Earlier today, Chinese site C Technology posted a pair of photos of what was claimed to be an internal frame for Apple's next-generation iPhone, a device said to be carrying a display measuring at least 4.7 inches, significantly larger than the current 4-inch standard for Apple's most recent iPhones. The photos were picked up by GizChina.com and have since made their way to increasingly prominent sites expressing varying degrees of skepticism about their authenticity.
/article-new/2014/01/iphone_6_midframe.jpg?lossy)
While we had initially decided to refrain from posting the images due to their extremely dubious nature, their increasing visibility today bears addressing. For a number of reasons, including several outlined here, we believe that the part shown in these images is not legitimate.
- The part appears to be a midframe such as that found in earlier iPhone models, allowing components to be attached to both sides of the part before being enclosed in the device's shell. Apple did away with midframe components as of the iPhone 5, opting for a unibody rear shell design that allows components to be mounted directly to the shell, yielding a thinner design. A return to a design requiring a midframe part would seem unlikely given Apple's emphasis on thinness.
- The frame seems to show accommodation for a headphone jack at the same end of the device where a circular feature presumably corresponding to the device's rear camera is positioned, undoubtedly the top end. With the shift to the narrower Lightning connector in the iPhone 5, Apple shifted the location of the iPhone's headphone jack to the bottom edge of the device, matching the position seen on the iPod touch since its launch and allowing the headphone cable to naturally fall so as to not interfere with viewing of the device's screen. Moving the headphone jack back to the top edge of the device for the iPhone 6 appears unlikely, though not impossible.
In the face of those apparent inconsistencies with Apple's design direction, there is essentially no evidence in favor of this part being from an iPhone, leaving only the original poster's claim as support. The part is rather unremarkable with what appears to be fairly poor finish quality, meaning that it could be from one of any number of devices in the Asian supply chain.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)This is so fake it's astonishing you guys fell for this.
Wow seriously? Did you even read a single sentence in the article??? How about the title??*babble*
Poor effort Macrumors, just some crappy click bait.
This is so fake it's astonishing you guys fell for this.
To add on this, Samsung has been making their phones with the headphone jack at the top like this for quite some time. If you look at some of their recent phones you see the exact same style. Besides that, this doesn't look like any Apple part I've ever seen. All the holes in the side indicate that there goes a case around this, presumably plastic, like with Samsungs phones. This doesn't use Apple's antenna design, I highly doubt that they WON'T use it in their new iPhone. Also there is no place for the lightning port.
And above all, WHY would Apple move the headphone port back up on top of the device?!
Poor effort Macrumors, just some crappy click bait.
It's painfully obvious that you didn't read the article. Poor effort on your end.
This is so fake it's astonishing you guys fell for this.
........ snip.......
Poor effort Macrumors, just some crappy click bait.
Calm down.
They clearly executed a takedown based on evidence and logic, but posted it due to it being circulated all over.
Macrumors is the first port of call for some people, and they felt responsibility to address it without a link-baity article.
This is so fake it's astonishing you guys fell for this.
And above all, WHY would Apple move the headphone port back up on top of the device?!
Poor effort Macrumors, just some crappy click bait.
You obviously didn't read a word.
Surely this is hardly worth mentioning as a story?
Read the article. Because this is getting more posts elsewhere and reported as genuine by some rumour sites, MR felt the need to debunk the myth. Saves people emailing in saying that MR should pick up the story.
They've done this for a number of years now, I don't understand what's so confusing.
This is so fake it's astonishing you guys fell for this.
Thankfully we have newbies like you to correct us. </sarcasm>