“For almost the entire lifecycle of the iPhone, every other year has represented a sweeping redesign which kept our most-used tech companion feeling fresh,” Conor Allison writes for Digital Spy.
“With leaks and rumours offering a consensus of little change this time around though,” Allison writes, “it appears the next instalment of the phone could send Apple’s declining handset sales plummeting further.”
“If the reports of a dull refresh are to be believed, customers have indicated they will tap out on upgrading their iPhones later this year,” Allison writes. “According to a new poll conducted by online magazine Quartz, in which 525 US iPhone users were quizzed, just 10% said they would be likely or very likely to upgrade this year if Apple doesn’t redesign its flagship product.”
MacDailyNews Take: Nope. There’s much more to an iPhone than its case. Plus, roughly 8 out of 10 iPhone users immediately put their new iPhones into a case of their choosing anyway.
Furthermore, the average user spends nearly 100% of their time looking at the front of their iPhone which hasn’t changed in any remarkable way since the iPhone’s inception:
iPhone fronts, 2007-2016
iPhone 7 sales will prove the naysayers spectacularly wrong.
If the outside of the next iPhone is going to look pretty much like the existing models, then it seems reasonable to assume that the major differences will be on the inside.
Seeing as it’s the bits on the inside of an iPhone that do all the clever stuff, changing the insides is much more likely to improve an iPhone than changing the outside.
But Conor Allison appears to be a visual type of person – if you cannot see it, then it does not exist.
He is also the type of person that wraps a would-be tech article around the statement, “If the reports of a dull refresh are to be believed…” I don’t believe that rumor, Conor, so your speculations are based on FUD as far as I am concerned.
That’s true of most analysts and journalists. The external appearance is by far the biggest factor, what’s inside is of little consequence while software or services hardly matter.
A service like Apple pay didn’t catch the imaginations of analysts when it was announced, but a slightly new iPhone shape would bcomee a matter of huge excitement ( and of course it would be declared to be a bad idea ).
Bizarrely, facts such as Samsung’s waterproof phone which doesn’t actually withstand water is scarcely worth mentioning, but vague rumours suggesting a not very different iPhone 7 exterior are given tremendous prominence.
BWAHAHAHA! These idiot writers have to get their predictable, web-bait, disingenuous specious jollies out before the Apple device comes out, sales go through the roof, and makes them look a halfwit fool. Whistling past the graveyard. I only wish these people’s jobs would be ominously tied into their accuracy.
10% of 1,000,000,000 existing customers buying a new iPhone is still a hundred million. Then add the new customers, switchers and those who have to get a replacement because their existing iPhone is lost or broken and you’ve got a pretty decent business.
I think Shakespeare had knowledge of ‘analysts’, how else could he write:
“a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
I totally agree with the MDN take.
Time to add tail fins, like Detroit did on the 50’s.
Add this naysayer to your iCal list and when the 7 is a huge hit, list every one of the nattering nabobs of negativism here by name PLEASE!
Not over-bright.
If the outside of the next iPhone is going to look pretty much like the existing models, then it seems reasonable to assume that the major differences will be on the inside.
Seeing as it’s the bits on the inside of an iPhone that do all the clever stuff, changing the insides is much more likely to improve an iPhone than changing the outside.
But Conor Allison appears to be a visual type of person – if you cannot see it, then it does not exist.
He is also the type of person that wraps a would-be tech article around the statement, “If the reports of a dull refresh are to be believed…” I don’t believe that rumor, Conor, so your speculations are based on FUD as far as I am concerned.
That’s true of most analysts and journalists. The external appearance is by far the biggest factor, what’s inside is of little consequence while software or services hardly matter.
A service like Apple pay didn’t catch the imaginations of analysts when it was announced, but a slightly new iPhone shape would bcomee a matter of huge excitement ( and of course it would be declared to be a bad idea ).
Bizarrely, facts such as Samsung’s waterproof phone which doesn’t actually withstand water is scarcely worth mentioning, but vague rumours suggesting a not very different iPhone 7 exterior are given tremendous prominence.
BWAHAHAHA! These idiot writers have to get their predictable, web-bait, disingenuous specious jollies out before the Apple device comes out, sales go through the roof, and makes them look a halfwit fool. Whistling past the graveyard. I only wish these people’s jobs would be ominously tied into their accuracy.
The FUD season starts earlier every year.
These anals-yst are already vomiting their shiat into the digital world without any clue of what Apple and its 1 billion+ customers are going for…
525 people polled. ROFL! Wow 525 out of 1,000,000,000. A tangible metric.
10% of 1,000,000,000 existing customers buying a new iPhone is still a hundred million. Then add the new customers, switchers and those who have to get a replacement because their existing iPhone is lost or broken and you’ve got a pretty decent business.
Spot on!
I think Shakespeare had knowledge of ‘analysts’, how else could he write:
“a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
I’m not buying one. Perfectly happy with my trusty old 5S. Plus it looks pretty lamo….again! going by the rumours