Well, bottom line I think that if Apple does bring out a small, cheap(er) cell phone it will be something entirely independent of the iPhone and really a different order of device.
Folks want it to be like the iPod line-up, with a natural evolution of sizes and price points that maintains the UI and form factor (and yes, the answer to "what about the Shuffle" is still "what about it?"-- it has no interface and is entirely irrelevant to a cell phone discussion).
But my guess is that an iPhone "Mini", if any if ever, would be about as related to the iPhone as an iPod is to Apple TV-- that is, some overlap because of intended function, but with an entirely different UI and criteria for being.
EDIT: Per Duddits post above, yeah. I think it's unlikely that Apple would compromise the iPhone platform with less functional, harder to use phone. My thoughts are just in the "if they absolutely thought they had to" area.
Vinea: I don't think that you've "shown" how an iPhone Nano works. What you've described is possibly on par with existing candybar phones for most things, worse for dialing numbers, and much worse for text entry. Blithely assuring us that using a click wheel to access the alphabet is just as good as an alphanumeric keypad is all kinds of disingenuous, I can't believe that you really think that and have to assume you're just punting on the parts of the UI that actually don't work.
This thing about the Nano and its tiny screen as being a good match for a phone mystifies me. I can see arguing that Apple "must" or "should" make a smaller, cheaper phone to compete with other such music phones, to avoid erosion of the iPod hegemony, but roping that argument to the Nano seems unwise.
If you don't think it will look like this, why don't you mock-up or draw the design you had in mind? No one's stopping you.
Um, I don't have anything in mind. Sort of my point in starting the thread was that the iPhone UI doesn't easily scale down, not that Apple should make a particular phone. That's your deal.
My "drawing" would be a picture of an iPhone, that costs less because Apple has introduced new models with more storage, more RAM and a faster CPU.
Just shrinking the screen of the existing iPhone and putting fewer icons on there has one big problem right off the bat: the virtual keyboard gets smaller and doesn't really work anymore. Which means Apple is selling an iPhone Mini that doesn't do texting. At all.
Um, I don't have anything in mind. Sort of my point in starting the thread was that the iPhone UI doesn't easily scale down, not that Apple should make a particular phone. That's your deal.
My "drawing" would be a picture of an iPhone, that costs less because Apple has introduced new models with more storage, more RAM and a faster CPU.
Just shrinking the screen of the existing iPhone and putting fewer icons on there has one big problem right off the bat: the virtual keyboard gets smaller and doesn't really work anymore. Which means Apple is selling an iPhone Mini that doesn't do texting. At all.
I don't think Apple will do that. Do you?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
But guess what? It wont be a smartphone, so it wont have a QWERTY keyboard. It will have a software T9 equivalent.
I don't mean to be rude, but sometimes talking here seems like talking to a brick wall.
That's exactly the point. Apple varies the hardware, but the software remains the same. The Mini runs the same OS as any other mac. Apple views the iPhone in the same way they view the Mac - as a platform. iPhone models will vary in hardware configuration, speed, storage, etc., but will all run the same OS.
Mobile devices have different criteria. There are trade-offs that are required. The Mac is a general purpose computer. The iPod and iPhone specialized devices...not general computing devices. The UI is constrained by those limits.
Quote:
Apple is in the process of unifying not diversifying UI across multiple products, from their website to Safari. Indeed, Safari for Windows is a trojan horse to disseminate an increasingly unified interface. Multiple UI protocol for the iPhone is un-Apple and un-iPhone. Just as the UI for OSX is consistent on any Apple computer, from Mini to Pro, the UI for iPhone will be consistent on any iPhone, from version one to the special U2 version that dials Bono whenever you hanker to chat with an aging philanthropic rocker.
That's a hard assertion to prove. There are multiple UI paradigms at the moment and if anything Apple was far more consistent in UI back in the MacOS days.
Safari is not the UI for anything at the moment outside of the webkit portions that live inside iTunes. Safari by itself is NOT rich enough to be a UI. Safari + Flash or Safari + Silverlight may be.
The most common interface across platforms has been Front Row...you see elements of this UI on the Mac, AppleTV, iPod and iPhone...but that's really a single app across all platforms vs a UI template for all apps across all platforms.
Quote:
Because Apple is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar campaign to build and brand an entirely new platform, just as the Mac is a platform. Simply adding a phone function to a Nano is much more pedestrian than Apple's plans. Apple wants the idea of the iPhone to include a constellation of communication tools beyond the conventional definition of "phone." To create a watered-down iPhone would undermine a huge and so far successful effort. To propose a nano with phone function only is to misunderstand Apple's committment to the iPhone as a robust, branded platform.
A iPhone Nano would be 2 of three elements of the larger iPhone...the iPod part (which it already is as a Nano) and the Phone part. What would be absent is the internet part.
Whether the iPhone remains successful is still to be determined. As far as whether a iPhone Nano is a misunderstanding of Apple's future plans is also still to be determined. Unless your name is Steve Jobs you have zero clue as to what Apple's concept of the iPhone brand really is as there is only ONE item in that product line and Apple has always been rather secretive of future plans.
Quote:
Again, exactly. The iPod accomodates a variety of capabilities. The Mac and the iPhone do not.
The Mac is a general purpose computer...which means it also has a variety of capabilities that far exceeds the iPod. Likewise the iPhone, while not general purpose, has three elements which includes the functionality of the iPod. Hard to say that it has less variety of capabilities.
Quote:
The dividing line between the iPod and iPhone is the phone. As soon as an iPod includes a phone, it will be considered an iPhone and include every other iPhone capability.
The first two parts of this statemement is correct. The dividing line is the phone, if you stick a phone in a Nano it becomes an iPhone. The third is unsupported assertion.
Quote:
Devices with limited capabilities will be iPods, and not include a phone. Everything we know about how Apple has organized the iPhone project, team, resources, and marketing points to this distinction.
The first sentence in this paragraph says that iPods accomodated a variety of capabilities. The second sentence says that when you include a phone in a iPod it becomes an iPhone.
So this sentence makes zero sense. First, because we agree that iPods, while limited, do have a variety of capabilites...adding say a camera and a phone is like adding games and address/book calendar, pictures, video to the iPod. Further extension to what originally was a music player. Second, because once you add a phone it becomes an iPhone which is brand new platform that Apple can define however it wishes. Beefed up, stripped down, etc.
Lots of folks thought the Shuffle with no display would be a failure.
Quote:
Yes. Technically, they could do this. However, this would erode essential distinctions between Apple and more entrenched competitors in the phone business and that's not how Apple wants to compete. The Apple advantage (Jobs called it a 5 year lead) would dissapear with the rich, integrated experience of the full iPhone. In the mature phone market, Apple is interested in dominating in the space in which it competes with a revolutionary not incremental advantage.
If you can name any phone that would be a better music player than a Nano you might have a point. Since you can't you don't. The iPhone nano would fill a desired niche for folks that want an iPod (a very Apple product) that had basic phone features. Not that Apple has been inclined to fill every niche available but there is no way to categorically say it will not.
Especially as phones increasingly include music features. Given that Apple is defending a dominant position with majority share and hasn't been shy about cannibalization of its own products within the iPod line (unlike the Mac lines) with new products I see the iPhone Nano as a defensive move much like the Shuffle that should be vary successful on its own merits (beyond being the lowest cost iPhone).
I also see a price drop of the iPhone as R&D costs are covered given the rather large estimated 50% margins (althogh iSupply could be way off). Probably not for a year although maybe a drop for Christmas. I also don't expect any new models of the iPhone for a year or more and the iPhone Nano to appear only with iPhone Gen 2.
By then there will be a Video iPod with many of the iPhone features sans phone part but with PDA segment. That would blow a lot of holes in your assumption as well since an iPod would have a full mobile OSX and iPhone capabilities other than cell phone (I would hope it keeps wireless).
Well, bottom line I think that if Apple does bring out a small, cheap(er) cell phone it will be something entirely independent of the iPhone and really a different order of device.
An iPod with a phone is independent of the iPhone? That would be very odd indeed. It certainly would be a different order of device because it wouldn't be a smart phone but likewise the Shuffle is a different order of device from the iPod as well.
Quote:
Folks want it to be like the iPod line-up, with a natural evolution of sizes and price points that maintains the UI and form factor (and yes, the answer to "what about the Shuffle" is still "what about it?"-- it has no interface and is entirely irrelevant to a cell phone discussion).
And yet the Shuffle is in the iPod line-up, and certainly DOES have a UI or you couldn't do ANYTHING to it. The expectation is that there will be an iPod with most of the iPhone features without the phone part at some point. So why not an iPhone without the PDA part?
Quote:
But my guess is that an iPhone "Mini", if any if ever, would be about as related to the iPhone as an iPod is to Apple TV-- that is, some overlap because of intended function, but with an entirely different UI and criteria for being.
Because we prefer to ignore data that doesn't fit with our assertions and continue to ignore the Shuffle because...um...I dunno...why on earth would you think the Shuffle isn't a closer analogy than the aTV? The "criteria for being" is an iPod with a Phone. How more similar does it get with the current iPhone? Also an iPod with a Phone but with a PDA.
Quote:
EDIT: Per Duddits post above, yeah. I think it's unlikely that Apple would compromise the iPhone platform with less functional, harder to use phone. My thoughts are just in the "if they absolutely thought they had to" area.
Vinea: I don't think that you've "shown" how an iPhone Nano works. What you've described is possibly on par with existing candybar phones for most things, worse for dialing numbers, and much worse for text entry. Blithely assuring us that using a click wheel to access the alphabet is just as good as an alphanumeric keypad is all kinds of disingenuous, I can't believe that you really think that and have to assume you're just punting on the parts of the UI that actually don't work.
Except that you don't have an alphanumeric keyboard on most phones. They have T9 keypads where entering "Z" means pressing "9" four times. Disingenuous is implying all phones have full alphanumeric keyboards. That's not punting as much as not having emprical data to support the hypothesis that a scroll wheel selection of letters is equally inefficient as T9 entry of letters. There could be a study or I could conduct one but you'd likely disregard them anyway. About the only study I might conduct is the efficacy of virtual (multi-touch) vs real keyboards although that's already been done once.
As far as what I've shown...you say that a heirarchical UI is too complex and difficult for phone functions. I have shown one possible implementation that is 4 breadth and 4 depth which is hardly complex or confusing which disproves your assertion.
So again.
1) Do you belive the iPod UI sucks because it too is a hierachical menu?
2) Is a 4x4 menu too complex for you?
Quote:
This thing about the Nano and its tiny screen as being a good match for a phone mystifies me. I can see arguing that Apple "must" or "should" make a smaller, cheaper phone to compete with other such music phones, to avoid erosion of the iPod hegemony, but roping that argument to the Nano seems unwise.
Gee...because that "tiny" screen is about par with the screen on many existing phones? That argument certainly is without merit.
They WONT do it until they have the "big" iPhone up to 32 gig, at which point I expect to see some people on here jump for joy and ACTUALLY BUY the thing.
unless of course they were lying
Count me in as one of those. I will buy when they increase the woefully inadequate internal storage. Why limit to 32G? Give me the 80G capacity on the current iPod model.
Count me in as one of those. I will buy when they increase the woefully inadequate internal storage. Why limit to 32G? Give me the 80G capacity on the current iPod model.
as i asked before how much does the majority of iphone users need?? how much is available to other smart phones n91, blackberry, htc ??? basically isn't it the size of the memory card maybe 4gb, most i've seen at cingular are 1 maybe 2gb. if that's true (i'm not sure for the SE high end) the only reason for me to have more than my 8gb nano which is only 1/3 full is video and apps. so what what does a downloaded itunes video take and with apps since they use web 2.0 aren't they tiny like widgets. so how would an avg user use 16 or 32 gb of memory, unless for computer backup. aren't memory cards for smartphones maxed at 4gb??? so at 8gb the iphone is a leader
I think there are a few considerations that haven't been taken into account yet in this thread.
Firstly, the difference between the US mobile phone market and the markets throughout Europe (& Japan) are very very different. I know, because I have phones and contracts on both. In the UK, I get a free upgrade every year. Now, I went into TMobile in the US to sort out my contract and when I pulled out my free Sony Ericsson K610i, with 3G, internet (albeit limited and a bit tricky to use) and 2 mp camera, the guy was so impressed he passed it round to everyone else who works at the store. Then my Dad pulled out my old Sony Ericsson, a free upgrade from 2 years previous (had a Razr free in between) and they were more impressed with THAT than most of the phones in their shop.
Long story (sorry) short, the US market is way behind. European mobile companies subsidise the cost of phones to keep their customers, and therefore, people are used to more high-tech phones. Everyone I know in the UK has phones with good cameras, MP3, internet, a lot of 3G, etc. Why more for a phone+MP3 without internet, etc? (And how to cheat in the pub quiz without Google?!)
I think an iPhone Mini with fewer gigs, an iPod, phone, camera and (a scaled back version of?) Safari would sell like hotcakes. Make it smaller and look like an iPhone, but with touchscreen rather than multitouch. Or make it a slider, more like LG Chocolate, with MT for iPod when closed, and a keypad for phone/SMS. Maybe make colours like iPod Nano.
Before you tell me again, I realise this is not going to be that much cheaper to make but if they sell loads of them, profit margins will still be high... and Apple can still charge a premium for the inclusion of iPod. I also imagine many without the funds for an iPhone now might purchase a Mini for a year or two, and then upgrade to the iPhone later (I would). Brand loyalty and all that.
I don't really understand why Apple, a computer company, would make a phone without internet. It just seems backwards to me.
This brings me to one final point that occured to me while I was reading this thread. In a few years when WiFi is better and more widespread, and internet/smart/3G phones are more prevalent, there may not be a need for a traditional cell phone company at all. Use email instead of SMS, VoIP instead of phone. No more need for monthly payments at all. Perhaps Apple sees the current form as a stepping stone to a "sub-sub-notebook-portable-communications-device type thing. I'm not sure what this would mean for an iPhone mini... maybe this isn't near enough in the future for it to have an effect?
I agree with g17uk's last two paragraphs. Even when I first heard that there was going to be an iPhone, I was expecting that it would be an "internet-Phone". Apple has always been ahead of the curve and a driver of new technology, often with ideas the world has not been quite ready for.
By releasing a handheld computer in the guise of a phone, Apple has done something very clever. This has introduced the public to the potential of such a device, while making everyone think that they've bought a phone. An iPhone "mini" or whatever would be an iPhone without the traditional phone part. No SIM card, no carriers to sign up with (which, incidentally, is the most controversial aspect of this device). An excellent PDA without peer, and of course iChat. This is the born again Newton that everyone's been waiting for. Finally, a PDA that works and is actually worth spending money on. For me, this is the most exciting aspect of the iPhone.
I find it interesting that people in other countries are buying iPhones in the US and taking them home, knowing that they will have nothing more than browser/iPod/PDA functionality. The demand is there. A wifi-only iPhone would be great at home using Skype or iChat with my home wireless network. And let's not forget about Intel's push for the deployment of Wimax...
After reading this (long) thread over the past half hour, addabox I do agree with you (as well as some of the other users). However, we are simply the public....everyday users. Apple has done a pretty good job over the past 5-6 years at releasing products the public thinks they want. Every user ultimately has their own criteria for hand held devices. I personally would never come close you filling an 80 gig iPod. I'm very happy with my 30 gigs (less than 1/2 used). I do not want to attempt to watch video on such a small screen, yet there are many people that do. And as others have argued, they would use a smaller featured iPhone like device. I totally agree that is doesn't make sense to cut a few features/chips and drop the price by 100's. I also agree that a small screen/UI jeopardizes what makes an iPhone an iPhone. However, there is one thing to consider.
Market share.
It seems that if Apple could lure customers in with a lower priced device, whatever its functionality AND still make a profit, they are adding to market share. I believe people buy the iPod Shuffle and Nano not necessarily for functionality, but because they are buying into the iPod name. To me, someone who can afford a $250US iPod, it doesn't make sense to spend $150 for an 8GB Nano when for $100 more, I can get 30GB. However, to a 12 year old, having an iPod Nano, makes them feel the same exuberance as the cool 18 year old that has the more expensive iPod. Eventually, when that youngster can afford the more expensive device, they'll buy it. Apple makes money on that person TWICE. So a lower profit margin item like an iPod Nano can lead to that person buying other Apple products.
I can understand Apple attempting the same concept with the iPhone name. If you could at least get someone to buy a lower priced, less featured device with the Apple or iPhone name on it, you've just got that person to enter the Apple family. Now Apple has sold another "phone" and potential customer that will upgrade to the big-boy device in the future. Based off the previously posted hardware costs for the iPhone, that leaves a $300-$380 margin to play with. So if Apple made a less expensive, less iPhone like device with limited function but only cost $10-$20 less to manufacture, they could live with the lower margins. So they could charge say $299 retail for the iPhone wannabe and if the hardware doesn't change (much), they would still potentially have a margin of $100+ per device (based off the published prices of $200 to build -$20 for less electronics).
Regardless of how or why they do it, I think more importantly Apple wants market share. And following the iPod family model, Apple would be willing to make an entry level device for a lower price. While I would not buy such a phone, it seems to me, there are a lot of people out there that would. NOT because it is some cutting edge hand held piece of technology that is redefining what a "phone", but simply because it's a hot new product from Apple they can afford.
Mac Mini (superdrive) $799 + Apple Display $599 + KB & Mouse $78 = $1476
OR
iMac 20" = $1499
So for the full Apple "experience" it makes sense to just buy the iMac but not everyone can afford that so they buy the lower priced Mac Mini and use their existing CRT or LCD display and Logitech KB/Mouse combo and can still be happy owning a Mac (but perhaps longing for an iMac in the future???)
I've already addressed the iPod family. Same concept there. It doesn't make any sense to me, for the money, to own anything less than 30GB.
If you can afford a $500-$600 iPhone, chances are you would not be interested in saving money on a less featured $250-$350 iPhone-lite. But if someone CAN'T afford the $500+, they very well might be willing to spend $350 just to have something with the name iPhone on it. I don't agree with that philosophy but history has already proven, people are trendy. Let's face it, people have bought:
Paris Hilton's music CD
$350 blue jeans
$500 Motorola RAZR
This has been argued into the ground already. I do see Apple making a less expensive device just to get people to buy it, to increase market share and to allow more people to own an Apple product. I personally wouldn't buy it.
Comments
Folks want it to be like the iPod line-up, with a natural evolution of sizes and price points that maintains the UI and form factor (and yes, the answer to "what about the Shuffle" is still "what about it?"-- it has no interface and is entirely irrelevant to a cell phone discussion).
But my guess is that an iPhone "Mini", if any if ever, would be about as related to the iPhone as an iPod is to Apple TV-- that is, some overlap because of intended function, but with an entirely different UI and criteria for being.
EDIT: Per Duddits post above, yeah. I think it's unlikely that Apple would compromise the iPhone platform with less functional, harder to use phone. My thoughts are just in the "if they absolutely thought they had to" area.
Vinea: I don't think that you've "shown" how an iPhone Nano works. What you've described is possibly on par with existing candybar phones for most things, worse for dialing numbers, and much worse for text entry. Blithely assuring us that using a click wheel to access the alphabet is just as good as an alphanumeric keypad is all kinds of disingenuous, I can't believe that you really think that and have to assume you're just punting on the parts of the UI that actually don't work.
This thing about the Nano and its tiny screen as being a good match for a phone mystifies me. I can see arguing that Apple "must" or "should" make a smaller, cheaper phone to compete with other such music phones, to avoid erosion of the iPod hegemony, but roping that argument to the Nano seems unwise.
Folks want it to be like the iPod line-up, with a natural evolution of sizes and price points that maintains the UI and form factor..
You just proved my point. Here it is:
Smaller, cheaper price point, and similar UI.
If you don't think it will look like this, why don't you mock-up or draw the design you had in mind? No one's stopping you.
You just proved my point. Here it is:
Smaller, cheaper price point, and similar UI.
If you don't think it will look like this, why don't you mock-up or draw the design you had in mind? No one's stopping you.
Um, I don't have anything in mind. Sort of my point in starting the thread was that the iPhone UI doesn't easily scale down, not that Apple should make a particular phone. That's your deal.
My "drawing" would be a picture of an iPhone, that costs less because Apple has introduced new models with more storage, more RAM and a faster CPU.
Just shrinking the screen of the existing iPhone and putting fewer icons on there has one big problem right off the bat: the virtual keyboard gets smaller and doesn't really work anymore. Which means Apple is selling an iPhone Mini that doesn't do texting. At all.
I don't think Apple will do that. Do you?
Um, I don't have anything in mind. Sort of my point in starting the thread was that the iPhone UI doesn't easily scale down, not that Apple should make a particular phone. That's your deal.
My "drawing" would be a picture of an iPhone, that costs less because Apple has introduced new models with more storage, more RAM and a faster CPU.
Just shrinking the screen of the existing iPhone and putting fewer icons on there has one big problem right off the bat: the virtual keyboard gets smaller and doesn't really work anymore. Which means Apple is selling an iPhone Mini that doesn't do texting. At all.
I don't think Apple will do that. Do you?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
But guess what? It wont be a smartphone, so it wont have a QWERTY keyboard. It will have a software T9 equivalent.
I don't mean to be rude, but sometimes talking here seems like talking to a brick wall.
That's exactly the point. Apple varies the hardware, but the software remains the same. The Mini runs the same OS as any other mac. Apple views the iPhone in the same way they view the Mac - as a platform. iPhone models will vary in hardware configuration, speed, storage, etc., but will all run the same OS.
Mobile devices have different criteria. There are trade-offs that are required. The Mac is a general purpose computer. The iPod and iPhone specialized devices...not general computing devices. The UI is constrained by those limits.
Apple is in the process of unifying not diversifying UI across multiple products, from their website to Safari. Indeed, Safari for Windows is a trojan horse to disseminate an increasingly unified interface. Multiple UI protocol for the iPhone is un-Apple and un-iPhone. Just as the UI for OSX is consistent on any Apple computer, from Mini to Pro, the UI for iPhone will be consistent on any iPhone, from version one to the special U2 version that dials Bono whenever you hanker to chat with an aging philanthropic rocker.
That's a hard assertion to prove. There are multiple UI paradigms at the moment and if anything Apple was far more consistent in UI back in the MacOS days.
Safari is not the UI for anything at the moment outside of the webkit portions that live inside iTunes. Safari by itself is NOT rich enough to be a UI. Safari + Flash or Safari + Silverlight may be.
The most common interface across platforms has been Front Row...you see elements of this UI on the Mac, AppleTV, iPod and iPhone...but that's really a single app across all platforms vs a UI template for all apps across all platforms.
Because Apple is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar campaign to build and brand an entirely new platform, just as the Mac is a platform. Simply adding a phone function to a Nano is much more pedestrian than Apple's plans. Apple wants the idea of the iPhone to include a constellation of communication tools beyond the conventional definition of "phone." To create a watered-down iPhone would undermine a huge and so far successful effort. To propose a nano with phone function only is to misunderstand Apple's committment to the iPhone as a robust, branded platform.
A iPhone Nano would be 2 of three elements of the larger iPhone...the iPod part (which it already is as a Nano) and the Phone part. What would be absent is the internet part.
Whether the iPhone remains successful is still to be determined. As far as whether a iPhone Nano is a misunderstanding of Apple's future plans is also still to be determined. Unless your name is Steve Jobs you have zero clue as to what Apple's concept of the iPhone brand really is as there is only ONE item in that product line and Apple has always been rather secretive of future plans.
Again, exactly. The iPod accomodates a variety of capabilities. The Mac and the iPhone do not.
The Mac is a general purpose computer...which means it also has a variety of capabilities that far exceeds the iPod. Likewise the iPhone, while not general purpose, has three elements which includes the functionality of the iPod. Hard to say that it has less variety of capabilities.
The dividing line between the iPod and iPhone is the phone. As soon as an iPod includes a phone, it will be considered an iPhone and include every other iPhone capability.
The first two parts of this statemement is correct. The dividing line is the phone, if you stick a phone in a Nano it becomes an iPhone. The third is unsupported assertion.
Devices with limited capabilities will be iPods, and not include a phone. Everything we know about how Apple has organized the iPhone project, team, resources, and marketing points to this distinction.
The first sentence in this paragraph says that iPods accomodated a variety of capabilities. The second sentence says that when you include a phone in a iPod it becomes an iPhone.
So this sentence makes zero sense. First, because we agree that iPods, while limited, do have a variety of capabilites...adding say a camera and a phone is like adding games and address/book calendar, pictures, video to the iPod. Further extension to what originally was a music player. Second, because once you add a phone it becomes an iPhone which is brand new platform that Apple can define however it wishes. Beefed up, stripped down, etc.
Lots of folks thought the Shuffle with no display would be a failure.
Yes. Technically, they could do this. However, this would erode essential distinctions between Apple and more entrenched competitors in the phone business and that's not how Apple wants to compete. The Apple advantage (Jobs called it a 5 year lead) would dissapear with the rich, integrated experience of the full iPhone. In the mature phone market, Apple is interested in dominating in the space in which it competes with a revolutionary not incremental advantage.
If you can name any phone that would be a better music player than a Nano you might have a point. Since you can't you don't. The iPhone nano would fill a desired niche for folks that want an iPod (a very Apple product) that had basic phone features. Not that Apple has been inclined to fill every niche available but there is no way to categorically say it will not.
Especially as phones increasingly include music features. Given that Apple is defending a dominant position with majority share and hasn't been shy about cannibalization of its own products within the iPod line (unlike the Mac lines) with new products I see the iPhone Nano as a defensive move much like the Shuffle that should be vary successful on its own merits (beyond being the lowest cost iPhone).
I also see a price drop of the iPhone as R&D costs are covered given the rather large estimated 50% margins (althogh iSupply could be way off). Probably not for a year although maybe a drop for Christmas. I also don't expect any new models of the iPhone for a year or more and the iPhone Nano to appear only with iPhone Gen 2.
By then there will be a Video iPod with many of the iPhone features sans phone part but with PDA segment. That would blow a lot of holes in your assumption as well since an iPod would have a full mobile OSX and iPhone capabilities other than cell phone (I would hope it keeps wireless).
Vinea
Well, bottom line I think that if Apple does bring out a small, cheap(er) cell phone it will be something entirely independent of the iPhone and really a different order of device.
An iPod with a phone is independent of the iPhone? That would be very odd indeed. It certainly would be a different order of device because it wouldn't be a smart phone but likewise the Shuffle is a different order of device from the iPod as well.
Folks want it to be like the iPod line-up, with a natural evolution of sizes and price points that maintains the UI and form factor (and yes, the answer to "what about the Shuffle" is still "what about it?"-- it has no interface and is entirely irrelevant to a cell phone discussion).
And yet the Shuffle is in the iPod line-up, and certainly DOES have a UI or you couldn't do ANYTHING to it. The expectation is that there will be an iPod with most of the iPhone features without the phone part at some point. So why not an iPhone without the PDA part?
But my guess is that an iPhone "Mini", if any if ever, would be about as related to the iPhone as an iPod is to Apple TV-- that is, some overlap because of intended function, but with an entirely different UI and criteria for being.
Because we prefer to ignore data that doesn't fit with our assertions and continue to ignore the Shuffle because...um...I dunno...why on earth would you think the Shuffle isn't a closer analogy than the aTV? The "criteria for being" is an iPod with a Phone. How more similar does it get with the current iPhone? Also an iPod with a Phone but with a PDA.
EDIT: Per Duddits post above, yeah. I think it's unlikely that Apple would compromise the iPhone platform with less functional, harder to use phone. My thoughts are just in the "if they absolutely thought they had to" area.
Vinea: I don't think that you've "shown" how an iPhone Nano works. What you've described is possibly on par with existing candybar phones for most things, worse for dialing numbers, and much worse for text entry. Blithely assuring us that using a click wheel to access the alphabet is just as good as an alphanumeric keypad is all kinds of disingenuous, I can't believe that you really think that and have to assume you're just punting on the parts of the UI that actually don't work.
Except that you don't have an alphanumeric keyboard on most phones. They have T9 keypads where entering "Z" means pressing "9" four times. Disingenuous is implying all phones have full alphanumeric keyboards. That's not punting as much as not having emprical data to support the hypothesis that a scroll wheel selection of letters is equally inefficient as T9 entry of letters. There could be a study or I could conduct one but you'd likely disregard them anyway. About the only study I might conduct is the efficacy of virtual (multi-touch) vs real keyboards although that's already been done once.
As far as what I've shown...you say that a heirarchical UI is too complex and difficult for phone functions. I have shown one possible implementation that is 4 breadth and 4 depth which is hardly complex or confusing which disproves your assertion.
So again.
1) Do you belive the iPod UI sucks because it too is a hierachical menu?
2) Is a 4x4 menu too complex for you?
This thing about the Nano and its tiny screen as being a good match for a phone mystifies me. I can see arguing that Apple "must" or "should" make a smaller, cheaper phone to compete with other such music phones, to avoid erosion of the iPod hegemony, but roping that argument to the Nano seems unwise.
Gee...because that "tiny" screen is about par with the screen on many existing phones? That argument certainly is without merit.
Vinea
They WONT do it until they have the "big" iPhone up to 32 gig, at which point I expect to see some people on here jump for joy and ACTUALLY BUY the thing.
unless of course they were lying
Count me in as one of those. I will buy when they increase the woefully inadequate internal storage. Why limit to 32G? Give me the 80G capacity on the current iPod model.
Count me in as one of those. I will buy when they increase the woefully inadequate internal storage. Why limit to 32G? Give me the 80G capacity on the current iPod model.
as i asked before how much does the majority of iphone users need?? how much is available to other smart phones n91, blackberry, htc ??? basically isn't it the size of the memory card maybe 4gb, most i've seen at cingular are 1 maybe 2gb. if that's true (i'm not sure for the SE high end) the only reason for me to have more than my 8gb nano which is only 1/3 full is video and apps. so what what does a downloaded itunes video take and with apps since they use web 2.0 aren't they tiny like widgets. so how would an avg user use 16 or 32 gb of memory, unless for computer backup. aren't memory cards for smartphones maxed at 4gb??? so at 8gb the iphone is a leader
Firstly, the difference between the US mobile phone market and the markets throughout Europe (& Japan) are very very different. I know, because I have phones and contracts on both. In the UK, I get a free upgrade every year. Now, I went into TMobile in the US to sort out my contract and when I pulled out my free Sony Ericsson K610i, with 3G, internet (albeit limited and a bit tricky to use) and 2 mp camera, the guy was so impressed he passed it round to everyone else who works at the store. Then my Dad pulled out my old Sony Ericsson, a free upgrade from 2 years previous (had a Razr free in between) and they were more impressed with THAT than most of the phones in their shop.
Long story (sorry) short, the US market is way behind. European mobile companies subsidise the cost of phones to keep their customers, and therefore, people are used to more high-tech phones. Everyone I know in the UK has phones with good cameras, MP3, internet, a lot of 3G, etc. Why more for a phone+MP3 without internet, etc? (And how to cheat in the pub quiz without Google?!)
I think an iPhone Mini with fewer gigs, an iPod, phone, camera and (a scaled back version of?) Safari would sell like hotcakes. Make it smaller and look like an iPhone, but with touchscreen rather than multitouch. Or make it a slider, more like LG Chocolate, with MT for iPod when closed, and a keypad for phone/SMS. Maybe make colours like iPod Nano.
Before you tell me again, I realise this is not going to be that much cheaper to make but if they sell loads of them, profit margins will still be high... and Apple can still charge a premium for the inclusion of iPod. I also imagine many without the funds for an iPhone now might purchase a Mini for a year or two, and then upgrade to the iPhone later (I would). Brand loyalty and all that.
I don't really understand why Apple, a computer company, would make a phone without internet. It just seems backwards to me.
This brings me to one final point that occured to me while I was reading this thread. In a few years when WiFi is better and more widespread, and internet/smart/3G phones are more prevalent, there may not be a need for a traditional cell phone company at all. Use email instead of SMS, VoIP instead of phone. No more need for monthly payments at all. Perhaps Apple sees the current form as a stepping stone to a "sub-sub-notebook-portable-communications-device type thing. I'm not sure what this would mean for an iPhone mini... maybe this isn't near enough in the future for it to have an effect?
By releasing a handheld computer in the guise of a phone, Apple has done something very clever. This has introduced the public to the potential of such a device, while making everyone think that they've bought a phone. An iPhone "mini" or whatever would be an iPhone without the traditional phone part. No SIM card, no carriers to sign up with (which, incidentally, is the most controversial aspect of this device). An excellent PDA without peer, and of course iChat. This is the born again Newton that everyone's been waiting for. Finally, a PDA that works and is actually worth spending money on. For me, this is the most exciting aspect of the iPhone.
I find it interesting that people in other countries are buying iPhones in the US and taking them home, knowing that they will have nothing more than browser/iPod/PDA functionality. The demand is there. A wifi-only iPhone would be great at home using Skype or iChat with my home wireless network. And let's not forget about Intel's push for the deployment of Wimax...
Market share.
It seems that if Apple could lure customers in with a lower priced device, whatever its functionality AND still make a profit, they are adding to market share. I believe people buy the iPod Shuffle and Nano not necessarily for functionality, but because they are buying into the iPod name. To me, someone who can afford a $250US iPod, it doesn't make sense to spend $150 for an 8GB Nano when for $100 more, I can get 30GB. However, to a 12 year old, having an iPod Nano, makes them feel the same exuberance as the cool 18 year old that has the more expensive iPod. Eventually, when that youngster can afford the more expensive device, they'll buy it. Apple makes money on that person TWICE. So a lower profit margin item like an iPod Nano can lead to that person buying other Apple products.
I can understand Apple attempting the same concept with the iPhone name. If you could at least get someone to buy a lower priced, less featured device with the Apple or iPhone name on it, you've just got that person to enter the Apple family. Now Apple has sold another "phone" and potential customer that will upgrade to the big-boy device in the future. Based off the previously posted hardware costs for the iPhone, that leaves a $300-$380 margin to play with. So if Apple made a less expensive, less iPhone like device with limited function but only cost $10-$20 less to manufacture, they could live with the lower margins. So they could charge say $299 retail for the iPhone wannabe and if the hardware doesn't change (much), they would still potentially have a margin of $100+ per device (based off the published prices of $200 to build -$20 for less electronics).
Regardless of how or why they do it, I think more importantly Apple wants market share. And following the iPod family model, Apple would be willing to make an entry level device for a lower price. While I would not buy such a phone, it seems to me, there are a lot of people out there that would. NOT because it is some cutting edge hand held piece of technology that is redefining what a "phone", but simply because it's a hot new product from Apple they can afford.
Mac Mini (superdrive) $799 + Apple Display $599 + KB & Mouse $78 = $1476
OR
iMac 20" = $1499
So for the full Apple "experience" it makes sense to just buy the iMac but not everyone can afford that so they buy the lower priced Mac Mini and use their existing CRT or LCD display and Logitech KB/Mouse combo and can still be happy owning a Mac (but perhaps longing for an iMac in the future???)
I've already addressed the iPod family. Same concept there. It doesn't make any sense to me, for the money, to own anything less than 30GB.
If you can afford a $500-$600 iPhone, chances are you would not be interested in saving money on a less featured $250-$350 iPhone-lite. But if someone CAN'T afford the $500+, they very well might be willing to spend $350 just to have something with the name iPhone on it. I don't agree with that philosophy but history has already proven, people are trendy. Let's face it, people have bought:
Paris Hilton's music CD
$350 blue jeans
$500 Motorola RAZR
This has been argued into the ground already. I do see Apple making a less expensive device just to get people to buy it, to increase market share and to allow more people to own an Apple product. I personally wouldn't buy it.