or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Paper: 3G iPhone smaller, lighter than existing model
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paper: 3G iPhone smaller, lighter than existing model - Page 2

post #41 of 139
Apple has been also known to be experimenting with carbon fiber for some time now, but i still doubt they will go with a smaller screen
post #42 of 139
come on people, think!!!

If apple comes out with an iPhone nano, do you really think it will have all the same features as the regular iPhone but smaller? If that were the case apple would just make it the regular iPhone. No, it will lose a feature, a la the iPod Nano not having video for years prior to the most recent one. I say the feature that it loses is internet access, a lot of people say, why do i need the internet on my phone. The thing would have phone, texting, maybe a camera, and iPod functions (this is exactly what most of us predicted prior to Macworld 2007, and apple threw a curveball by making it a smartphone with full internet access)

Finally, apple's exclusivity contract with AT&T hinges on the fact that apple gets a share of the monthly data plans, so if they make this iPhone without the internet they wouldn't have to worry about a monthly data plan. If apple released an iPhone nano with iPod and phone functions, on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T for 150-200, they would sell about 10 million a quarter!

Book it
post #43 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The tenor of a lot of the comments sounds to me like the "no way that Apple will come out with the iPod phatty" (which, of course, they did, and coincided with a phlattening of iPod sales....).

Much as one would hope this rumor is not true, it could just be, sigh, Apple being Apple.

How does this compare to the fatty? That was just an aethetic design change, but the specs were all better.

I don't think there's any way apple would go to a smaller screen, they'd get slaughtered for that. And plastic doesn't sound right either.

I don't buy this rumor.

And there have been no leaked images of future iphone, those were just third party cases used as an example.
post #44 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

I will be astounded if the screen size on the 3G is smaller than the original. Perhaps Apple could reduce the size of the phone by reducing the borders around the screen, or moving buttons to the side or something, but developers are depending on the screen staying that size as they develop their apps.

Moving buttons to the side?... What buttons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thataboy View Post

If this is true at all, then it is surely describing an additional iPhone model, e.g., iPhone nano. No chance in hell they are reducing the screen size on the main model.

Smaller, plastic = lower end consumer (like the Macbook). Bigger, metal = pro version (like the Macbook Pro).

I heartily agree. Aluminum and glass have even pervaded the iMac line. There's no way they would sacrifice the exclusivity of metal and glass on their flagship, hippest product

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davvi28 View Post

Two things:
- if you look at the leaked picture of the black back of the new iPhone, it does appear to be possibly plastic
- i don't own a macbook pro, but if you did, the leaked picture of the iphone is overlaid on a macbook pro keyboard, so you could actually measure the dimensions on your own keyboard that correspond to the picture to see how big it really is

I'm pretty sure that was debunked as a case you can buy for the iPhone.
post #45 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Plus, if a new model was released, it probably would need a new FCC review, rather than
the quickie revision review people have been posting about for just updating to 3G.


Yup. But as none of those posters KNOW anything...
post #46 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

How does this compare to the fatty? That was just an aethetic design change, but the specs were all better.

I don't think there's any way apple would go to a smaller screen, they'd get slaughtered for that. And plastic doesn't sound right either.

I don't buy this rumor.

And there have been no leaked images of future iphone, those were just third party cases used as an example.

If Apple ever comes out with a less expensive model, there are three ways in which they can do it.

Smaller screen and case.

Cheaped merials for the case.

Less functionality.

Some combo of the above.

There isn't any other way. Keeping the present phone in the lineup and lowering the price if manufacturing economies have been made, would count as number three.
post #47 of 139
It's my impression that Apple basically crafted a screen size and resolution and designed a case and then a phone around that. I don't see them changing the screen size or resolution. I do see them making the device smaller by shrinking the height slightly. I also see them (in this or more likely the next go-round) switching to an OLED screen. This saves battery and more importantly a couple of mm thickness, allowing more battery and chips inside. Even 2mm of thickness saved yields a lot of volume. The phone is at least half battery in there. They might use a lighter glass but I don't count on it because the toughness of the surface must not be reduced. Finally I do see them fixing the recessed headset jack, and going to a nonconductive, not necessarily plastic, back. There are several antennas going to be inside this thing and some of them would like to be positioned apart from the others. You've got cell carrier, Bluetooth, GPS, and WiFi which could even use dual separated antennas if they go for N. That's a lot of antenna going on.
post #48 of 139
No plastic. The phone will be metal (brushed anodized aluminum/magnesium and glass. Apple's commitment to environmentally friendly materials will not include dumping 25 million plastic cases on the public.

Thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none. Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker. The phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker.

No removable battery but better power management.
Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
Dual SIM capability.
Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
Non-GSM phones will be strictly network locked.
Multi-country simultaneous launch.
Sydney launch in summer.
Beijing launch dependent on politics of Tibet situation and Olympics fallout.
post #49 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

One of the main attractions of the iPhone is the relatively large screen. Why would Apple want to lose that advantage by making the screen smaller?

EXACTLY
The smaller screen size does not make this new model desirable (to me)
post #50 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJsAWiz View Post

EXACTLY
The smaller screen size does not make this new model desirable (to me)

It might be desirable to some people at $199.
post #51 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpspence View Post

I say the feature that it loses is internet access, a lot of people say, why do i need the internet on my phone. The thing would have phone, texting, maybe a camera, and iPod functions (this is exactly what most of us predicted prior to Macworld 2007, and apple threw a curveball by making it a smartphone with full internet access)

Book it


I think an iPhone without internet is not an iPhone at all. Apple's gadget line is moving toward _more_ connectivity, not less, e.g. iPod Touch. Although I suppose you could make a case for the range of products to include phone/iPod/camera since there is now phone/iPod/camera/internet and iPod/internet.

But who are these people who don't want internet on their phone? That is the future (and plenty of the present). All the screen-gadgets like weather, stocks, movies, etc. etc. wouldn't work. An iPhone without internet doesn't have enough wow-features to differentiate it dramatically from what would be its competition.
post #52 of 139
This sounds like an iPhone nano to me. I think that they will reduce the screen size by changing the resolution of the screen and still keeping the size of 480 x 320, just like they did on the current nano.
post #53 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It might be desirable to some people at $199.

If Apple learn something from the iPhone then they will know that a cheaper iPhone with less featured will not appeal to anyone as long as you have another one with better specs and features. Poeple paid $100 more for double the storage, the 8GB iPhones were sold out at most places and some had to buy the 4GB model as a result. Apple learned the lesson and discontinued the 4GB very quickly.

This might just be another rumor. Or.. Are we looking at corporate iPhone with a physical keyboard and smaller screen?! who knows!
post #54 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

I think an iPhone without internet is not an iPhone at all. Apple's gadget line is moving toward _more_ connectivity, not less, e.g. iPod Touch. Although I suppose you could make a case for the range of products to include phone/iPod/camera since there is now phone/iPod/camera/internet and iPod/internet.

But who are these people who don't want internet on their phone? That is the future (and plenty of the present). All the screen-gadgets like weather, stocks, movies, etc. etc. wouldn't work. An iPhone without internet doesn't have enough wow-features to differentiate it dramatically from what would be its competition.

Apple is a company of trade-offs, and there are plenty of people who only want phone, texting, and a camera, in fact the millions and millions of people who keep buying Razr's and other flip phones are proof of it. Sure those phones have internet but no one uses it because it's chopped down and so damn hard to use. I think the main competition of the phone that i am describing would be the Chocolate. I think that for most people the add-on ipod would be a huge advantage over what they are currently using. Apple could make a phone like this that would be so much easier to use and that millions would buy.
post #55 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantrum View Post

No plastic. The phone will be metal (brushed anodized aluminum/magnesium and glass. Apple's commitment to environmentally friendly materials will not include dumping 25 million plastic cases on the public.

Thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none. Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker. The phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker.

No removable battery but better power management.
Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
Dual SIM capability.
Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
Non-GSM phones will be strictly network locked.
Multi-country simultaneous launch.
Sydney launch in summer.
Beijing launch dependent on politics of Tibet situation and Olympics fallout.

Can you please explain this "slide out" keyboard. Optional? Standard?

where do you get your info??? or are you just making up stuff
post #56 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This isn't Digg.

Who says I was using digg? Don't I have the right to say that? I like the "digg" way and I can put it in there if I want to. :P Something that is new to AI.
post #57 of 139
I have the latest specs directly from a reliable source. It will be called iPhone Pro. The size will increase slightly to accommodate the new 'pro' abilities. It will retain a metal construction but it will be black (pro) and just over 1" thick. New features (to satisfy customer demand) will include G4 specifications, a removable "extended" battery, a memory slot for an additional HD (now that the iPhone also has full HD widescreen video camera capabilities, a fold out full qwerty keyboard, a magnifying glass the size of the screen (pro's tend to be older and thus blinder), powerful speakers, and some say even a compass (not everybody uses Google maps, you know). It will also have 4 usb2 connectors, 2 firewire connectors, ethernet, and a range of other multimedia connectors. The corners have been squared off for easy stacking (pros have more than one phone). It will be awesome. Ever so slightly thicker and a little heavier but still an engineering masterpiece. And it is guaranteed to silence all the critics. Right?.... RIGHT???
post #58 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Despite readers' penchant for discounting claims made by analysts, it should be noted that the Wall Street folks have at times nailed design aspects of unannounced Apple products. Specifically, analyst Shaw Wu in 2006 confirmed independent of AppleInsider that Apple would transition its iPod nano away from plastic enclosures and towards metal ones.

woohoo... (or perhaps, "Wu-hoo"?) Case designs on iPods were a lucky guess (but if you want to get technical, he stated specifically "Magnesium" when they were in fact aluminium). If you have a large-enough pool of guessers, someone is bound to get it right. MacRumors has an excellent entry on Shaw Wu and it shows that he is wrong much more often than he is right. The only two predictions he aced were "predicting" the iPhone and Intel-based Pro machines, both of which were WIDELY predicted.

I could spout out a hundred inevitabilities about the future of Apple and be right on about 90% of them, yet you don't see people basing their financial future on my forum posts. Why are morons trusting Wu with their Nest Egg when he's so often dead wrong? Talk about blind leading the blind.

Anyone who takes Shaw Wu or any other analyst seriously is a fool. Only Nick dePlume (and 9to5Mac?) have/had real sources inside Apple. No one else has a track record reliable enough to make any earth-shattering predictions about the future of Apple's products. Wu has failed too many times to ever be a credible source and if AI wasn't being paid to regurgitate his bile, we'd never heard from him again.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #59 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

If Apple learn something from the iPhone then they will know that a cheaper iPhone with less featured will not appeal to anyone as long as you have another one with better specs and features. Poeple paid $100 more for double the storage, the 8GB iPhones were sold out at most places and some had to buy the 4GB model as a result. Apple learned the lesson and discontinued the 4GB very quickly.

This might just be another rumor. Or.. Are we looking at corporate iPhone with a physical keyboard and smaller screen?! who knows!

I don't agree. There's a diffrence between buying more memory, and buying a smaller, cheaper, phone.

If there's enough of a difference, there are people who, while they couldn't afford it before, could afford it now.

South America comes to mind, as does Asia, and Africa. While there are plenty of people who can afford the current phone, there are plenty more who can't, but would like one.

That's why Apple has different versions of several of its products.

If what you are saying were true, then there would be only one Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac, Mac Book, and of course, iPods.

Since they all have different models, with different price points and features, and even (except for the Mac Pro) different sizes, we can say that what you are saying is indeed, not true.
post #60 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfoniq View Post

I agree with everyone above, surely they must be describing the iPhone nano.
Don't really care for the screen size that much, so long it can fit in my pocket.

Now please Apple price the 8GB model at $299 and make it available on any network provider and I'm sure it will sell like crazy.
Any idea on a catchy name, don't really like iphone nano or iphone mini, maybe iphone air

it's a gsm phone. if you are in america, and I'm guessing you are because you quoted the price in dollars, unlocking for ANY carrier isn't possible. it can be on AT&T or it can be on T-mobile. that's the only GSM carriers in America. for visual voicemail to work, at&t had to change their network, something that t-mobile hasn't done, so the phone won't have the same features on that carrier.

it doesn't make sense for them to make a cdma version for sprint and verizon, it's a totally different network, and focusing only on gsm allows them to go worldwide with one model of phone.
post #61 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

One of the main attractions of the iPhone is the relatively large screen. Why would Apple want to lose that advantage by making the screen smaller?

This was exactly my impression, the iPhone's screen is what makes it viable! The only way I could see this as being acceptable is if they are about to offer up two models. That is one that has a smaller screen and one with a larger screen than the current iPhone.

A larger phone would be ideal as that would provide for more space between virtual keys and more pixels. A unit 10mm wider than the current would add about a millimeter between each key. Doesn't sound like much but the usability pay off would be huge.

I really hope this report is either bogus or a sign of two products hitting the market. Screen size is everything and frankly I don't see the other supposed features being all that important in comparison.

Dave
post #62 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasper View Post

I agree that this doesn't sound right. But neither does a thicker iPhone.

K

But a thicker iPhone potentially means thicker battery and thicker battery means longer times between charges and the ability to use apps and I'm all for that.
yeah, I'm on Google Talk! dimplemonkey@gmail.com
Reply
yeah, I'm on Google Talk! dimplemonkey@gmail.com
Reply
post #63 of 139
2.8" sounds like either a decoy or an iPhone nano.


Here's my mock-up from months ago:

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #64 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadisawesome View Post

If you are in america, and I'm guessing you are because you quoted the price in dollars, unlocking for ANY carrier isn't possible.

Yes, thanks for bringing this up. I meant offer the GSM version on AT&T and T-mobile over here and also on every single carrier in Europe, such as Vodafone, Orange and other big European ones out there.

Something about the screen. The current iPod Nano features a 2" screen and although not great is adequate to watch videos. IMO if they really want to appeal to the masses (especially in Europe) a smaller factor is a must, so yes I see the screen getting smaller (=< 2.8"). A smaller screen will also help with battery consumption.

I also see them coming up with a smart solution for more comfortable texting. I remember when I saw the iPhone for the very first time I thought, why didn't they use a slightly smaller screen? After all it's supposed to be a portable phone

Well done Ireland
post #65 of 139
After reading through this entire thread I'm surprised at the negativity towards plastics. Plastics do not have to imply cheapness or an inferior product from the standpoint of strength. Modern engineering resins could be leveraged to make for a much more durable iPhone. Materials like Ultem are extremely durable and frankly could make for a stronger iPhone.

See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.

So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.

Dave
post #66 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

After reading through this entire thread I'm surprised at the negativity towards plastics. Plastics do not have to imply cheapness or an inferior product from the standpoint of strength. Modern engineering resins could be leveraged to make for a much more durable iPhone. Materials like Ultem are extremely durable and frankly could make for a stronger iPhone.

See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.

So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.

Dave

If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #67 of 139
Could the introduction of a iPhone nano be alluded to by the two bridges in that Dev Conference photo?

I personally doubt that they are launching a smaller screen phone unless it has very similar resolution. They spent massive effort introducing the development environment for developers to find out that much the work they did is screwed because the screen just got smaller.
post #68 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbene12 View Post

Could the introduction of a iPhone nano be alluded to by the two bridges in that Dev Conference photo?

This is the age old trap, Apple marketing. Don't go there. Besides, the bridges likely mean: 1, the Mac. 2, the iPhone.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #69 of 139
Lighter and a little smaller (not too much) ... sounds pretty good actually.

I think lighter, same size screen would prob be better
post #70 of 139
OK...

a. The picture of the "future" iphone is like the ugliest thing ive seen in my life.....

b. why would they downgrade the screen.....and make it plastic....and make it thicker.....looks like im sticking with with the original.....

c. apple is too smart to do all the above...theres NO WAY that they would shrink the screen....i think that thickness and maybe backing will the only really major visual redisgns...i like what the iphone looks like right now i dont want it to change
post #71 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.

According to the 1996 American Automobile Manufacturers Association Facts & Figures (which references American Metal Market, for which AM&P columnist Al Wrigley is a writer), in 1996 there were 245 lbs. of plastic and plastic composites used in a "typical family vehicle." That is 12% of the overall weight.

the above quote came from a ge plastics page
post #72 of 139
The supposed 'iPhone Nano' if it were ever released would likely have a plastic shell. If you look at Apple's past experience, they start with a plastic shell then upgrade to an anodised aluminium shell for the next generation, so that people upgrade to stop getting their device scratched...

It seems improbable that they'll go from a metal shell to a plastic shell for the iPhone, I'd say it's more likely that they go for an anodised aluminium shell like the iPod Classic, iPod Nano and MacBook Pros currently have.
post #73 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

One of the selling points is the screen. They will not make it smaller.

Yes! I bought my iPhone mainly for the screen. (Also the web browser.) The onscreen widgets couldn't be smaller, or it'd be impossible to touch them accurately.

A smaller screened iPhone would be a huge step backwards.

Amorya
post #74 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

But who are these people who don't want internet on their phone? That is the future (and plenty of the present). All the screen-gadgets like weather, stocks, movies, etc. etc. wouldn't work. An iPhone without internet doesn't have enough wow-features to differentiate it dramatically from what would be its competition.

:raises hand:

I don't live in Gotham or a bustling metropolis that has 3G. My lifestyle isn't one where I need to surf online or check my email when I'm away from work or home. I don't care to spend an extra $20 per month for that ability. I just want a better phone than my free crappy Nokia that works like my iPod Touch (for which I haven't paid the $20 to add the extra apps).

I don't even need Wi-Fi. Heretical, I know.
post #75 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't agree. There's a diffrence between buying more memory, and buying a smaller, cheaper, phone.

If there's enough of a difference, there are people who, while they couldn't afford it before, could afford it now.

South America comes to mind, as does Asia, and Africa. While there are plenty of people who can afford the current phone, there are plenty more who can't, but would like one.

That's why Apple has different versions of several of its products.

If what you are saying were true, then there would be only one Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac, Mac Book, and of course, iPods.

Since they all have different models, with different price points and features, and even (except for the Mac Pro) different sizes, we can say that what you are saying is indeed, not true.

Mobile phone market is very different than computers market. When it comes to mobile phones people want features. Still, people will not pay $200 for a stripped down iPhone while they can get a phone for free. Any new additional device that compromise any of the current iPhone features will be a complete failure. The average person don't care if it has an Apple logo on the back, they care about how much they get for the money. When it comes to budget phones other manufacturers will win because the only innovation is price. Unless Apple give free iPhone Nano with contracts!!
post #76 of 139
There is no way Apple will produce this abomination of an iPhone to take the place of the current large screen model. Are they gonna call it the pansy iPhone? A smaller browsing window and a smaller virtual typing window. No effing way. This "iPhone thing" they're talking about has to be an alternate model for females or children or something. As it is I would want the corporate bad boy version of the current model with a thicker body for road warrior 24-hour straight battery life.

Can you imagine playing decent games on some crappy little screen. A normal-sized American would probably cramp their hands holding onto some tiny little case trying to play a labor-intensive game. And how the heck would they get 32GB of memory into the case with all the other goodies it's supposed to come with. Those writer are nuts making up this crap and calling it a replacement for the current model. Why do these type of rumors have to get started. I say string them up by their thumbs.
post #77 of 139
I joined this forum just to say this...

All the people that think the "iPhone nano" won't have internet capabilities are out of their mind. Have you forgotten about the iTunes store or App store that is on the iPhone? No way in hell are they going to let that NOT be on the nano. After all, the nano will sell better than the original if it is released.
post #78 of 139
I will guarantee the screen is not smaller. You simply cannot fit that keyboard on a 2.8" screen and still be able to type.
post #79 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

2.8" sounds like either a decoy or an iPhone nano.
Here's my mock-up from months ago:

I like the mockup, and seeing it makes me think a smaller phone is possible.
But I was thinking...

Wouldn't a smaller phone make it impossible to hold to your ear and talk on?
Unless Apple includes a free headset.
Then the electronics for talking and listening can be eliminated from the body of the phone.

Think different indeed!
post #80 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This isn't Digg.


I agree. While this is probably false, the only way it's true is if there are two devices coming in June.


Those pics were fake. I was a 2G iPhone with a case and a little photoshopping of the back text.

You're outa order.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Paper: 3G iPhone smaller, lighter than existing model