Is anyone really shocked? Here, I'll write out the tech media "design pattern" for a new Apple product.<p>1. Hype up killer pie-in-the-sky feature that makes zero economic sense for Apple (see: retina iPad, 4G iPhone with larger screen). Traffic spikes.<p>2. As launch approaches, use "inside sources" to mock up designs (Macrumors's "we <i>think</i> the 5 will look like this"). Report on supply chain behavior, leaked case designs, etc. Traffic spikes.<p>3. Live blog the launch event. Toss in snarky one-liners ("Siri? beam me up Scotty m i rite lolol") because you and your readers are too cool to watch the keynote but <i>I guessssss</i> we'll tune in anyway. Servers overload with traffic.<p>4. Write editorials complaining about how pie-in-the-sky features from #1 don't arrive. Cover your ass by reporting "supply chain delays" from unnamed sources. Hits among disillusioned gadget connoisseurs (heh) spike.<p>4.5. AAPL falls 2-3% even though the product will break sales records again. Yawn.<p>5. Break for a week or two to avoid tech journalism burnout, then repeat for next product. (e.g. iPad HD supply chain rumors in Nov/Dec). Traffic spikes.<p>Whatever.<p>EDIT: My favorite was the rumor about the iPad 2 getting a HD screen. The next best screen on the market (the Xoom) was like <i>140 ppi</i>. Why would Apple drop $n >> 0 per iPad when competitors' screens are relatively abysmal and the iPad would sell out?<p>Anyone who bought that rumor displayed a serious unfamiliarity with the concepts of marginal benefit and marginal cost.<p>EDIT 2: Go read the child comment by chugger. It's all about the short positions.
I'm surprised nobody is pointing out similarity to Intel's very successful Tick-Tock release cycle - release a new architecture on tick and refine the process on tock<p>The benefits for Apple are manifold, but the two most obvious are:<p>1. Keep expectations sane - they can't release a radical new industrial design of superbly high quality every year.<p>2. Give customers on a 2 year contract predictable value rather than leaving them always waiting for the next awesome device
The real reason Apple called it an "iPhone 4S" is that they want to start selling the 4 to the large segment of the market shy of the cutting edge.<p>Plenty of people will buy something called a "4" when the state of the art is a "4S" -- there's no embarrassment there: "Oh, my discount phone is almost as good; it's just missing an S. And it's not like my friends will be able to tell that I'm using last year's model. It looks the same."<p>But if the latest model is called the "5", then suddenly there's a stigma to having the 4. You're stuck one full number behind the Joneses. And everybody knows, because you're still using the phone with the unfashionable flat back while everyone else has the slick new teardrop design that's all the rage.
Saw the common reaction to the iPhone 5 disappointment summarised loosely as: "If this new product looks like the last one, how will people tell that I'm superior to them?"
I showed my friends the iPhone 4S today without mentioning how some people online are disappointed and they loved it, they aren't geeks and were part of the group that said the iPad was useless and just a big iPod.<p>Most of the UK news outlets i've seen haven't reported it as a flop of any kind just reported it as an update.<p>People seem really excited by Siri, they thought it was impossible and I heard similar thoughts on the radio. Not sure if it's just the tech news bubble or that people love Apple.<p>I got all of the features I wanted but didn't get the design changes. I'm glad Apple didn't call it 4G as technically they can now as what makes 4G was changed once all of these phones called themselves 4G.
I think we all saw what we wanted to see. I wanted an iPhone 5 and journalists wanted to write about an iPhone 5 so that was the story we all focused on. Looking back there are multiple signs that the 4S was going to be the only new model introduced, but just like Fox Mulder, we all wanted to believe.
The advantage of operating at Apple scale is the ability to buy components in vast quantities, giving Apple better deals and exclusivity that their competitors can't match. The downside is that they <i>have</i> to buy at those scales. Apple can't afford to ship anything that contains components they can't source by the million.<p>If one HTC handset is delayed by six months thanks to part shortages, that's a problem for them. They have plenty of other products to fall back on, though. If an Apple product is delayed six months, it's a disaster. Apple would lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer a PR holocaust. So when I see rumors like the Retina iPad 3, I always filter them by asking, "Can Apple get that part in increments of a million units?" Given that, it should be very rare for Apple to ship the first product containing any given component.
One of these days I really must create a bunch of alter egos and make them predict different things. Then I can style the remaining ego that predicted the right thing into a prophet and make big money.
It's called phased obsolescence.<p>It is a terrible time to find a replacement for a lost ipod. I've been waiting until today's Apple event before getting anything. I was ready to be pleasantly surprised.<p>Turns out Apple has just enough market share and momentum to waive their hands around for renewed sales. Why break ground when you can still make great profits off the old stuff?<p>Nano is a software update. Touch has a new color (wowsy!). Phone has speaking app installed, a slightly faster chip. It is new technology at the slowest drip possible. Give me a small ipod with tons of storage. Easy enough, right? Look at the cost of memory these days. You can buy a 32GB SD card for $40. But Apple won't do that. The whole iCloud business looms. The iCloud is just a way to capture and sell you data. So they provide iTunes, integration with everything, then reel in the fishes. They haven't updated the capacity of any of their devices for four years. The ipod nano no longer has a camera, no longer shows videos, has a smaller screen than ever before, and the maximum capacity remains 16GB. But they come in a dazzling array of colors; come and get them while they last!!!<p>Should I wait another 6 months? 12 months?<p>I've thought about getting one of the old nanos, but I'm learning something about the mac I use for work. The computer itself is awesome, even though it is about 7 years old. It is actually faster and more stable than the 64-bit PC I got a few months ago. The thing is, fewer and fewer programs work on it. Google Earth was automatically updated and no longer works. A bunch of other programs are the same. This old architecture (PowerPC) doesn't support any new Adobe products or really any thing else that is new. Even browsers are starting to act weird. But it isn't the hardware, its great. It is that new software doesn't communicate with it anymore.<p>So, I suspect the same will be true with these mac devices. Software will be designed specifically for new devices. So on older devices, either you won't be able to get the newest software or software will be automatically updated and cease to work. For instance, the click wheel now only exists on the ipod classic. Once the classic is discontinued, you can bet that any ipod with a click wheel will start having problems with any new OS. And they update the OS at least once a year. So you can't go back, even if the device remains superior.<p>Welcome to Apple's vision of the future, the - phase it out, throw it away, buy it new - society.
The problem for big (and small) media is that hype (and its counterpart FUD) drives page views. Even good writers are more apt to fall for the "big" story even if they know it sounds fishy. Wishful thinking and greed (for clicks) leads to speculation run rampant.
It seems like, with most of the tech media, if they had called it a 5 it would have gone over better. The A5 processor in this thing is nothing to sneeze at. I am hopeful about the new antenna system, but will need to see it in action in a rural environment. Never mind the adding of Sprint and the price reduction on the 3GS and 4.<p>The screen is dense enough pixel wise, and consumers don't have to wait for new cases, bumpers, etc. since the iPhone 4 stuff works well. It is a good thing for consumers.<p>I am more and more convinced most of these stories were pre-written as soon as the 4S designation was found in iTunes. I am particularly down on All Things D and feel their reporting is pretty much useless.
Wait a minute. What's all this "the iPhone 5 didn't arrive because LTE chips weren't good enough" ?<p>It wasn't mandatory for an "iPhone 5" to have LTE in the first place. Just because it wouldn't have had LTE ,doesn't mean they couldn't have made an "iPhone 5".<p>And if it's all about economics, then I guess it makes even more sense to keep the same design for 3, or even 4 years, no? That's probably what would happen if the iPhone had no competition, seeing how even with strong competition from Android, they still don't seem to care about using the same phone over and over again.<p>What's funny is that when HTC releases a more "refined" design (but still basically the same), the media is all "oh, same old design from HTC". But when Apple does it, "well, they are just refining a work of art!" or "It's the inside that counts!"<p>Yeah right. Most people buy phones for 3 main reasons:<p>1) design - and they don't want the same old one over and over again. It's no coincidence the iPhone 3GS was the most disappointing iPhone launch so far, too - until now that is<p>2) price - people will buy the phone they can afford<p>3) value - the most bang for the buck
I expected the 5 but I really admire how Apple stuck to their guns. With the CEO change any other company would have rushed out a new design to keep analysts happy considering the hardware boost (it's a bigger jump than 3S was to 4). While I prefer a rounder design personally I also don't want a mediocre iPhone. Apple won't refresh a design until everything is right. Also people fail to realize that the 4S comes with an improved antenna so they did improve the things that matter.<p>The downfall of Japanese manufacturers was adding features for features sake and switching up design to manufacture demand for the "new" model. Sony would have some nice products with promise but they always managed to screw something up with every iteration, never quite getting it right or abandoning product lines with passionate fans altogether. They're all struggling to stay alive now. The Koreans are doing the same only a little better (more innovation and focus on technology but still the same frequent changes).<p>When the dust settles I think you'll see that people who purchase or upgrade to 4S will be more than satisfied with the end product.
Isn't there also something about a promise Verizon gave the government when they won their LTE spectrum? That all devices on the network would be open to any application? I recall Google using this as a club over the iPhone 5 on Verizon.
The real reason (according to a CNET blog) is that iPhone 4 users are still locked into their 2-year contracts. The iPhone 4S is a good intermediate product which might attract former iPhone users (out of contract) or Droid users.
I think the reason there is no iPhone 5 is becoz the LTE / TD-LTE / WiMAX hybrid-chip is not yet ready. When iPhone 5 comes out it is gonna run on Verizon LTE, Sprint WiMAX and China Mobile TD-LTE networks.
some interesting points:
*
More than 90% of Americans still don’t own an iPhone. Heck, two-thirds of Americans still don’t own a smartphone. So the iPhone 4 design isn’t “old” to them.
*<p><a href="http://www.splatf.com/2011/10/iphone-4s/" rel="nofollow">http://www.splatf.com/2011/10/iphone-4s/</a>
The guy completely misses the point. The only feature missing was a bigger screen, not LTE. The reason there was no screen is because apple pissed off samsung. Whay would samsung give apple third gen amoled?