iPhone 5 (working title) Speculation Thread.

So anyone who follows Apple and the iPhone knows that there has been a new iPhone model every year since it first came out. In some cases it's been a whole new generation change, some years it's just been the last year's model with more memory or new features.

My prediction is that this year's offering will be an "iPhone 4G".

Basically it will be an iPhone 4 (introduced last year) with "4G" support for AT&T and Verizon. The phones will be universal, so any phone would work on either carrier. I think it will have a dual core CPU, and possibly a 64GB offering this year.

I do not think that an "iPhone 5" (significantly design-level different to get it's own product name) is in the works for this year.

Just to get this out of the way, for Muad Dib,

A dual CPU would be be a .... huge change.

Not in any sort of real "iPhone 4G vs. iPhone 5" product naming sense.

A dual-core iPhone would be fundamentally identical to a dual-core iPhone. It wouldn't change the way that end users use the phone.

Now add another camera, and change the size and weight of the frame and then that's a new product name for ya.

I disagree that it wouldn't change the way the phone is used. It might, for example, make true multitasking possible

You'd have to better define "true" multitasking. My iPhone does multitasking just fine.

Better performance of an existing feature does not a new product make.

Nevertheless, I'd rather hear your opinion on what you think it will HAVE, not what you think it will be CALLED.

That seems like a fairly solid prediction.

If it doesn't have 4G capability this will be the year they lose me to an Android phone that does.

Skin's gonna lay out a couple feature predictions -- but keeping them conservative and confined to software-based features, since Skin hasn't seen any hardware rumors yet.

Proximity gestures. Skin's read rumors that Apple has applied for patents relating to gestures that don't even require the user to touch the screen, possibly done through a revamp of the phone's proximity sensor or a similar technology that's just an improved version of what the phone's already got. Although Skin can't think of too many uses for this feature, he's betting others here can.

Wireless syncing. Hell, even the Microsoft Zune HD can do this one, so this is a case of Apple lagging behind Microsoft. Anybody who is a big consumer of podcasts has probably wished their iOS device would refresh their podcasts without requiring a trip to the desktop.

Maps expands to include augmented reality via the device's cameras. The user would be able to use their phone's camera and screen to get a "head's up" view of their travel directions. This one's kinda iffy, because while they could do it, they might not want to deal with the prospective lawsuits that would arise from idiots trying to use the feature while driving. Of course, using the accelerometer, they might disable it if the phone is traveling at greater than 5 miles per hour. Then again, some morons would jailbreak it and get an app that does the same thing without that limitation, of course.

RFID electronic wallet is supposed to be the big thing in the next gen iPhone.

And an RFID wallet sniffer is going to be the big thing in the Cydia store shortly thereafter.

The iPhone's implementation of multitasking is due to battery limitations, not processing limitations. The processor and the OS do "true" multitasking just fine; there's just a fairly odd scheduler for GUI apps compared to those on other platforms. What you mean is simultaneous multiprocessing, which didn't fundamentally change anything when it came to the desktop, and won't on the iPhone either.

I honestly don't think this one will happen (well, the podcast subscriptions updating on the phone might, but not the wireless sync). Why?

1. Bluetooth is too slow. 'Nuff said.

2. Thru-the-Cloud sync requires massive capital for storage and bandwidth. If Apple does this (and I actually consider this the MOST likely way they'll do it), it'll only be for MobileMe subscribers.

3. And here I speak with some authority: I've spent the last 6 months working with the brightest folks in the business to bring good WiFi syncing to Android from the Mac and Windows desktop (especially the Mac, for my part). There are two main problems with WiFi syncing, of any flavor - discoverability and connectivity. On the surface, these are easy problems - Bonjour seems to solve discoverability, and the fact that you're on the network period should solve connectivity, right?

Wrong. Very, very, wrong. It basically boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't control the router, and a lot of routers (at the switch layer) are configured, often out of the box, to be hostile to Bonjour's multicast packets. It's absolutely infuriating how wrong manufacturers get this. Also Windows iTunes users often turn the Windows Bonjour service off. We solved this by implementing a subnet scanner. But sometimes that doesn't work either. As a last resort, we have an option for the user to enter their phone's IP address manually. There is no way Apple will tolerate users having to do that.

Once you get past that, there's the hostile network operator to deal with. Sometimes this takes the form of the router - a certain major name brand (which I would absolutely name if I could remember who it was... 2Wire sounds right, but I don't think that's it) actually configures their routers out of the box not to support traffic from a wired LAN hooked into the router to the wireless network. What. The. Fuck.

Sometimes it takes the form of a corporate network. They often have rather draconian network controls - personal iPhones may not even be allowed on the network at all.

And sometimes it takes the form of a brain-dead network policy from, of all things, a university. In particular (but not exclusively), the University of Central Florida. Their network policy is so incredibly FUBAR, that it's really not fair to call it a network at all - just an internet connection. In particular, even unicast packets to/from and between wireless devices to any destination/source other than outside the network are dropped. Wireless devices can't communicate with each other, and can't communicate with networked computers. To say nothing of the fact that you can't run a server OF ANY KIND without prior authorization from the NOC. Poor kids, can't even share their iTunes libraries because that starts up a DAAP server. Not that they could find them anyway - Bonjour is of course disabled.

Now, Starbucks does the same thing, but at least there it's justified; they don't want to be liable for when someone forgets to turn off shared folders before connecting. But at any rate, between the 58,000+ people squarely in Apple's target demographic and no using it at Starbucks, WiFi sync is simply a losing proposition for Apple.

Sorry, that post went on a lot longer than I intended it to. But aside from those, Apple's got it made, as they completely control both ends. On Android, the situation was a lot hairier.

WiFi sync is too complicated to be worth it for the vast majority of users.

On the other hand, over-the-air sync (or 'cloud' storage with streaming) is a VERY good feature that Apple and the cell networks will have to deal with sooner or later.

And if Apple does OTA they're beholden to AT&T/Verizon to push the updates out. Head on over to any Android forum and ask how often folks get an OTA update to their Android phones. Its pretty fucking rare for a US carrier to push out an update to Android phone, in terms of significant fixes or installing the newest version of Android on the phone. Generally, the only people who see an OTA update are folks who've got a high-end phone that hasn't been out on the market for very long.

It will be crappy and buggy and behind the curve already when it comes out, but the Fedayeen Apple will camp out through the night for it anyway.

They cannot see that Apple, in coming back from three-nil down (as it were) to beat Microsoft, has become Microsoft.

I think you're on a different page from Powa. No one's talking about OTA software updates, just OTA media streaming and/or sync.

You can get OTA media streaming with iOS (Pandora does it), might even be able to get OTA streaming of files on your Mac/PC with the right app. Don't forget that an iPhone on a non-US carrier is capable of doing a lot more things than an AT&T iPhone because the damned network can't handle the load.

OTA's aren't entirely controlled by either AT&t, or Verizon. There are numerous variables involved with those including each of the manufacturers doing what they need to do so that updates work properly with their phones and the tweeks they have made to the Android OS.

Yes, but when European versions of a phone have an update, while the US ones don't (which seems to be the norm), then the issue is clearly carrier related.

You might be correct. But, from what I've learned on the issue over the past couple of years is that most of the time that isn't the case. About the only phones right now on the Android OS that see OTA's relatively quickly are the Nexus phones. That is because they use a 100% android os, they don't have all the tweaks that HTC, Motorola and etc. like to put on their phones.

Media sync / streaming is totally different from phone OS updates.

Apple is arguably already in a very good position to provide this type of service with iTunes. They know what music/movies/books you got on iTunes, they could let you stream it to any device you own (or any iOS device at least).

Obviously nothing is simple and they'd have to negotiate with all the content owners and they'd have to figure out how to pay for all that bandwidth.

If the carriers aren't willing/able to handle the data. Apple could also go for a facetime type strategy... stream / sync the content over the internet (thus bypassing local network tomfoolery), but only allow it to work when connected to wifi.

I dunno where you're getting your information from, but that certainly isn't what I've been hearing from the folks at Android Central. Note that there was a bit of a scandal about the Samsung Galaxy update being all ready to go, but the carriers weren't willing to pay the fees which Samsung was charging. (Samsung, BTW, is the only manufacturer to charge for OS updates.)

Nor do the Nexus phones get the updates as soon as they're released. Nexus 1 owners are still waiting to get Gingerbread pushed to their phones as of a week or two ago (anyone running Gingerbread on a Nexus 1 has done the install themselves).

Yes, I read the various pieces of information on Android Central. They aren't always right though.

I listen to half a dozen podcasts related to Android on a weekly basis, none of them have contradicted Android Central when it comes to the issue of carriers being the ones holding up the OS updates for phones. Also, if a bunch of hackers in their spare time can whip up a ROM which allows somebody with a first gen Droid to run FroYo, then I'd think that the carriers could figure it out as well. If they can't, then they ought to be smart enough to hire some of those hackers to do the job for them.

This is a misunderstanding of the reasons why updates don't get pushed.

Carriers as well as manufacturers by their nature have to take a more cautious stance. They are going to be the ones who have to deal with the crap if it hits the fan because of problems with updates if they have adverse side effects. I've hacked my phones all the time. Each of them are rooted and generally end up with updates weeks and sometimes months before they go live. I also am well aware of the problems that can occur when doing this. I've bricked some phones. Neither manufacturers or phone companies want to put up with the shit that results if the majority of their customers have to deal with those types of headaches.

Just so you know, you aren't the only one who listens to those podcasts either.

They don't get pushed because the carriers don't give a shit about their customers (I used to work for Sprint, I know what kind of mindless idiots are in charge of cellphone companies), but if you've got a better explanation, then I'm all ears.

You act as if the carriers are the only reason for delays in OTA's. That is simply not true. You are ignoring the numerous variables involved with the development of an update, the testing of those updates by the manufacturers as well as the carriers.

Ballsacks. Its absurd to expect that a phone should be updated within moments of Google releasing a new version of the OS, but when you've got a version of the phone in Europe being updated while the US version doesn't see an update, then clearly the issue has little to do with the manufacturer, and everything to do with the carrier.

I currently own an HTC Aria which is running Eclair, while the European versions of the phone have FroYo on them. Are you going to tell me that this is because HTC is afraid that putting FroYo on a phone on AT&T's network is somehow going to bork things up?

Oh, and I'd fucking love to root my Aria, not only so I could put FroYo on the damned thing, but so that I could yank off AT&Ts fucking crapware which I have no intention of using (Seriously, why the fuck would I want to use AT&T's "navigation" software when the Google app is vastly superior?). Sadly, however, I've not been able to get the damn root to work on my phone despite repeated attempts to do so.