News - Apple iPhone 5S to be launched in Q1 2013?

[deejayburnout]

I don't understand your attitude. Why shouldn't there be new phones? They're not forcing you to buy them, and they're not stopping your existing phone from working.

Of course they are trying to make money by releasing new products. That's what companies do.

By all means release new phones. All the other companies produce handsets of varying spec/quality to cater for all tastes. Nothing wrong with that.

One of the things that I hate is they extortionate prices Apple will charge you for a device.
£549 for a PAYG 16GB version, £619 for a PAYG 32GB version and £719 for a PAYG 64GB version

They charge you £60 for a larger memory chip that will cost no more to install it and the cost of the chip will be pennies to them. To me profiteering.

And who on the blue hell would spend £700 on a mobile phone.

Apple care about money, that is it.

What about the new lightning connector? Correct me if I am wrong but didn't every other phone maker sign an agreement so they all use micro USB as standard to reduce all the chargers going to landfill and to keep costs down with devices. Apple make there own connector and don't let anyone but themselves make them buy putting a chip in it to prevent copies. And if you want to use your new Iphone 5 phone on a older dock/base you need to buy an adaptor that cost £20 and they don't even chuck one in the new box.

Money grabbing if you ask me.

All ways to screw you the user out of cash, and line there pockets.

and I haven't even touched on the ethics of the company with how they treat workers or sue everyone they can.

Apple can ram there products up the own behind.

[deejayburnout]

Oh and

RANT OVER.

[3dcandy]

Burn that heretic quick for daring to challenge the Apple people...

[kalniel]

By all means release new phones. All the other companies produce handsets of varying spec/quality to cater for all tastes. Nothing wrong with that.

One of the things that I hate is they extortionate prices Apple will charge you for a device.
£549 for a PAYG 16GB version, £619 for a PAYG 32GB version and £719 for a PAYG 64GB version

They charge you £60 for a larger memory chip that will cost no more to install it and the cost of the chip will be pennies to them. To me profiteering.

Go look up what profiteering means. Then think about how necessary a luxury item like a smart phone is. Then think about whether there are any other smart phones you can buy from someone else.

Apple care about money, that is it.

Actually no, they are a public company, so they care about what their stakeholders ask them to care about. As we are a capitalist world, most stakeholders care about money. Apple are not a charity, nor a government funded organisation. If you want that to change then you're welcome to become a stakeholder yourself.

Apple can ram there products up the own behind.

*their *their

And I'm sure they can, but why would they? You can just walk on by.

[george1979]

'Go look up what profiteering means. Then think about how necessary a luxury item like a smart phone is. Then think about whether there are any other smart phones you can buy from someone else.'

- A little patronising don't you think? Regardless of what profiteering means I think you and anyone else reading understood what he meant.

'Actually no, they are a public company, so they care about what their stakeholders ask them to care about. As we are a capitalist world, most stakeholders care about money. Apple are not a charity, nor a government funded organisation. If you want that to change then you're welcome to become a stakeholder yourself.'

- Again, patronising but also incorrect. We are a capitalist society, not world (or more specifically a society with a capitalist economic system). Also there are plenty of public companies who try to act responsibly with regard to their employees, customers, the enviroment and their stakeholders. Being a public company does not preclude them from acting ethically.

[kalniel]

- Again, patronising but also incorrect. We are a capitalist society, not world (or more specifically a society with a capitalist economic system).

Fair point. I should have used Madonna lyrics.

Also there are plenty of public companies who try to act responsibly with regard to their employees, customers, the enviroment and their stakeholders. Being a public company does not preclude them from acting ethically.

If that's what their stakeholders want them to do then sure. See my other point. If you want to influence the stakeholders then act in a way that they care about - if they're interested in making money then give them money when they do something you like, and give money to a competitor instead when they do something you don't like. Hence my 'walk on by' comment. Ranting at or about them does nothing, and incorrect accusations of profiteering doesn't help anyone.

[Smudger]

Fair point. I should have used Madonna lyrics.

Like a Virgin?

[kalniel]

Like a Virgin?

I think they only offer the Galaxy 3...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why shouldn't there be new phones?

Actually,one of the arguments against Android high end phones and tablets by Apple fans,has been the fact that they have "short" lifespans when compared to what Apple makes.

So,it is quite amusing that Apple has started to release updates much quicker!

[george1979]

[QUOTE=kalniel;8287]

Fair point. I should have used Madonna lyrics.
[quote]

Lol that would have been funny. On the downside I can't get that song out of my mind now... So thanks for that...

[TooNice]

kalniel answered some of the things I was going to reply to in that rant, so I'll just mention other things.

how they treat workers

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...roup-says.html

There are also a couple of news on worker conditions two months ago. Not that two wrongs make a right, but it's not an uncommon issue with companies that deals with manufacturing on a massive scale.

But I don't know what all the rant has to do with the original statement anyway. That statement is akin to saying that there should be no Galaxy S2 and the S3 should've been the S2.

People aren't obliged to upgrade, I stuck to my iPhone 2G until less than 3 weeks ago. Of course I want the product I buy to be 100 times better than it's predecessor in all measurement, and remain the best for the next decade. Now back to reality. Release too slowly, and naysayers will point out that the device is "obsolete" 6 months down the line when a competitor release something faster (or a bigger screen, or the next generation of mobile phone mobile communications standards etc.). Release something too quickly and you risk buyers complaining that their device they bought six months ago is "obsolete" because the new one is a little better. Worse yet, if it is a whole lot better in which case they'll say that it is the device that should've been released in the first place as they now think that they could've waited the time of the new one.

Bottom line, there is no way to please everyone at the same time. The best thing you can do, is to either buy something cheap enough so that you don't care if it is "overtaken" tomorrow by another device, or stick with it until the next upgrade is such a quantum leap that.. frankly you wouldn't care that much if it something a little better is released soon after.

Back to the news, I'll believe it when I see it (but if I was to bet, I would say this rumour is bollocks).

[b0redom]

Wow, yet another Apple thread descends into "All Apple users are n00bs", well there's a surprise.

I've got an iPhone 4S and I have absolutely no intention of upgrading any time soon. It does what I want it to do and I see no value in upgrading for a slightly larger screen.

I bought it offline and stuck in my own SIM, so ended up paying around £600 for it, but then I don't get hit by massive mobile bills every month and I get virtually unlimited data, minutes and texts. I guess most people who want a high end device won't want to front load the cost like I do and will end up paying £50+/month for whatever device they use.