addabox, I do believe that you have already answered your own question.
You rightly point out that taking out a couple of chips hardly has any effect on the cost of the 'phone.
So, to make an "iPhone Mini", Apple does have to come out with a substantially different device:
No WiFi
No Multi-touch screen
No powerful CPU with 128 MB of integrated RAM
No Safari or e-mail
Yup, just a normal mobile phone with music-playing capabilities. Something like the Nokia 6300. I've got one of these and find that appearance-wise, it's a pretty good match for the iPhone (i.e., I think it looks like it could be the iPhone's little brother). However, the audio quality sucks relative to an iPod. I'm waiting for Apple to make a phone like this.
But I fail to see what the problem is? Why do all iPhone models have to have multi-touch? Do you not realise that the current iPhone is a high-end "smartphone" handset and the vast majority of the worldwide mobile handset market is much more "Nokia 6300" than "current iPhone"? I find that the current iPhone is too big and too heavy to comfortably fit in my trouser pocket where I currently put my phone. I think the current iPhone is mighty impressive, but I just don't need or want a handheld computer, mobile phone and iPod in one device. I want a mobile phone and iPod in one device. As soon as Apple make something Nokia 6300 sized with 80 GB of flash storage (about 3-4 years away I reckon), it's mine.
With more and more of these simpler handsets also offering music-playing capabilities, Apple needs to come out with the Nokia 6300-esque "iPhone Mini" pretty soon in order to avoid cannibalisation of the iPod Nano and Shuffle.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
Why? Think about it: the Nokia has all the bells and whistles of the contemporary "just a phone" candybar handsets: calendaring, contacts list, email, photos, video, music.
In that, it's typical of the way "high and smart phones" and "regular phones" are a convergent market. Features from the high end keep migrating downward. Simple phones aren't really very simple at all, any more. The main difference between the Nokia and a "high end smart-phone" is size, internet and some kind of keyboard-- but in terms of functionality and complexity there isn't that much difference.
So, how do I get at and manipulate the functions on the "simple" Nokia? Yep, those little bitty buttons and confusing nested menu options that Jobs explicitly said sucked, and were the reason they made the iPhone in the first place.
Now, I believe I remember seeing that Jobs has said that Apple will be bringing out additional models of the iPhone, so they have some way of differentiating between feature sets, or hardware, or both, and presumably they can do this in a way that makes economic sense for them.
Of course, I hope Apple has some further UI mojo up their sleeve that allows them to reinvent "just a phone", which is to say make a smaller phone that is easy to use.
But I guaran-goddamn-tee you that it doesn't involve sticking iPod functionality on a Nokia 6300, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't involve making a smaller multi-touch device.
I wouldn't call 90% of the market "the low end" of the market. The 6300 and similar phones are not low-end, they are mid-range.
The appeal of a "normal" Apple mobile would be that they would hopefully be the first people to get it right and actually deliver decent sound quality, UI, and something that works directly with iTunes. Given that Apple themselves have said they will be coming out with other models, I really don't know what the rest of you are expecting. The only way of saving any significant amount of money is to take out multi-touch and the powerful CPU.
I don't want to say it isn't possible, but having demoed an iPhone, I can't envision one without multitouch. It's what makes the UI so easy, intuitive and pleasant to use. I could see stripping out the internet and email capabilities but I don't know how much money that would save. I could see prices coming down some as they sell more units and are able to purchase components at higher volumes and lower costs.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
Apple will be forced to make new models because of what Wall Street expects, but I'd be very surprised if they come out with a phone without multi-touch, etc. I don't think the iPhone will be marketed the same way the iPods have been and include several smaller models. I honestly don't know what Apple plans on doing, but I see the situation more like the iMac vs. xMac where Apple wants to include the whole "computer" and not take anything away from the experience i.e. it must have multi-touch and be fun to use and just work. The user interface is the iPhone! and is what makes it special. Without multi-touch the iPhone is nothing and Apple is not about to go backward with their phones. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think Apple is in a bit of a box.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
You honestly think that Apple won't release a mobile phone that is the same physical size (or similar) to the 6300? You think Apple are going to ignore the other 90% of the mobile phone market that isn't smart-phones? You think Apple are going to sit back and watch Motorola, Nokia and Sony Ericsson eat into iPod market share and not do anything about it? We will see a much smaller iPhone, probably without multi-touch, within 18 months from now.
Problem is that without multi-touch where's the appeal? And how could they charge a premium? An iPhone without multi-touch and stripped of many of the current ipone features starts to rum into the same problems the x Mac runs into when trying to justify it's existence in the Apple product line up. Apple probably won't make devices that cater to the low end market because they can't compete there on price.
I wouldn't call 90% of the market "the low end" of the market. The 6300 and similar phones are not low-end, they are mid-range.
The appeal of a "normal" Apple mobile would be that they would hopefully be the first people to get it right and actually deliver decent sound quality, UI, and something that works directly with iTunes. Given that Apple themselves have said they will be coming out with other models, I really don't know what the rest of you are expecting. The only way of saving any significant amount of money is to take out multi-touch and the powerful CPU.
I don't want to say it isn't possible, but having demoed an iPhone, I can't envision one without multitouch. It's what makes the UI so easy, intuitive and pleasant to use.
But surely you agree that multi-touch isn't necessary in order to create an intuitive, easy-to-use UI on a mobile device? (hint: iPod)
The "iPhone Mini" would only share its name with the current iPhone. It wouldn't have a powerful CPU so would have to run an embedded OS a-la iPod rather than OS X. It would have a different UI - using hardware buttons and the like as input devices.
But surely you agree that multi-touch isn't necessary in order to create an intuitive, easy-to-use UI on a mobile device? (hint: iPod)
The "iPhone Mini" would only share its name with the current iPhone. It wouldn't have a powerful CPU so would have to run an embedded OS a-la iPod rather than OS X. It would have a different UI - using hardware buttons and the like as input devices.
Sure I can't argue that. But a simple phone is well ...simple. Apple expertise is making the complex much simpler and easy to use. What value would Apple bring in making a simple device simple?
Sure I can't argue that. But a simple phone is well ...simple. Apple expertise is making the complex much simpler and easy to use. What value would Apple bring in making a simple device simple?
Surely a single device incorporating mobile phone functionality and iPod functionality is by definition more complex than an iPod?
Three patents filed by Apple Inc. surfaced today that detail telephone and text entry interfaces for a cellular-capable device via a click-wheel. The second patent will enable users to "type" or dial phone numbers with a click-wheel interface and receive suggestions for completing words or phrases to speed typing efforts. The first patent, titled "Telephone Interface for a Portable Communication Device," describes a rotary dial driven by an iPod-like click-wheel. The rotary dial produces numbers as well as icons arranged in a circular pattern, allowing users to scroll through the icons and numbers with the touch of a finger via either a click-wheel or touch-screen interface.
Three patents filed by Apple Inc. surfaced today that detail telephone and text entry interfaces for a cellular-capable device via a click-wheel. The second patent will enable users to "type" or dial phone numbers with a click-wheel interface and receive suggestions for completing words or phrases to speed typing efforts. The first patent, titled "Telephone Interface for a Portable Communication Device," describes a rotary dial driven by an iPod-like click-wheel. The rotary dial produces numbers as well as icons arranged in a circular pattern, allowing users to scroll through the icons and numbers with the touch of a finger via either a click-wheel or touch-screen interface.
I saw that. Honestly, it looks pretty heinous, and I wonder if it's just not a red-herring for patent divers.
How is using a rotary display on a click-wheel interface to dial numbers better than just putting a damn keypad on there? And God help us if they think that makes sense for text entry.
In fact about the only thing they can do very well is make a call and sending text messages (and I'm sure everyone on here knows what I think about SMS by now)
First off, there is always the chance they *might* but arguing either way is still only speculation because nobody on here even knows what Apple is planning..
Where's the fun in that. People pretty much knew Apple were coming out with a phone before they told us, I know I did. The iPhone, or whatever name they gave it was a guarantee as far as I'm concerned. So much so, I bought more shares on that hunch. And I even convinced my parents to get some for the same reason. Music phones are only getting better, convergence is a growing trend. Apple's knows they must make a cheaper, nano-type phone to cover the low end, to me it's just obvious--plain as day.
It can dig itself a grave right right next to The Empire's campus in Redmond.
You really are American, aren't you. In Europe and Asia, which have a far higher populous than the U.S., SMS is the main from of (non-verbal) communication.
While you tablet versus laptop argument may have some weight to it, if you don't think Apple is going to make a more toned down internet-free phone you're eyes are closed. No web, mail or any of that stuff, just for once, and easy to use phone that integrates music seamlessly.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think you miss the point. The iPhone changes the meaning of the word "phone." It's a multifunction handheld computer with a penchant for communication. Hobbling the software to diversify the product line would stunt the growth of the new platform. Anything less than an iPhone would be an... iPod. The iPhone itself will continue to be a robust and versatile handheld computer without compromise. They wouldn't turn off Safari just to make a Nano.
I think an "iPhone mini" is a plausible idea. My guess is it would have about the same features as the most popular cell phones out there today, like the RAZR or the Chocolate or whatever else and be about the same size too. Maybe multi touch. It would probably still cost a pretty penny, but that's Apple.
Why would anyone buy an "iPhone mini"? Think about the iPod nano. Is it not just a smaller, less featured version of the iPod? And isn't it the most popular on the iPod family?
What does the iPod nano have that really differs it from any other mp3 player on the market? It's generally smaller, it's has the proven and reliable iPod name and software, and it has the Apple brand. The list isn't long, but it's those few things that make the iPod nano stand out from whatever else is out there.
Before anyone blasts me for that last item on the list, I want them to stop whatever they are doing, take a step back, and just look for a minute at Apple's place in the computing world. And its reach beyond the computer world. Today I was standing in my driveway with my dad as we loaded his '76 Triumph Spitfire which hasn't left our garage for several years onto the back of a tow truck so we could get it fixed up and running again. My neighbor happened to see the tow truck and came out what was up. Note that he is not some young tech geek or nerd like me, but retired nice man who is not a techie at all. But as we were standing there with an old, rather rare sports car in front of us, what does he say to me? "Hey, have you seen the iPhone?"
The Apple brand is huge. If you're reading this then you, too, have joined the cult Apple has created, following their every move, lamenting, debating, and predicting their past, present, and future products. Do PC manufacturers have a cult following like Apple? For a company that builds computers which are an alternative to the mainstream product and has such a small market share (which is going up, yay!), Apple has an amazing influence on the market. Apple symbolizes the cutting edge. Apple has class.
The iPhone is packed with the latest technology and can do things people could only previously dream of doing even with multiple devices. Apple has successfully managed to combine the iPod, the PDA, and the blackberry, and even some things only computers could do (i.e. Google Maps, wifi) into one device while still having what Apple is known best for: usability. It's an amazing device. But, not everyone needs a blackberry or a PDA. And not everyone is willing to spend $500 on a phone, especially if they don't need the blackberry or PDA part. High school kids and college kids are a huge market for both cell phones and iPods. $500 is a bit steep for a student.
If Apple made a phone with the same feature set as, say, a RAZR, but kept the iPhone's name, style, and interface, especially with multi touch (see Ireland's sketch), they could potentially own that market like they do with the iPod in its market. Apple may have revolutionized the cell phone, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a market for less pricey, more standard, cell phones.
Comments
Some how my reply to your post is above your post.
Server issues.
addabox, I do believe that you have already answered your own question.
You rightly point out that taking out a couple of chips hardly has any effect on the cost of the 'phone.
So, to make an "iPhone Mini", Apple does have to come out with a substantially different device:
No WiFi
No Multi-touch screen
No powerful CPU with 128 MB of integrated RAM
No Safari or e-mail
Yup, just a normal mobile phone with music-playing capabilities. Something like the Nokia 6300. I've got one of these and find that appearance-wise, it's a pretty good match for the iPhone (i.e., I think it looks like it could be the iPhone's little brother). However, the audio quality sucks relative to an iPod. I'm waiting for Apple to make a phone like this.
But I fail to see what the problem is? Why do all iPhone models have to have multi-touch? Do you not realise that the current iPhone is a high-end "smartphone" handset and the vast majority of the worldwide mobile handset market is much more "Nokia 6300" than "current iPhone"? I find that the current iPhone is too big and too heavy to comfortably fit in my trouser pocket where I currently put my phone. I think the current iPhone is mighty impressive, but I just don't need or want a handheld computer, mobile phone and iPod in one device. I want a mobile phone and iPod in one device. As soon as Apple make something Nokia 6300 sized with 80 GB of flash storage (about 3-4 years away I reckon), it's mine.
With more and more of these simpler handsets also offering music-playing capabilities, Apple needs to come out with the Nokia 6300-esque "iPhone Mini" pretty soon in order to avoid cannibalisation of the iPod Nano and Shuffle.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
Why? Think about it: the Nokia has all the bells and whistles of the contemporary "just a phone" candybar handsets: calendaring, contacts list, email, photos, video, music.
In that, it's typical of the way "high and smart phones" and "regular phones" are a convergent market. Features from the high end keep migrating downward. Simple phones aren't really very simple at all, any more. The main difference between the Nokia and a "high end smart-phone" is size, internet and some kind of keyboard-- but in terms of functionality and complexity there isn't that much difference.
So, how do I get at and manipulate the functions on the "simple" Nokia? Yep, those little bitty buttons and confusing nested menu options that Jobs explicitly said sucked, and were the reason they made the iPhone in the first place.
Now, I believe I remember seeing that Jobs has said that Apple will be bringing out additional models of the iPhone, so they have some way of differentiating between feature sets, or hardware, or both, and presumably they can do this in a way that makes economic sense for them.
Of course, I hope Apple has some further UI mojo up their sleeve that allows them to reinvent "just a phone", which is to say make a smaller phone that is easy to use.
But I guaran-goddamn-tee you that it doesn't involve sticking iPod functionality on a Nokia 6300, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't involve making a smaller multi-touch device.
I wouldn't call 90% of the market "the low end" of the market. The 6300 and similar phones are not low-end, they are mid-range.
The appeal of a "normal" Apple mobile would be that they would hopefully be the first people to get it right and actually deliver decent sound quality, UI, and something that works directly with iTunes. Given that Apple themselves have said they will be coming out with other models, I really don't know what the rest of you are expecting. The only way of saving any significant amount of money is to take out multi-touch and the powerful CPU.
I don't want to say it isn't possible, but having demoed an iPhone, I can't envision one without multitouch. It's what makes the UI so easy, intuitive and pleasant to use. I could see stripping out the internet and email capabilities but I don't know how much money that would save. I could see prices coming down some as they sell more units and are able to purchase components at higher volumes and lower costs.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
Apple will be forced to make new models because of what Wall Street expects, but I'd be very surprised if they come out with a phone without multi-touch, etc. I don't think the iPhone will be marketed the same way the iPods have been and include several smaller models. I honestly don't know what Apple plans on doing, but I see the situation more like the iMac vs. xMac where Apple wants to include the whole "computer" and not take anything away from the experience i.e. it must have multi-touch and be fun to use and just work. The user interface is the iPhone! and is what makes it special. Without multi-touch the iPhone is nothing and Apple is not about to go backward with their phones. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think Apple is in a bit of a box.
Apple won't make a Nokia 6300 type phone. Not now, not ever.
You honestly think that Apple won't release a mobile phone that is the same physical size (or similar) to the 6300? You think Apple are going to ignore the other 90% of the mobile phone market that isn't smart-phones? You think Apple are going to sit back and watch Motorola, Nokia and Sony Ericsson eat into iPod market share and not do anything about it? We will see a much smaller iPhone, probably without multi-touch, within 18 months from now.
Problem is that without multi-touch where's the appeal? And how could they charge a premium? An iPhone without multi-touch and stripped of many of the current ipone features starts to rum into the same problems the x Mac runs into when trying to justify it's existence in the Apple product line up. Apple probably won't make devices that cater to the low end market because they can't compete there on price.
I wouldn't call 90% of the market "the low end" of the market. The 6300 and similar phones are not low-end, they are mid-range.
The appeal of a "normal" Apple mobile would be that they would hopefully be the first people to get it right and actually deliver decent sound quality, UI, and something that works directly with iTunes. Given that Apple themselves have said they will be coming out with other models, I really don't know what the rest of you are expecting. The only way of saving any significant amount of money is to take out multi-touch and the powerful CPU.
I don't want to say it isn't possible, but having demoed an iPhone, I can't envision one without multitouch. It's what makes the UI so easy, intuitive and pleasant to use.
But surely you agree that multi-touch isn't necessary in order to create an intuitive, easy-to-use UI on a mobile device? (hint: iPod)
The "iPhone Mini" would only share its name with the current iPhone. It wouldn't have a powerful CPU so would have to run an embedded OS a-la iPod rather than OS X. It would have a different UI - using hardware buttons and the like as input devices.
But surely you agree that multi-touch isn't necessary in order to create an intuitive, easy-to-use UI on a mobile device? (hint: iPod)
The "iPhone Mini" would only share its name with the current iPhone. It wouldn't have a powerful CPU so would have to run an embedded OS a-la iPod rather than OS X. It would have a different UI - using hardware buttons and the like as input devices.
Sure I can't argue that. But a simple phone is well ...simple. Apple expertise is making the complex much simpler and easy to use. What value would Apple bring in making a simple device simple?
Sure I can't argue that. But a simple phone is well ...simple. Apple expertise is making the complex much simpler and easy to use. What value would Apple bring in making a simple device simple?
Surely a single device incorporating mobile phone functionality and iPod functionality is by definition more complex than an iPod?
Surely a single device incorporating mobile phone functionality and iPod functionality is by definition more complex than an iPod?
Good point. Time will tell.
Three patents filed by Apple Inc. surfaced today that detail telephone and text entry interfaces for a cellular-capable device via a click-wheel. The second patent will enable users to "type" or dial phone numbers with a click-wheel interface and receive suggestions for completing words or phrases to speed typing efforts. The first patent, titled "Telephone Interface for a Portable Communication Device," describes a rotary dial driven by an iPod-like click-wheel. The rotary dial produces numbers as well as icons arranged in a circular pattern, allowing users to scroll through the icons and numbers with the touch of a finger via either a click-wheel or touch-screen interface.
Apple patents dialing via clickwheel ...
Three patents filed by Apple Inc. surfaced today that detail telephone and text entry interfaces for a cellular-capable device via a click-wheel. The second patent will enable users to "type" or dial phone numbers with a click-wheel interface and receive suggestions for completing words or phrases to speed typing efforts. The first patent, titled "Telephone Interface for a Portable Communication Device," describes a rotary dial driven by an iPod-like click-wheel. The rotary dial produces numbers as well as icons arranged in a circular pattern, allowing users to scroll through the icons and numbers with the touch of a finger via either a click-wheel or touch-screen interface.
I saw that. Honestly, it looks pretty heinous, and I wonder if it's just not a red-herring for patent divers.
How is using a rotary display on a click-wheel interface to dial numbers better than just putting a damn keypad on there? And God help us if they think that makes sense for text entry.
In fact about the only thing they can do very well is make a call and sending text messages (and I'm sure everyone on here knows what I think about SMS by now)
No, I don't, refresh me.
First off, there is always the chance they *might* but arguing either way is still only speculation because nobody on here even knows what Apple is planning..
Where's the fun in that. People pretty much knew Apple were coming out with a phone before they told us, I know I did. The iPhone, or whatever name they gave it was a guarantee as far as I'm concerned. So much so, I bought more shares on that hunch. And I even convinced my parents to get some for the same reason. Music phones are only getting better, convergence is a growing trend. Apple's knows they must make a cheaper, nano-type phone to cover the low end, to me it's just obvious--plain as day.
It can dig itself a grave right right next to The Empire's campus in Redmond.
You really are American, aren't you. In Europe and Asia, which have a far higher populous than the U.S., SMS is the main from of (non-verbal) communication.
While you tablet versus laptop argument may have some weight to it, if you don't think Apple is going to make a more toned down internet-free phone you're eyes are closed. No web, mail or any of that stuff, just for once, and easy to use phone that integrates music seamlessly.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think you miss the point. The iPhone changes the meaning of the word "phone." It's a multifunction handheld computer with a penchant for communication. Hobbling the software to diversify the product line would stunt the growth of the new platform. Anything less than an iPhone would be an... iPod. The iPhone itself will continue to be a robust and versatile handheld computer without compromise. They wouldn't turn off Safari just to make a Nano.
Why would anyone buy an "iPhone mini"? Think about the iPod nano. Is it not just a smaller, less featured version of the iPod? And isn't it the most popular on the iPod family?
What does the iPod nano have that really differs it from any other mp3 player on the market? It's generally smaller, it's has the proven and reliable iPod name and software, and it has the Apple brand. The list isn't long, but it's those few things that make the iPod nano stand out from whatever else is out there.
Before anyone blasts me for that last item on the list, I want them to stop whatever they are doing, take a step back, and just look for a minute at Apple's place in the computing world. And its reach beyond the computer world. Today I was standing in my driveway with my dad as we loaded his '76 Triumph Spitfire which hasn't left our garage for several years onto the back of a tow truck so we could get it fixed up and running again. My neighbor happened to see the tow truck and came out what was up. Note that he is not some young tech geek or nerd like me, but retired nice man who is not a techie at all. But as we were standing there with an old, rather rare sports car in front of us, what does he say to me? "Hey, have you seen the iPhone?"
The Apple brand is huge. If you're reading this then you, too, have joined the cult Apple has created, following their every move, lamenting, debating, and predicting their past, present, and future products. Do PC manufacturers have a cult following like Apple? For a company that builds computers which are an alternative to the mainstream product and has such a small market share (which is going up, yay!), Apple has an amazing influence on the market. Apple symbolizes the cutting edge. Apple has class.
The iPhone is packed with the latest technology and can do things people could only previously dream of doing even with multiple devices. Apple has successfully managed to combine the iPod, the PDA, and the blackberry, and even some things only computers could do (i.e. Google Maps, wifi) into one device while still having what Apple is known best for: usability. It's an amazing device. But, not everyone needs a blackberry or a PDA. And not everyone is willing to spend $500 on a phone, especially if they don't need the blackberry or PDA part. High school kids and college kids are a huge market for both cell phones and iPods. $500 is a bit steep for a student.
If Apple made a phone with the same feature set as, say, a RAZR, but kept the iPhone's name, style, and interface, especially with multi touch (see Ireland's sketch), they could potentially own that market like they do with the iPod in its market. Apple may have revolutionized the cell phone, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a market for less pricey, more standard, cell phones.