Apple announces September 12 media event | Hacker News Reader

Apple announces September 12 media event

loopinsight.com

65 pointstwoodfin56 comments

Not at all surprised that it's going to be the "iPhone 5". Apple accepts that two-year contracts mean there's going to be an ebb and flow to their phone sales, and thus it's worth making as big a "bang" as possible for each new device, even at the expense of having buyers delay their purchase waiting on the new release.

But the iPad doesn't have a contract, and they'd prefer the average consumer not sit around waiting for the "new" iPad any more than they'd wait around for the "new" Macbook. Obviously some consumers are going to go to the Mac Rumors buying guide, but not many. By not hanging a big number on the brand, they mitigate the "I'll wait for N+1" mentality and hopefully spread out sales into the months post-release when their margins improve.

I was thinking it could (also) be an allusion to 5 complete years of the iPhone.

It can't really be by years:

1: iPhone (2G)

2: iPhone 3G

3: iPhone 3GS

4: iPhone 4

5: iPhone 4S

6: iPhone 5?

The original iPhone debuted in 2007.

Try again! It is going to be the announcement of 5 new lawsuits against Samsung which will be left as a shadow of its former self.

It may be that since many people continue to refer to the 'new iPad' as the iPad 3 they decided it just doesn't stick so why bother?

Also - there is only 1 current version of the iPhone available at any time. Compare this to the iPad (Regular vs. Mini), iPod (Touch, Nano, Shuffle), Macbook (Air, Pro).

Not true- they still sell the iPhone 4 as a cut-price version of the 4S. And they sold the 3GS when the 4 was the top model. Expect them to do the same- sell the 4S alongside the 5.

Note that they still sell the 3GS, right now.

I assume that once the 5 ships, the 4S will become the cheaper model, and the 4 will become the really-cheap model that the 3GS currently is.

With the rumored iPad Mini, they just might continue making the 3GS instead of the 4. A non-retina cheapo iPhone option makes sense for prepaid and free phones, and it's supposedly the same display PPI as the iPad Mini, so it could share a lot of components.

I know they still sell the iPhone 4 and 4s, and think they may even still sell the 3gs.

They sell all 3 right off their site:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iph...

I'm waiting for Apple to invite all it's friends to an event and then just provide a nice party. "You're our friends and we wanted to treat you well" would be a nice sentiment and the perfect way to confuse people who try to predict what they'll do next.

I guess you will wait for a long time then, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

For that kind of philosophy to appear, it would mean Apple is losing market shares and needs a new strategy to attract developers and users.

Bad idea. Some people fly from different parts of country at attend such an event.

For those that didn't notice, the shadow on the "12" forms a "5":

http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/09/04/apple-announces-specia...

Thank God, seems like it'll be called iPhone 5 instead of "the new iPhone".

This confuses me.

Why does anyone care? The iPod had undifferentiated names for a decade, despite dramatic changes in capabilities. Whenever there's a need for specificity (e.g. buying/selling a device online), people had no problem specifying "iPod third generation," "iPod nano second generation" etc.

I would say the only substantial change from one iPod to the next was the amount of storage and the quality of the screen. You'd never need to talk about which generation you had, because they only do one thing: play music. Meanwhile, successive iPhones have a few features that differentiate how they actually behave:

    - processor (screen smoothness, webpage performance, what games you can play)
    - camera (quality of images)
    - radio antenna type
    - OS versions supported (iPhone features often vary by OS version, unlike the features of the traditional iPod)

In conclusion, iPods only have one real feature, and it doesn't change, so you don't need to talk about version numbers. iPhones have more features that do change, so version numbers are important.

>I would say the only substantial change from one iPod to the next was the amount of storage and the quality of the screen.

That's quite the selective memory you've got there.

- First gen. "1000 songs in your pocket." First music player to use Firewire (no USB 2.0 yet!). First HDD player to use 1.8" drives.

- Second gen. Touch replaces mechanical scroll wheel. Windows compatibility (MusicMatch).

- Third gen. Mechanical buttons entirely replaced with touch. USB syncing. iTunes Music Store. iTunes for Windows. First iPod to feature the dock connector. Full case redesign.

- Fourth gen. Return to mechanical controls with the click wheel. iPod Photo introduced, the first iPod that can output to an external display.

- Fifth gen. Photo merged into regular iPod. Video playback. Music videos and TV shows appear on the increasingly poorly named iTunes Music Store for the first time. Gapless playback. Games.

- Sixth generation. Aluminum case. Dramatically better battery life (36 hours vs. 8-12). Genius. Audio recording.

Maybe you could argue that the fourth and sixth generation iPods were just capacity bumps and screen overhauls, but many of these features are no less significant than the "processor upgrades" and "radio antenna type" that you cite for the iPhone.

Apple didn't dominate the portable music player space for a decade (>70% marketshare the entire time) by standing still. They also didn't have monotonically increasing revision numbers tacked onto the end.

Saying there were no substantial changes to the iPod because "it just plays music" is only slightly less absurd than saying there are no substantial changes to the iPhone because "it just makes calls."

And of course, I'm not including the best example of revisionless names, the iPod Touch! We all know it's a stripped-down iPhone, but it's always been called simply "the iPod Touch."

What year is your Porsche 911?

I don't understand where you're going with this. Are you implying that there are meaningful comparisons to be made between a luxury vehicle whose base model costs $79,000 and a device for playing music whose base model costs $99? Or the opposite?

Anyway, I have a MINI. The Porsche is too expensive for me.

what does price have to do with naming?

I was implying that there are many many products where the manufacturer changes the model and keeps the same name. I used the 911 because it's very recognizable name, but your Mini is using the same name as the one that was produced in 1961 and you definitely can't use the same accessories, not even the same gas.

but wait, I'm also going to argue the opposite right here in the same comment: Leica has been making the M cameras since 1954 and they use numbers, sometimes with suffixes just like the S in 4S (M3, M4, M4P, M5). they even went backwards with the M2 released after the M3, and they all use exactly the same lenses and accessories.

my point? it's an entirely pointless discussion trying to rationalize which is more correct or more wrong: companies have been doing both for decades and both have been successful.

I see, you're arguing that the approach doesn't matter. I think anyone who has tried to suss out which Intel chip to buy in the last few years would like to have a word with you. Some approaches are better than others.

And: pointless discussions are the only kind we have here. So why complain about it?

not complaining, adding my opinion, since I saw a lot of people arguing against each other and nobody had the same opinion I had, that the naming doesn't matter that much.

Does that affect what software I can install on it?

iPods grew in feature set as much as iPhones have... they added cameras, video, color screens, and FM radio over the product lifecycle.

Hmm, compared to the changing features of iPhones, how important do you think the new features of iPods were to buyers (especially in the first few generations)? Me, I never used the FM radio or video capabilities of my iPod. I could be atypical. Camera, maybe, but by the time that was introduced the iPod already had a long history of not having version numbers.

And color screen is an interface change, not a functional change, so it doesn't really fall into the set of things I was talking about earlier.

Very important...sometimes. I had someone order 100 of the wrong generation once... We needed front facing camera in out setup. I'm not sure how typical our use case was but there was another 10,000 item order of the correct generation after the contract completed.

Pretty sure that if you're ordering a lot of a hundred of them, you're already outside the range of the typical buyer I was referring to earlier. That said, can you share what you were using them for? You've piqued my curiosity.

It matters a lot when buying cases (as someone who knows Apple products and still bought the wrong one for my wife's Nano)

I never understood why so many people made such a huge deal out of this.

IIRC, it was only referred to the "new iPad" in marketing materials. If Apple was focused on reducing the importance of numbers, what else would you call it in a conversation? The new or the newest ipad.

I'm just waiting for the people who were absolutely certain Apple would call it the iPhone 6 to show up.

iPhone 5 would be more confusing considering this will be the 6th generation.

6th iPhone, arguably the 4th generation (iPhone 1, iPhone 3G and 3GS as one generation, iPhone 4 and 4S as one generation).

Naming it iPhone 6 would be extremely confusing for consumers (Where did the 5 go?!), as would 4G. The only workable alternative is iPhone 5. Anything else would be a horrible idea from a marketing point of view.

Yeah, it’s slightly inconsistent, but that’s just how it is. (Apple used the 4 both as an iPhone number – with the iPhone 4 – and like a generation number – with the iPhone 4S. That’s how they already introduced the inconsistency they now have to work around.)

Your homework: Why did Apple count iPhones and not generations when they introduced the iPhone 4? There is a pretty simple answer to that.

> 6th iPhone, arguably the 4th generation (iPhone 1, iPhone 3G and 3GS as one generation, iPhone 4 and 4S as one generation).

Are you still going to think that when the new iPhone still looks like the 4/4s model?

> Naming it iPhone 6 would be extremely confusing for consumers (Where did the 5 go?!), as would 4G. The only workable alternative is iPhone 5. Anything else would be a horrible idea from a marketing point of view.

Or drop the number altogether and leave the math to the nerds who care.

If the rumours are anything to go by the next iPhone is deservedly a new generation. New metal back, larger screen, different connector, …

Sure, it looks somewhat similar to the 4/4S, but you would have to be extremely superficial if you think only a completely new look deserves to be a new generation name. That’s not how Apple thinks. If they like a look they keep it. They don’t change it for change’s sake.

Here is a reminder: iPhone 3G and 3GS as well as 4 and 4S looked exactly the same. I only dared to call them part of one generation because they really looked exactly the same. If the rumours are true the iPhone 5 will look somewhat similar but certainly not exactly the same as the 4/4S.

And sure, no numbers would also work, but if you want numbers 5 is the only way to do it and it honestly makes a ton of sense and is not the least bit confusing. Everyone will know what you are talking about, no one will be confused. It’s unique, it’s memorable, it even makes sense.

It will be less confusing as "iPhone 5". 5 comes after 4. Most people don't know what generation it is.

> 5 comes after 4.

Does 5 come after 4s?

Yes, but only if you're a JavaScript nerd:

    > parseInt("4s") + 1

    5

(it was meant to be a feeble joke. I actually agree with you)

Don't most languages parse strings like that?

Ruby:

    "4s".to_i + 1 
    #=> 5

I suppose you're right.

I was so eager to bash JavaScript that I forgot about it. Come to think of it, I think even non-dynamic, traditional, old-school languages like C also parse string like this (`atoi("4s")`).

Sheesh. Sure. The S works like a modifier. 1, 1b, 1c, 2. Like that.

Is the image (12 reflecting 5) actually from Apple, or did someone else create it? I can't seem to find it anywhere on Apple's website.

They don't put these sorts of images on apple.com afaik - they're just sent to the invitees who then spread them.

Worst kept secret ever.

Best hype machine ever.

Samsung lawyers are watching that with attention, waiting for the word LTE to come up.

http://www.droid-life.com/2012/08/30/samsung-if-apple-releas...

Those are most likely standards-essential patents, no? In which case they can't use them to block sales, in theory. IANAL so this is an honest question.

(from the article)

> "[Samsung] decid[ed] not to go after Apple’s less popular LTE-enabled iPad device. The “hit them where it hurts” approach."

Yeah. iPad has such a small marketshare and generates so little revenue for Apple that it's not worth going after. Right.

I think the idea would be that relatively few of iPads sold, percentage wise, are cellular/LTE, while all iPhones will be. The absolute number of devices sold probably doesn't hurt the case.

"Samsung, start your photocopiers."

Apple-Google cross licensing agreement announcement - calling it now.

Cool! Maybe Apple will also tell why they allow spyware on iOS as reported by Bloomberg? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/spyware-matching-fi...

Read the article. The whole article. It doesn't say what you think it says.

They would never admit to something like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com