Well going by what was just said here, I think the click wheel phone patent is just another defensive patent, and iPhone nano, as I see it, will be closer to this design:
Do you really think an iPhone nano would be backwards and green?
Actually, the real problem I see with both this design and the other guy's photoshopped version of it is that it simply takes an existing product and varies it in an obvious way. iPhone nano? Take an iPhone, make it smaller, remove a few apps. Not much to fight about.
I would think Apple would be Apple and avoid the obvious derivation.
Reminds me of all that speculation about their super secret phone prior to the iPhone announcement. Basically, people were just slapping keypads on iPods. Glad they were wrong.
And the latest crop of iMac speculation? Minor variations of the existing model. Historically, since each new iMac has an entirely different look, chances are the new one will as well.
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable. Although, come to think of it, backwards and green would not be something most people would expect.
..... the phrase is; you couldn't care less, not "could care less".
From dictionary.com:
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
[Just trying to be helpful, that's all. I couldn't (or perhaps I mean the sarcastic inversion, could) care less.]
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
[Just trying to be helpful, that's all. I couldn't (or perhaps I mean the sarcastic inversion, could) care less.]
In America you think colour is spelled color, LOL.
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable.
Enough with the backward on green talk, I explained that before. So the nano was a shrunken' iPod, and that surprised you, yet a shrunken' iPhone wouldn't?
Wow, I'm not really intending to start your rant all over, but it seems that you took it too personally. You don't need to repeat 20 times that you were first and he's a liar. He even gave you credit for being first with a correct guess. I'd say look in the mirror and check if your ego has not gotten out of hand.
If the dude is right (which we'll find out October 30 or earlier), I would expect a public apology from you.
A nano-like iPhone makes sense. Thinner, lighter, smaller than an iPhone, basically a nano plus cell. Imagine a 4GB cell/iPod without EDGE or WiFi. Just Bluetooth. It wouldn't hurt iPhone sales one bit. It also wouldn't hurt iPod or nano sales since it'll cost more than a nano and won't have the capacity of an iPod. It also seems like it wouldn't have many of the cool functions of the iPhone.
I'd also expect to see new versions of the nano and iPod before the holidays. If Apple has new iPods, a wider range of iPhones, a new iMac line, and maybe a thin, light 13" MBP, wow, what a Q1 Apple will have! Add to that movie rentals via Apple TV from the couch and watch Apple TV sales soar. Oh, and Leopard!
JP Morgan's Taiwan analyst Kevin Chang suggested that the iPod Nano would be abandoned (marketwatch: "We believe it's a strong sign that Apple could potentially convert every iPod nano into a nano phone"). AppleInsider is suggesting the opposite ("? but not so much so as to pinch sales of an upcoming revision to the iPod nano.").
OK, so it's worse because AppleInsider recycled an old story by attaching "reliable sources" to it without mentioning the previous one or the JP Morgan USA denial.
Nice try on the attempt to differentiate the Chang story from the AppleInsider version. Unfortunately, you left out the next line of the marketwatch story: "He believes such a move is the only way for Apple to launch a lower-end phone without severely cannibalizing sales of its iPod Nano." I think the word "cannibalizing" is more elegant than the word "pinch," which pretty much describes what happened between the Chang version and the AppleInsider version.
By the way, how many different accounts do you have on this site? AISI, indeed!
Nice try on the attempt to differentiate the Chang story from the AppleInsider version. Unfortunately, you left out the next line of the marketwatch story.
That's not an attempt, looks like I misread last week's story. Anyway, I don't want the iPod nano replaced by a phone. If a lower-cost iPhone is available alongside an upcoming revision to the iPod nano, I have no problem with that. We'll see if this rumor proves true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commun5
By the way, how many different accounts do you have on this site?
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable.
Enough with the backward on green talk, I explained that before. So the nano was a shrunken' iPod, and that surprised you, yet a shrunken' iPhone wouldn't?
Is it just me, or does this post make no sense at all?
Sounds like an essential move when you consider the fact that the market for dedicated mp3 players is basically going to die over the next year or so. It's getting hard to buy a phone at any price without media functionality and a memory card slot - with 4 gig cards (more than enough for %80 of people) going under $50, I don't think most people will even be interested in a dedicated mp3 player (no matter how elegantly designed) unless they need something to work out with.
I don't know about dedicated music players disappearing right away - people like their iPods an awful lot - but yeah, music phones will definitely increasingly eat into portable media player sales.
What's interesting about the iPhone is that it's basically a defensive move - Apple responding to music phones - but carried out in a very bold and aggressive way.
That move will only become bolder, more aggressive, and (IMO) very smart if the iPhone nano rumor proves true for this (!) holiday.
Comments
Well going by what was just said here, I think the click wheel phone patent is just another defensive patent, and iPhone nano, as I see it, will be closer to this design:
Do you really think an iPhone nano would be backwards and green?
Actually, the real problem I see with both this design and the other guy's photoshopped version of it is that it simply takes an existing product and varies it in an obvious way. iPhone nano? Take an iPhone, make it smaller, remove a few apps. Not much to fight about.
I would think Apple would be Apple and avoid the obvious derivation.
Reminds me of all that speculation about their super secret phone prior to the iPhone announcement. Basically, people were just slapping keypads on iPods. Glad they were wrong.
And the latest crop of iMac speculation? Minor variations of the existing model. Historically, since each new iMac has an entirely different look, chances are the new one will as well.
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable. Although, come to think of it, backwards and green would not be something most people would expect.
..... the phrase is; you couldn't care less, not "could care less".
From dictionary.com:
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
[Just trying to be helpful, that's all. I couldn't (or perhaps I mean the sarcastic inversion, could) care less.
From dictionary.com:
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
[Just trying to be helpful, that's all. I couldn't (or perhaps I mean the sarcastic inversion, could) care less.
In America you think colour is spelled color, LOL.
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable.
Enough with the backward on green talk, I explained that before. So the nano was a shrunken' iPod, and that surprised you, yet a shrunken' iPhone wouldn't?
Both of you, enough. The point has been made.
I agree Sir.
In America you think colour is spelled color, LOL.
We always have to fix your incorrect, and antiquated, spellings. When will the English learn?
Just stop lying. That is all.
Wow, I'm not really intending to start your rant all over, but it seems that you took it too personally. You don't need to repeat 20 times that you were first and he's a liar. He even gave you credit for being first with a correct guess. I'd say look in the mirror and check if your ego has not gotten out of hand.
If the dude is right (which we'll find out October 30 or earlier), I would expect a public apology from you.
iphone is small as it is
Compared to what?
If the dude is right (which we'll find out October 30 or earlier), I would expect a public apology from you.
Sounds like a genuinely fair request.
Mr. Ireland?
Somehow, I feel pretty sure that most of us were thinking about a more Nano-like phone.
Who cares?
If it comes out, then fine.
I'd also expect to see new versions of the nano and iPod before the holidays. If Apple has new iPods, a wider range of iPhones, a new iMac line, and maybe a thin, light 13" MBP, wow, what a Q1 Apple will have! Add to that movie rentals via Apple TV from the couch and watch Apple TV sales soar. Oh, and Leopard!
Seems really low target, like they might sell that this year, especially with a Nano iPhone...
Try the archives: AppleInsider reported this on July 9 and the second note from JP Morgan's US branch followed the next day.
JP Morgan's Taiwan analyst Kevin Chang suggested that the iPod Nano would be abandoned (marketwatch: "We believe it's a strong sign that Apple could potentially convert every iPod nano into a nano phone"). AppleInsider is suggesting the opposite ("? but not so much so as to pinch sales of an upcoming revision to the iPod nano.").
OK, so it's worse because AppleInsider recycled an old story by attaching "reliable sources" to it without mentioning the previous one or the JP Morgan USA denial.
Nice try on the attempt to differentiate the Chang story from the AppleInsider version. Unfortunately, you left out the next line of the marketwatch story: "He believes such a move is the only way for Apple to launch a lower-end phone without severely cannibalizing sales of its iPod Nano." I think the word "cannibalizing" is more elegant than the word "pinch," which pretty much describes what happened between the Chang version and the AppleInsider version.
By the way, how many different accounts do you have on this site? AISI, indeed!
Nice try on the attempt to differentiate the Chang story from the AppleInsider version. Unfortunately, you left out the next line of the marketwatch story.
That's not an attempt, looks like I misread last week's story. Anyway, I don't want the iPod nano replaced by a phone. If a lower-cost iPhone is available alongside an upcoming revision to the iPod nano, I have no problem with that. We'll see if this rumor proves true.
By the way, how many different accounts do you have on this site?
About 38,966.
When the iPod nano came out, it looked fresh and cool, not just a shrunken iPod. Here's hoping the iPhone nano, if there actually is one, is just as unpredictable.
Enough with the backward on green talk, I explained that before. So the nano was a shrunken' iPod, and that surprised you, yet a shrunken' iPhone wouldn't?
Is it just me, or does this post make no sense at all?
Apple is in big trouble if they DON'T do this.
What's interesting about the iPhone is that it's basically a defensive move - Apple responding to music phones - but carried out in a very bold and aggressive way.
That move will only become bolder, more aggressive, and (IMO) very smart if the iPhone nano rumor proves true for this (!) holiday.