Give people an iPhone 4S, tell them it's an iPhone 5 | Hacker News Reader

Give people an iPhone 4S, tell them it's an iPhone 5

thenextweb.com

398 pointscountessa252 comments

It seems like the people who say the "new" one is thinner, lighter, more elegant, etc, all have cases on their phones.

So in essence, the case sets your phone back a generation or two.

I never understand why people use cases. What's the point in preserving something in mint condition if you never see it without the case?

It's not about preserving it in mint condition, it's about preserving it in usable condition.

I can't speak for others but my case has saved my phone from a smashed screen on several occasions.

EDIT: Should possibly also add that I have small children (1 and 3 - that's their ages rather than their names) who use it and I'm damned if I'm giving it to them without a case on...

Depends where you set the bar for usable. I'm continually surprised at how many people I see using iphones with smashed screens on trains or the Tube.

Same here though personally I set the bar somewhat higher than that.

I think the the bar for usability is significantly affected by the money they may have to pay to have the phone replaced if their contract expired, they bought it upfront, etc.

I know if I had a £500 device that had a broken screen I would keep using it at least until I could afford to get the screen replaced.

Likewise. Mine has taken more than a few spills and the case has saved it. I may just be a klutz.

Serious question: given that you purchased a case and then dropped the phone in the case, how can you possible claim to know whether the case saved it? All you know is that you dropped your phone with a case on and it didn't break.

I see this correlation = causation logic all the time about phone cases, and I find it quite bizarre. I've had an iPhone for 3 years now (3GS, then 4S). I've never used a case (or screen protector). I've dropped my phone before with no case and it survived. I've dropped it on pavement a couple times. I even lost it in the snow at a ski slope last winter. Someone found it and returned it. Works fine.

I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones, but I do think that people regard them as much more necessary than they actually are. Sure, if you have a kid in the house who loves to play with your phone, you should probably get a case. But as long you're careful with your phone for the most part (i.e. you're not consistently dropping it on pavement or something, you don't carry it in the same pocket as your keys, etc.), you probably don't need a case or screen protector. The phones aren't THAT fragile.

I agree and can give the opposite example. I have a Sony Ericsson X10 since it was released (2 years ago? Longer?), never had a case, and have dropped it several times. You will find the marks from those falls only if you will look really hard.

So you're asking for proof that a device that is made of solid glass and metal is more fragile when dropped than the same device surrounded by rubber, plastic, leather or another soft material?

I know it won't protect the device in every situation, but the $10 case protects the device in some situations (maybe only 10% or 20% of drops), so it has a very high ROI.

I once dropped my unprotected iPad from a height of about 2 feet, it landed on the granite floor on a corner edge, and the screen shattered. I had to buy a new iPad basically as Apple doesn't fix them. It now has a $20 case, and I would be willing to bet the value of the iPad that if I dropped it from the same height and it hit the same corner, the device would not have any significant damage although the case might.

> So you're asking for proof that a device that is made of solid glass and metal is more fragile when dropped than the same device surrounded by rubber, plastic, leather or another soft material?

That is distinctly not what I'm asking for. I specifically said "I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones" to address this. What I'm saying is that at any point no person could possible know whether their case has just saved their phone, or whether the phone would have been just as fine without the case.

> I know it won't protect the device in every situation, but the $10 case protects the device in some situations (maybe only 10% or 20% of drops), so it has a very high ROI.

My point is that I think most people don't actually get that ROI. I've had an iPhone for three years. I've dropped my phone. No case. The phone is fine. If you use a case and never drop your phone in such a way that you would have broken it (which is impossible to know, but I'm arguing is an overstated risk), then the price you've paid is a bulkier, heavier, uglier phone. The case comes with a cost other than just $10. If I could pay $10 to have my phone magically become invincible, I would do it. If I could pay $10 for a case, I would not.

I'm sorry to hear your iPad broke. I should say that I'm specifically talking about phones, mostly because the cost of having a case on my iPad all the time would be lower for me than with a phone, which you have to stick in a pocket all the time and thus suffers more from added bulkiness.

Another argument in that direction: I think that, all else being equal, bulkier phones get dropped more from pockets. For example, if my iPod Touch were half a centimeter taller, wider and deeper, it might not be possible to put it in a trouser pocket horizontally. Hence, it might not even be possible to put it deep inside the pocket when I am seated. Both make it easier to fall out of my pocket.

It's not that bizarre. It's just an incidental psychological effect of the sunk cost fallacy. "I paid for this, so it must have been worth it, so if a scenario happens in which that-which-I-paid-for could have occurred, it must have occurred."

It kind of works like seatbelts. You can't prove that the fact someone fastened seatbelts had saved one from death in the accident that already happened. Some people survive, some people die. But the relative proportion of those two cases is the matter of scientific studies - that's the first method we have to determine that seatbelts help save lives. Another one is a mix of physics and common sense. It's better not to be ejected from your seat at high velocity and fly through glass. In the same way, it's better when the screen does not hit the ground (as rubber cases are bigger than the phone and thus protect from impact) or hits, but with much smaller velocity (as rubber absorbs the energy from collision with the ground).

So yes, we can't say much from all the anecdotes here. But there are strong reasons to suspect that phone cases are a net win in protecting screens from damage.

> But the relative proportion of those two cases is the matter of scientific studies

I guess my point is that I'd like to see a study like this, and I'd like people to stop saying "My case has saved my phone so many times," because nobody really knows that.

I'd like to know how much and in what situations a case actually is likely to save your phone from meaningful damage. Because, to use the analogy, my phone's been in a bunch of car accidents without its seatbelts -- non-trivial ones -- and is completely fine.

It would be one thing if a case didn't come with the added cost of a bulkier phone (as you mentioned, rubber cases make the phone fatter). But they do, so it's a cost-benefit analysis, and I think we're all mostly guessing. My assertion is just that I think most people are guessing too much on the side in favor of having a case, because iPhones are not as fragile as they seem as long as you treat them with a reasonable amount of care.

> iPhones are not as fragile as they seem as long as you treat them with a reasonable amount of care.

Accidents aren't about reasonable amounts of care. Cases are obviously there to protect phones when placed in non-ideal situations. Your crusade against cases is fairly silly.

I use screen protectors because when I get tired of looking at my scratched screen, I can replace the protector and magically have a brand new screen.

Well, I replaced the screen on my phone twice before I bought a case. I've dropped my phone many times, both before and after I got the case, but with the case it doesn't seem to get damaged. I got the slimmest case I could find, so it's definitely not bulletproof, but it makes a difference. I'd guess I've saved myself one screen replacement so far. It's maybe 1.5 mm thick, just a touch higher than the volume buttons on my 4S, so it doesn't add much bulk.

This anecdote not the double-blind replicated clinical trial that HN seems to insist on as a rational basis for believing anything, but it's enough to convince me to keep using the case. There's such a thing as being too skeptical.

"1 and 3 - that's their ages rather than their names"

Maybe it's still too early in the morning for me, but I laughed at that way harder than I should have. Haha, thanks for that.

If it were their names, imagine the fun in explaining what happened to 2.

And in a couple years, while introducing them, "Here are our children, 1 and 3. 1 is 3 and 3 is 5."

Reminded me of that old verse (best said out loud):

"Oneone was a racehorse, twotwo was one too. Twotwo won one race, and twotwo won one too!"

How do you know that the case saved the day? I once had my case-less iPad fall from a ledge five feet above the surface it eventually landed on and it survived with nary a scratch. They seem fairly rugged on their own.

More than once my rubber case has stopped my phone from slipping off a table. I won't get into the details, but the toilet incident of 2011 was a close call and the case prevented certain disaster.

Mine fell from a table about 80cm high, screen flat down on a hard floor. Got just a ding on the corner (and a heart attack). I've dropped an iPhone 4 probably a dozen times too, it's an year old, caseless and healthy (though you can see some light scratches if you look close enough).

I remember when I first got smartphones around 2006 or 2007, I was breaking mine every 6 months or so. I currently have the original galaxy from samsung, and it is still going strong over 2 years later.

I think the cases were really important, but once the HTC Hero and that generation came out, then magically my phone lasted years!

I've dropped my phone numerous times with only minor dings resulting.

The pot of boiling water, on the other hand... (I was using the phone as a kitchen timer)

My wife's phone fell off a countertop, resulting in a completely smashed screen. (Basically a dense spiderweb of cracks covering the entire screen.) She wasn't using a case at the time, otherwise there's a good chance that wouldn't have happened.

However, it was fairly cheap to replace the screen (~$50) so maybe there's still no point in getting a case.

Another alternative is buying robust phones! My Nexus One has met the pavement with some assistance from gravity and my clumsy hands a couple of times and the casing has a couple of scratches to show for it. Screen as new.

Then there was the Blackberry Pearl I threw down a couple of times as a demonstration...

The phone that got a rep for screens cracking? In personal experience the iPhone is robust and hardy, having met hundreds of drops fine.

You're comparing apples and oranges. My iPhone has fallen onto pavement a few times as well with only minor dings. sillysaurus's wife's phone fell off a countertop, which probably indicates it was in a kitchen, which usually has tile floors. Tile floors are far more likely to result in a smashed device than any other type of floor, including concrete, so it's not surprising that there's a difference here.

Why is tile more likely to break a screen than concrete, out of curiosity? I'll admit I only ever dropped a watch onto tile and it did break the internals.

Ceramic is extremely hard (albeit brittle). Much more so than concrete (or wood flooring, or other common floor surfaces).

Fun fact ceramic used in spark plugs for ex. is so hard, a small piece of it thrown against a car window will destroy that window.

Mythbusters clip: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5d_1257946254

> Tile floors are far more likely to result in a smashed device than any other type of floor, including concrete, so it's not surprising that there's a difference here.

My theory is that a counter-top or kitchen floor is more likely to have debris on it, generating a pressure point on the glass and causing it to crack.

I've dropped my 4S on flat surfaces (bricks, concrete) with no real issues. I dropped my old 4 two weeks in on the pavement, on a tiny rock, and the back shattered (Apple fixed it for free; otherwise it was AUD$39).

I'm pretty sure my kitchen floor has FAR less debris on it than the average outdoor concrete patch.

I'd dropped my 3GS on every surface possible with not even so much as a dent. It wasn't until I was crossing the street and it fell and hit at the right angle that the screen finally shattered.

My Nexus One met the pavement/concrete a few times (~3) without a case. The third caused a smashed screen. I don't doubt your story, but there are definitely angles that are better for the phone to land than others.

The Otterbox kept it safe after that.

My Galaxy Nexus has been down the toilet and after a few weeks it worked fine, aside from the charging being a bit weird, but googling suggests that this might not be due to the toilet adventure.

I was tying my shoelace and my Nexus One fell out of my shirt pocket and fell about 16 inches onto carpet, yes carpet. Ruined.

I found out later from HTC the screen was cracked neatly all down the right-hand side http://imgur.com/a/QmqHx But I couldn't see any crack when the bezel was on the only way to see it was when HTC disassembled it.

It was a month long battle with HTC before I agreed to $150 and told them I was never buying an HTC product again, ever. They didn't even repair it well, insulation sticking out of the bezel, screen calibration off.

Every phone I have owned since 1997 I have dropped it's impossible to say you won't ever drop your cellphone. Any phone company that sells a cellphone that breaks so easily when dropped, especially 16 inches onto carpet, should not be in the business of selling cellphones.

Seems almost certain that the crack was already there. Maybe it was a production defect from the factory, or maybe it was caused by a previous drop that did no obvious damage. Landing on the carpet didn't deliver much of a shock to the glass, but it was obviously enough.

It's similar to what might happen with a cracked car windshield. I don't think it's fair for you to blame HTC without knowing for sure if that crack was already there, and/or exactly what caused it.

Any phone company that sells a cellphone that breaks so easily when dropped, especially 16 inches onto carpet, should not be in the business of selling cellphones.

Obviously these phones don't normally break when dropped onto carpet from a moderate height, or their owners would all be screaming bloody murder. That crack was caused by either an unusual factory defect, shipping damage, or something else that happened before you dropped it onto the carpet.

My N1 was a week old when I dropped it and broke a chip out of the screen (before I cased it). Also, at two years old the USB port broke off.

My phone does feel amazingly this when I take the case off, though.

> However, it was fairly cheap to replace the screen (~$50)

+ transportation to the next Apple Store or reseller

+ time to deal with all of this

+ if you do not get an instant repair, getting a replacement device (and another round of transportation)

I've never had to pay to get my MacBook Pro repaired, but the (very rare) interruptions were enough to make me buy a Mac Mini as a backup computer. (Freelancing iOS developer reporting in from a hostel.)

>+ transportation to the next Apple Store or reseller + time to deal with all of this + if you do not get an instant repair, getting a replacement device (and another round of transportation)

Tons of stuff we do everyday, from groceries to checking our teeth, involve transportation and time to "deal with them".

It's not like this is an argument in favor of cases at all.

I'm not using a case because I care about $50, I'm using a case because the interruption to my work would be more expensive than that. How is this not an argument in favor of a case?

Your comment about your children's names reminded me of something I heard Bill Cosby say once. When he was a kid, he and his brother thought their names were "Dammit" and "Hellfire" until they were twelve years old. "Dammit, get in here! Hellfire, get out of that tree."

Actually it was Dammit and Jesus Christ.

Right you are:

  "Dammit, will you get in here!?"

  "Dad, I'm Jesus Christ!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwYVqMj5i6k

I have children 1 and 3 who use my Android, and sometimes drop it. No problems. Just in case, however, I do send them out of the kitchen when they're holding it, since it's our only non-carpeted area.

I don't have small children, but I also apparently don't have any motor skills. I spent the money on an OtterBox for my phone and it's saved me from a cracked screen at least a half dozen times and from minor damage much more often than that. The down side is that my phone looks twice as large, but it's well worth it.

0.25 wants to chew on my phone every time it rings if it's within reach.

> It's not about preserving it in mint condition, it's about preserving it in usable condition.

And for me that means not bothering with an expensive smartphone. I had a phone like that, sat on it and broke its screen. It was hundreds of dollars down the drain. I don't want to have to worry about a stupid phone or not putting it in the right pocket, or it getting wet, I got other things on my mind usually. So I just have a simple flip phone. If a mugger wants to steal it fine, they can have. If sit on it again and break it, "ok", I'll get another one.

Maybe everyone is just incredibly rich or like to spend a lot of time worrying about their expensive toy, I am neither.

I had a nokia 3315 for most of last year for similar reasons. Nuff said.

You can buy a midrange smartphone for quite cheap. I got an Xperia Arc S last year for 180 pounds on PAYG, no contract. Since I'm going to void the warranty by rooting it and putting a clean ROM in it, I'd rather not have a top-line expensive phone with whatever crap it comes with (basically they all do, except maybe the Nexus flagship phones).

I use that and an older Blackberry Curve 3G which is a total workhorse and lasts forever on its battery. Surely the Android, not even being a last gen phone, trounces the Blackberry on every department esp. on the screen department. But it barely makes it to the end of the day without a recharge.

I'm not filthy rich but I can manage to sleep at night if something goes wrong and I lose a hundred or two. Never bought more than 1 cheapish phone a year, so it's not going to destroy my finances.

Neither of my phones are toys by the way, they allow me to get a lot more done and they also keep me entertained/informed when there's nothing else to do.

> they allow me to get a lot more done and they also keep me entertained/informed when there's nothing else to do.

That makes sense for you then.

I've heard people make snide remarks at me when I am out and need to find the nearest restaurant "why don't you get a smart phone, it would be so much easier". They are basically advocating paying hundreds more for a phone, and then, $40 for a data plan every month, so that 2 or 3 times a year I can find directions when I am lost.

I pay £15-£20 a month tops including calls. It's not that bad really, but I guess it depends on the prices and the service you can get where you are.

Particularly the iPhone 4(s). It's got probably the best form factor of any phone ever made, but people put those massive black rubber things on them with a circle cut in the back to show the Apple logo. Absolute abomination.

Considering the number of iPhones with shattered screens that I see, I'm not sure "full glass" is the best form factor.

I didn't mean practical, I meant beautiful.

Who cares how beautiful it is if it's broken?

That's rather subjective, isn't it?

There's various other phones that I find more visually attractive than the iPhone and a whole lot of them are more comfortable to operate (no sharp edges, lighter).

Am I the only one who prefers the older (3GS) designs over the new ones (4+) in terms of ergonomics?

Sure, my 4S is beautiful, but it just doesn't feel right in my hand. Something about the aluminum/glass seam bothers me, and so I got a slim case and never looked back.

I've never owned an iOS device (I prefer the Android OS), but whenever I have played around with a friend's 4S it feels really nice in the hand.

It does have quite hard edges though, and I've wondered if they would get annoying after a while.

I never felt particularly either way about the 3GS hardware - it's ok, but nothing special in my opinion.

I feel the same way. Phones are actually getting too thin to be comfortable. I've handled some of the newer Android phones (Galaxy S III, Galaxy Nexus, etc.) and I don't think they're much better. Sure they fit better into my front pocket, but I can't hold the things.

Yeah. I got a case on my Incredible 2 for two reasons: (1) I noticed I was holding it too lightly and kept dropping it, so case-friction was good and (2) it was too damn small.

It's like those tiny micro-sized dogs.

I feel the same way. Some of my friends have an iphone 4, and when I hold it in my hand, sure, it's lighter, but the lack of a round back makes it feel like a brick for some reason.

Amusingly my naked 4S (used to use cases - they ended up putting too much dust in the camera, while being naked it gets wiped off in the pocket/holster it's carried in) looks a lot like an ice-cream sandwich when I look at it on it' side :)

On the other hand, the iPhone 5 looks nothing at all like a jelly bean.

I felt the same way. I bought a $1 bumper case off Amazon and it completely improved the feel of it for me. Also saved the screen on numerous occasions.

No, you're not the only one! I much preferred the 3GS's design.

I will say that I'm the only one I know who considers the iPhone 4 to be a complete abortion of industrial design. It's fragile, it's unpleasant to hold due to sharp edges everywhere, and I almost always have to spin it around in my hands like a trained seal every time I pull it out of my pocket, because (unlike the 3GS) it's difficult to tell how it's oriented by feel alone. None of these things are true of a good design.

Apparently you can pull the SIM out of an AT&T iPhone 4 and wedge it directly into an unlocked Galaxy Nexus HSPA+, even though the iPhone takes a micro SIM. I ordered one of the latter after the iPhone 5 (non)announcement yesterday and am looking forward to seeing how that hack works.

Yes. Still haven't upgraded from a 3G for this reason. Feels much nicer to hold than other phones do.

Make something covered in glass that people are going to carry in their pocket. This makes people worry about scratching the phone, they want to take care of the phone, to protect it. This triggers an emotional bond with the product.

That explains screen protectors. It doesn't necessarily explain cases.

I drop my phone about once per week. And I've cracked a screen in the past. I like being able to continue to use my phone.

Why do you think a case makes the phone unusable? This is not my experience at all. What type of case are you thinking of specifically?

I meant, dropping my phone without a case would make the phone unusable. I use a case, and was responding to the parent comment that said people use cases for reasons of emotional attachment.

I never understood glass protectors. They cover this difficult-to-scratch glass with an easy-to-scratch plastic coating.

A much better approach is to switch to a better laundry detergent: http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/08/your-smartphone-is-bein...

The plastic cover is sacrificial. It is intended to get grubby and trashed, in fact, the psychology works better if it does.

A case is an exercise in attempting to prevent the consequences of gravity causing an interaction with a solid surface and glass.

There are some slick thin cases available, they're not all Otter boxes. My $5 case for my Galaxy S3 has already saved my phone multiple times from inadvertent drops. Far cheaper than insurance from a carrier or purchasing a new unsubsidized phone. I think a slim, simple case is a no brainer on a $500+ device one uses all day long.

What case are you using?

The point in "preserving" your iPhone is so you don't have to purchase another one, at full cost if you accidentally drop it and it breaks. My slim case while more simple than most, has saved my iPhone countless times.

I could care less if my phone gets dinged, or scratched a bit, but complete failure is an expensive fix.

> at full cost

Apple will actually send you a new/refurbished iPhone 4S for just $199, much much less than the cost of a new unlocked no-contract phone. You just mail in the broken one.

http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=servicefaq&geo=Un...

I recently broke my iPad's screen (dropped it, completely smashed) and got a new one for about half the original price.

For most Americans, that is full cost for an iPhone. Even though it's technically the cost with a contract, I'd wager that 98% of all people who purchase iPhones purchase them subsidized by carriers with contracts.

So? What's your point?

The alternative is you buy a Samsung android phone or whatever and break it and end up paying the actual cost, which is normally $499 on the low end to $649 for the latest flagship phones.

A $199 replacement cost for a mistake I made sounds like a heck of a deal.

No, the alternative is you buy a $20 case so your phone doesn't get damaged by a four-foot drop. If you look four posts up, that was the topic of this thread.

Doesn't sound like a very good alternative. You're paying 10% of the cost of the phone to protect it against (some) accidents, but in the process set it back a generation, by making it thicker and heavier. That's pretty costly as far as insurance goes.

Only if you place a high priority on thickness. I personally don't, and am actually fairly annoyed that cell phone makers don't have the option to e.g. double the thickness of their phones in exchange for a 2-3x increase in battery life.

The thickness of a case doesn't bother me. The ridge around the edge of the screen does.

>>Only if you place a high priority on thickness.

Most people do. This is why smartphones have been getting thinner with each iteration.

Of course. My point is only that people don't all have the same priorities. If you strongly value thickness, a case is not a good choice. If you don't care, then a case is a good choice. Making a blanket declaration that a case is "pretty costly as far as insurance goes" regardless of personal preferences is stupid.

They have this, it is called a Mophie Juice Pack[1]. They have two sizes with different battery extensions.

I miss the thinness of my phone without the case but greatly prefer being able to get through a day in the data center or traveling without constantly charging my phone.

1: http://www.mophie.com/mophie-juice-pack-air-iPhone-4-4s-batt...

You can get keychain fob chargers to charge your phone in your pocket when you need it and keep the thinness the rest of the time.

That's annoying blindness.

I'm considering a contract that (for the 4S as the latest) is £900 in total, I'd happily go without a case and be prepared to pay £200 for a break.

For most Americans, that is full cost for an iPhone.

Not really, thats the full price of a phone and a plan, its still a subsidized price, and Apple is still providing a discount by offering replacements for $199.

Try losing a phone while 1 year into a plan and its going to cost you $300-500 to replace it.

Wow, there's actually an upfront cost in the US? I never paid a cent for mine - it was 100% subsidised (and you could have gotten the same plan for the same cost but without the phone, so this really was 100%).

Replacing a smashed screen for $200 seems like kind of a rip-off to me.

I've never used a case on any of my phones. My last iPhone was a 3GS. I smashed the screen once and replaced it myself in about 20 minutes for, I think, $25 (the price of a new digitizer is now under $10 though). The 4 and 4S are more difficult, but it still seems like a lot.

I've had my Nexus S for more than a year and it's in mint condition. I'm sure I've dropped it a few times.

I dunno what your situation is, but even at the best of times, $199 is a lot of money.

Yes it is, but I believe the point of comparison is an off contract iPhone, which is $650 or $700.

I'll spare you the details but the only mishap I've had with an iphone ended, rather amusingly, with it swimming in the bottom of a toilet. After fishing it out (yes, it was a clean bowl) I vainly attempted to dry it in the Italian sun outside the villa I was staying in at the time. As you might have guessed the iphone did not make a full recovery, it was bricked. When I got back to London I took it into my local apple store and mentioned that "I was having trouble getting it to charge...". Full credit to the apple guy, without so much as a wry smile he ignored the tide mark that cut across the middle of the screen and said he'd put it through as a battery replacement. £50 later and I was walking out the store with my new phone.

I've heard a few stories (usually on the Macbreak weekly podcast, never from anyone I know) of people going into the Apple store with a broken screen while under warranty having the phone replaced for free. It seems they have some license to do a good dead or two for customers, but there isn't an official policy. I guess with such a high margin product, they can be flexible sometimes.

You can get the iPhone 4S screen replaced by 3rd parties for $90 just about anywhere. Mine was swapped out in less than 30 minutes after being thrown on a marble floor from a balcony.

Who threw it?!

A two year old, of course.

People are poor. Some people can't afford to replace their phone if it becomes damaged.

My iPhone seems to slip out of my pocket without a case/bumper. The silicone case gives it a bit more friction that prevents it from sliding out.

My iPhone 4S which dropped down the stairs last week could tell you some stories. Plus now I can sell it at a better price. Plus my case is also a bottle opener, that helps :)

To protect it for a future online auction?

Many people will want to sell their iphone in a years time and buy the new iteration. A mint condition one will fetch a greater price than a slightly scratched one.

I actually prefer the texture of my magpul executive case (which is fairly thin) to the stock iPhone 4 -- if your hands are sweaty, the regular iphone is somewhat slippery.

I might go without a case on the iPhone 5, though, because I'm not sure if my thumb would comfortably reach the whole screen while using a case.

Between the $15 hard-ish plastic case and the $20 screen protector, my HTC Incredible has survived being dropped more than 20 times across the past 2 years. Sometimes I've clumsily dropped it 5 feet onto pavement, yet the phone is still in great condition.

Makes me miss the old days. I dropped my iPod Mini while jogging and it skittered across the pavement and got run over by a car. There was a slight nick on the aluminum casing, but that was it. More recently, my Zune 120 fell out of my pocket onto concrete while I was on my roof (second floor). Works like a charm.

I'd be willing to deal with a phone that's an inch thick but can stand up to a fall without a case.

It's easy to find phones that will be extremely rugged and less than an inch thick with the addition of a case -- that would be almost any of them, really. What difference does it make that some of that inch is a case?

I have a leather book-style cover on my Nexus 7 and it's still well under an inch thick.

Now, when I say rugged, I mean throw it across the room and run it over with a truck. I don't mean "drop it from pocket height". A case protects against a light bump, a rugged design can be used as an impromptu jack stand when your car gets a flat.

You must have got really lucky about how the car ran over the iPod, because I have seen a couple iPod's get run over by cars and in all cases where the tire went directly over the body of the iPod the device was essentially compacted flat by about 25% with the screen fractured and crushed down into the body and the electronics and the backing of the iPod had indentations of the street pavement texture.

Needless to say they were history, but fun to take apart and see the mutilated insides.

Are we talking iPod, or iPod Mini? The structural integrity of the iPod Mini comes from being milled from a single block of brushed metal. The regular iPods of the day were at least two pieces of metal (or metal and plastic). I believe the back of the iPod was even just a thin sheet of aluminum as opposed to the relatively thick unibody iPod Mini. These regular iPods would be trivial to crush. The iPod Mini was a fantastic bit of engineering. I wish Apple had gone with that design for the iPhone. Instead, the iPod Mini look has been turned into phone design by Nokia.

And my case-less Blackberry survived 5 years of daily drops from waist height, multiple drops from second story balconies, multiple trips into the lake or river..that thing was a tank and I loved it.

I'm still rocking my 3GS from 2008 in large part because of the case I had on it for 75% of its life. Phones get dropped.

Anecdotal counter-point: I'm also still rocking my 3GS, but I've never used a case. Of course I also don't drop it much (maybe 15-20 times total?).

3GS came out in 2009, didn't it?

I was the same way. Then I got a case/battery pack for my iPhone for a conference trip.

Wow, now I just love the ability to flip a switch and get another 5 or so hours of battery life.

Sure it's practically doubled the weight of the phone but the phone is already so light that I hardly notice.

In my case, resale value. People buying used Apple products are picky, so I try to keep my stuff pristine. This allows me to get top dollar when I sell it every year and upgrade.

It's not about "mint condition". It's about not shattering the glass or otherwise destroying the phone if it falls onto a hard surface.

I use one to make the phone less slippery. It no longer slides off my lap / out of my pocket / off my car seat.

Why do you wear a helmet when you're biking? So you don't break your head.

If you find it hard to believe that anybody could drop an iPhone without a case and break it, you haven't met my wife. :)

I've never had a case on my iPhones (3G, 3GS), dropped them numerous times on concrete, and the only thing that put one out of commission was dropping the 3G in a toilet. Replaced it with a 3GS in 2009 and it still functions perfectly. Admittedly, it looks beat to heck compared to other folks' phones, but that ain't no thing. Never understood how Apple can sell so many phones if they can take the beating I give them.

This, I think is the greatest argument for the iPhone. While everyone clamors for the new upgrade they really are premium and durable products. Apple makes their money when everyone thinks they have to have the newest iProduct.

just as a frame of reference if this is the greatest argument, they perform rather poorly in documented drop tests in comparison. Now not every situation is the same but just going by what is shown on recorded videos

I have the same experience. My wife however bought the iPhone 4. In my experience, compared to the 3g(s) the 4 really breaks fast. 2 drops and screen was gone versus my countless drops (on concrete). It's anecdotal, but I here this more often from people.

I never used any type of case for my iPhone 4S. Getting new product with new features is always a craze for some people.

My case lets me attach LEGO, and glows in the dark.

I have a Galaxy Nexus and I have a case because the damn thing is too slippery without it. I would much prefer to not have a case, but I'm not going to risk dropping and breaking it.

I would much rather drop my phone with a case than without one.

I use an extremely slim case just to improve the grip. I found the metal rim to be too easy to slip out of my hand, but with a slim plastic case around the rim, it's secure in my hand. Adds virtually no bulk and the benefit of decreasing the likelihood I'll drop the phone and need a replacement.

Resell value.

Because they are expensive tools, not fashion statements.

I showed my sister my 4S recently, she was thinking of upgrading, and she was amazed at my lack of case.

"How do you protect it from scratches?" she asked, to which I replied "I don't drop it."

I can't really comprehend dropping this thing, it costs $4-500! That's a lot of money! I can't imagine not handling things that cost that much without the utmost of care.

I'm with you. Accidents happen, but most can be prevented if you just treat your expensive device with care and respect. I find that people really don't like that advice, though!

The carrier subsidy model is partly to blame for that mindset. I don't know how many people really understand the device they are tossing around actually costs $650 and not $199.

I mostly have a case for the extra grip. I had issues with dropping it and have basically a grippy rubber sleeve for a case. I've probably dropped 10 or so times and I'd guess 1 or 2 of them would have have caused cracks with out the case.

I will sell my iPhone 4 for $200-300 to buy the new iPhone 5.

I can do this because I preserved it in mint condition.

A similar argument applies to people who always leave their furniture covered.

I use a case that holds my credit card and photo ID flush against the back. In addition to protecting my phone, I rarely have to take my wallet with me anymore.

I once visited a friend's home and his living room furniture was covered in plastic. I asked why and he said his wife had it covered in case the President ever comes over.

I never used cases - as a result, both my 3GS and my iPhone 4 ended up with overly scratched lens caps - so much I had to actually remove the cap on the last one, since taking pictures was basically impossible...

I like Jerry Seinfeld's attitude about cases. (14 seconds in)

http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/joel-hodgson-a-taste...

I think a large part of why people still use cases is back when phones used cheap/er plastics your device would look like garbage after a few months of life in your pockets/purse.

Old habits die hard and I had a case on my old iPhone (3G) and my current Android Phone (Samsung Admire) until I was impressed by how durable the Gorilla Glass screen is. Now I let my phone run "naked" and it doesn't seem to get nearly as beat up as the Razr and Samsung flip phones that predated my iPhone (both got to the point that the paint on the plastic rubbed off).

A buddy of mine who works with Granite has an iPhone 4S and just uses a case to keep the steel band from getting beat up and the ports from getting chalked full of Granite dust. He can slide his phone across a work table and the screen and back are just fine[1]. Gorilla Glass is an amazing material.

[1] Note that Granite contains mineral parts that are slightly to a good deal harder than standard plate glass so it can scratch glass. Gorilla Glass is ~9 on moh's scale. Standard glass is ~5.5. Yay chemistry! http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/hardness1.html http://chemistry.about.com/od/howthingswork/f/What-Is-Gorill...

My wife drove down the freeway and forgot her iPhone on the roof. It flew off at about 90 kph (about 55 mph). It took her about 10 minutes to find the next turn-around and make it back to the phone. To make it worse she saw at least one car run it over as she was walking to pick it up.

I opened up the case and there's not a scratch on it. Aside from some dust the phone is still in mint condition. The case is nearly perfect too aside from one tiny bent plastic part under the rubber shell.

I won't say which case it is because I don't want to sound like an advertisement, but IMHO it's totally worth it to get a good one.

I'd say a case taht stops a phone breaking when it gets run over by a car is worth hearing about.

Kahneman anyone? 200+ replies answering and debating an easier question than what the OP posed.

Jerry Seinfeld agrees: http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/joel-hodgson-a-taste...

And so do I. I hate cases. If the phone needs a case then it wasn't properly designed.

Cases diminish the value of the product. It's a risk, but having a phone that slides in and out of my pocket is so worth the risk of smashing the glass.

>If the phone needs a case then it wasn't properly designed

I agree, but the iPhone 4 has no edges to hang onto. Maybe I'm clumsy but I think they are too slippery hence I put it in a case so I can get it in and out of my pocket with out dropping it.

Some people just like to make their devices a little bit more personal. My case has a picture of my kids; it obviously pleases my eyes, and people love it -- conversation starter etc etc.

I have a bumper on mine, and whenever I take it off I'm surprised how much smaller the phone feels.

true but if you are like me and your phone falls on the floor like one time per week on average, it's better to have a bumper...

IMHO the problem of the iPhone (and many other similar designs) is that's not designed for people with average care for their stuff (after all I live with my phone, I don't want to be obsessed) without using a bumper.

It would be interesting, but not marketing wise, to get real and design a phone that you can actually trow on the floor with consequences comparable to having a bumper, but NOT needing a bumper.

You can throw many Android phones around without worrying, but a lot of people write them off as "plasticky".

I personally don't mind plastic if it's done well (eg. SGS2/3), but metal and glass does feel nice in the hand.

Yep I used to have a nexus one at some point and it felt a lot more "fall resistant" than the iPhone indeed... I also don't care too much about plastic VS glass. Actually I like technology stuff made of good plastic cases, like 80's home computers ;)

I've personally seen MANY shattered SGS2's and already 1 shattered SGS3.

If you buy a glass front Android device because it's "more durable", you're going to have a bad time. They use the same or similar glass suppliers, and it will break very easily.

I didn't buy an SGS2 "because it's more durable". But I don't have a case and throw the thing around with no trouble. Not a scratch on the thing.

I'm surprised you've seen "MANY shattered SGS2s", I've never seen one. Do you work in a phone shop?

Nope. Just mid twenty's people who I guess are rough on their devices.

For the record, I own an iPhone 3G and have used it for over 4 years, and have not used a case in over 2 years.

I agree. The Kevlar back on my Droid 4 feels like it's more shock resistant than a glass or aluminum back would be. I also like that it's water resistant.

Until a fatal drop makes your phone's screen to bleed blue ink.

I had to get a case after being forced to replace the back glass. The area on the back that covers and protects the camera lens is (was?) actually very thin cheap plastic. Once it became scratched, the impressive camera inside the phone became unusable as all of the photos took on 1970s-era halos and blurring. After easily replacing the back glass and slapping on an ugly cover, the case has kept the camera healthy. I did it grudgingly, as the original elegant design is completely erased by any case you put on the device.

Placing a case on a phone is like putting a plastic cover over your couch. I don't get it personally. Use and enjoy the disposable hardware and then get a new one a year or two later.

Time to failure is a poisson distribution, not a step distribution.

Time to failure is an exponential distribution, whereas number of failures in a given time frame is a Poisson distribution, if and only if the hazard rate is constant, which it typically is not, due to wearing of certain components. It's usually a bathtub curve.

(your friendly ex-statistics lecture adding some precision)

Really good point actually. Every time I pick up my iPad with the smart cover off (and that's very minimalistic of course), I think Wow, this is so thin!

I'm on my lifetime 16th iPhone. (between all the versions) - my current 4S is the longest ive had one without dropping it and it breaking.

I've always hated cases, and this is one of the reasons I have broken so many.

Personally though, the thing I really hate is the iPhones lack of a notch to attach a lanyard without a case.

I've even email Jonathan Ive about this directly, though he's not cool like Steve and actually replies.

This is the most infuriating design aspect about the phone - given it's fragility, the lack of this really pisses me off.

I'd love to tell Apple execs off about this personally as it makes me so farking mad that if I choose to be caseless I am guaranteed a broken phone.

Fark that. People tried to tell me it was a design aesthetic choice that Ive made in the phone, and for that I say fuck him for this one small change would have saved me so many phones.

And I still have mine from 3 years ago (a 3GS). I have never used a case; carry it around everywhere; and have never broken it.

16? Really? Then you must really, REALLY love the iPhone. At what point does one say 'enough is enough' and switch to some other phone?

First, iCrakced (YC alum) and iFixit are profitable for a reason... Its nice to hear you took care of your device - but its clear it is an overly fragile design.

Also, no it isn't that I REALLY like the iPhone - I have had other devices - but I have chosen to have a policy of NOT paying for my phone.

My work pays for my phone and plan. I don't have a choice on the phone in some cases. (some companies refuse android devices due to perceived security risks, RIM is dead..)

"I have chosen to have a policy of NOT paying for my phone".

Suddenly it is all clear why you have gone through 16 phones.

In the launch presentation, I think i saw a lanyard with a notch-like button on the new iPod. So yes, looks like they like your feedback :-) and may be first trying it out on the iPod and if it works well on that, they may even do it eventually on the iphone.

What if these people are nervously scrambling to make a comment so they don't look stupid on camera?

Of course, they all ended up looking stupid, but if you genuinely believed you were getting something new you would probably feel pressured to feign being impressed.

Besides, I'd wager that they excluded one or more interviewees who said "I can't tell a difference."

</devils advocate>

Of course, it's perfectly fine for a laugh.

Agree with you: it was same effect than with "Americans are NOT stupid" video where we see lot of cut scenes where people say wrong answer (as "4 sides on a triangle"). That let thing people says only stupid things, while in fact they are just not perfect.

For french readers, here an old link on the subject: http://plombe.over-blog.com/article-24222182.html

These man on the street stupidity bits are a staple of late night comedy, but for every stupid person, there could be 50 people who aren't stupid, and immediately get the joke. You just don't see the latter group. There's probably also a third, even smarter group, who understand that if they play along, they might end up on tv.

This is understandable, but it still exposes that there is a group of "stupid" people out there that would accept an iPhone 4S as the new iPhone 5.

There's also groups of "stupid" people who believe the moon landing was a hoax or our education over here should help the Iraq. So what? Is the existence of uninformed people really breaking news?

If you look hard enough there are people stupid enough to believe anything.

In general, great expectation makes part of the prefrontal cortex more excited. Scientists argue that the activity of this brain region shifts the preferences of the wine tasters when they are presented to an expensive wine, for example. [1]

"Wine experts and consumers can be fooled by altering their expectations. The expectation it (expensive wine) will taste better actually makes it taste better. Your expectations powerfully influence the final vote in your head over what you believe to be reality." (from the book You Are Not So Smart).

[1] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/should-we-buy-expe...

I read a similar experiment where people were given the same food on either paper plates or fine china. As expected, people thought the food served on fancy plates was of higher quality. I forget where...

I'm assuming this is the same psychology at work with the $1000 HDMI cables and the people who insist the can perceive a massive quality difference.

exactly -- perceived improvement because it was more expensive; it must be better

I imagine this can be done with almost all handsets, laptops, etc. I'm guessing this is more "human nature" than Apple Fanboy'sm at a large consumer scale.

I know, right?

Considering how many times in the trials people have been unable to tell APPLE AND SAMSUNG products apart, you'd think readers here would realize that those people are obviously going to have trouble with products in the same family!

The funny bit here is that we have people who do manage to tell apart two products that are actually the same.

This does raise an interesting point about HN as a whole. I remember in one of the Apple/Samsung threads someone brought up the point that people couldn't tell Apple and Samsung products apart, and in that case it was used as an attack against Samsung and 'proof' that they were copying.

In this instance the exact same idea is used as a defense for Apple.

I think the simplest explanation for it is that HN is large and contains multitudes.

Yes, the cognitive dissonance is staggering. But we are able to see it because we don't worship Apple. This makes me wonder what cognitive dissonances that I might have, that I am completely blind to, which others can see through right away as they don't subscribe to the same world-view.

I'd bet it can be done with just about everything in our consumer culture.

Can average people on the street spot the difference between a 2013 Ford F-150 and a 2012 model?

Also this is a piece on a late night comedy show not some random sampling of people outside the sets of the Jimmy Kimmel show. Edited to make it funny as well (as they should btw).

I'm wondering how this is being extrapolated to mean "Nobody can tell the difference between iPhone 4/4S and 5".

Yes this says a lot about human nature and very little about iPhone's. Great for a laugh though. I also bet there were some people who realized what was up but ended up on the cutting room floor. It would actually also be funny to see how people handled that.

It's gotten to the point where it doesn't even surprise me anymore that this kind of tripe is the #1 top story on Hacker News now. Hacker News is becoming the "Ow, My Balls!" of the tech world.

Direct link, nothing worth reading at the submitted page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdIWKytq_q4

I'm not sure what is funnier, the clue less apple users who can't figure out this device is the same as the one in their pockets or the anti-apple rage bots in thenextweb comments.

It's like watching a parrot attack the parrot in the mirror.

I also wonder if these folks were handed a brand new 4S, unhampered by apps and months of use. In my experience, the speed, even for activities like homescreen navigation, got slower over time, especially when I load more and more apps. Newer store models always seem zippier than my weathered old phone.

All this said, they clearly picked gadget plebians, as anyone even slightly in the know would immediately check out the 8-pin dock connector and 5 rows of apps.

"the speed ... got slower over time"

Tell me about it. I'm still using a 3G, running iOS 4.2.1. Frankly, it's so slow as to be almost useless. But at least I can still make calls. (I guess it's time for an upgrade)

Even better -- that's actually an iPhone 4 (notice the black band by the headphone socket).

It seems most people are willing to buy a new iPhone or iPad just because it's "new" (doesn't even matter what improvements it has, if any) and because it's from Apple. I remember a video doing the same for the new iPad using and iPad 2, and the reaction was the same.

Am I the only one who saw this as a skit and nothing more? I don't watch Kimmel a lot but when Conan does a bit like this the people on it are always paid actors. It's still funny, but I wouldn't expect a late-night talk show to bother actually interviewing random people when they can make their own script the way they want it and get away with it (not saying it in a bad way, it's a comedy show after all).

Hilarious. People are just downright brainwashed by genius marketing, hype and a general oblivion of the facts and reality. America. LOL

The article implies that all people in question have an iPhone. The video shows only 2 of them comparing their iPhone and the last person only claims that he has it. Why? I mean, it's not a natural iPhone owner reaction not to whip out his current phone to make a comparison.

My point is, over half of the people in question do not show a clear indication of owning an iPhone 4S besides their claim and the video says that they ask people. Not iPhone owners exclusively. People. It measures consumer awareness, not necessarily Apple buyers, like thenextweb article says. They are likely to guess due to their personal knowledge of older products.

Also, the whole idea reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYU1a0lTTTw people suddenly agreeing that they know him from X movie, heard his songs while in reality he had none.

The "it feels so much faster" comments don't fly with me. The iPhone 4 still feels slick and speedy in September 2012. The 4S was faster, but it wasn't noticeable except for certain apps. Now the 5 is 2x faster again, but it's how much CPU is really needed to slide icons around and play music and look at photos?

It's now been over three years since the 3GS was released, and there's essentially zero difference between the 3GS and the iPhone 5. I honestly don't see any point in upgrading unless I drop my current one, which isn't likely.

> there's essentially zero difference between the 3GS and the iPhone 5.

Are you kidding? I'm no iOS fan, but I think that statement is a bit ridiculous.

The battery life is almost exactly the same.

All of the most popular apps still run on the 3GS, and run well, with the exception of a half dozen or so.

The internet browsing speed is effectively identical, regardless of whatever the specs claim.

The new cameras are supposedly slightly better, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless you've got a highly trained eye.

The only features that the new iPhones have are things like Siri and Facetime, which are largely gimmicks with no real use case.

Here is a video comparing the 3gs to the 4s for internet browsing speed. The complicated sites are much different the simple sites are basically the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuSYkdyfuTA

I expected it to be more of a blowout on ALL sites. I can't tell if this proves you right or wrong.

It seems a little deceptive to test highly complicated sites like apple.com, since you're not going to have a good experience on sites like that no matter how fast they load. The vast majority of the sites I visit on my phone are text-based: HN, Reddit, Google News, 538, DailyKos, RealClearPolitics, etc. On these sites there wouldn't be much difference at all. If I want to go to apple.com I'll do it on my laptop regardless of speed.

And based on the video, it looks like the 3GS is as fast or faster than the 4S for sites that are text-based or optimized for mobile.

The battery life is the same but the processor speeds are much different. That's huge! A faster processor and a bigger screen will draw more power, so the fact that the battery life is the same is impressive on it's own.

Were you hoping the iPhone 5 would be better in some particular way?

Because it sounds like you just don't need more than a basic phone. There's nothing wrong with that, but for people who are looking for a high end phone it's a clear upgrade in many ways (for example a larger, higher pixel density screen).

Your thinking is boggling my mind.

The battery life is almost exactly the same.

One phone uses LTE, while the other uses 3G. I'm also ignoring how the 5 is easily faster than the 3GS, which requires more power.

All of the most popular apps still run on the 3GS, and run well, with the exception of a half dozen or so.

This will change as the 3GS doesn't get iOS 7 and other apps start requiring it (or a full-featured iOS 6).

The internet browsing speed is effectively identical, regardless of whatever the specs claim.

By virtue of the faster processor + GPU, this is patently false. Also, you'll get fewer Safari reloads since the 5 has 4x as much RAM.

The only features that the new iPhones have are things like Siri and Facetime, which are largely gimmicks with no real use case.

You forgot a faster cellular connection and a high-definition screen.

With that said (I won't speak to the camera, since I don't have an eye for that sort of thing), I agree that iOS updates since iOS 4 have not introduced gamechanging features. Still, it's nice to Facetime with my family given that we don't live in the same city.

How many markets actually have LTE now?

Wait, is this an argument against a technology that (a) has been widely rolled out by Verizon, and (b) will be even more pervasive in the coming months and years?

It's a question. A buddy of mine in NYC bemoans the fact that he can't actually get LTE coverage despite having an LTE phone. I still have an HSPA+ phone, so I haven't even looked. I'm curious, because it was my impression that outside of a few niche markets, LTE wasn't really a "yay, I get massively fast internets everywhere" feature yet.

Sorry, I expect the worst from the HN crowd these days. See my most recent comment for an example.

NYC is notorious for its poor Verizon LTE coverage. Right now, the US LTE market is "Verizon," however, as AT&T has rolled out slowly and Verizon LTE covers some high double-digit percentage of the US.

A lot.

I too have a 3GS, and the difference between its camera and the 4S is unbelievable. I can't wait to upgrade, as I use my iPhone as my principal camera. Go test the 4S and see the difference.

The difference in camera between the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S is noticeable. This holds true even more so between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4S.

I used to own an 3G and a 3GS and I use my iPhone 4S WAY more often for taking pictures of anything and everything. It is my preferred go to for taking pictures because it is always with me. I own a point and shoot but it has largely been sitting on my desk at home and is rarely used.

I want to take a look at the iPhone 5 specifically for shooting more pictures with, my iPhone 4S's lens has a slight scratch in it (which doesn't seem to affect the picture quality, thankfully) and something harder that can't be scratched as easily would be fantastic.

Although, if I had maybe invested in a case it wouldn't have been scratched, I prefer to not have a bumper/case around my devices, it makes them feel bulky and larger than they have to be.

Camera is vastly better, it is not even comparison. Even 4s vs 4 is very large difference.

> The new cameras are supposedly slightly better, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless you've got a highly trained eye.

This is completely nuts. The camera on the 3GS was the first acceptable camera in an iPhone, but it was nothing special. The 4S camera rivals dedicated point-and-shoot cameras for quality, and the 5's should be even better. The difference between the 3GS and the 4S (I've had both) is extremely noticeable.

And the idea that internet browsing speed would be unaffected, when the 5 has a way faster CPU and fricken LTE is so bizarre I can't even begin to understand how you make that statement. Are you somehow under the impression that internet browsing speed on the 3GS was already being bottlenecked by the remote server?

>> 4S camera rivals dedicated point-and-shoot cameras for quality

Good enough to replace vs. rivalling for quality aren't the same thing. I'm not sure what you said (i.e. "rivals") is true, given how much larger the sensor is in a dedicated point and shoot.

And keep in mind, that in good light, even a camera phone produces really nice images. Once you get into adverse conditions, things start to get dicey.

Take a look at

http://campl.us/posts/iPhone-Camera-Comparison

Interesting. The 4S is clearly the best for the city shot, but for the indoor shot it's the sharpest though I think the 3GS colors may actually be better.

Yeah, aside from the vastly superior screen, the vastly faster cellular data connectivity, the improved battery life, the smaller form factor, the vastly faster CPU and GPU, 2-4x the RAM, and the vastly improved camera, there's essentially zero difference!

Not to mention many big changes in the operating system

Absolutely true for the core "phone" functionality.

4S/5 are easy to justify from a security perspective, and the retina display on 4/4S/5 really is a huge improvement over the 3GS. LTE in the 5 also is a big win -- I'm going to try doing VoIP over LTE (G.722) so I don't have to play with Google Voice anymore.

I am amazed that the 3GS supports iOS 6, though -- I wonder if it will support the next big iOS now that it's no longer being sold.

"LTE in the 5 also is a big win"

At least on AT&T it's only supported in a handful of random town in the middle of nowhere. Not only does it not work in NYC, there aren't even plans to get it working any time soon. By the time it's actually up and running with a reasonable amount of coverage the iPhone 6 will be out.

That's not what AT&T says. They cover a ton of places with LTE, including New York City:

http://www.att.com/network/

I suppose they might be lying, but that would be pretty egregious even for a cell carrier.

Right, Verizon is the "good" choice for the iPhone 5 (it supports GSM too when roaming), and Sprint is the unlimited (but slower, since LTE isn't rolled out yet) choice.

I'm going Verizon since they have better coverage in Yosemite and some other areas where no other network seems to have coverage.

The difference in user experience is really small.

Having in mind that most of it experienced while looking at the screen the difference is huge.

By being one row taller?

The 3GS didn't have the higher resolution screen; that didn't come out til 4.

I don't see how you can say that there's no difference between the 3GS and the 5. As you said, there may be no compelling reason for you to upgrade, but to say that they are "the same" is simply untrue.

As a 4S user (having also owned the 3G and the 3GS), I'll admit that I wasn't blown away at all by the announcement, but I'll still pressure my wife into giving me her upgrade so I can get one. It's simply not possible for a company to completely revolutionize a market with every single device, especially on an annual release cycle. We were blown away by the iPhone in 2007 because the market was so different. But the market landscape has changed so much in the past 5 years that the kind of change we expect is just not possible.

Just goes to show how stupid the average Apple buyer is. What a bunch of bozos.

I don't know about you but I felt like those people they interviewed on the street are acting, this whole interview thing could be staged. I mean, it's Jimmy Kimmel Show for christ's sake. How serious is that?!

If you look at the iPhone 5 compared to other new smartphones i don't think anything comes close in terms of design.

However I'm not sure if this can be said for iOS...i think the UI needs to be overhauled soon.

This is meaningless. A friend of mine had a heated discussion with a Samsung rep at a local mobile store. The rep insisted the phone he handed her was a Samsung Galaxy 3, when in fact it was a Galaxy 2. <sarcasm>It is scandalous that Samsung would release a new phone that consumers can't differentiate. If he wasn't such an Android fanboy, he would have recorded the whole interaction and posted in on YouTube to show the world that they are all being scammed. </sarcasm>

I don't see the use of "scandalous" or "fanboy" in the linked article (though no doubt they appear in the comments, just like yours). It's just a funny dig at a not-as-innovative-as-expected product release.

The real point is that the years of rapid evolution (and, by extension, platform differentiation) are behind us. After a few years where they weren't, phones are just phones again. Hell, you could hand a bunch of people a GSIII and tell them it was an iPhone 5 and get similarly hilarious results.

But screaming about hypocrisy is missing the point.

Keep in mind they probably interview a bunch of people and only show the most ridiculous responses.

Related and worth watching... http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/rory_sutherland_life_lesson...

This reminds me of that KDE vs Windows 7 comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIgEFIv5MI

Open the thread with 200+ comments about a single tangent.

Personally, I thought the video was pretty funny and I love how serious most the people are while responding.

This discussion has been highlacked by morons talking about the cases.

The main point is - Apple's marketing is so good that people suspend judgement.

in general, a fresh install of iOS does make the phone a lot faster. these people are used to a phone that has been bogged down by general OS wear and tear, so it makes sense that they think a fresh 4S is faster than their current 4S.

anyone notice that they're showing those folks the iphone 4 and not the 4s? notice the notch on top.

Perception, hype and peer influence trumps reality and shapes people attitude most of the time. Remember Vista's Project Mojave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihorvo2tEuA

Great point. These are great case studies on the importance of marketing and a strong brand. With a strong brand, people give you the benefit of the doubt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com