Originally Posted by THT
For the size of the screen versus the size of the device, well, we have to have some bit of reality. To fit a 5.2" diag, 16:10 aspect ratio, 4.41 x 2.76 inch screen onto a 5 x 3 inch PDA form factor, the sides will need to be 0.12 inches with a pretty sharp corner. The new screen sizes I laid out required this. For the top and bottom, I was keeping with the physical home buttom and cellular philisophy of the iPhone. These are iPhones, not iPods, so it needs cellular wireless tech (room for an earpiece), and the single home button is, well, one of Apple's signature features in the device.
Don't get me wrong I like the current Iphone but I don't see that template translating well into a larger device. The problem is length, for a pocketable device length quickly becomes more of an issue that width.
The single Home button is a fine idea but there is nothing to say that it needs to be on the front of the device. The same functionality can be had with the button on the end or Rear of the device. As for sound well there is a lot happening with transducers so I will leave that one up in the air.
My only concern with the bezel size is in the overall length of the device. As long as the HD resolution can be had in a reasonably long device we will be OK. If the iPhone ends up peaking out of my pocket all the time then it is a no go.
All-in-all, the cases are about the size of the screens, especially relative to other phones and PDAs.
I really don't have a problem with a physically larger iPhone. Frankly I've handled them a lot and find that they are almost to small. Of course I'm 6' tall with big hands so just about all cell phones are an issue. Like I said I just don't want the thing protruding out of the pocket.
I know you'd like a SD card and a full USB port (let alone a mini one), but those things limit Apple's thin thin thin design philosophy. (And Iike a 100+ GB HDD version too). I don't think they'll ship a handheld device on the order of 0.75" thick anymore.
I've seen this response to the idea of a USB port in the iPhone a number of times. I can't help to wonder if people have not imagination, it should be perfectly easy for Apple to implement a low profile USB plug design for the iPhone. USB plugs are that thick relative to the current iPhone. Sure that is case integrated design but why not?
AS to the SD / CF slot well that I will acknowledge is a bigger challenge and to be perfectly honest I'd take the flexibility of a real USB port over the FLASH port. Especially if that frees up more space for internal storage. Still for professional usage there are cases where it makes a lot of sense to have a built in FLASH port.
Yeah. Apple will need to separate functionality of a prospective iPhone lineup, and I think it will be quite simple for them to do.
The "nano" version has to be multi-touch, very similar to the current iPhone, but only smaller, and as I've written before, smaller means 3 to 3.2 inch multi-touch screens. It should just be a shrunken version of the existing iPhone. If released in 2008, it should have 8 GB. As for functionality, well, that's easy. Only EDGE, no UMTS/HSPA. No QWERTY soft keyboard due to the width of the device (1.6 inches) being too small, so T9 for text entry. No computer like functionality. 1.3 MP camera. Less applications. Lots of things can be done to eliminate cannabilization of the upper tiers.
The thing I disagree on is the nano has to be multi Touch as I think that misses the whole point in a low cost and alternative model. A Touch free nano simply offers up an easier to use interface for people who don't need the complexity of a multi Touch unit.
If released in 2008, the mid-range would have 3.5 to 3.8 inch screen, UMTS/HSPA, soft QWERTY, 3.2 MP camera, 16 GB storage, faster processor, GPS, and more applications. And the high end should have everything the mid-range should have, but more: 4.2 to 4.5 inch screen, 32 GB flash or 120 MB HDD, 2 cameras, etc.
Actually I think Apple will keep the current iPhone around for some time as the mid-range device. The will simply upgrade the FLASH storage from time to time. Though this may tweak a few, I even expect a price drop or two as higher end products are introduced.
It's going to be long wait before this happens, if it happens at all.
I don't think so. Honestly I believe Cell Phones could be as big to Apple as the Ipod is to them now. They will need many models attractive to a number of different users.
I don't understand what you are saying. 150-250 for a nano. 300-400 for mid-range and 450 to 550 for a high end.
Shave about $75 to $100 from each of those prices.
Those are the prices points I think Apple should target, not what I as a consumer want. I'll leave it to other companies to drive the cost of the device down, but like the iPods, these are the price point for a pocketable cellular device.
Apple needs to target phones that are competitive with the range of Cell phones available now from the competition, that means at least one device in the sub $100 dollar range.