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.
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.
True, I've kind of changed my mind on that internet thing. It's be crippled in some way though, besides its screen size.
Can you please explain this "slide out" keyboard. Optional? Standard?
where do you get your info??? or are you just making up stuff
It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.
2 versions - 4 SKUs.
8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely 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.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark
16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version
-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.
If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.
Apple is ceding nothing to RIMM in the Enterprise.
2.8" sounds like either a decoy or an iPhone nano.
Here's my mock-up from months ago:
Nice call on the screen size.
I agree with many posters who are saying basically - if it's smaller, thinner, and more plastic based - then we're looking at a low end model (iPhone nano).
In fact, since it's plastic, it may as well be in Nano colours as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpspence
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,
It doesn't have to lose a feature - just not gain new ones.
ie: 2 new iPhones are:
a) same price, same face, slightly thicker, adding 3G & GPS navigation, still aluminum, black.
and as an alternative (Nano) version:
b) cheaper, smaller face, slightly thinner, lighter, plastic, colours.
(I personally am surprised at the smaller face rumour. Everything else makes sense to me.)
I will be very angry if the iPhone screen becomes smaller.
I'd be surprised if it was smaller. The inital launch had the 8GB modeling selling so much better than the 4GB model at $200 less that Apple discontinued the 4GB model. Apple is very controlling with it's releases and I can't see a smaller version with an even smaller display for Safari (Yes, it has to have Safari) will be attractive.
I think we'll only have a 3G iPhone in one model with 8 and 16GB capacities, with 16 and 32GB capacities coming about 7 months later.
It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.
2 versions - 4 SKUs.
8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely 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.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark
16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version
-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.
If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.
Apple is ceding nothing to RIMM in the Enterprise.
How does the addon battery work then for the enterprise version?
If the phone is used with keyboard out, will all the program switch to landscape mode?
This rumor is a sham. Apple is all about going green.
Green - how is metal necessarily greener than plastic in the general sense? I don't think there are absolutes here, I'm guessing there's a knee-jerk rationalization going on that may not reflect reality. Metal takes a lot of energy to make too, it must be mined, generally through very disruptive mining processes, melted at high temperatures and formed at high pressures and even reheated at several parts. Plastics are recyclable too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
The exterior dude.
Isn't that enough though?
If I were to carry on the same kind of analogy, maybe I'd say Apple shouldn't be using aluminum for cases since most cars don't have a whole lot of structural aluminum. It may be that the cost of materials for such a large product would be prohibitive, but for handheld devices, the cost of materials is probably the least of the concerns.
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.
Plastics are too expensive to doan entire car in. But modern bumpers are often plastic.
Apple's plastic computer cases are plastic polycarbonate. Expensive, but very tough.
Most modern camera bodies and lenses are also polycarbonate. Much tougher than metal, and they don't dent. they give to absorb shock, and then pop back.
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!!
Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.
From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.
From simple phones to complex smartphones.
I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.
Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.
From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.
From simple phones to complex smartphones.
I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.
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.
This is what's known in "Wal-Mart speak" as "good, better, best". Three tiers of products that can appeal to all demographics and levels of price sensitivity.
I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.
The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.
The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.
Disagree. It is a phone and an iPod; and allows people to merge two devices that they actually use into one device.
People who own music-phones don't listen to music on their phones. They have iPods because music-phones suck. An iPhone without the internet is still a superior iPod, which makes it much more than an average phone.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
NasserAE, I agree there should be two models.
But the Apple way is not to lower the price point, but to drop the current model altogether.
The low-end model should be based on the current model. But with a better jack, colored cases and the lowest possible price point. Which might mean compromising on some of the materials. For instance a plastic case, and even a plastic screen. A subsidized $99 iPhone might just be the number one Christmas gift for teens across the planet.
The high-end model should be uncompromised 3G device.
Of the two, I suspect the low-end model would outsell the high-end by 3 to 1.
Comments
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
The exterior dude.
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.
True, I've kind of changed my mind on that internet thing. It's be crippled in some way though, besides its screen size.
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!
Think more parts and more complex, no it would be fine being all in one.
Can you please explain this "slide out" keyboard. Optional? Standard?
where do you get your info??? or are you just making up stuff
It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.
2 versions - 4 SKUs.
8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely 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.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark
16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version
-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.
If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.
Apple is ceding nothing to RIMM in the Enterprise.
2.8" sounds like either a decoy or an iPhone nano.
Here's my mock-up from months ago:
Nice call on the screen size.
I agree with many posters who are saying basically - if it's smaller, thinner, and more plastic based - then we're looking at a low end model (iPhone nano).
In fact, since it's plastic, it may as well be in Nano colours as well.
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,
It doesn't have to lose a feature - just not gain new ones.
ie: 2 new iPhones are:
a) same price, same face, slightly thicker, adding 3G & GPS navigation, still aluminum, black.
and as an alternative (Nano) version:
b) cheaper, smaller face, slightly thinner, lighter, plastic, colours.
(I personally am surprised at the smaller face rumour. Everything else makes sense to me.)
That's quite a difference between the 2.
I will be very angry if the iPhone screen becomes smaller.
I'd be surprised if it was smaller. The inital launch had the 8GB modeling selling so much better than the 4GB model at $200 less that Apple discontinued the 4GB model. Apple is very controlling with it's releases and I can't see a smaller version with an even smaller display for Safari (Yes, it has to have Safari) will be attractive.
I think we'll only have a 3G iPhone in one model with 8 and 16GB capacities, with 16 and 32GB capacities coming about 7 months later.
It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.
2 versions - 4 SKUs.
8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely 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.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark
16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version
-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.
If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.
Apple is ceding nothing to RIMM in the Enterprise.
How does the addon battery work then for the enterprise version?
If the phone is used with keyboard out, will all the program switch to landscape mode?
The iPhone is the future of phones. The future of handheld computers.
The future. Not the past.
This rumor is a sham. Apple is all about going green.
Green - how is metal necessarily greener than plastic in the general sense? I don't think there are absolutes here, I'm guessing there's a knee-jerk rationalization going on that may not reflect reality. Metal takes a lot of energy to make too, it must be mined, generally through very disruptive mining processes, melted at high temperatures and formed at high pressures and even reheated at several parts. Plastics are recyclable too.
The exterior dude.
Isn't that enough though?
If I were to carry on the same kind of analogy, maybe I'd say Apple shouldn't be using aluminum for cases since most cars don't have a whole lot of structural aluminum. It may be that the cost of materials for such a large product would be prohibitive, but for handheld devices, the cost of materials is probably the least of the concerns.
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.
Plastics are too expensive to doan entire car in. But modern bumpers are often plastic.
Apple's plastic computer cases are plastic polycarbonate. Expensive, but very tough.
Most modern camera bodies and lenses are also polycarbonate. Much tougher than metal, and they don't dent. they give to absorb shock, and then pop back.
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!!
Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.
From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.
From simple phones to complex smartphones.
I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.
Think 2 iPhone models...
Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.
From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.
From simple phones to complex smartphones.
I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.
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.
This is what's known in "Wal-Mart speak" as "good, better, best". Three tiers of products that can appeal to all demographics and levels of price sensitivity.
I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.
The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.
The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.
Disagree. It is a phone and an iPod; and allows people to merge two devices that they actually use into one device.
People who own music-phones don't listen to music on their phones. They have iPods because music-phones suck. An iPhone without the internet is still a superior iPod, which makes it much more than an average phone.
I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.
NasserAE, I agree there should be two models.
But the Apple way is not to lower the price point, but to drop the current model altogether.
The low-end model should be based on the current model. But with a better jack, colored cases and the lowest possible price point. Which might mean compromising on some of the materials. For instance a plastic case, and even a plastic screen. A subsidized $99 iPhone might just be the number one Christmas gift for teens across the planet.
The high-end model should be uncompromised 3G device.
Of the two, I suspect the low-end model would outsell the high-end by 3 to 1.
C.