Apple iPhone 5 video rounds up all rumors and concepts

Apple iPhone 5 video rounds up all rumors and concepts
The iPhone 5 is coming - Apple has confirmed earlier today an event scheduled for September 12th, and all clues point to the sixth-generation iPhone being unveiled. Right before that, it’s a good time to take a look at the rumors and concepts we’ve heard, but instead of going through all of them on paper, this last concept round-up video allows us to just watch.

Right now, all sources agree on a couple of things about the iPhone 5 - it will have a larger, 4-inch screen with 16:9 aspect ratio, LTE connectivity on board and a thinner body and different design.

Now, Apple enthusiast Sam Beckett took all those whispers combined them with what’s known for the upcoming iOS 6 and started putting all those elements together with icons drawn and animated from scratch. It’s a neat visualization of all we know the iPhone 5 should be and it seems that this time around Apple's notorious secrecy has failed and the rumors will nail it. Does this make you happy or kill the excitement? And how do you like that very possible round up of what the new iPhone might look like?

source: Sam Beckett via Nowhereelse

Related phones

iPhone 5
  • Display 4.0" 640 x 1136 pixels
  • Camera 8 MP / 1.2 MP front
  • Processor Apple A6, Dual-core, 1300 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB
  • Battery 1440 mAh(8h 3G talk time)



2. mercorp

Posts: 1045; Member since: Jan 28, 2012

Let us see how it compares to the competition! This is not going to be easy,apple.

3. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Apple doesn't care for competition. And it seems it works great for them!

8. spoks

Posts: 46; Member since: Jun 01, 2012

yup, they dont care about competition because they're killing the competition, by suing every phone manufacturer who tries to compete... good luck to that!

10. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

I don't see any competiton being killed or even slowed down by Apple suing them.

19. spoks

Posts: 46; Member since: Jun 01, 2012

yeah right! so, how do you describe apple adding galaxy s3 and Note 10.1 to the list of devices that they want to ban in the US? hmmm...

32. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Apple is damaged by success of copied products that are now the main carrier wave for new products. Of course they will want to ban new products, they didn't sue Samsung because they are evil but because they are directly damaged by shameless stealing of design solutions in past models that opened the way for Samsung for success of new products. But I don't expect you understand that because you obviously can't trace the cause and effect chain further than first level of appearance and media propaganda.

37. spoks

Posts: 46; Member since: Jun 01, 2012

Why only samsung? yeah, because samsung is the only competition who finally broke apple's reign in smart phone's history... go apple... you are the only smart phone maker in the planet... you don't care about competition because others are mere copy cat... ;-)

55. ftyler223

Posts: 140; Member since: Aug 06, 2012

appleconspiracy....god bless you my friend. i dont get why people dont just understand the truth. you dont have to be a droid fan or apple hater to see it. it is what it is. samsung copied. and yes apple doesnt worry about the competition. they sell anyways

14. bbblader

Posts: 590; Member since: Oct 24, 2011

competition like samsung? when it got sued just because its competition

18. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

I thought they were sued because of copying.

22. s.mrabet

Posts: 147; Member since: Oct 26, 2011

Thinking is NOT knowing, like all iUsers think Apple invented the touchscreen, the voics control, the notification center, they think iphone was first smartphone.........LOL

35. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

I was sarcastic. Of course I know why Apple sued Samsung. Because of copying, that's why. Because this copying enabled Samsung to become successful on some thing they haven't designed themselves. And I doubt that iUsers don't know that Apple wasn't the first smartphone. It was just first smartphone that actually worked great.

29. neutralguy

Posts: 1152; Member since: Apr 30, 2012

Again, you have your point. They were sued because of copying. But hey, where are the infringement suits for the other chinese companies that actually copied the iPhone. Okay, let's get over it. It's obvious and as clear as crystal that Apple is only suing samsung for it's the only company that can bring apple down in mobile market. That's the main reason. See, they added galaxy note and galaxy s3 for infringing the slide to unlock.And that was just wow. If they really, really value their originality and innovation, they should sue every company for having rectangular slab with rounded corners phone. I'm recycling what I have said before. Because you troll can't seem to understand it. Anyways, okay that's it. Good bye. :)

33. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Sorry but I must bring some cold water to this argument: Of course you will sue something ONLY when you are damaged by it. When you would sued someone who didn't make damage to you, THAT WOULD BE EVIL.

30. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Apple couldn't care less if someone copied them. They just want to slow Samsung down. In the original case, Apple wanted to ban the Galaxy S (which isn't even regularly sold anymore) and Galaxy S 2. Then we here Apple is trying to include the Galaxy S 3 and Galaxy Note as well. Then, a couple days ago we here that the Galaxy S 3 outsold the iPhone, which is the very first time one phone has outsold the iPhone to my knowledge. So, Apple is suing the most popular Android manufacturer, but didn't include its most recent device. But, when they saw some sales numbers, they decided to include that as well. It's pretty obvious. Apple doesn't want Samsung's money because they felt they got cheated out of sales, they want their money to try and slow them down. Apple doesn't want any competition. They have so many ridiculous patents, that if everyone were to abide by them, no one would buy anyone elses products except for Apple's because others would be so ridiculous. By suing Samsung for those patents, is basically saying, "Get out of the mobile industry." Apple wants to rule the market, but not by competition and making great products; by suing everyone and making them make products so unattractive and dysfunctional that no one will buy them. Some of Apple's ridiculous patents should be taken away, and they should be forced to make actual quality products instead of trying to win by legal action.

39. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

I suggest you get familiar with history of Apple, maybe then you can get a clearer view on their business model, instead of just following the shallowest and the most missinformed media propaganda in mobile industry.

47. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

It's simple. It's obvious they copied Apple with the original Galaxy S, so that should be banned, even though it isn't regularly sold now. The S2, not so much, maybe a little. That's fine, that's where the banning should end. But no, Apple is trying to go further though with the Note, which is NOTHING like the iPhone. And now, Apple wants to go after the S3, which, again, is nothing like the iPhone, at all. It was a wonder why they wanted to go after it, considering how different they are. Then, the news came out that the S3 beat the iPhone in sales... It kind of comes together.

53. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Galaxy S3 is nothing like iPhone (that's why they say S3 was designed by lawyers), but Samsung must be punished because this isn't about particular products but business model based on stealing design solutions that enabled Samsung to accumulate popularity in the first place. Galaxy S is, indirectly, but still factually, responsible for success of S2 and S3. Apple is damaged, not because Samsung got rich, but because Samsung got rich upon something they stole. So, it's logical, and law approves it, that the quility one should be punished. If Samsung is not punished in this way, that would mean their copying of Apple was profitable and right decision. There were some articles that adressed this problem: in Samsung they were aware that they are copying Apple but estimated that this move would be profitable on the long run. And it was. Therefore, for the sake of justice, Samsung must be punished in those products that now make profits, despite the fact that they didn't copy Apple now. I sometimes feel I'm the only one left who really understands the concept of fair competition and protecting non-material inventions in form of ideas and projects. Fair competition is when Sony has their design and Nokia theirs. And HTC theirs. Samsung was not fair at all, but it's disturbing that everyone think they were, and start to defend it on basis of some totally wrong arguments, like mixing technological and design patents, believeing that Apple was stealing etc. Have you ever considered the fact that Apple pays patent fee for every patent they use? For instance, they pay Nokia enormous sums of money. Are they in jeopardy because of that? No, they are still richest. So this whole thing doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything for progress, innovation or competiton.

54. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Look, like I said, Apple couldn't care less. They have billions more than they know what to do with. All I'm saying is, when the sales started piling up with the GS3, they suddenly wanted to ban that too. It's logic. Also, Apple has also copied numerous times, without paying royalties. Steve Jobs himself said it, saying that he has "been shameless of stealing great ideas." And then he goes and patents those stolen ideas. They got rich off of those stolen properties that they implemented into products, which is the same thing you're accusing Samsung of. So shouldn't Apple be punished as well, to the same extent? Hypocrisy at its best. You put up some good arguments, I won't deny that. But it all just comes back to Apple wanting to dominate the market by legal actions instead of actually making better products. Though, you are one of the more level headed commenters on this site.

65. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Things in the past are even more complicated. Because the concept of intelectual property was not yet fully integrated in the "mentality" of Industry. Although many companies practiced the patent-laws, Apple was first to develop it to such an extent that it's the basis of the whole industry. But this is logical. Although explanation should be very extensive to count as an argument, I shall say it in short. We now live in an economic system that is based on tertiary sector of production. It's even possible that we entered the possible quaternary era that is based on completely symbolic forms and design - branding, PR, marketing campaigns - anything that flows through mediasphere and not producing anything real or even producing services on which people benefit. This is important because Apple actually produces quaternary products. They are not based neither on hardware of software (although these must exists), but on symbolic forms that are constituded through ideas of way of life and identification. This will maybe sound strange but I believe that Apple has never steal or copied ideas. Because those "copied" ideas are not actual products. Actual products of Apple are ideas how to implement some ideas. And those are their ideas. I know Apple's history very well. I know Steve Jobs was stealing Xerox GUI just to accuse Microsoft for stealing it from him! His personality was a story of its own. The important thing is that he understood the problem of protecting ideas. Second Jobs' Era, as I like to call it, that began in 1997., was filled with new ideas that aren't actually stealing from anyone. But, there is a global misunderstanding of what idea or invention is. They say tablet was not Apple's idea. Well, it's not. It was Microsoft's idea. But, Steve Jobs never said it was his idea. His idea was tablet that has litteraly nothing to do with past tablets except the name of the species of devices. It's just an example. So, Apple did invent, but they didn't invent technology or types of devices. They invented ther implementation ih human society. And they were also aware that, precisely because in world with dominant tertiary or quaternary sector of production, that ideas bring most profits. So, protecting those ideas is of key importance to today's economy. It would be nice that ideas belong to everyone, but then we should be able to give up this capitalism and advanced technologies and go back to industrial society from our post-industrial world. So, let's be fair and say that this is not possible in this configuration of World. Luckily, now the World will be much more cautious on those matters. Apple was cautious from the start, and now Samsung will be. I hope so at least.

67. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Nevertheless, Apple should be punished for stealing ideas. They didn't invent multi-touch, which they patented. They didn't invent the rectangle, which was one of the reasons they sued Samsung for their "design". They didn't invent the phone icon in that certain fashion, another reason they sued. They didn't invent slide to unlock, which they patented. All of these things were implemented into previous devices before the iPhone. Yet Apple is the one that has a right to sue people for things they did not invent, and were unrightfully granted patents for? That's not ok. Another thing, most of these patents Apple is suing for, is only practical. Apple can't patent basic necessities for a smartphone, because if everyone were to abide by those patents, either manufacturers would make something along the lines of a yellow hexagon, which no one would buy; or they would have to pay copious amounts of money to Apple (see Apple's demand for $40 for every Samsung smartphone and $30 for every tablet) and they would go out of business. Would you buy something that was something like an octagon, didn't have a centered display (which would drive OCD people crazy), and didn't have multi-touch? Not at all. You see what I'm getting at here?

71. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

I know what you are getting at. Like majority of people, you state the same arguments. But, I presume I know a little bit more about design than majority of people since I'm highly educated industrial designer and aesthetic theorist. I'm sorry for stating this, it's not an argument but I hope it means something considering this medium of communication as not appropriate for me to lay down all the explanations. The point is that design cannot be truly protected because its a qualitative, not quantitative category. So, it cannot be quantifiable. You cannot reduce something on rectangles or even detailed parameters to prove that something was copied or not. It's copied when something is unambiguously visualy similar to something. This evaluation must be conducted among experts in this field, and their decision must be respected no matter what others think. It was allways obvious that Samsung copied Apple, the legal dispute was just a formal excuse for the process of stating that Samsung is evidenlty guilty. It was not actually about rectangles, edges and icon rows. Let's not be so naive, especially with reductio ad absurdum argument "so, we should be having triangles instead?". It's not about rectangles and icons, but about structural logic. Structural VISUAL logic, to be exact. I won't go as deep to explain what structural logic means, I hope you will just blindly believe me just as you believed the propaganda ;-)

72. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

If it was deeper than rectangles and icons, Apple would have stated so in court. But they didn't. I understand visually, the GS2 and GS1 and similar to the iPhone (less so as the series moves forward), there's no doubt in that. But also put into play, the U.S. is Apple's biggest market if I'm not mistaken. And when Samsung moved the Galaxy S series into the U.S., they changed the design, mainly removed the home button, and made it different from carrier to carrier (except with the S3). At that point, you could easily differentiate it from the iPhone, it literally could not be mistaken unless someone had bad eyesight, or was looking at it from a distance. All these variables are coming into play, and basically making the argument of copying useless. The truth is, everyone copies. Apple has copied, Samsung has copied, Microsoft has probably copied, etc. They are all at fault. So, should they all be punished? That is fair, isn't it? Samsung copied Apple with the original Galaxy S design, and some of it's software. Apple copied with its software, and was granted patents that shouldn't have been granted. Should Samsung give Apple all the money they asked for? And should Apple have some of their patents revoked, and have to pay for the things they took? That is the only way you could make things right.

80. AppleConspiracy

Posts: 637; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Apple didn't state that it was deeper and more obscure than rectangles and icons precisely because of inability of design patent law system to quantify the design structure. They would have no case with explaining something that's not covered in patents (and only technical specification could cover that), because dispute was about patents that could be feasible, otherwise it doesn't make sense to sue somebody. Similar example was in my country recently. The well-known designer sued Ministry of Foreign Affairs because of campaign that utilises something which is his idea but not licensed, because it was thought that his idea belongs to everyone (graphic design of non-formal political identity of our country). He sued Ministry because the solution had 90 percent of surface identical to his solution. However, he could not prove that it was a copy because those 10% difference was actually 100% difference, completely changing the message and context. In my country we don't have design patents, but it's now clear that if we did, something would be terribly wrong because he would win the dispute - and that would be wrong. Because design had to be quanifiable. So, it's basically something that its not quanititative and exact category being made exact and quantifiable. For instance, ideas are something that essentialy (ontologically) cannot be stolen. But system must make them "stoleable" by quantisation.

57. ftyler223

Posts: 140; Member since: Aug 06, 2012

berzerk000 the s2 is a bigger version of the s1. how can you say that? u make no sense. they made no big changes except the physical size of the phone. so therefore the s2 infringes upon the iphone as well.

61. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

They changed the software also. And the changed the design a bit, differentiating it more from the iPhone.

58. ftyler223

Posts: 140; Member since: Aug 06, 2012

the s 3 is a bit like the iphone buddy. they tryed to market s voice like apple did a yr ago with siri. clearly samsung follows apples lead here

63. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Not really... People can CLEARLY tell the difference between the GS3 and the iPhone. Also, things like Siri have been around for a long while, it's just a natural voice assistant. Nothing really new... It's not like Apple made Siri anyways, they just bought it. It was an app in the App Store, then they bought the company, took it out, and made it exclusive to the 4S.

74. ftyler223

Posts: 140; Member since: Aug 06, 2012

berzerk all this i know. im just stating the fact that the samsung follows apples foot steps and copies them so bad that they even advertise features like s voice

76. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

That's not really fact. That's observation, and a hypothesis based on that observation. Who knows, Samsung could have been working on S-Voice before Apple bought Siri. We'll never know until we see official documents.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.