The author makes a good argument (and I always love reading about the nitty gritty of Apple's construction and what they not merely do, but do at incredible scale and consistency), and additionally some of the structural tradeoffs involved in ceramics may be unacceptable for general survivability in a phone-sized form factor. But even so I was surprised in his 3 option list he ignored an obvious 4th. He's correct about scaling and switchover challenges, and that at least as of right now Apple doesn't seem to have any major leaps forward in ceramic manufacturing actively deployed in a product, which in turn means iPhone-scale mass manufacturer would be incredibly expensive/difficult, even for Apple.
But that's probably part of why Apple doesn't do it in the Watch either. Instead, they have an entire lineup of Watches, and then use a very expensive, niche process only for an ultra premium skin. While I still consider it unlikely (Apple hasn't done this sort of thing in one of its main lines since the TAM in 1997), if they wanted to start the playing with an advanced material they couldn't get to scale quickly one way would be to just port the Apple Watch strategy and make it exclusive to a special high end model, ie., a ceramic "iPhone Edition" for $2-3k or whatever along with the normal color options. The 10th anniversary of the iPhone would be an occasion for that too. That strategy would have the standard advantages in terms of natural market forces: very high pricing simultaneously limits demand and ensures a large margin for R&D, handling issues, and scale out.
There are still plenty of downsides and again ZrO2 ceramics may just plain not be appropriate for the future of general Apple products regardless of manufacturing. But if they had a 10 year plan to do a major material shift in their product lines, simply reflecting reality and making the new material premium at launch then moving it down the stack seems like it'd be an option they could now pursue given that they've already gone some distance to getting the public used to the idea of differently priced "skins" on an identical internal hardware platform.
I avoided writing about the structural stuff in the article, only because ceramics - beyond the basic, off the shelf stuff, are WAY above my paygrade. Some people argue that ceramics are OK for a phone (that Mi5? I think, has a ceramic shell back, and seems to be holding up OK in the field).
Ceramics are interesting in that they could be the perfect material for so many things, if only a few very short limitations could be overcome - chief among them being brittleness and ease of manufacturing. As such, there are a lot of big brains working in proprietary labs, trying to gain an edge... and getting close in a lot of cases.
So Apple could have solved that and is waiting to get closer to launch to disclose through patents. Who knows?
What we DO know is that no current ceramic process can scale to iPhone volumes, and if Apple did solve that... we would have seen at least a little bit of that tech getting tested in the Edition. Since we didn't, I can't see it working out for a phone.
If I was going to re-write it, I would be a bit clearer on that and also add the possibility of a ceramic Edition. I don't know if Apple is that in love with this as a material though.
additionally some of the structural tradeoffs involved in ceramics may be unacceptable for general survivability in a phone-sized form factor.
Um, yes. Look how much trouble Apple has with bending. Remember "bendgate". A ceramic will crack, not bend.
The other direction, flexible phones, has promise. Flexible printed circuits already exist. Flexible displays exist. Flexible batteries are probably possible. Flexible front transparent cover should be possible. Samsung has tried some things in this space, and has shipped a slightly curved phone. So far, no really flexible phones. The main problem is making it flexible while limiting the amount of bend. Maybe a stiff flat spring...
I've seen bendable batteries that can even be cut in half without danger (and they still work!) I even have some samples in my closet somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx08CGcyuAE
I doubt anybody wants a bendy battery in their phone anytime soon, given heightening consumer awareness of how dangerous high energy Lithium Ion can be, and how sensitive they are to damage.
> given heightening consumer awareness of how dangerous high energy Lithium Ion can be, and how sensitive they are to damage.
I assume you're talking about the Note 7? To be honest, I think the details about the why and how of the Note 7 fires are lost on the general populace. Most people don't particularly care why (and they shouldn't need to), they just care that it happens.
My gut feeling is also that an iPhone Edition is coming in March 2017, and it will be ceramic at a price closer to $2k.
Apple probably also wants to update the iPhone SE (which was released last March), so it would coincide neatly. That would create a new cadence for iPhone updates:
- New "Series" introduction every even year in September
- New S model every odd year in September
- New Edition model and SE model every March
With the Watch, Apple has started using the Series nomenclature ("Apple Watch Series 2"). That would work for iPhones as well. So the current iPhone 7 and 7 Plus is really the first two models of "Series 7", and next up will be "iPhone Series 7 Edition" and "iPhone Series 7 SE".
First, I don't think Apple is likely to ever introduce an "Edition" iPhone in the mold of the Edition watches (that is, a purely cosmetic or material variation at >3X the cost of the base model). It's simply not worth pushing the iPhones the vast majority of people will actually buy out of the "top end" category. Every second in a keynote spent ogling over a $2000 ceramic iPhone is a second that's not selling to (and indeed may be discouraging) the customers who are going to make Apple real money. When Apple made a "gold" iPhone they didn't charge a penny more for it, and people went nuts.
Second, even if Apple were to go down the "Edition" route, a schedule where the "best" iPhone comes out six months after a more "boring" phone with the same guts doesn't make sense. They'd be Osborne'ing themselves every year: "Yeah, the iPhone 9 looks great, but rumor has it the Edition will be made of carbon fiber! I'm going to stick with my 8 for a few more months."
On the other hand, they need growth (market expects that) and it is harder and harder to attract completely new iPhone customers. Increasing the amount of money extracted from those who are anyways buying iPhone is one option.
More expensive models can also boost the sale of cheaper ones among certain customers. This can give the brand a luxury image. Of course if done wrong, it might also drive some other customers away.
> On the other hand, they need growth (market expects that) and it is harder and harder to attract completely new iPhone customers.
Just introduce an "Hackability Edition" of the iPhone which has many of the features that make nerds drool, as ability to allocate executable memory in apps (thus making JIT possible), ability to sideload apps, replaceable battery etc. and Apple will have completely new iPhone customers.
"Yeah, the iPhone 9 looks great, but rumor has it the Edition will be made of carbon fiber! I'm going to stick with my 8 for a few more months."
That actually seems like the perfect outcome? Currently iPhone sales are heavily seasonal towards the end of the calendar year. Seasonality always carries risks (e.g. potential supply issues).
If a group of customers waited 6 months to buy a higher-margin luxury product instead, that would be a net gain for Apple.
The danger is that some customers don't buy at all.
Either because by the time March rolls around, they're already thinking about the newer phone due in October, or because the mere existence of the Edition (even if they can't afford it) makes the "cheaper" phone less appealing.
It's also hard to see how Apple could get terrific margins on a product that would sell at (say) 4x the price but at 1/20th the volume. They'd probably do just as well if their enthusiasts keep buying a top-end $1,000 SKU of the "regular" phone annually.
> The danger is that some customers don't buy at all.
I'm still using my 3-year-old iPhone 5S. I may update to the 7, but I'm not sure I will...for exactly the reasons you state. The phone works fine, and the only thing I'm really concerned about is some future iOS update making the phone unusable. My question is: is my update cycle going to become more common (or even the norm)? How does Apple hedge against a more fragmented purchasing pattern?
They will try to make people buy watches and devices to watch movies.
The decrease on sales, specially around the world where people aren't constrained to 2 year contract renewals and stick to their phones until they die, is one of the main reasons companies are trying to diversify beyond mobile phones.
I suspect there's also more demand for ceramic in something you wear against your skin all day than something you carry in a pocket. I don't see ceramic having the same appeal in a large, flat form factor.
But the aWatch "Edition" Edition was a big failure, right? They discontinued it and replaced it with something costing like 1/5th as much? Why would they be eager to extend the branding to the iPhone?
If the ceramic aWatch Editionv2 is a huge success, okay, sure, maybe. But... you really think they're confident of that at this point?
That's why we're talking about ceramic (which was just introduced as the high end watch), not gold (which failed). I don't think it's especially likely, but the failure of a $10k+ gold watch doesn't forecast anything about the likelihood of a higher end iPhone.
A machined steel iPhone, perhaps with all the exterior dimensions 0.5 or 1mm bigger - would it be "cool"? Or would it just be the jacked-up-Hummer of the phone world?
But that's probably part of why Apple doesn't do it in the Watch either. Instead, they have an entire lineup of Watches, and then use a very expensive, niche process only for an ultra premium skin. While I still consider it unlikely (Apple hasn't done this sort of thing in one of its main lines since the TAM in 1997), if they wanted to start the playing with an advanced material they couldn't get to scale quickly one way would be to just port the Apple Watch strategy and make it exclusive to a special high end model, ie., a ceramic "iPhone Edition" for $2-3k or whatever along with the normal color options. The 10th anniversary of the iPhone would be an occasion for that too. That strategy would have the standard advantages in terms of natural market forces: very high pricing simultaneously limits demand and ensures a large margin for R&D, handling issues, and scale out.
There are still plenty of downsides and again ZrO2 ceramics may just plain not be appropriate for the future of general Apple products regardless of manufacturing. But if they had a 10 year plan to do a major material shift in their product lines, simply reflecting reality and making the new material premium at launch then moving it down the stack seems like it'd be an option they could now pursue given that they've already gone some distance to getting the public used to the idea of differently priced "skins" on an identical internal hardware platform.