> Next, it has an intriguing “motion coprocessor”, which I think pretty much means you can use your 5S as a fitness tracker with almost no effect on your battery life.
My guess is that it's much more than this. It's for augmenting the GPS location with dead-reckoning, for places where the GPS location doesn't reach well, such as buildings or on subways, etc.
Accelerometers are already pretty sensitive - enough to provide an improvement on GPS-only devices. But, this new coprocessor will allow a much higher-resolution sampling of the accelerometer, and thus the integration (in the calclus sense) of acceleration into velocity and distance will be much more precise.
I doubt it's for GPS assistance. Motion sensors can be used to suppress Wi-Fi scanning and/or GPS localization during the roughly 89% of the time humans are not moving. Remember, phones continually scan for new Wi-Fi APs in the background even when the screen is off. On modern phones with a/b/g/n chipsets (32 channels to scan) and energy-expensive CPUs (i.e. Exynos) this takes a huge amount of power.
Motion sensors themselves are really energy-cheap but the main CPU needs to be on to sample them, which basically means that if you want continuous mobility detection you're going to burn through your battery pretty quickly, which is why it isn't used much. You can do some CPU duty-cycling, but wake-up and suspend overhead is pretty bad and can amount to as much as 50% of the total energy spent. I haven't done any measurements on an iPhone, but a GS2 Exynos 4 is a terrible energy drain, while an something like an OMAP 4460 (e.g. Galaxy Nexus) is much more efficient.
By offloading mobility detection to a separate chip you can bring down the overhead to tens of mW. The fact that you can use it as a step counter for jogging is just icing on the cake :)
Inertial navigation? It's an interesting idea, but I think if they were doing that, they'd have touted it in the presentation as an example of something they can do that nobody else is even thinking about. It's not like apple to miss an opportunity to try an distance themselves from the pack on their technical capabilities.
perhaps. everyone assumed coming in to today that the "cheaper" version would hurt margins. Granted it was priced above expectations, I'm not sure it will have significantly higher margins.
The 5C is not about a higher profit margin for Apple. It's about maintaining their current profit margin whilst offering carriers a bigger incentive to bundle and sell and their phones.
The 5S camera is killer. f/2.2, apparently a great sensor for the size and 120fps video is more than most pocket cameras offer. Manufacturers of point-of-shoot cameras can pack up and leave if this is a trend.
The only good thing is f/2.2 which the Lumia 1020 has and is a better camera, 32Gb of built in storage (and SD card slot) for £200 GBP LESS than the 5s.
> Manufacturers of point-of-shoot cameras can pack up and leave if this is a trend.
My friend brought a cheap point-and-shoot camera to last New Years Party. He had pictures from a family get-together with kids throwing leaves up in the air, taking multiple snapshots during. With the fast shutter mode, you could see individual leaves and zoom in on them. I'm certain the iPhone 5 nor any other camera phone cannot come even remotely close to that.
Then there's the low light pictures I tested during the party. None of the cameraphones could get a decent shot, but the point-and-shoot was amazing.
Sure, if you take pictures in ideal conditions with a cameraphone, it starts to get hard to tell, but the reality is most pictures are taken with low lighting, or too much motion, and I've yet to see a single cameraphone be even minimally useable in these conditions.
Point and shoots are already dying and that handwriting has been on the wall for years. The interesting thing is that hundreds of millions of people having great smartphone cameras has created a boom in photography enthusiasts and DSLR and other high end cameras markets have benefited.
Apple's following the exact same playbook they wrote with the imac and ipod where they focussed heavily on the primary form factor for several years and then threw open the gates to colors.
They seriously need to fix their international pricing. For a 64GB model it's $913AUD to buy an iPhone 5s in the US, $1129AUD to buy one in Australia. What?
My opinion is the exact opposite. I don't think the 5C is an appealing middle tier, I believe it's a dumb middle tier, and maybe intentionally so, to make the premium offering stand out more.
1. If it's intended to be appealing, why call it "5 Cheap"? Okay, Apple didn't call it "5 Cheap", but everyone thinks so, and in marketing, what consumers think is the truth. Additionally, Apple didn't try to correct people when everyone thought it would be cheap. Who is gonna buy a phone that is "cheap" but not cost effective?
2. The 5C isn't that appealing against 5. Yes, a new product is a new prodcut, but a flagship is a flagship. In emerging markets, why do people spend a month's salary for a phone? Because they want to show off to ohters, or at least so that people can't show off to them. Which one do you think have more "show off" power? The previous year's flagship (people don't know when you bought it) that looks identical to this year's flagship, or the "cheap" alternative?
3. The colorful back is suitable for really cheap devices, not seemingly cheap but actually expensive ones. They are liked by young people, mostly students, and new graduates. They don't have much money, and prefer cheaper devices. The 5C isn't cheap. Premium products are never colorful, for a reason.
4. The 5C is a worse product than the 5, technically. It probably has only about 10% larger battery capacity, but is 18% thicker and heavier. I can imagine how many cheap materials are used to make that happen.
5. If you look at the big picture, the trend is smaller and smaller differences between generations of iPhones. And because of the diminishing differences, people are more and more likely to choose an older generation for a cheaper price. According to one source[1], the 4S commanded 90% of all iPhone sales immediately after launch, and almost 75% a year later, before the 5 was launched. The numbers are 70% and 50% for the 5. Unfortunately, the difference between 5S and 5 is far smaller than that between 5 and 4S. Therefore, the appeal of the 5, if it were not discontinued, would only surpass that of the 4S in the past year, and maybe even able to seriously challenge the 5S in sales. The problem of the middle tier is not that it's not appealing, it's maybe that it's too appealing, making the flagship device not able to stand out. Maybe Apple acted this turn not by improving the quality of the flagship (they can't), but by lowering the quality of the middle tier.
6. If the 5C could generate similar earnings per unit as the 5S, why is it bad for Apple if it eats too much into the 5S's market? Because the success of the flagship relates closely to Apple's brand image, and Apple's success is closely tied to its image. People don't care about the middle tier, the success of the flagship is what reflects the company's technical prowess, and this is a battlefield in which Apple can't afford to lose.
I guess the sales numbers will tell who is right:), whether the 5C performs better than the 4S did in the last turn.
The 5C is important for one big reason: China. I expect the "unlocked" price won't reflect the kind of subsidies and discounts that China Mobile and Apple can give to make it affordable for their customers.
I think the "C stands for China" is fair, but I don't expect Apple to break with their multi-decade tradition of maintaining the highest margins that are compatible with a viable market presence. Yes margins will be lower in aching than elsewhere, but they are not going to even attempt to compete with Android for market share because it would be utterly pointless.
The Chinese mass market is dominated by extremely poor bargain bucket Android devices with invisibly thin margins that can barely scroll a web page. It is true that Samsung has a strong presence over there and Apple needs to deal with that, but the premium end of the market is big enough for both to do well. The kind of people who are likely to prefer an iPhone over there aren't as price sensitive as the average and charging them less just to also sell a few more units down market would just be leaving money on the table. That's not something Apple has a habit of doing.
1. The spec published today is not suggesting that iPhone 5c/s would support TD-SCDMA networks which CMCC is bound to due to regulation reasons. And LTE-TDD is light year ahead for CMCC.
2. A difference of mere 800 CNY in price between 5c and 5s is not attractive enough to those who can afford 5,000+ CNY(, i.e. the iPhone 5s) in China. And in the past, smugglers carrying duty-free iPhones from Hong Kong in the first few months of sales may reduce the high price caused by the tariff and VAT. Now, Hong Kong is NOT even in the initial list!
I am curious to see how those two will sell. I can't imagine myself to buy the not-so-cheap 5C, when for 100 eur more, I can have faster processor (which will be important thing for iOS7), much better camera, non-plastic body and other things.
stevep98|12 years ago
My guess is that it's much more than this. It's for augmenting the GPS location with dead-reckoning, for places where the GPS location doesn't reach well, such as buildings or on subways, etc.
Accelerometers are already pretty sensitive - enough to provide an improvement on GPS-only devices. But, this new coprocessor will allow a much higher-resolution sampling of the accelerometer, and thus the integration (in the calclus sense) of acceleration into velocity and distance will be much more precise.
inoop|12 years ago
Motion sensors themselves are really energy-cheap but the main CPU needs to be on to sample them, which basically means that if you want continuous mobility detection you're going to burn through your battery pretty quickly, which is why it isn't used much. You can do some CPU duty-cycling, but wake-up and suspend overhead is pretty bad and can amount to as much as 50% of the total energy spent. I haven't done any measurements on an iPhone, but a GS2 Exynos 4 is a terrible energy drain, while an something like an OMAP 4460 (e.g. Galaxy Nexus) is much more efficient.
By offloading mobility detection to a separate chip you can bring down the overhead to tens of mW. The fact that you can use it as a step counter for jogging is just icing on the cake :)
simonh|12 years ago
derefr|12 years ago
molecule|12 years ago
Which one will have a higher profit margin for Apple? The 5C.
twiceaday|12 years ago
clarky07|12 years ago
threeseed|12 years ago
hcarvalhoalves|12 years ago
harrytuttle|12 years ago
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/s/s6500/
16MP, 12x optical zoom, upto ISO3200, Lens shift VR
The only good thing is f/2.2 which the Lumia 1020 has and is a better camera, 32Gb of built in storage (and SD card slot) for £200 GBP LESS than the 5s.
Apple are rip off merchants. Sorry.
sspiff|12 years ago
However, comparing a $600 iPhone to a $70 point-and-shoot is not really relevant.
Slackwise|12 years ago
My friend brought a cheap point-and-shoot camera to last New Years Party. He had pictures from a family get-together with kids throwing leaves up in the air, taking multiple snapshots during. With the fast shutter mode, you could see individual leaves and zoom in on them. I'm certain the iPhone 5 nor any other camera phone cannot come even remotely close to that.
Then there's the low light pictures I tested during the party. None of the cameraphones could get a decent shot, but the point-and-shoot was amazing.
Sure, if you take pictures in ideal conditions with a cameraphone, it starts to get hard to tell, but the reality is most pictures are taken with low lighting, or too much motion, and I've yet to see a single cameraphone be even minimally useable in these conditions.
Steko|12 years ago
gte910h|12 years ago
It will make auto white balance so much better at its job.
T-zex|12 years ago
Steko|12 years ago
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3017050/untold-stories-inside-ap...
threeseed|12 years ago
They let companies like Apple, Samsung etc come in and dominate what was their industry to own.
josteink|12 years ago
Hard back-pedalling on plastic observed.
nwh|12 years ago
ygra|12 years ago
bowlofpetunias|12 years ago
halfninety|12 years ago
1. If it's intended to be appealing, why call it "5 Cheap"? Okay, Apple didn't call it "5 Cheap", but everyone thinks so, and in marketing, what consumers think is the truth. Additionally, Apple didn't try to correct people when everyone thought it would be cheap. Who is gonna buy a phone that is "cheap" but not cost effective?
2. The 5C isn't that appealing against 5. Yes, a new product is a new prodcut, but a flagship is a flagship. In emerging markets, why do people spend a month's salary for a phone? Because they want to show off to ohters, or at least so that people can't show off to them. Which one do you think have more "show off" power? The previous year's flagship (people don't know when you bought it) that looks identical to this year's flagship, or the "cheap" alternative?
3. The colorful back is suitable for really cheap devices, not seemingly cheap but actually expensive ones. They are liked by young people, mostly students, and new graduates. They don't have much money, and prefer cheaper devices. The 5C isn't cheap. Premium products are never colorful, for a reason.
4. The 5C is a worse product than the 5, technically. It probably has only about 10% larger battery capacity, but is 18% thicker and heavier. I can imagine how many cheap materials are used to make that happen.
5. If you look at the big picture, the trend is smaller and smaller differences between generations of iPhones. And because of the diminishing differences, people are more and more likely to choose an older generation for a cheaper price. According to one source[1], the 4S commanded 90% of all iPhone sales immediately after launch, and almost 75% a year later, before the 5 was launched. The numbers are 70% and 50% for the 5. Unfortunately, the difference between 5S and 5 is far smaller than that between 5 and 4S. Therefore, the appeal of the 5, if it were not discontinued, would only surpass that of the 4S in the past year, and maybe even able to seriously challenge the 5S in sales. The problem of the middle tier is not that it's not appealing, it's maybe that it's too appealing, making the flagship device not able to stand out. Maybe Apple acted this turn not by improving the quality of the flagship (they can't), but by lowering the quality of the middle tier.
6. If the 5C could generate similar earnings per unit as the 5S, why is it bad for Apple if it eats too much into the 5S's market? Because the success of the flagship relates closely to Apple's brand image, and Apple's success is closely tied to its image. People don't care about the middle tier, the success of the flagship is what reflects the company's technical prowess, and this is a battlefield in which Apple can't afford to lose.
I guess the sales numbers will tell who is right:), whether the 5C performs better than the 4S did in the last turn.
[1] http://macdailynews.com/2013/07/22/iphone-5-accounts-for-hal...
r00fus|12 years ago
simonh|12 years ago
The Chinese mass market is dominated by extremely poor bargain bucket Android devices with invisibly thin margins that can barely scroll a web page. It is true that Samsung has a strong presence over there and Apple needs to deal with that, but the premium end of the market is big enough for both to do well. The kind of people who are likely to prefer an iPhone over there aren't as price sensitive as the average and charging them less just to also sell a few more units down market would just be leaving money on the table. That's not something Apple has a habit of doing.
ttflee|12 years ago
1. The spec published today is not suggesting that iPhone 5c/s would support TD-SCDMA networks which CMCC is bound to due to regulation reasons. And LTE-TDD is light year ahead for CMCC.
2. A difference of mere 800 CNY in price between 5c and 5s is not attractive enough to those who can afford 5,000+ CNY(, i.e. the iPhone 5s) in China. And in the past, smugglers carrying duty-free iPhones from Hong Kong in the first few months of sales may reduce the high price caused by the tariff and VAT. Now, Hong Kong is NOT even in the initial list!
greyman|12 years ago
nagarjun|12 years ago