Case maker publishes photos of iPhone nano protector

[AppleInsider]

XSKN, the third-party case maker responsible for rekindling rumors of an iPhone nano, has started taking orders for a protective holder for the rumored gadget.

The accessory maker is selling the cases in a variety of colors for prices between $25 and $27. Outside of being fitted for a shorter, chubbier version of the Apple handsets, the cases largely resemble the company's line of iPhone 3G protective holders.

Despite accurately leaking casing designs for the iPhone 3G and fourth-generation iPod nano before those devices were announced by Apple, XSKN's latest claim of an iPhone nano has been met with considerable skepticism for a variety of reasons.

An image of one of the casings can be seen below.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[wobegon]

I could MAYBE see a scalled down iPhone to replace the current iPhone, but a separate device that would cause cannibalization between the two? NO.

[rbonner]

I don't see any sensor holes, aren't those needed for when you hold the phone to your face?

[Virgil-TB2]

Isn't it ironic how this company has twice now, (if this pans out) been the main conduit through which Apple's latest and greatest device is revealed, when it's one of the most tasteless ugly sites ever created?

Not only that, the product itself is hideous, and the few colour choices one can order that make the product barely tolerable to the eyes are never even shown. Just like with the 3G last year, the "artist" picks black and electric-eye-ripping-raw blue as the colour combination they want to highlight? And to fill in the screen shot they choose a screen with bright red and yellow buttons and then over-saturate the image to boot???? Arghhhh!!!!

/me feels like ripping my eyes out just looking at the thing. People with such a poor idea of colour and what constitutes good design should simply be put to sleep IMO.

[JeffDM]

Personally, I don't have the kind of skepticism against the new kind of device that others do. I've seen too many Apple fans find reasons to dismiss leaked mock-ups and photos saying it would "never happen" only to end up finding that the photos nailed it, even if it's not up to an apple fan's idealization of how Apple works.

I don't understand why Apple would give this company another shot at pre-release design access when they've leaked before.

[olly247@msn.com]

I really don't think this is real. I seriously don't. It just doesn't make sense at all.
On the note of the sites other "correct" prediction: They were so obviously going to happen it was unbelievable!
I think even an amateur like my mom could of designed the iPhone 3G and got it just about right. And on the iPod Nano, the whole world knew what it was going to look like before the Keynote. There was 2D designs leaked a whole week before.

Lets hold our horses and just see that this is a big publicity stunt for the site in question. Don't you think Apple will have been a bit more careful with their casing designs after the iPod Nano debacle?

[ALBIM]

If this "iPod nano" is true, it better be a clamshell

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by wobegon

I could MAYBE see a scalled down iPhone to replace the current iPhone, but a separate device that would cause cannibalization between the two? NO.

By your reasoning, wouldn't the same apply to the iPod classic / iPod touch / iPod nano? They may cannibalize each other to a minute degree, but each offers their own draws and drawbacks.

Concerning leaks like these, it is necessary for Apple to provide case metrics so that companies such as XSKN can have skins/cases ready in time for product launches. Therefore, its not hard to understand why Apple's products are being "leaked" by accessory manufacturers nowadays, because they all want to be the first to have their cases etc on the shelf when people line up to buy Apple's new products. Whether these 3rd party accessory manufacturers are deliberately tight-lipped or loose-mouthed is a whole other debacle.

[webfrasse]

Originally Posted by ALBIM

If this "iPod nano" is true, it better be a clamshell

who wants a clamshell? I guess you want an antenna to pull out as well....

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

... I don't understand why Apple would give this company another shot at pre-release design access when they've leaked before.

Yeah, this is what I don't get either. If I was Steve Jobs I would have had them arrested or something for the last debacle. I sure wouldn't let them in on the next big thing like they seem to have been.

[bobmarleypeople]

hmmm. If it doesn't have apps, it will fail. I just want apple to lower the price for the pay as you go iPhone 3G (£350 for 8GB at the mo. Not amused)

[Walter Slocombe]

The "fatty" nano was a controlled leak.

-

in other news I am SO glad we have gotten away from the "FAAAAAKE" idiots

[cy_starkman]

Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible. Any cheaper iPhone will be based on the same screen shape and I'd say size since higher dpi screen (smaller) or the chips to somehow scale everything in real time would make this "nano" more expensive. The only way out is if the whole OS and dev environment goes vector graphics.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by iReality85

By your reasoning, wouldn't the same apply to the iPod classic / iPod touch / iPod nano? They may cannibalize each other to a minute degree, but each offers their own draws and drawbacks.

Comparing the iPhone/iPod touch and their MultiTouch screens with the iPod classic/nano and their Click Wheels is a blatantly false comparison.

A Click Wheel iPod's controls are independent from its scalable interface.

An iPhone/iPod touch's controls are dependent on its touch screen interface and vice versa - the iPhone's controls, interface, and screen are one and the same. Also, all of the iPods are under the (once exploding and still growing) mp3 player market umbrella, while the only major growth in the cell phone world is in the emerging smartphone segment (not the over-saturated dumbphone market).

[bikertwin]

Originally Posted by iReality85

By your reasoning, wouldn't the same apply to the iPod classic / iPod touch / iPod nano? They may cannibalize each other to a minute degree, but each offers their own draws and drawbacks.

No because there are no applications for (regular, non-Touch) iPods. It's just data (music) and Apple controls the user interface.

With the iPhone/iPodTouch, programmers have to write to the screen, so it's very important that the screen's number of pixels stay the same.

So like the OP implied, if this is a physically smaller screen but with the same number of pixels, then it would be fine. Apps should run fine on it.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by bikertwin

So like the OP implied, if this is a physically smaller screen but with the same number of pixels, then it would be fine. Apps should run fine on it.

Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.

[astrosmash]

The BlackBerry Bold has the same resolution (480x320) as the current iPhone, yet you'd never be able to guess that by just looking at the two.

It's very conceivable that this iPhone nano has the same screen resolution and therefore would run the same software. It's also very conceivable that they would be able to stuff a non-3G phone into the smaller form factor.

But I just don't understand how they could shrink the area of the touch interface by that much without seriously affecting usability. But in the end it's impossible for anyone to say whether a smaller touch area would or would not work without actually trying it, so who knows...

[MattRebs]

Me thinks its a marketing stunt.

Seriously, think of how much traffic that site has been getting lately. I really don't see this happening this soon (a second device in the iPhone leg). Maybe one day when the market calls for it. But when iPhone 3G-2 comes out this summer, the 8 gigger will likely drop to $99, and the rest will follow suit.

We'll thats how I see it anyway.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by MattRebs

Me thinks its a marketing stunt.

Seriously, think of how much traffic that site has been getting lately. I really don't see this happening this soon (a second device in the iPhone leg). Maybe one day when the market calls for it. But when iPhone 3G-2 comes out this summer, the 8 gigger will likely drop to $99, and the rest will follow suit.

We'll thats how I see it anyway.

Exactly. It's a win-win situation for them. If Apple announces such a thing, XSKN will whip up a case to fit it. If not, they'll just lie and say Apple delayed it...then remove the made-up case from their listings...then pretend it never existed, all while reaping the rewards from the heightened press coverage.

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't understand why Apple would give this company another shot at pre-release design access when they've leaked before.

Well thats it, why on earth would apple tell them anything given past history. It's not like the product would make or break the success of the iPhone, or is integral in any way shape or form.
I was perplexed last time the case manufacturer leaked info, now (if this turns out to be true) I'm in complete astonishment as to how they are obtaining these details. I can only assume the info is obtained via a third party.

[bslaght]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

Well thats it, why on earth would apple tell them anything given past history. It's not like the product would make or break the success of the iPhone, or is integral in any way shape or form.
I was perplexed last time the case manufacturer leaked info, now (if this turns out to be true) I'm in complete astonishment as to how they are obtaining these details. I can only assume the info is obtained via a third party.

Is this the same "third party" that funds Psystar?

[gwilli]

This is one of two things...

1. Apple saw that the company leaked the information before, and is providing them with the same information, knowing that they'll leak it again to gain interest.

2. The company is talking bollox and is just releasing this information to increase the amount of traffic and sales to their website.

I'm voting for 1... as it seems more viable, given the fact they could have done this at any time since the iPhone 3G's release and the fact that the macromour's guide says that a release is iminant based on average releases and latest "rumours" (source: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPhone) (Occam's razor)

[appler0x]

Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.

If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)

The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.

[gwilli]

Originally Posted by appler0x

If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)

Apple will more than likely not make a product announcement at macworld, but do it on their own terms. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_reports.html

I've been printing on printers through infrared on my old Nokia 8210 since 1999, it's nothing new.

[Pachomius]

IT'S CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR!!!

This is the phone that they will start selling in China.

That explains everything.

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by wobegon

Comparing the iPhone/iPod touch and their MultiTouch screens with the iPod classic/nano and their Click Wheels is a blatantly false comparison.

And just how is my statement a false comparison? You either misread my post, or don't understand Apple's family of products. The last I checked, Apple markets the touch as an iPod, not as a watered-down iPhone, regardless of how you interpret it as such (its interface being irrelevant). Apple's family of iPods have not cannibalized each other to a great extent, as the classic/nano/touch cater to different crowds. iPods are music players, primarily, and the iPhone is a phone, primarily and should be distinguished as such, not by their interfaces. To compare them by interface is categorically incorrect, and not what Apple does (at least for the time being). What you suggested in your original post was that a rumored "iPhone nano" would cannibalize iPhone sales, which I just don't think is true, given that the various incarnations of Apple's iPod have not cannibalized each other. IMO, there is room for a separate (the term you used) iteration (the "iPhone nano") that won't cannibalize sales of a related product (the iPhone).


Also wobegon, you need to edit your 3rd post. Your quote is wrong, it was not me who said that...

[teckstud]

Make it not be AT&T. Make it not be AT&T.

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Make it not be AT&T. Make it not be AT&T.

Amen to that.

[iVlad]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Yeah, this is what I don't get either. If I was Steve Jobs I would have had them arrested or something for the last debacle. I sure wouldn't let them in on the next big thing like they seem to have been.

What if Apple does this on purpose? Have you though of that? Its always few weeks before the release that all of the sudden such images appear .... funny hah?

[iVlad]

Originally Posted by Pachomius

IT'S CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR!!!

This is the phone that they will start selling in China.

That explains everything.

But why not regular iPhone?

[wheelhot]

I think the iPhone nano might be fully unlocked.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by wobegon

I could MAYBE see a scalled down iPhone to replace the current iPhone, but a separate device that would cause cannibalization between the two? NO.

I wouldn't be so sure. A smaller phone would be just dandy for a number of people. At first my daughter didn't want an iPhone because it was much bigger than the clamshell phone she was using. I think a smaller phone might work for people who prefer those clamshell phones, because of the size.

Depending on the feature set, would it have GPS, 3G, amount of flash, etc, it could cost as little s $149. That could be enough difference for many in countries where the present pricing is too high, such as in India, where resistance to the pricing is holding up sales.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Isn't it ironic how this company has twice now, (if this pans out) been the main conduit through which Apple's latest and greatest device is revealed, when it's one of the most tasteless ugly sites ever created?

Not only that, the product itself is hideous, and the few colour choices one can order that make the product barely tolerable to the eyes are never even shown. Just like with the 3G last year, the "artist" picks black and electric-eye-ripping-raw blue as the colour combination they want to highlight? And to fill in the screen shot they choose a screen with bright red and yellow buttons and then over-saturate the image to boot???? Arghhhh!!!!

/me feels like ripping my eyes out just looking at the thing. People with such a poor idea of colour and what constitutes good design should simply be put to sleep IMO.

I agree that to most Western eyes, this doesn't look so good. But in Asia, they don't look at things the same way. They like brighter colors. they like primary colors. Perhaps this site is more for that market.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by cy_starkman

Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible. Any cheaper iPhone will be based on the same screen shape and I'd say size since higher dpi screen (smaller) or the chips to somehow scale everything in real time would make this "nano" more expensive. The only way out is if the whole OS and dev environment goes vector graphics.

Originally Posted by bikertwin

No because there are no applications for (regular, non-Touch) iPods. It's just data (music) and Apple controls the user interface.

With the iPhone/iPodTouch, programmers have to write to the screen, so it's very important that the screen's number of pixels stay the same.

So like the OP implied, if this is a physically smaller screen but with the same number of pixels, then it would be fine. Apps should run fine on it.

Originally Posted by wobegon

Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.

Originally Posted by appler0x

Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.

If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)

The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.

Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?

These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.

I have a Solitaire app for my old Treo 700p. with a 320 x 320 screen. Before that I had two generations of Samsung Palmphones, the i300, and the i330.

Both the Samsung's had a usable resolution of the old 160 x160 sort. The app was released several years before the 320 x 320 screens became available.

But when it transferred over to my new Treo, I was surprised to find that it had resized itself properly, with more detail, rather than just a poor upscale, or playing on a smaller part of the larger screen.

As for the different screen size, yes, but only for typing. The icons are more than large enough now, and the screen size doesn't look that much smaller. Many programs take advantage of the GPU to allow for magnification, if the app needs it at times. I don't see a major problem.

Maybe we would finally get the horizontal keyboard for all apps that so many of us want.

Don't forget that idea this doesn't work, they we couldn't get a larger, higher resolution screen, for some future device based on this platform either.

[bsenka]

If this new phone is for different carriers, it wouldn't cannibalize anything, it will just increase sales. Plenty of people can't (or wouldn't) use AT&T or Rogers, but would still love an iPhone.

[rbonner]

Originally Posted by melgross

Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?

These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.

I am a iPhone developer. I make some assumptions as to the width, but the top and bottom are variable (status bar, call bar) and the orientation can flip if you allow. So while not static pages, there are layout considerations based on the fixed screen size.

Maybe a smaller screen could be made to be more dense, so same DPI?

[Ub3RdoRK]

that thing looks like a palm zire 22....iphone nano ftl. just make a bigger one and make the ones out cheaper.

[Daniel B]

"Which part of "NO" didn't you understand? Was it the "N" or the "O"?



Merry X-mas,

Daniel

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by appler0x

Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.

That's an interesting thought process, but I think it's not a reason to dismiss the idea of a smaller product. It's not as if those apps can't be updated. I don't know if you have downloaded programs from the App store, but updates to those programs appear to flow like water. Add another model to the touch screen product line and I imagine that a lot of apps will be quickly rewired, tested and pushed out to allow another screen size. I wouldn't be surprised of most apps are either already compatible or would be updated within a month of a hypothetical iPhone nano launch. Given that a new phone product is probably going to be shipped some time after its announcement, maybe it's fair to say that most apps will be checked and if necessary, updated before the launch.

I don't think it's necessary to match pixel counts for apps to still work. Did you see the WWDC08 keynote presentation? I think they demonstrated how certain controls can auto-center or auto fill the available width or available height of a screen, or fill the remaining width or height. This was offered so that the screen can be rotated and the layout still remain the same. The same principle can work with different resolutions too. Those controls appear to operate the exact same way the UI auto-spacing controls for regular Mac OS X, whose apps can be adapted to work on screens from VGA res to 30" computer displays without issue.

[ncee]

So let's see.

Apple lets folks know about an up-coming product, so they can ready for production of "Extras" for said item.

Apple has them sign a DNA agreement …

They say sure, but announce products "Extras" anyway …

Apple say's "now that was not nice", "now look what you've done", you've gone and stole our thunder, bad boys!

Apple announces said product a short time later … but no surprise to anyone, and everyone lives happily ever after …

Oh, this happens again, and again, but Apple is ok with it because…?

Yeah right!

Skip