The iPhone 15 has a Goldilocks issue: Too big or too small. Maybe a case will make it just right

The iPhone 15 is predictably lovely – but the larger models may be too much to handle, and the smaller machines feel a little undersized. The Register today popped into an Apple Store in Sydney, Australia, to sample the new smartphones within moments of their public release. Your correspondent has done this before – because …

[David 132]

Recovering fanboy here.

Thanks for this piece. A couple of thoughts popped into my empty cranium as I read it, though...

"...and that I intended only to browse, I was advised that not purchasing an iPhone 15 today could mean I have to wait an unspecified length of time to do so as stock was in short supply..."

Mmm, yeah. For some reason this reminded me of that Apple-parody scene in Futurama where they go to buy Eye-phones, and Fry is told by the store clerk "We might have one left..." - as he reaches behind the curtain, where machines are cranking out thousands and thousands of the phones. Is it more depressing that Apple are still trying the ol' "Artificial scarcity" ploy, or that people are still falling for it?

"...Video flowed and rippled without a hint of stutter."

I should bloody well hope so. Playback of video has been a solved problem on phones for years now, hasn't it?

(This is not a critique of the article, by the way, or of your kindly-shared thoughts on the iPhone 15... rather, I'm just depressed at witnessing yet another product launch hype cycle!)

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

Having to wait an unspecified amount of time to _not_ purchase an iPhone? Sounds good to me; still waiting to not purchase mine.

[Ashto5]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

In the Q behind you buddy

[Anomalous Cowturd]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

I was an early non-adopter.

I didn't get an original iPhone, and I've been one of the first to not buy a new iPhone every year since. ;o)

[John Riddoch]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

If Apple hadn't made them an O2 exclusive when they came out in the UK, I'd probably have climbed aboard the iPhone hype train. (Un)fortunately, my experience of O2 was poor signal at my parents' house, but my work Vodafone was fine. As such, being tethered to O2 meant I didn't get one and wound up on the Android path. Which has probably saved me 100s of pounds over the years...

[FlamingDeath]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

Choo choo, all aboard the marketing hype train.

The destination is anything we can convince you of

[werdsmith]

Re: Recovering fanboy here.

I will wait about 4 years and then consider a used one. I have an iPhone XS and I expect it to be still be my main phone in 2027.

Unless 4G is switched off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

They would be significantly lovelier if we could do away with the over-sized camera module that destroy those lovely surfaces.

I do hope we snap out of this vision of the handheld device as a do-everything tool. If phones were phones, and cameras were cameras, the world in the palm of you hand would be much more aesthetically pleasing.

I'd like to think that such a decoupling would also edge us towards a world that wasn't stacked full of ever growing storage subscriptions for pictures that we only look at during drunken reminiscences too?

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Yep. As a serious photographer, if I want a camera, I buy a camera. I realise not many think like that, though.

[breakfast]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Having a camera is great, but I would miss a lot of pictures if I had to have my real camera with me the whole time. My phone catches lots of things I would otherwise miss. Not to mention that a lot of photos are just useful - showing someone what a problem is so they can give you a quote on fixing it.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Yup, and I often use mine while turning wrenches in the garage. Pictures to show how something came apart, pictures of something I'm working on in a blind spot, ect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

As an unserious photographer who nonetheless still enjoys a nice prime lens and a real shutter click, phone cameras aren’t a replacement for DSLRs as much as for point-and-shoot cameras. It’s not uncommon for “real” photogs to carry both, but if I already have my phone anyway, it’s certainly a benefit to be able to forget about the point-and-shoot altogether.

I’d prefer to have physical dials for shutter speed and aperture, but I’m not going to turn my nose up at phone cameras that are every bit as good as equally expensive pro-grade point-and-shoot cameras.

[Catkin]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Personally, having used 1" compacts for a while, followed up by a DSLR if I have it and have the time to unleash it I've now settled upon a cropped sensor mirrorless with a telescopic pancake lens and a collection of primes and telephotos in my bag. The tipping point came when I sat down and actually compared the compact to the crop with the pancake, less than 10mm difference in any given dimension.

[werdsmith]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I have a nice mirrorless camera thing but I'm not inclined to take it everywhere. It's an encumbrance most of the time, won't go in a pocket, swings about on a strap.

For all the time readiness the phone has been a godsend.

[Catkin]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I don't take mine everywhere either, it was more that I stopped taking a compact.

[werdsmith]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

The compact camera itself is a compromised camera. Not much better than a good phone camera, nowhere near as good as a full frame or ever a 2/3.

DSLRs are going extinct very quickly now. The full frame mirrorless shows there is no need for flappy mirrors.

[Catkin]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Maybe a 1/2.3" sensor (though those still best the phone for optical zoom) but 1"ers deliver results that all the image processing in the world won't match on a phone camera, especially in low light. I've also yet to see a digital viewfinder that can match optical for focusing in low light, though auto zoom on focus can work better in decent light.

[doublelayer]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Most serious photographers I know have forgotten that the rest of us are not serious photographers. Some of us are not photographers at all. I find the camera on my phone useful only on the rare occasion that I want to document something. The pictures I take are much less likely to be described by "oh, what a beautiful picture of a landscape" and more "oh, someone will have to clean up that landscape".

There are many others who like to take pictures not just to document something, but still not for the same purposes you might have. If someone wants to have a bunch of pictures of their cat, they might not really need all of those pictures to be extremely artistic. The same is true if they want to record their friends, their holidays, their children, or a lot of other things.

Your camera is much better than mine. However, if I didn't have one on my phone, I'm much more likely to do without one than to buy something like you have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

As a photographer you'll also appreciate the adage that "the best camera is the one you have with you". Many a time I've been faced with a scene that I want to capture but have nothing but a phone on me as I'm reluctant to drag any form of SLR with me all the time although I do possess a RX100 which I probably should take out more. Due to this I plan to update my 11 to a 15 Pro as the tech (and AI photo touch ups) has moved on somewhat.

[katrinab]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I would prefer it if they had a camera strip like the Google Pixel phones. Then the phone will sit on the table without moving around, and slightly raised towards you.

I guess I will have to hand back my Apple Fan-girl card now ...

[Rich 2]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Indeed. If they insist on sticking a camera in the thing that sticks out from the back then why r make the entire phone thicker to accommodate the camera properly? And in the extra space, stick a bigger battery in?

That way, the phone lies flat and keeps working for longer too.

Another thing i don’t understand is why make the back out of glass? Everyone who buys one is going to stick the thing in a case anyway so you’re not going to see it anyway.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

The sad thing is you're also exactly describing my Pixel 7 Pro. Google are idiots too.

[katrinab]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

The reason the back isn't made out of metal is because of inductive charging. So the choices are glass, plastic, or maybe some sort of ceramic.

[Jan 0]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

>The reason the back isn't made out of metal is because of inductive charging.

Yeahbut we're savvy tech readers who wouldn't dream of wasting energy, so we don't think of that.

[Rich 2]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I know metal is not a good material - I’m not an idiot. But plastic? Cheaper and (more importantly) much more robust

[Dinanziame]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I think "cheaper" is the issue here. Not so much actually cheaper than "looks cheaper". Apple sells luxury, they can't exactly make it look cheap.

[Catkin]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

If Apple did a plastic back, it would probably be (entirely aesthetic) carbon fibre over ABS, because real composites generally feel a bit plasticy. Similar to how they went with a soft aluminium over a magnesium alloy in the mac books.

[doublelayer]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Apple's done plastic. They had plastic laptops and the early iPhones had plastic backs. The plastic they used was pretty easy to crack and didn't age well, so they decided to use something that looks nicer unless it's totally broken, safe in the knowledge that the people buying it would put a case on it so that probably wouldn't happen. If you're going for efficiency, a plastic back is just fine. If you're selling expensive items and have to convince people that they're luxury goods, it probably won't. The same reason that people wear diamonds when there are other rocks that look pretty is the reason they'll use materials for aesthetic reasons rather than just cost.

[Graham 32]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Agree about the camera bump. One thing the Google Pixel gets right is having a horizontal lump so it will sit on a table ok. I guess most phone designers never test on-table usage.

As for the backs, something with a bit of friction would be nice. Glass-backed phones love sliding everywhere. Mine will not stay on the arm of my sofa, even if it takes a few minutes before it moves. Perhaps a "skin" will fix it. (I've never used a phone case because if I wanted a bulkier phone I'd just buy a cheaper one.)

[Rich 2]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Genuine question here…

If you don’t stick your phone in a case, doesn’t it get scratched/bashed/dinged to buggery the first time you put it in a pocket with your keys?

[The man with a spanner]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

You don't put it in your pocket with your keys. You simply allocate a pocket as the phone pocket (mine is front right), and away you go.

[Lucy in the Sky (with Diamonds)]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Well, my answer is, Levis jeans have a little key pocket on the top right (from the user perspective). In the front left pocket I keep the wallet and the personal and work phones (yes, they scratch each other, but who cares about phones?), in the main front right pocket the actual camera and the handkerchief (white, pressed). The rear pockets I leave empty, for the pickpockets (public transport and side streets).

I carry a single key in ther key pocket that opens and starts the car, and the car carries a garage door opener that starts the home.

Someone at work wanted me to take a picture of something and send it to them, and when I explained that I usually transfer the memory stick to the PC once every month or so and can it wait until then?

Kind of drove them up the wall. They suggested that I might take the picture with a telephone. My laughter drove them further up the wall.

But, being helpful, I wrote the information they needed on a piece of paper with a pen. Technology that works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

All of the responses about trouser pockets are confounding when even the most plebeian dinner jackets have breast pockets, to say nothing of the ample stowage available in one’s tweeds for less civilized environments.

[Persona]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I agree with you. I think this issue comes about because some Apple design god initially decides how thick the phone should be and expects the camera design team to defy physics and fit the optics into that thickness. They can't so it sticks out. In time they might be able to do better with periscope based optics like some other brands do. These use the length of the phone to match up the optics focal length but Apples slightly too narrow width goal makes this design incredibly challenging.

[FIA]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Indeed. If they insist on sticking a camera in the thing that sticks out from the back then [...] Everyone who buys one is going to stick the thing in a case anyway so you’re not going to see it anyway.

That's why.

The camera bump gives the case some depth without having a shroud around the camera (ie, the case+phone tend to lie flat).

If the phone was flat the case would need an opening, which would need to be big enough to not encroach on the wide angle lens so many phones have these days.

[katrinab]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Being able to take a photo of a document and copy/paste the text is useful. You don't need an SLR for that, and the SLR wouldn't work as well anyway.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Gap in the market...

DSLR with phone functionality!

[Stork]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I know it is a joke but yes - or at least SW integration with your phone.

[Stork]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

What Camera makers have missed here is making it easier to get the photos off the effing camera - in far too many cased it involves shuffling around with cards or cables like 15 years ago; the SW integration is more often than not atrocious.

[Catkin]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Quite a few modern cameras do reasonably good WiFi content dumping these days. It's just that the lifespan of the average camera body is several times more than what Apple (and other smartphone manufacturers) want for their products.

That said, it really makes more sense to properly set up if you're a working professional than someone who won't fill a card over an entire holiday.

[Stork]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

I have a DSLR (Nikon d5300) with both GPS and WiFi. Never tried the latter, GPS far too slow and battery sucking for practical use.

Why not have an app and say Bluetooth that gives location to the camera and let you send photos (perhaps just jpeg)?

Thom Hogan has complained about this for ages, and even suggested it to the Japanese companies. But they are still HW people.

[werdsmith]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

Do the Japanese HW people not just suggest using Cascable or any of the other various solutions to this problem that already exist?

[GraXXoR]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

My Nikon Z7 does that. It has a companion app on my iPhone which sits in the background using one of the low energy Bluetooth protocols (not sure which one but it doesn’t impact battery life of either the phone or the camera to a degree that’s noticeable by me)

It does the following.

* Sends the correct time to the camera’s RTC.

* Sends current GPS location either whenever a photo is taken or at some minimum time interval to reduce battery use — This data is added to the photo’s metadata.

* Trickle receives 2MP versions of the photo to the iPhone’s photo gallery in the background via LE Bluetooth even with the camera switched “off”.

* It also has adhoc wifi mode which can send larger or full-size versions of the photos back to the photo gallery.

I never even imagained what a game changer it would be until I actually used it. My Z7 goes with me now far more than my smaller D3500.

[Stork]

Re: Phones are lovely but they'd be much better without cameras

That sounds great. Why did it take them so long is then the question, all the tech was available when my camera came out.

[okand]

They're all too big

I will hold on to my 13 mini until it can't be repaired anymore.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Re: They're all too big

I recently bought a vintage iPod touch off ebay (I'm an ipod fanatic, sorry).

It's the perfect size and weight, and ios 6 looks gorgeous. If Apple applied the iOS 6 look again and started to produce a new phone of that size, I'd be lining up to buy one. Makes my iPhone 13 mini look... well, huge, to be honest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They're all too big

The iPhone 15 looks a lot like a large iPhone SE (1st gen), my mobile of choice. With a 4" screen, it's the perfect size for me - basically unnoticeable in a trouser pocket. Sadly, when iOS 15 goes EOL it will no longer receive updates, so I'll be on the search for a replacement before too long. Not a bad run, all things considered, March 2016 until some time next year.

[ravenviz]

Re: They're all too big

Just don’t reboot it, you will lose all your apps. I think there is a lot of space for original iPhones with original apps still installed.

[Anonymous Coward]

After disclosing that I am a journalist

the plot thickens. They didn't probe about 'which title'? Didn't give their collegues behind 'that' looks and eyebrow signalling to check 'that' list? ;)

[Phones Sheridan]

Re: After disclosing that I am a journalist

I think posting a selfie is a mistake. That image will now be uploaded into the fruity image recognition database which will cause the sliding doors to slam shut any time he approaches an Apple Store.

[wobball]

While the world slowly turns n burns.

Maate, please grow up a bit and stop, just stop buying into the idea anyone needs this shiny crap refreshed on an annual basis!

Also, referring to a 2019 phone as 'vintage' is just plain dumb.

Moto G4 still going strong for me on all the things you'd want a smartphone to do tho I'd avoid selfies at our age.

[Crypto Monad]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

I didn't downvote you, but when did it last get an Android security update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

Manufacturers are using security updates to fool you into thinking you need a new device.

1- is your device truly affected by a security issue? Not all are, but CVE listings are very generic, particularly Apple CVE. They don't list affected software version or models. Your old iphone on IOS16 might not be affected but because IOS17 is now out they will only state that all models are affected and you should upgrade as soon as possible.

2- what is the likelihood vs impact? If there is a vulnerability in your PDF viewer, what is your risk? Do you regularly download or view PDFs? Apple security holes are arguably worse because you can't mitigate them with software, but on android you can have TrackerControl installed and block app access to the internet by default, block storage and other parameters within the OS

Security updates in the software industry are difficult enough to untangle, but on mobile phones it's more difficult. Most people don't need to worry about Security updates for old devices. For those paranoid, don't keep banking apps on the phone and don't have your email account registered on the email app, instead use webmail. The realistic risk of you being a target are negligible and even if you do get a PDF file with virus or remote execution attack, are you really going be targeted? 99.99999999% no, never. Any phone of any brand that gets taken at Russian or China customs control will be copyable and hackable anyway. They might not be able to hack it while you wait for it back, but they can definitely take a copy and await future exploits and future zero days to get to your data, with enough time and effort. Most normal people are trying to stop basic hacks from dodgy software and files, which is why restricting outbound internet access and controlling app rights will solve the majority of likely issues most users face.

[ragnar]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

Once you start to remove the convenience of mobile banking, mobile email etc. you're really cutting back on key functionality for your smartphone. Mobile websites are not comparable in experience to good quality native apps.

But hey, if you want to run the risk of being hit by an exploit, knock yourself out. Most people deserve and should expect security updates for their phone.

[ravenviz]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

Yes they are, modern website design fully incorporates phone and tablet viewing.

[doublelayer]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

Can't agree with you there. Native apps work offline (yes, I'm sometimes offline, we all are). They can have access to features of a phone that aren't easily supported from a website. They can interact with parts of the system that a webpage doesn't without some JS hack or a one-size-sort-of-fits browser control, for example interacting with the filesystem without just using the browser's upload box and file download capabilities. It's not just about putting buttons somewhere that works well on a phone screen, but interacting with the rest of the system.

[43300]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

"Manufacturers are using security updates to fool you into thinking you need a new device."

Yes, and much as I dislike Apple they are by far the best for this - Android phones typically have much shorter support periods.About to have to replace a number of Android 11 devices because of this (they are business devices, and we are not risking an out of support OS).

[ssharwood]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

FWIW I wasn't suggesting it's a vintage phone but that it comes from the 2019 vintage. Fine distinction

[MiguelC]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

It is a fine distinction, but one that wasn't very clear...

[Charlie Clark]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

My Samsung S10e is from 2019. It's going to get a new battery and LineageOS, because Samsung stopped updates in March.

Even my brother who's up there with the best of the fanbois says the new I-Phone isn't that interesting.

[Paradroid]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

No offense to your brother but lots of us called this one a long time ago. The iPhone 6 was pretty neat back in 2014. Since then they did the X which was new and shiny. The rest have been completely iterative.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

Doesn't sound like you're a fanboi. I've never owned or wanted an I-Phone but I do think Apple do a good job on the components and the software. They're too restrictive and expensive for me and has been following other manufacturers in most areas apart from the cameras for years, but it obviously works for a lot of people.

[Gene Cash]

Re: While the world slowly turns n burns.

My only problem with my Moto G4 was it was slower than molasses in January. Watching Google Maps or a website load was like watching an episode of Bob Ross as he did his painting.

[Anonymous Coward]

currently using a 2019 vintage 6.4-inch midrange Android

I dread to think what I should call my 2012 (?) Samsung S2...

[WolfFan]

Re: currently using a 2019 vintage 6.4-inch midrange Android

That would be a dinosaur.

[43300]

Re: currently using a 2019 vintage 6.4-inch midrange Android

A security risk?

[gurugeorge]

I’ve used only Apple devices for the past 11 years and converted my entire family to them. However, this review is a pile of steaming dogshit that looks like it’s pandering to Apple. It doesn’t mention how minuscule the improvements are - the lack of real USB C data transfer speeds, old processor from a year ago for $1000, and general complacency with no new features

[Solviva]

Not a fanboy here but with the processor you're not comparing oranges to Oranges.

Last year's 14/14 plus had an A15. This year's 15/15 plus has an A16. So yes the A16 is a year old, but then it's a year newer than that in the 14/14 plus. If you want this year's processor you need to go to the pro models. If you went from a 14 to 15 pro, you'd be advancing 2 generations.

Sure they could put the same processor in the standard and pro phones and differentiate them in other ways, but they choose to give the non-pro phones last year's pro processor, which is almost certainly why the non pro 15s still have USB2, as that's what lightning is.

[43300]

It's an opinion piece and clearly isn't claiming to be a full review of the new shinies.

[Ashto5]

New phone no thanks

My iPhone 7 is still doing its job.

Upgrade nah.

This is why apple want to be a bank now, they have used up all of the suckers and they need your financial data in order to target the right people.

[Wanting more]

Re: New phone no thanks

My Android 11 phone at £120 does everything I need it to and more and it's 1/8th the cost. When I drop it and smash the screen, or it gets bent etc. (all things that have happened to my previous phones) I won't be so upset and will just buy another one. Same with my £150 android tablet vs iPod. Just can't understand why people are buying Apple stuff as the cost / benefit equation just seems so out of whack. But I suppose the same applies to the latest Samsung Galaxy or Android pixel phone too. But then I'm still driving a 2007 Honda Civic Type S, so draw your own conclusions.

[doublelayer]

Re: New phone no thanks

Some of us don't buy the expensive Apple devices. I have the cheapest iPhone available, which is at most three times the price of yours and I got a discount when buying it. I don't expect to bend or shatter it as I've not done that before, and I expect it to have software support for longer than your device which helps justify the increased cost. I think people who buy the SE series of products mostly don't understand the high prices either, the same way that I think you'd find the higher prices of Android flagships unjustified.

[43300]

Re: New phone no thanks

I never spend a fortune on phones, but if I did then it would have to be Apple due to the length of the support period - pay over a grand for a high-end Galaxy of whatever, and then have it go out of support in three to four years. No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: New phone no thanks

As long as you steer clear of the latest and greatest, iPhones can be good value, especially since they often receive updates for a lot longer than most Android equivalents. I paid £180 for my iPhone SE in 2017, for example, and it will continue to receive security updates into 2024 which is a full 8 years after the model was launched. Such support is simply unheard of in Android land.

Furthermore, iPhones hold their value better than Android phones so you can recoup some of the cost when it comes to upgrading.

[43300]

Re: New phone no thanks

Have Apple got a banking license? I know that there are big tech companies who do (Dell, for one) - they use it to under-write what are basically hire purchase agreements when selling devices on a pay-per-month for X years basis.

[Catkin]

Re: New phone no thanks

It's a collaboration with Goldman Sachs. Apple get to avoid taking heat for financial shenanigans and Sachs get a business boost (theoretically, it's actually proven to be a loss maker for them).

[Kevin McMurtrie]

And one more thing...

Nope, sorry. Nothing is unexpected or exciting on the phones unless you think USB-C counts. Upgrade when old phone is falling behind on telco compatibility or physically wears out.

It's sad because it seems like there's a lot of potential still in what a phone could do. Makers divide up their products by cost rather than trying to target different options. I was seriously tempted to buy one of those crazy outdoor phones with armor, massive battery, thermal camera, headphone jack, expandable storage, a real flashlight, big speakers, and replaceable battery. It doesn't guarantee that SA 5G works so that means maybe no long-range NR71 while roaming the mountains.

[Oliver Knill]

size

I seem to be one of the few who like small phones. I have still an iphone mini and love that I can easily stick it into the

running belt, that it is invisible in the pocket. But the market decided to go for larger phones. The article here seems a bit silly.

The difference between the two size is minimal. My iphone mini has 5.2 inches, the iphone 12 6.1 and the iphone 15plus 6.7

inches. Should apple offers a 6.4 inch version and confuse even more? Apple has known since a long time that too much choice

is a problem ("the paradox of choice").

[PhilipN]

Everything Apple selling like hot cakes where I live

(As to which mind your own business).

Went on Friday with an appointment (but not for a phone). LONG queue. **** that. Went back yesterday. Large sales area designated for pickup crammed with hundreds of people half of whom were temporary sales staff dishing out the goodies.

Left with the Apple carrier bag then hid it, to avoid looking like all the walking dead with rictus grins flaunting the bag in public as if it were a Louis Vuitton.

[Grunchy]

I find it interesting anybody goes to malls anymore

I bought my iPhone SE (first gen) 2nd hand back in 2016 for $100. Had to replace the battery and screen once or twice, but it’s still going strong. It’s one of the last ones that were still ‘phone’ size and not ‘clown’ size. It has 64 gb space, good enough I reckon. Plays video non-stuttering. Apple has several no doubt critical updates necessary to improve and modernize their surveillance capabilities (and sabotage its video playback), but I have it configured to ignore everything they say and do.

[b1k3rdude]

Untill I can root an iphone, install an indipendant permission manager and firewall, switching from Android is never gonna happen. That said the price along of new iphones 15 256gb model (same as I have in my S20fe model) of £900 is joke thats beyond insulting. Butr then again Samsung is pulling the same sh*t with the 256gb S23, but hunt around and you'll find it cheaper. But as the lack of SDCARD slot on the last 3x S series from SS my S20fe might be my last SS handset. Might finally be time to look an alternative android handset, its been a long time coming.

[Ken Moorhouse]

"After disclosing that I am a journalist"

Did you disclose who you were writing the piece on behalf of?

"Apple let me in to try the phones."

That's a "no" then.

[LybsterRoy]

-- The new variety of glass Apple has cooked up for the machines' rears has a lovely soft texture. --

Soft textured glass. Hmm sounds like jelly.