Let's look. According to Segall, even though the iPhone 5 had all kinds of "major changes" -- bigger screen, better camera, etc., etc. - [y]et its improvements were still dismissed by many as 'incremental.'"
This indeed is terrible. Who would waste their money on some once-innovative product now ruined by incremental changes? Who, that is, apart from the record 47.8 million people who did buy one in Apple's fiscal first quarter, outstripping the iPhone 4S's sales a year earlier in the same quarter of 37 million, which was also a record up to that point. Quarterly breakdown of iPhone sales is here; the quarterly total includes all iPhone models bought during that period.
We're having some trouble following the "thinking" here. Segall's argument first is that the "S" weakens the brand, making people less likely to buy it. So his "solution" is to use only a number, which presumably will strengthen the perception that the phone is innovative or at least more innovative than an "S" model. But he himself has already shown that the iPhone 5 was especially denounced by the cognoscenti for not being innovative, suggesting the "5" actually didn't help. Except, of course, in record sales...just like the 4S had record sales.
"And I agree with his take: why lower expectations for a device from the outset by telegraphing to buyers that this year's device isn't as new or "innovative" as the one coming in the next year?" Ogg says.
But in buying a personal electronic device, it's a bit unclear to Rollup what the significance is of "lower expectations" before the device is announced. Or for that matter, if most buyers-who-don't-write-for-tech-blogs actually have lower expectations regarding a future iPhone. Surely what matters isn't your low expectations of what Apple will announce in the Next iPhone, but rather your decisions based on what Apple actually does announce in the Next iPhone.
For both iPhone 4S and 5, record numbers of consumers were happy to buy it. So how is this "unwise" naming convention a "bad idea?"
iPhone 6 will have flexible display because Apple is hiring a flexible display guy
For the iOSphere, Apple job postings, like Apple patents, are the 21st century version of Etruscan and Roman haruspicy, or "the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals." KnowYourMobile's Paul Briden doesn't shrink from getting his hands bloody.
"A new job posting at Apple shows that the company is interested in developing flexible displays, a technology which could see use on the rumoured iWatch or the future iPhone 6," writes Briden, in a post at KnowYourMobile.
Briden's link to the specific job posting, for a "sr. optical engineer," doesn't work: Apple apparently deleted it, according to 9to5Mac, which helpfully provided a screen capture of the original.
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.