In a new report from KGI’s Ming-Chi Kuo, the analyst claims that a new four inch iPhone is unlikely for 2015. This contradicts some recent reports and supposed 4-inch ‘6C’ case leaks, but KGI is generally more reliable than other analysts. We would still be wary of any such predictions however, given that mass production of iPhone models will not be started for a few months giving plenty of time for Apple to change plans.
KGI also notes that whilst the next-generation 4.7 and 5.5 inch iPhones will feature pressure-sensitive Force Touch technology, it will work differently to what customers will see in the Apple Watch, new MacBook and updated 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.
Rather than directly sensing levels of force applied to the screen, the report claims Force Touch in the ‘iPhone 6s’ (or ‘iPhone 7’ as KGI describes it) will be based off how much of a user’s finger contacts the display. In other words, a Force Touch would be detected if the user sufficiently flattens their finger pad onto the screen to distinguish from a light tap.
Current iPhones have some awareness of this tap radius, but is somewhat of an estimate due to the limitations of the current capacitive touchscreen technology. The upcoming new iPhones would be able to determine this contact area much more accurately using the dedicated sensor. According to Kuo, the sensor will be physically situated under the backlight. This is similar to how the Galaxy Note is structured internally, according to the report, although Apple’s implementation will be more advanced as it has to process more complex signals.
KGI says that inclusion of Force Touch in the iPhone may mean Apple could call the next iPhone the ‘iPhone 7’, rather than a moniker with a more iterative description like ‘6s’. This appears to be just speculation on Kuo’s behalf however, not based on anything concrete. The report does not say that Force Touch will be exclusive to the 5.5 inch iPhone 6s, contradicting a sketchy Taiwanese report from earlier this morning.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
There has to be a 4″ iPhone. There will be no device to reasonably fill the $99 price point, unless the iPhone 6 becomes that, giving way to the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. I doubt it though. The lineup looks better with 4″, 4.7″, 5.5″..all at price tiers.
yea, the lineup would just make so much sense like that.
In the current line, the 5s looks so out of place and they will need to fill that place this fall. If that spot was replaced by a 4″ that looked like the current line, it would make so much sense.
Then they could keep pushing the internals down the line so every year the free 4″ color model gets the old 4″ processor and the 4″ gets the old 4.7/5.5″ processor.
The plus could always have better battery life and camera, the normal one would be really well balance and the small one would sacrifice a little performance for portability. A nice gradient of form factors and prices tiers to meet different people’s needs.
If Apple were to produce 4″ iPhone ( which I hope they will do ), I would want it to be a fully featured iPhone with pretty much the same features as it’s bigger brothers. The inevitable consequence would be that it wouldn’t be substantially cheaper than it’s siblings. I would expect the price of a SIM free 4″ iPhone to be around $500 to $550.
Talking about a $99 price point is rather misleading as you only get it for that price when it’s subsidised by the company that you sign a contract with. In other parts of the world, people buy their iPhones outright ( or on credit ) and pay a significantly smaller monthly fee for the cellular service.
Anyone who believes that the “iPhone 6c” is a real thing (and I do), should see that there must be a second 4″ iPhone option.
The 6c will replace the 5 and the 5s leaving nothing “beneath” it. It becomes the new entry level “cheapo” phone. It makes no sense to continue to sell 4″ phones, but only give your customers who *want* that size, two year old technology in a plastic case.
It’s the “new” Apple nowadays and they do a lot of things that don’t make sense, but I still don’t see them doing something as dumb as screwing over the significant portion of customers that want a 4″ iPhone.
Measuring pressure radius is a nice way of simulating pressure sensitivity, and is good enough on an iPhone, but I still hope they bring real pressure sensitivity to the iPad, since it’s more appropriate to use with a stylys and well, stylus tips have a fixed radius.
There’s also the possibility that Apple will sell an active stylus (possibly alongside the iPad Pro) that itself detects pressure accurately, and sends data to the iPad using Bluetooth, removing the need for real pressure sensitivity by the screen itself.
As for the naming, I doubt it will be called iPhone 7 unless the enclosure is redesigned. Kuo is pretty reliable when it comes to hardware (he seems to have supply chain sources), but he can’t seem to get naming or pricing right (which is normal given it has nothing to do with the hardware supply chain).
The way force touch is described in terms of the Apple Watch, it’s always tied to the description of the “flexible” OLED screen, the impression being that there are some kind of force (tension?) sensors around the outside edge that can detect the flexing. Is this not true? Because that’s the distinct impression I got from the introduction of the device.
with all models except the sport ones utilizing sapphire glas, i can assure you that nothing in contact with the screen will flex in any way… looking at how the watch is engineered and how it is used (being strapped to an arm that is somewhat flexible in itself), i’m pretty sure there is no sensor that would really meassure the force used to press on the screen (because it would react differently on different arms) – hence, my guess would be the system on the watch works entirely as described for the new iphones…
the introduction of a 4” iphone with certain iphone 6 specs is one of the most logical choices apple could possibly make… the possibility of using apple pay on a 4″ version alone would be worth it from a strategical point of view, so i can’t see how they wouldn’t opt for that…