Web showered in golden iPhone 5S vid glory - but is it all a DISTRACTION? A video has emerged online demonstrating what may or may not be a gold champagne-hued iPhone 5S and blue plastic 5C, both the next models lined up for Apple's smartmobe family. The launch of the iOS 7 handsets is scheduled for 10 September. Corroborating rumours suggest we'll see a flagship 5S - available in a champagne- …
Apparently not obviously enough for you.
DrStrangeLug's comment parodies the way that Apple often acts and/or is treated as though it invented things like the MP3 player, smartphone, etc, rather than merely launching commercially and critically successful versions. JDX's comments parody the image of an Apple fan as genuinely believing the invention myth, and of Apple announcing each new iteration of a product as revolutionary when it's merely a minor step forwards.
The clues were: DrStrangeLug's abstract description of a desktop computer, and JDX's singling out of 1997's iMac — the first big Jobs launch that did a lot to create the modern Apple — as the original computer.
For extra amusement, lurker appears to think JDX is being serious and, apparently, so do you. I further found it amusing that, given the level of debate around here, it's unclear whether the down votes are from anti-Apple people not getting the joke or pro-Apple people taking things too reverently.
I haven't specifically checked the schedules but there are probably some sitcoms on BBC3/CBS (delete as per your side of the Atlantic) this week that will cater to those that need this level of explanation.
This post has been deleted by its author
iGlass might be a bit close in name... I like the pun of calling it iWear.
I'm not convinced we'll see fingerprint scanning on the 5S, or at all until they can actually make it do more than replace a lock code... integrate it as your iTunes purchase authentication and by implication use it in a wallet to order pizza without ever using a password.
That seems to need more infrastructure to me.
Wow, mate, you're in trouble!
If anyone at Apple likes that idea it will soon have already been invented and trademarked and you'll get sued for now previously later using it without in the future asking permission to do so first.
Totally apart from that: I looked at the video at must say that the new iPhone 5s in champagne* is so innovative, beautiful and a creative breakthrough that I'm sure it'll outsell all former iPhones!
*Will the colour really be called champagne? Just wondering, because the French will try to kick off a major fuss when their fizzy wine makers have to rename their products. And no, not all that unlikely:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-takes-on-German-cafe-over-logo.html
"*Will the colour really be called champagne? Just wondering, because the French will try to kick off a major fuss when their fizzy wine makers have to rename their products. And no, not all that unlikely:"
I think they may have a little more difficulty in forcing a rename upon an entire region of France!
And besides; Champagne as a product name is already a protected term as a regional produce, with makers in other locations having to label their product as either sparkling or champagne-style wine.
is the fact that the backshells of both the alu and the plastic versions look basically identical, even from the inside. Which means that the cheaper one probably has very much the same innards as the more expensive one (probably a cheaper camera, no fingerprint sensor and less storage though).
Apple is in a uncomfortable position here: They need to cover the cheaper ranges just to make sure that their market share isn't going down too far (which would mean bad things for iOS support everywhere), but since the margins on a cheaper iPhone will be much smaller they must make sure that enough people still buy the expensive versions. This means they have to make the cheaper iPhone look a bit cheap but they can't make it too shabby since people will buy something entirely else then. This is a delicate operation, no doubt.
But if the cheaper iPhone will be still a decent device this is bound to be a success. I know of several people who're just waiting for an excuse to finally get an iPhone and I doubt these are random exceptions. Being able to opt for a not-so-expensive (and still brand-new) one will work totally fine here, I guess. "Not giving in" to Apple's premium pricing is a huge source of reluctance for many people and a cheaper iPhone gives them a (perceived) way around that bump. So they will pay twice as much as for a Nexus 4 and it will still feel like a victory... (they also probably will get a camera that doesn't suck, a speaker that isn't on the back and a battery that doesn't need charging in the afternoon).
Apple don't care about market share, the only share they care about is the profit share, and they take like majority of it! Samsung et all can keep on scrabberling around for the chicken feed, but they make money on the handsets, Apple makes money on the hardware and the software. All the android manufacturers are doing is pushing whatever remaining profit there is to Google!
"Apple don't care about market share, the only share they care about is the profit share, and they take like majority of it!"
Yes, but the profit share will not continue to be as it is as soon as iOS will be a second choice everywhere. Apple has totally failed to get a foot onto the ground in India and China and many other countries. Why do you think people should pay a premium for Apple hardware if they don't get local apps and local content and whatever? See: They just don't. Maintaining profits at the cost of market share is like winning a battle at the cost of losing the war.
All this "Apple doesn't need market share, it just needs profits!" is incredibly silly. Apple has the profits it has because it had the market share to basically rule the market for apps and developers and content providers. There's a lag of years involved here, so diminishing market share doesn't immediately translate into less support, but in the long run it will sure as fuck do exactly that. And other than others Apple will understand that very well.
Just look at the iPod back then and iTunes and the music industry: Apple could basically dictate the conditions because the iPod was a near monopoly and they were the only game in town. Compare that to books and movies now: Apple is not the only game in town and they just get laughed out of the room if they try to dictate the conditions.
But of course you're somewhat right: If Apple could one day sell just one iPhone a year, for a price of 50 billion dollars or so, the profits would still be there without any market share. Won't happen though.
Apple desperately needs market share and making people think they don't just serves the purpose to not show how desperate they really are about that.
Just look at Apple's stock price: It's falling despite high profits because the market share falls and this means that the confidence in Apple's future is shrinking which means that people don't expect the stock to rise again which means they rather sell than buy which means the stock price falls.
If you ask me, Apple has totally failed in keeping up the distance to the competition. The 2013 iPhone should have been 4 mm thick, with the SoC integrated on the display and a battery glued onto the back of this, all of this waterproof, wireless charging and a low-power BT headset thrown in with the box. Instead they hardly did any R&D, made themselves believe that Apple is great because it is Apple and are now just a smartphone vendor amongst lots of others with very little they can do much better than others. What a waste of resources, really. With the money they have piling up they could have done miracles if they would've put it to work.
This is my problem with Apple. With billions of dollars just sitting in the bank, they get lazy, elongate the iPhone 4 with a 4" screen, change a little of this and that, give it LTE and call it an "all new" product? The 5S will be another lazy incrementally upgraded product that doesn't even approach the real innovation that they could do if Jobs was still there. Better battery life. A bigger screen (4.7"). Wireless charging. Anything NEW to give us a "One more Thing" moment at the end of the yawn fest Keynotes, would be an improvement. Instead, everyone is going Ga Ga over a plastic iPhone that may or may not be a real product (and if it is, it is unlikely to be sold in the developing nations). and an iPhone 5S who's biggest deal is a Champagne color?
On the other hand, maintaining market share at the expense of profits is just plain stupid, if your goal is to run a profitable company. It works for Apache, because they don't aim to make profits - which is all very fine, but not everyone can afford to do that. It notably doesn't work for Microsoft, whose XBox arm has cost them billions over the years, and who bleed money in China and India for exactly this reason - they don't pay enough attention to the profit margin.
Apple has a strong presence in the US, Europe, Australia, Japan, the Middle East - basically, where the money is. It hasn't tried to conquer the Chinese or Indian markets because, in its (pretty well informed) opinion, there's not a lot of money to be made there. That will change - probably within the next ten years - and then no doubt we'll see a change in focus. But for now, they're happy to let Android blaze the trail and make the mistakes.
That's their MO. Don't pioneer - it's too risky. Let someone else feel the market out first, then steal it.
It's worth noting that Apple have been doing cheaper lower end models for years - the older iphone models. The other day, I saw phones4U advertising ancient iphone 4s (that's 4s, not 4Ss) at £15/month, for example. And this article talks about using a "4S innards", so it's going to be lower spec too.
If there are people who want to "finally" get an iphone, they can already do so. You could probably pick an original iphone out the trash, but quite why anyone would want such an ancient dumb phone in 2013 is beyond me.
So launching a lower end model doesn't change anything. It might mean they can better optimise things that are aimed at a lower end from the start, but the flipside is that it no longer appears to the fools who think they're getting a "high end" phone, because it's a cut down ("cheap plastic"!) model from the start.
"So they will pay twice as much as for a Nexus 4"
On that note, interesting to see the massive price cut on the already excellent value Nexus 4. Just £160 for the 8GB model.
"Apple made its mark by being innovative and first to market.."
Care to tell us what market they were first to? Smartphones? MP3 players? Tablet computers? PCs? Laptops?
They are brilliant marketeers and know how to exploit existing markets, there is little doubt about that. To be first to market, you usually have to actually invent something. Apple don't invent.
Touch-screen smartphones and proper tablets (not just a computer stuck in a touchscreen unit)? Siri? iTunes?
First to mainstream market on those, no? Someone selling a few mp3s online doesn't really count, and I think modern tablets are different enough from their predecessors to count. And a fully touch-screen phone is /was a pretty bold move.
"Touch-screen smartphones and proper tablets (not just a computer stuck in a touchscreen unit)? Siri? iTunes?"
Touch-screen - nope (though if you said multitouch, you'd be right). They didn't popularise it either (the most successful smartphone of all time is from 2009, and a touchscreen - it wasn't made by Apple, but by Nokia).
Proper tablets - by which you mean smartphones rather than computers in a touchscreen. Well, they already existed for years - most notably, smartphones. There were also "media players" which had larger screens and did Internet, videos, apps (including ones that run Android in 2009). In the early 2000s, we had PDAs. Tablets that weren't "computers in a touchscreen unit" existed for years, we just called them by a different name, and originally, "tablet PC" was only used for PCs. That's not being first, that's playing with dictionary definitions.
Siri? A trademark for voice recognition that existed for years on other platforms. And even Siri itself wasn't invented by Apple, but bought out.
Yes, they were first to market with itunes, that's because itunes is an Apple product, just like Nokia were first to market with Lumia phones, or MS are first to market with Windows.
"Someone selling a few mp3s online doesn't really count"
Aha, here we have it - Apple were first, except for those who did it before them. If we can discount those who sell less, then we can discount the early iphones, as Apple sold far less phones than several other companies. We can discount MacOS's GUI, as Windows sold far more. And we can discount ipads, when Android tablets are now starting to sell far more. We can also discount the first ipod as it sold poorly compared to the competition (it wasn't until they added support for Windows that it started to sell better).
"And a fully touch-screen phone is /was a pretty bold move."
Not as bold as those doing it in the previous year.
Apple do invent
they invented an MP3 players that was not a piece of rubbish.
they invented a consumer OS that was not a piece of crap to look at and use
they invented a business computer that did not look like it has been cut from a chunk of blamange
they invented a tablet that just worked and did not break your arm lifting it
They invented a smartphone , that was easy to use, sexy as hell
etc etc etc
Say what you like about them, but if they were rubbish they would not sell the amounts they do. You say its marketing all marketing. Marketing gets you in the door, marketing does not get you repeat custom, being the best at what you do does!
@LPF... by your logic then...
Boeing invented the plane,
Ford invented the motor car...
You see, taking someone else's idea and polishing it does not make you an inventor.
Oh, and no phone has ever been sexy. If you find phones sexy, you need to get out more.
"Taking someone else's idea and polishing it" is precisely what makes you an inventor. Polish is important. In the end, the only real difference between an inventor and a crackpot is -- whether people buy your product.
"... [A]ll ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament. ... It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing -- and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite --that is all he did. " - Mark Twain
Even from here I can see your spittle flying. Calm down. This is not a dedicated Apple fan forum, you will always get the odd upsetting post from someone who doesn't agree with the right point of view!
Maybe http://www.applefansite.com/ would suit your taste better?
"Apple do invent
they invented an MP3 players that was not a piece of rubbish.
they invented a consumer OS that was not a piece of crap to look at and use
they invented a business computer that did not look like it has been cut from a chunk of blamange
they invented a tablet that just worked and did not break your arm lifting it
They invented a smartphone , that was easy to use, sexy as hell
etc etc etc
Say what you like about them, but if they were rubbish they would not sell the amounts they do. You say its marketing all marketing. Marketing gets you in the door, marketing does not get you repeat custom, being the best at what you do does!"
WOW, you're so cheap you can't see how you're over a barrel and shafted from behind. Your inability to see how you are being manipulated is only to be expected.
Read your waffle! You'll easily see that Apple din't invent any on of those things. They just made them attractive to the lowest common denominator, and look, it worked!
So what makes that different to any other company? I have an mp3 player that's great. I prefer Windows and the Linux distribution's looks to OS X "big row of icons" fisher-price appearance - but really this is a matter of opinion. If you mean in the past, then classic MacOS started off as a horrendous black and white affair.
Colour of computers is also a matter of opinion - I prefer platforms therefore that let me choose from a large range of computers, rather than one that limits me to "gray". It also seems an odd criticism, considering how tacky the light up fridge magnet logo looks like.
PDAs, smartphones, media players were all "tablets", that were light to use. The ones which were heavy were full blown PCs, which the ipad is not. We do now have such full blown PCs in tablet form, but it's not from Apple.
The iphone wasn't a smartphone, or even a feature phone, since it didn't run apps. I've found Symbian, Android, and feature phones all easy to use. "Sexy" is not a word I personally use for hardware - again you are appealing to opinion. I've loved the look of entirely black devices from Nokia and Samsung. Better than something covered in a noticable corporate logo, which doesn't scream "sexy" to me.
"if they were rubbish they would not sell the amounts they do"
But hang on - you base your argument on the competition being rubbish, and Apple being the first to produce something better. But how do you explain the amounts sold for Windows, or how many other smartphones were being sold in 2007 by Nokia etc?
Care to tell us what market they were first to?
Sure, the were the first to market with
A decent smart phone
A decent tablet
A decent mp3 player
Before Apple came along all of these were at best "minor", Apple took them from a few million pounds worth of sales annually, to literally billions.
Apple aren't particularly innovative and usually aren't first to market.
However what they did do that turned the entire phone industry on its head was to produced a polished product that brought together various innovations from elsewhere all in one package and create a well supported ecosystem for it all to work in. There have been more than a few hiccups a long the way, both on the software and hardware front, but overall the iPhones have been well engineered and have given users a smooth experience that they appreciate.
Compare this with the "super feature" phones that were out at the same time, with their arbitrary PC software packages that often didn't work with the phone that they came with, had all kinds of odd foibles by way of supported applications, had effectively closed "app stores" or none at all and often felt like you were fighting the device rather than using it. Not that all devices were like that, but the majority seemed that way.
Apple's marketing is, however, very good although it's slipped recently with much more adept competition and a market that is pretty much saturated in many regions.
Apple aren't particularly innovative and usually aren't first to market.However what they did do that turned the entire phone industry on its head was to produced a polished product that brought together various innovations from elsewhere all in one package and create a well supported ecosystem for it all to work in.
This.
Apple do not "innovate" in terms of producing something entirely new. What they do is take something which already exists and make it "nicer".
MP3 players existed before the iPod, but the iPod was more consumer-friendly, easier to use, nicer looking...
Touch screen smart phones existed before the iPhone. Most of them sucked, some were OK, but the iPhone (in general) improved the usability for the general consumer.
Tablets existed before the iPad, but they hadn't been done for quite a while when the iPad came out. It brought up to date technology into the arena, along with what they had learned from the iPhone, and produced, again, and easier to use product.
That is what Apple do well. I hope they continue to do so.
I honestly don't care about any Apple releases any more. So much hype and marketing spin to make you dizzy. Overpriced and flawed product, that they refuse to take responsibility for until AppleCare complaints rack up into the six digit range. Who gives a flying (insert favourite verb here) about a different color piece of crap. They set up their releases like holy events to the point where you are expecting a guy wearing white silks with a smoking brazier to walk through the audience waving it while humming a Gregorian chant.
Apple, put out a decent phone with usable and accessible OS at a reasonable price. People will buy it. No need for the dog and pony every six months.
Hmm, other's events are every bit as tacky (usually even more so) than Apple's, you just never see much about them. And Apple releases a new phone not every six months, but every 12 months and something really new usually only every 24 months.
Really, you don't need to like Apple or Apple's products but most of what some people hate about Apple seems to be coming more from their own perception than from Apple itself. If you'd stop soaking up tabloids like the Reg and just look at what's really there you'd realize that pretty quickly. After all, ALL the rumours and whatnot about plastic and colored and golden iPhones and fingerprint sensors and so on are coming NOT from Apple. Apple will have an event introducing their new phone(s) and then maybe a TV ad or two and that's it. Everything else is you and the media happily teasing and feeding your prejudices for ad views. You're every bit a victim to that as Apple's customers are victims to Apple's hype, but of course you can't see this.
Interesting that RFID gets mentioned in the article, it's another example of a tech that hasn't really gained momentum in mobile phones. This is where Apple used to make a difference, for good or for bad. If Steve Jobs saw a struggling technology that he liked, then he'd support and push it and that tech would take off, such was the clout of the iPhone. Of course, if SJ didn't like the tech, then it wasn't supported on the iPhone, which a few years ago was the kiss of death.
However, things have changed now, Apple are no longer calling the shots. We've got Android and even Windows Phone taking big bites out of iPhone's market share and what Apple decides to get behind with its latest iPhone iteration is no longer on the golden ticket it used to be. These keynotes used to be more that just what the latest iPhone was going to do/cost/look like, they used to be insights into the way that technology was going, steered by what SJ liked and what he didn't.
so we all know that iShineys and Macs just work..
My arse.
TechCrunch are reporting that Arabic text can crash your Apple
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/29/bug-in-apples-coretext-allows-specific-string-of-characters-to-crash-ios-6-os-x-10-8-apps/
The text is gonna be all over the Twitterverse and people are gonna be sitting outside starbucks, changing the ssid of their hotspot to crash iwhatevers .
...the people moan that iOS didn't do anything original and yet repeatedly fail to point out a phone that could have multiple smoothly scrolling windows (that's 'smoothly' as in how an Amiga did it, not 'smoothly' as in how an Atari ST did it) etc etc and a finger-orientated UI.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
