X20 and 4x4 MIMO. If they go all Intel, yeah, to hell with them and I'll stay on Samsung's bloated phones just for the Qualcomm X20 or X24.
So that brings me to my last point. Phone manufacturers have forgotten that our pocket computers need a good signal. At least Apple seems to have forgotten about that. While most other manufacturers use entirely Qualcomm radios, Apple's stupid little feud with Qualcomm is resulting in Apple selling a lot of iPhones that suck at actually getting a signal. The Qualcomm iPhones are pretty good, but they are way behind in radio technology due to Intel being way behind.
I am so with you on this front. I mean they even crippled the Qualcomm models after people discovered the difference in performance. And not only do they let the customers pay for their lawsuit action movie, recent rumors also mentioned pulling in MediaTek as a modem supplier, which is just a bad joke.
They did it with the iPhone 6 (cheaper aluminium) and now they try again to cheapen the quality so the margin runs higher. Just because they gamble that regular folks will just settle with bad signals as if it couldn‘t get better with a different modem.
And the funniest part is that the Qualcomm modems, even after being crippled, still are faster and hold a better signal than the Intel ones. MediaTek? They're known for Wal-Mart prepaid phones. There's nothing wrong with bringing technology to the masses at affordable prices, but that's literally the polar opposite of Apple's market position. Honestly, more people probably care about urban performance with MIMO on crowded networks, while I care about rural performance at the cell edge where I'm 5 miles from a tower in Michigan or upstate New York or Maine or somewhere, but either way, Qualcomm outperforms Intel by a huge margin.
What gets me is that no one even talks about these devices getting a good signal, and most reviews I read don't do extensive testing. It is hard, since the major media publications are in NYC, where you can't get to the edge of a cell, since you're already on the next one or the one after that or a small cell or DAS or who knows what you're connected to, but they really need to take a drive upstate or to PA or NJ and go into some more suburban/rural areas and test relative cell edge performance, as well as performance in moderate signal areas inside of big box stores and the like. Subway testing would also be useful, and it is in some ways similar to cell edge performance, with Qualcomm blowing Intel out of the water. Reception is one of the most important things a phone can do, and yet no one seems to care about it.
You'd think that AT&T and T-Mobile would care more too, as it makes their network look bad when a Verizon iPhone has a signal and an AT&T iPhone doesn't, and both carriers are on the same tower, offering the same coverage, but the Verizon iPhone has Qualcomm and the AT&T iPhone has Intel.
I believe that if Sprint wasn't in the picture, Apple would have gone 100% Intel on the iPhone 8, and then they all would have performed equally as poorly. They didn't have B14 or B71, which are upcoming and new, so dumping CDMA wouldn't have been a big deal for them on Verizon.
For the amount we use our phones, $1000 is a great value. People pay money managers 2% of their portfolio value to underperform the S&P 500.
People waste so much money on cars, it’s unreal. Food, vacations, paying too much for insurance, electricity, etc.
Smartphones are a great value relative to their utility and relative to other products that are expensive or fee driven.
I see what you're saying in terms of how much we use our phones, but not everyone is able or willing to spend that much money on other luxury items. If the people who were buying $800 phones were only the ones with nice portfolios, fancy cars, and a travel log spanning the globe, then phone financing plans would not exist, as they would simply pay cash for their phones.
The industry is selling $800 phones to people who either don't realize how much they are spending, or can't afford them in the first place. Most of those folks would be perfectly happy with a $500 iPhone if Apple would make such a thing, or a $250-$400 Android phone.
There's also a good argument to be made that a mid-range phone is good enough for most people. Most people just don't need a lot of the high end features. If I were making a phone for typical people, I'd spend on the camera and put in really good network connectivity, up to date LTE banding, etc, but definitely cut back on the screen and processor, as most people don't need a supercomputer with a 4k display in their pocket.
They'd be able to if they controlled their spending in other parts of their lives. People waste so much money, it's unbelievable. And a lot of it is just paying too much for a commodity or on things that give them zero or even negative benefit, like portfolio fees.
Apple makes a $349, btw.