And why come out after Christmas? To piss off everyone that just bought the big iPhone? This is assuming, of course there's a huge demand for a smaller iPhone, which I seriously doubt.
Look, if Apple were to announce an iPhone Nano, don't you think Steve Jobs would do the Keynote at Macworld? If the announcement won't be at MacWorld, why is XSKN already shipping the skin?
Actually I don't. A company like Apple just doesn't decide to drop out of a trade show overnight. Also an iPhone Nano is not a major product.
Quote:
Also consider how much publicity XSKN is getting. It's a great way to draw in Christmas shoppers.
Possibly if you knew where to get their product.
Quote:
As for the development issues: I can speak as a developer. I put out an app recently (Artist's Touch), was at WWDC 08, and know the SDK pretty well. While there are resizing provisions in the iPhone SDK, as there is in the Mac SDK, most apps still have to ADD code to make it work properly in that size.
For simpiler list based apps I'm seeing no need at all for extra code. It obviously depends on the app but I see many working fine on a device with fewer pixels.
Quote:
In the rotation from portrait to landscape, for example, a lot is done for you but you have to do a lot of things as well including (1) make sure your buttons, etc. have the proper auto-aligning attributes (springs and struts in Interface Builder),
Would a developer not do this anyways? He might have some problems getting it right with out the alternative device but that is not a surprise.
Quote:
(2) Handle specific issues with animation from the different orientation.
You have to use annimation for this to be an issue.
Quote:
(3) Most apps completely switch to a different view when rotated so all that has to be written as well.
There are many examples where this isn't the case. Further you are implying that every alternative view would be non functional. The need to rewrite would depend on the view.
Quote:
The only thing that will work for ALL apps is to just shrink the screen and give a much higher bit depth.
This is true but would lead to a screen that is hard to read for us old folks.
Quote:
The problem with this is that the UiTouches mechanism in the iPhone SDK CANNOT become any more accurate. You see this in the simulator: Even when you use a mouse the iPhone still treats it as an inaccurate touch over a surface of 20 to 30 square pixels.
It is even worst if you have fat fingers and a heavy Touch. That is the primary reason I see the dpi remaining the same.
Quote:
As for people wanting a smaller iPhone: I've never heard this from the 50 or so people I know from many different demographics. Apple's marketing calls the iPhone "the perfect size" and "fits perfectly in your hand". There is no clear need. No clear benefit.
While I'm in the camp of Apple needs to go the other way I can't say there won't be demand for a device this size. In fact I could see significant demand mostly from people where size is a concern. Right or wrong people judge cell phones on size. Sometimes that is justified, it depends on your life style and how big your pants are.
Quote:
Apple doesn't do small little changes just because. If anything, I've heard people saying they had a bigger screen (for web, email, drawing, etc.).
I'm in the bigger camp myself and frankly hear exactly the same BS as I'm hearing in this thread. That generally amounts to: "the iPhone is perfect no other size will sell" or there abouts. That to me is blatantly stupid and frankly no other cell phone company puts their future in one basket. Bigger or smaller it is important for Apple to adjust the number of pixels the user sees.
That is a new device that is larger does me no good at all if I can't see more information on screen. The fixed screen resolution crowd must be hung over from the game devices world from what I can see. The last thing Apple needs to do is to stop innovation on Touch and iPhone devices because a few programmers can't get their apps to work right at different screen sizes. Apple might as well stop all new device development right now if they can't change the screen size.
Quote:
I still think Apple's trick to smoke out leakers. Jobs was really upset last time.
That is a possibility in this case! However that doesn't mean there isn't a real need for Apple to expand the number of hand sets it offers and to continue to innovate. As it is they are extremely exposed right now with a one product business. They need a product upon which they can work with the carrier to offer at a lower price. My suspicion is that it will either be an edge device or a 3G device with limited bandwidth, so the can justify a lower monthly fee.
Yea I am a developer, have apps on the App Store and have attended WWDC08. Just to reiterate, the resizing thing won't work.
You seemed convinced that that staement applies to all apps. I'm equally convinced it doesn't. There would be a subset of apps that work fine.
Quote:
Only smaller rez which is not a problem either but then touches become even less accurate.
Then it would be a problem - right? The Touch accuracy thing is real as is the visual ability to read the screen. These are two significant issues that can't be glossed over. Even if they addressed the issue of Touch accuracy they still have the fat finger problem.
I still see Apple sticking with the same dpi on all new devices.
Quote:
Someone should make a site where we can gamble on Apple news rumors
If only the cash was available, having just come back from Vegas I won't be wagering any time soon.
One possibilty that hasn't been considered is that maybe these leaks are only half right. It is a given the case developer hasn't seen the actual product yet so pets just assume for the moment that the only thing they have gotten right is the overall case size. This could very well be the click wheel iPhone case that was patented some time ago. Such a little device would certainly differentiate it from the smarter iPhone.
I say smarter because I still see this device as having more smarts than your run of the mill cheap phone. It would basically work like the current click wheel devces in that a tactile surface would be on the screen. Well half the screen anyways. This gives Apple an iPhone device free of carrier networking support that is more iPod than smart phone. Yes I do believe it would sell big as many people just don't want to be paying big cell phone bills.
In any event I'm absolutely convinced that Apple has more iPhone's in the works. It is a given that one will be smaller. I'm also exspecting a larger one and a folder. I love my iPhone but let's be honest it is far from perfect.
I do think there is a need to expand to other form factors but not a iPhone Nano. Maybe a flip phone:
Apple has patented a lot of good ideas for iPhone, it will be very interesting to see which one the go with for a smaller cell phone. I'm also wondering just how wedded to the need for smart features in cell phones they are. That is would Apple give up Internet features such as mail and the web to offer up a cheap or pay as you go phone.
All these patents are very nice but I'd really like to see a device with a folding OLED screen. Or make that devices, having something that can double it's screen size would make mail a snap and on screen keyboards much easier to use.
What is it now, less than two weeks? By the way I'm even more excited about the possibility of new apps. I'm really hoping for a real GPS app myself.
no acces to the app store, no need for data plans... just regular cell plans and sms plans
this will be the iphone for people that just want a phone... phone, text, that kind of functionality. might even have a better camera on allowable by the thickness of the product.
Sounds great-- except for the fact that there's a very well-developed pre-existing market of cheap, basic phones (the freebies and loss-leaders from Nokia and Motorola that literally no thinking person will pay more than base cost for-- like, $10). Coupling that market with Jobs' recent reiteration that Apple isn't in the business of selling cheap crap, I'm inclined to think that Apple has no desire to move into that market segment, and will instead prefer to stay in the high-end smartphone business, where relatively low volume is made up for by remarkably high profit-per-unit.
Just to reveal my own bias, I note that I'm a proud 4GB iPhone 2.5 owner-- paid $500 for mine, in July 07, still love it dearly, and am wholly ready to drop another $400-500 for a 32GB G3, whenever Apple upgrades the specs to that memory level.
Seriously good gear costs serious money, and not everyone wants a cheap, crappy phone.
The discussion here is richly divided but the folks who don't believe are not looking deeply enough at how Apple chooses its products. It is true that an iPhone nano with no 3G, no GPS, and a smaller screen would not be attractive to those of us who have iPhones, but the millions of people who would like a little iPhone magic in a smaller, fully unlocked and less costly product would be enchanted. I've posted my thoughts here: http://www.yourmaccoach.com/yourmaccoach/Blog/Blog.html
Keep in mind. Apple isn't making a product for the 16 milllion iPhone owners, they need to make a product for the hundred million people who aren't iPhone owners yet.
While you are there you can read my earlier thoughts about why Apple will NOT make a NetBook device, at least one like everyone else has.
And why come out after Christmas? To piss off everyone that just bought the big iPhone? This is assuming, of course there's a huge demand for a smaller iPhone, which I seriously doubt.
Well, if it was designed for the Chinese market, Christmas would be a lot less relevant
than Chinese New Year (Jan 26, 2009) for gift giving.
My contract with Verizon is up next month and in November I wandered in to a Verizon store and asked one of the guys there when Verizon would be getting the iPhone. I also said I was very satisfied with Verizon and wasn't going to switch to AT&T just to get the iPhone. He said wait early next year before getting a new phone as he had heard an internal rumor that Verizon was going to getting a smaller iPhone and he did use the word Nano. I don't know how much credence to give to this as usually counter people are the last to know what's going on within a company.
He is full of shit. Apple has a contract with AT&T as the primary provider for at least 5 years. The guy was probably talking about Verizon's half-ass attempt at duplicating the iPhone with their touchscreen blackberry.
He is full of shit. Apple has a contract with AT&T as the primary provider for at least 5 years. The guy was probably talking about Verizon's half-ass attempt at duplicating the iPhone with their touchscreen blackberry. ...
Well considering we don't even know if the iPhone nano exists, there are lots of possibilities here and nothing can really be totally discounted out of hand.
A nano iPhone could be sold unlocked or to several different carriers simultaneously. The contract with AT&T is for the "iPhone" but we would have to be privy to the actual detailed wording of it to know for certain if that included all related products or just the iPhone 3G. If it is a "non-data" phone, then one could make a really good argument that this is *not* the same product as the iPhone that is exclusive to AT&T in any case.
Even if the contract was relevant for the USA, there is nothing to stop Apple from selling anything they want to whomever they want in the rest of the world. I don't remember Apple having the same exclusive agreement with many other carriers and certainly not one of such length and detail. In many countries Apple is dealing with cell provider A, B, or C only because the others don't have the technology. Canada is a great example.
I personally find it hard to believe those that are saying this nano phone might be made exclusively for the Chinese market, but given it's existence, it could easily be a good fit for that and many other countries, especially if it doesn't need data as most are supposing.
... All these patents are very nice but I'd really like to see a device with a folding OLED screen. Or make that devices, having something that can double it's screen size would make mail a snap and on screen keyboards much easier to use. ...
I think the whole folding screen thing is way too gimmicky. It certainly won't be something Apple will do until the technology if waaay further along. All we have now is a couple of tech demos that prove it's barely possible to make such a thing (and they both look like ass to me.)
IMO the day flexible displays finally get useful, the technology will point in other directions for their use and the concept of the "folding screen" will probably seem anachronistic.
I think I could type on a virtual keyboard on a "trade paperback" (6x9?) device which is about the size of Apple's purported tablet and completely pocketable.
This is also similar in size to the small netbook that many want Apple to make, but if it flips open like a netbook, then there is not much point to using a virtual keyboard when it could just as easily function as a laptop type device. Seems to me the only reason to have a virtual keyboard on that kind of form factor would be if it *didn't* fold open.
I think I could type on a virtual keyboard on a "trade paperback" (6x9?) device which is about the size of Apple's purported tablet and completely pocketable.
This is also similar in size to the small netbook that many want Apple to make, but if it flips open like a netbook, then there is not much point to using a virtual keyboard when it could just as easily function as a laptop type device. Seems to me the only reason to have a virtual keyboard on that kind of form factor would be if it *didn't* fold open.
While a tablet computer is more realistic - after all, the iPhone and iPod touch are essentially ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - it's a lot like saying Microsoft's Surface computers will gain widespread adoption. Typing on a big piece of glass would require the user to place the device on a flat surface, be it a table top or a lap. That doesn't seem like a big deal considering we already do that with our laptops, right?
The problem is, a tablet's screen and (virtual) keyboard are one and the same, thus using a tablet would be rather uncomfortable. You'd either have to lean over the flat device to see what is on screen, causing stress on your back and neck, or prop the device up in some way to see what's on screen, forcing your hands up at an unnatural angle, causing stress on your wrists.
The only way a tablet would work is with an external physical keyboard, connected via USB or Bluetooth, and some kind of stand that would keep the tablet propped up when placed on either a table top (not too difficult) or a person's lap (far more difficult). At this point, you'd have what would look like a disjointed, touchscreen netbook. Bleh.
The iPhone's virtual keyboard works because 1) the iPhone is small and light enough to hold in your hands and 2) though you have a full QWERTY keyboard to type on, you only end up using your thumbs to type in a fairly narrow area. This is why Apple doesn't support horizontal keyboard mode throughout: while horizontal mode seems more logical than vertical mode, you also have to reach further due to spaces between the virtual keys being larger [than the spaces b/w the keys in vertical mode], which hampers typing speed and accuracy.
So, does this mean Apple will never implement the iPhone's awesome MultiTouch technology into full-on computers? Nope, to a certain extent, they already have MultiTouch Macs: their entire line of MacBooks! From the Air to the Pro, all support MultiTouch gestures through their large static trackpads. They've also managed to sell millions of ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - the iPhone and iPod touch. Seems like they have two rather obvious options for getting visual MultiTouch functionality into their Macs:
1. Harness the collective, large, and fast growing iPhone/iPod touch install base already in existence and with their Macs, which are outpacing the industry 4 to 1, by enabling the iPhone to serve as an external MultiTouch trackpad, where one could perform the gestures already possible on MacBooks as well as pull things from the main computer's display down into the iPhone's display for more precise manipulations (ie doodling, messing with Google Maps, fiddling with GarageBand dials, etc.)
2. Replace all the MacBooks' built-in static trackpads with MultiTouch displays that would still serve as static MT trackpads by default, but through some trigger (hardware or software) would turn on the display to enable the same functionality as option #1 - pull down programs/elements/widgets from the main computer's display (in this case the MacBook's LCD) down into the visual MultiTouch display, perform manipulations with your fingers, then throw it back up to the main display when finished.
Obviously, these two ideas are courtesy of DED of RDM:
While a tablet computer is more realistic - after all, the iPhone and iPod touch are essentially ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - it's a lot like saying Microsoft's Surface computers will gain widespread adoption. Typing on a big piece of glass would require the user to place the device on a flat surface, be it a table top or a lap. That doesn't seem like a big deal considering we already do that with our laptops, right?
The problem is, a tablet's screen and (virtual) keyboard are one and the same, thus using a tablet would be rather uncomfortable. You'd either have to lean over the flat device to see what is on screen, causing stress on your back and neck, or prop the device up in some way to see what's on screen, forcing your hands up at an unnatural angle, causing stress on your wrists.
The only way a tablet would work is with an external physical keyboard, connected via USB or Bluetooth, and some kind of stand that would keep the tablet propped up when placed on either a table top (not too difficult) or a person's lap (far more difficult). At this point, you'd have what would look like a disjointed, touchscreen netbook. Bleh.
I'm more optimistic than that. A larger touch screen does need a killer-app kind of use to be accepted as a mass market consumer device. I'd really like to see a drafting table kind of device, those were angle-adjustable and comfortable to use all day, but that's going to be a niche item in that kind of form factor.
If anyone can crack that problem, I think it will be someone in Apple's research or from someone like Jeff Han, who is doing a lot of work in the field.
Quote:
The iPhone's virtual keyboard works because 1) the iPhone is small and light enough to hold in your hands and 2) though you have a full QWERTY keyboard to type on, you only end up using your thumbs to type in a fairly narrow area. This is why Apple doesn't support horizontal keyboard mode throughout: while horizontal mode seems more logical than vertical mode, you also have to reach further due to spaces between the virtual keys being larger [than the spaces b/w the keys in vertical mode], which hampers typing speed and accuracy.
I really haven't had that much trouble with landscape. I think a lot of the problem is that landscape keyboard takes almost all of the screen. Another is that it's used so rarely, so you're not getting much practice with that mode, so it makes sense that the mode you use more often works better.
I'm more optimistic than that. A larger touch screen does need a killer-app kind of use to be accepted as a mass market consumer device. I'd really like to see a drafting table kind of device, those were angle-adjustable and comfortable to use all day, but that's going to be a niche item in that kind of form factor.
Exactly. It'd also essentially be an angle-adjustable Microsoft Surface. Apple serves consumers first and foremost and supports niche markets with their consumer products, like they've done with the Hospitality Industry, for instance, where they may write custom software running on embedded Mac minis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
If anyone can crack that problem, I think it will be someone in Apple's research or from someone like Jeff Han, who is doing a lot of work in the field.
My observations have nothing to do with a lack of optimism, but with logic based on what Apple has already delivered.
I'll repost my edited/expanded comment (the part I think you missed), which offers what I believe are very possible alternatives:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
So, does this mean Apple will never implement the iPhone's awesome MultiTouch technology into full-on computers? Nope, to a certain extent, they already have MultiTouch Macs: their entire line of MacBooks! From the Air to the Pro, all support MultiTouch gestures through their large static trackpads. They've also managed to sell millions of ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - the iPhone and iPod touch. Seems like they have two rather obvious options for getting visual MultiTouch functionality into their Macs:
1. Harness the collective, large, and fast growing iPhone/iPod touch install base already in existence and with their Macs, which are outpacing the industry 4 to 1, by enabling the iPhone to serve as an external MultiTouch trackpad, where one could perform the gestures already possible on MacBooks as well as pull things from the main computer's display down into the iPhone's display for more precise manipulations (ie doodling, messing with Google Maps, fiddling with GarageBand dials, etc.)
2. Replace all the MacBooks' built-in static trackpads with MultiTouch displays that would still serve as static MT trackpads by default, but through some trigger (hardware or software) would turn on the display to enable the same functionality as option #1 - pull down programs/elements/widgets from the main computer's display (in this case the MacBook's LCD) down into the visual MultiTouch display, perform manipulations with your fingers, then throw it back up to the main display when finished.
Obviously, these two ideas are courtesy of DED of RDM:
I really haven't had that much trouble with landscape. I think a lot of the problem is that landscape keyboard takes almost all of the screen. Another is that it's used so rarely, so you're not getting much practice with that mode, so it makes sense that the mode you use more often works better.
Then again, if you could use horizontal mode anywhere, perhaps you'd find it slower and less accurate than vertical mode, regardless of practice. The other problem you listed dealing with less screen real estate for text, is another strike against horizontal mode.
Then again, if you could use horizontal mode anywhere, perhaps you'd find it slower and less accurate than vertical mode, regardless of practice.
Anything is possible, but it's not getting near what I would call too big to be comfortable and efficient to use, but the portrait keyboard is already on the margin of being small to be comfortable and efficient for me.
Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible.
Does anyone remember before the iPhone 3G came out, there were rumours that it was going to be smaller, using a screen of the same resolution as the first iPhone but reduced size?
I agree with many others that if Apple releases an iPhone Nano it'd have the same resolution, with a smaller screen size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.
Yes to both. Everything would be smaller (but still work), and some developers would want to make a different version for the smaller screen.
I think an iPhone Nano could target teenagers etc - younger people have better eyes and smaller or more agile fingers. Also more attractive to the asian markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherwinzadeh
Look, if Apple were to announce an iPhone Nano, don't you think Steve Jobs would do the Keynote at Macworld? If the announcement won't be at MacWorld, why is XSKN already shipping the skin?
Regarding macworld - either
1) There's nothing to announce so Steve is peeved and won't do it
2) There's great stuff to announce, but Steve is sick
3) There's great stuff to announce, but Apple wants anyone-but-Steve to announce, so that people start believing that Great Stuff can happen even without Steve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourmaccoach
It is true that an iPhone nano with no 3G, no GPS, and a smaller screen would not be attractive to those of us who have iPhones, but the millions of people who would like a little iPhone magic in a smaller, fully unlocked and less costly product would be enchanted.
Yep.
Also, if Apple rewrote their main apps to take advantage of a finer resolution screen and allowed horizontal orientation for email that would be good.
Hey just jumping out of the square with some not-fully thought out ideas...
Is any of the following possible in an iPhone Nano?
1) gets data only from wifi (students at home, or at school).
2) Phone uses GSM only, or 3G only (reducing size of phone).
3) has google maps heavily cached for your local area, as well as the SkyHookWireless location data
4) possibly doesn't have a mobile network AT ALL - but works as a phone when on wifi.
(progressively unlikely - could a hobbled iPhone connect to an Apple-based wifi network like Fon, which all Apple products start to 'share' - or relay messages via full iPhones when other data connections aren't available?)
Comments
Look, if Apple were to announce an iPhone Nano, don't you think Steve Jobs would do the Keynote at Macworld? If the announcement won't be at MacWorld, why is XSKN already shipping the skin?
Actually I don't. A company like Apple just doesn't decide to drop out of a trade show overnight. Also an iPhone Nano is not a major product.
Also consider how much publicity XSKN is getting. It's a great way to draw in Christmas shoppers.
Possibly if you knew where to get their product.
As for the development issues: I can speak as a developer. I put out an app recently (Artist's Touch), was at WWDC 08, and know the SDK pretty well. While there are resizing provisions in the iPhone SDK, as there is in the Mac SDK, most apps still have to ADD code to make it work properly in that size.
For simpiler list based apps I'm seeing no need at all for extra code. It obviously depends on the app but I see many working fine on a device with fewer pixels.
In the rotation from portrait to landscape, for example, a lot is done for you but you have to do a lot of things as well including (1) make sure your buttons, etc. have the proper auto-aligning attributes (springs and struts in Interface Builder),
Would a developer not do this anyways? He might have some problems getting it right with out the alternative device but that is not a surprise.
(2) Handle specific issues with animation from the different orientation.
You have to use annimation for this to be an issue.
(3) Most apps completely switch to a different view when rotated so all that has to be written as well.
There are many examples where this isn't the case. Further you are implying that every alternative view would be non functional. The need to rewrite would depend on the view.
The only thing that will work for ALL apps is to just shrink the screen and give a much higher bit depth.
This is true but would lead to a screen that is hard to read for us old folks.
The problem with this is that the UiTouches mechanism in the iPhone SDK CANNOT become any more accurate. You see this in the simulator: Even when you use a mouse the iPhone still treats it as an inaccurate touch over a surface of 20 to 30 square pixels.
It is even worst if you have fat fingers and a heavy Touch. That is the primary reason I see the dpi remaining the same.
As for people wanting a smaller iPhone: I've never heard this from the 50 or so people I know from many different demographics. Apple's marketing calls the iPhone "the perfect size" and "fits perfectly in your hand". There is no clear need. No clear benefit.
While I'm in the camp of Apple needs to go the other way I can't say there won't be demand for a device this size. In fact I could see significant demand mostly from people where size is a concern. Right or wrong people judge cell phones on size. Sometimes that is justified, it depends on your life style and how big your pants are.
Apple doesn't do small little changes just because. If anything, I've heard people saying they had a bigger screen (for web, email, drawing, etc.).
I'm in the bigger camp myself and frankly hear exactly the same BS as I'm hearing in this thread. That generally amounts to: "the iPhone is perfect no other size will sell" or there abouts. That to me is blatantly stupid and frankly no other cell phone company puts their future in one basket. Bigger or smaller it is important for Apple to adjust the number of pixels the user sees.
That is a new device that is larger does me no good at all if I can't see more information on screen. The fixed screen resolution crowd must be hung over from the game devices world from what I can see. The last thing Apple needs to do is to stop innovation on Touch and iPhone devices because a few programmers can't get their apps to work right at different screen sizes. Apple might as well stop all new device development right now if they can't change the screen size.
I still think Apple's trick to smoke out leakers. Jobs was really upset last time.
That is a possibility in this case! However that doesn't mean there isn't a real need for Apple to expand the number of hand sets it offers and to continue to innovate. As it is they are extremely exposed right now with a one product business. They need a product upon which they can work with the carrier to offer at a lower price. My suspicion is that it will either be an edge device or a 3G device with limited bandwidth, so the can justify a lower monthly fee.
Dave
Yea I am a developer, have apps on the App Store and have attended WWDC08. Just to reiterate, the resizing thing won't work.
You seemed convinced that that staement applies to all apps. I'm equally convinced it doesn't. There would be a subset of apps that work fine.
Only smaller rez which is not a problem either but then touches become even less accurate.
Then it would be a problem - right? The Touch accuracy thing is real as is the visual ability to read the screen. These are two significant issues that can't be glossed over. Even if they addressed the issue of Touch accuracy they still have the fat finger problem.
I still see Apple sticking with the same dpi on all new devices.
Someone should make a site where we can gamble on Apple news rumors
If only the cash was available, having just come back from Vegas I won't be wagering any time soon.
One possibilty that hasn't been considered is that maybe these leaks are only half right. It is a given the case developer hasn't seen the actual product yet so pets just assume for the moment that the only thing they have gotten right is the overall case size. This could very well be the click wheel iPhone case that was patented some time ago. Such a little device would certainly differentiate it from the smarter iPhone.
I say smarter because I still see this device as having more smarts than your run of the mill cheap phone. It would basically work like the current click wheel devces in that a tactile surface would be on the screen. Well half the screen anyways. This gives Apple an iPhone device free of carrier networking support that is more iPod than smart phone. Yes I do believe it would sell big as many people just don't want to be paying big cell phone bills.
In any event I'm absolutely convinced that Apple has more iPhone's in the works. It is a given that one will be smaller. I'm also exspecting a larger one and a folder. I love my iPhone but let's be honest it is far from perfect.
I do think there is a need to expand to other form factors but not a iPhone Nano. Maybe a flip phone:
Apple has patented a lot of good ideas for iPhone, it will be very interesting to see which one the go with for a smaller cell phone. I'm also wondering just how wedded to the need for smart features in cell phones they are. That is would Apple give up Internet features such as mail and the web to offer up a cheap or pay as you go phone.
All these patents are very nice but I'd really like to see a device with a folding OLED screen. Or make that devices, having something that can double it's screen size would make mail a snap and on screen keyboards much easier to use.
What is it now, less than two weeks? By the way I'm even more excited about the possibility of new apps. I'm really hoping for a real GPS app myself.
no acces to the app store, no need for data plans... just regular cell plans and sms plans
this will be the iphone for people that just want a phone... phone, text, that kind of functionality. might even have a better camera on allowable by the thickness of the product.
Sounds great-- except for the fact that there's a very well-developed pre-existing market of cheap, basic phones (the freebies and loss-leaders from Nokia and Motorola that literally no thinking person will pay more than base cost for-- like, $10). Coupling that market with Jobs' recent reiteration that Apple isn't in the business of selling cheap crap, I'm inclined to think that Apple has no desire to move into that market segment, and will instead prefer to stay in the high-end smartphone business, where relatively low volume is made up for by remarkably high profit-per-unit.
Just to reveal my own bias, I note that I'm a proud 4GB iPhone 2.5 owner-- paid $500 for mine, in July 07, still love it dearly, and am wholly ready to drop another $400-500 for a 32GB G3, whenever Apple upgrades the specs to that memory level.
Seriously good gear costs serious money, and not everyone wants a cheap, crappy phone.
Keep in mind. Apple isn't making a product for the 16 milllion iPhone owners, they need to make a product for the hundred million people who aren't iPhone owners yet.
While you are there you can read my earlier thoughts about why Apple will NOT make a NetBook device, at least one like everyone else has.
And why come out after Christmas? To piss off everyone that just bought the big iPhone? This is assuming, of course there's a huge demand for a smaller iPhone, which I seriously doubt.
Well, if it was designed for the Chinese market, Christmas would be a lot less relevant
than Chinese New Year (Jan 26, 2009) for gift giving.
My contract with Verizon is up next month and in November I wandered in to a Verizon store and asked one of the guys there when Verizon would be getting the iPhone. I also said I was very satisfied with Verizon and wasn't going to switch to AT&T just to get the iPhone. He said wait early next year before getting a new phone as he had heard an internal rumor that Verizon was going to getting a smaller iPhone and he did use the word Nano. I don't know how much credence to give to this as usually counter people are the last to know what's going on within a company.
He is full of shit. Apple has a contract with AT&T as the primary provider for at least 5 years. The guy was probably talking about Verizon's half-ass attempt at duplicating the iPhone with their touchscreen blackberry.
Also, Verizon phones don't work with SIM cards.
He is full of shit. Apple has a contract with AT&T as the primary provider for at least 5 years. The guy was probably talking about Verizon's half-ass attempt at duplicating the iPhone with their touchscreen blackberry. ...
Well considering we don't even know if the iPhone nano exists, there are lots of possibilities here and nothing can really be totally discounted out of hand.
A nano iPhone could be sold unlocked or to several different carriers simultaneously. The contract with AT&T is for the "iPhone" but we would have to be privy to the actual detailed wording of it to know for certain if that included all related products or just the iPhone 3G. If it is a "non-data" phone, then one could make a really good argument that this is *not* the same product as the iPhone that is exclusive to AT&T in any case.
Even if the contract was relevant for the USA, there is nothing to stop Apple from selling anything they want to whomever they want in the rest of the world. I don't remember Apple having the same exclusive agreement with many other carriers and certainly not one of such length and detail. In many countries Apple is dealing with cell provider A, B, or C only because the others don't have the technology. Canada is a great example.
I personally find it hard to believe those that are saying this nano phone might be made exclusively for the Chinese market, but given it's existence, it could easily be a good fit for that and many other countries, especially if it doesn't need data as most are supposing.
... All these patents are very nice but I'd really like to see a device with a folding OLED screen. Or make that devices, having something that can double it's screen size would make mail a snap and on screen keyboards much easier to use. ...
I think the whole folding screen thing is way too gimmicky. It certainly won't be something Apple will do until the technology if waaay further along. All we have now is a couple of tech demos that prove it's barely possible to make such a thing (and they both look like ass to me.)
IMO the day flexible displays finally get useful, the technology will point in other directions for their use and the concept of the "folding screen" will probably seem anachronistic.
I think I could type on a virtual keyboard on a "trade paperback" (6x9?) device which is about the size of Apple's purported tablet and completely pocketable.
This is also similar in size to the small netbook that many want Apple to make, but if it flips open like a netbook, then there is not much point to using a virtual keyboard when it could just as easily function as a laptop type device. Seems to me the only reason to have a virtual keyboard on that kind of form factor would be if it *didn't* fold open.
I think I could type on a virtual keyboard on a "trade paperback" (6x9?) device which is about the size of Apple's purported tablet and completely pocketable.
This is also similar in size to the small netbook that many want Apple to make, but if it flips open like a netbook, then there is not much point to using a virtual keyboard when it could just as easily function as a laptop type device. Seems to me the only reason to have a virtual keyboard on that kind of form factor would be if it *didn't* fold open.
While a tablet computer is more realistic - after all, the iPhone and iPod touch are essentially ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - it's a lot like saying Microsoft's Surface computers will gain widespread adoption. Typing on a big piece of glass would require the user to place the device on a flat surface, be it a table top or a lap. That doesn't seem like a big deal considering we already do that with our laptops, right?
The problem is, a tablet's screen and (virtual) keyboard are one and the same, thus using a tablet would be rather uncomfortable. You'd either have to lean over the flat device to see what is on screen, causing stress on your back and neck, or prop the device up in some way to see what's on screen, forcing your hands up at an unnatural angle, causing stress on your wrists.
The only way a tablet would work is with an external physical keyboard, connected via USB or Bluetooth, and some kind of stand that would keep the tablet propped up when placed on either a table top (not too difficult) or a person's lap (far more difficult). At this point, you'd have what would look like a disjointed, touchscreen netbook. Bleh.
The iPhone's virtual keyboard works because 1) the iPhone is small and light enough to hold in your hands and 2) though you have a full QWERTY keyboard to type on, you only end up using your thumbs to type in a fairly narrow area. This is why Apple doesn't support horizontal keyboard mode throughout: while horizontal mode seems more logical than vertical mode, you also have to reach further due to spaces between the virtual keys being larger [than the spaces b/w the keys in vertical mode], which hampers typing speed and accuracy.
So, does this mean Apple will never implement the iPhone's awesome MultiTouch technology into full-on computers? Nope, to a certain extent, they already have MultiTouch Macs: their entire line of MacBooks! From the Air to the Pro, all support MultiTouch gestures through their large static trackpads. They've also managed to sell millions of ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - the iPhone and iPod touch. Seems like they have two rather obvious options for getting visual MultiTouch functionality into their Macs:
1. Harness the collective, large, and fast growing iPhone/iPod touch install base already in existence and with their Macs, which are outpacing the industry 4 to 1, by enabling the iPhone to serve as an external MultiTouch trackpad, where one could perform the gestures already possible on MacBooks as well as pull things from the main computer's display down into the iPhone's display for more precise manipulations (ie doodling, messing with Google Maps, fiddling with GarageBand dials, etc.)
2. Replace all the MacBooks' built-in static trackpads with MultiTouch displays that would still serve as static MT trackpads by default, but through some trigger (hardware or software) would turn on the display to enable the same functionality as option #1 - pull down programs/elements/widgets from the main computer's display (in this case the MacBook's LCD) down into the visual MultiTouch display, perform manipulations with your fingers, then throw it back up to the main display when finished.
Obviously, these two ideas are courtesy of DED of RDM:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...-iphone-touch/
the "fatty" nano was a controlled leak.
-
in other news i am so glad we have gotten away from the "FAAAKEEE" idiots
While a tablet computer is more realistic - after all, the iPhone and iPod touch are essentially ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - it's a lot like saying Microsoft's Surface computers will gain widespread adoption. Typing on a big piece of glass would require the user to place the device on a flat surface, be it a table top or a lap. That doesn't seem like a big deal considering we already do that with our laptops, right?
The problem is, a tablet's screen and (virtual) keyboard are one and the same, thus using a tablet would be rather uncomfortable. You'd either have to lean over the flat device to see what is on screen, causing stress on your back and neck, or prop the device up in some way to see what's on screen, forcing your hands up at an unnatural angle, causing stress on your wrists.
The only way a tablet would work is with an external physical keyboard, connected via USB or Bluetooth, and some kind of stand that would keep the tablet propped up when placed on either a table top (not too difficult) or a person's lap (far more difficult). At this point, you'd have what would look like a disjointed, touchscreen netbook. Bleh.
I'm more optimistic than that. A larger touch screen does need a killer-app kind of use to be accepted as a mass market consumer device. I'd really like to see a drafting table kind of device, those were angle-adjustable and comfortable to use all day, but that's going to be a niche item in that kind of form factor.
If anyone can crack that problem, I think it will be someone in Apple's research or from someone like Jeff Han, who is doing a lot of work in the field.
The iPhone's virtual keyboard works because 1) the iPhone is small and light enough to hold in your hands and 2) though you have a full QWERTY keyboard to type on, you only end up using your thumbs to type in a fairly narrow area. This is why Apple doesn't support horizontal keyboard mode throughout: while horizontal mode seems more logical than vertical mode, you also have to reach further due to spaces between the virtual keys being larger [than the spaces b/w the keys in vertical mode], which hampers typing speed and accuracy.
I really haven't had that much trouble with landscape. I think a lot of the problem is that landscape keyboard takes almost all of the screen. Another is that it's used so rarely, so you're not getting much practice with that mode, so it makes sense that the mode you use more often works better.
I'm more optimistic than that. A larger touch screen does need a killer-app kind of use to be accepted as a mass market consumer device. I'd really like to see a drafting table kind of device, those were angle-adjustable and comfortable to use all day, but that's going to be a niche item in that kind of form factor.
Exactly. It'd also essentially be an angle-adjustable Microsoft Surface. Apple serves consumers first and foremost and supports niche markets with their consumer products, like they've done with the Hospitality Industry, for instance, where they may write custom software running on embedded Mac minis.
If anyone can crack that problem, I think it will be someone in Apple's research or from someone like Jeff Han, who is doing a lot of work in the field.
My observations have nothing to do with a lack of optimism, but with logic based on what Apple has already delivered.
I'll repost my edited/expanded comment (the part I think you missed), which offers what I believe are very possible alternatives:
So, does this mean Apple will never implement the iPhone's awesome MultiTouch technology into full-on computers? Nope, to a certain extent, they already have MultiTouch Macs: their entire line of MacBooks! From the Air to the Pro, all support MultiTouch gestures through their large static trackpads. They've also managed to sell millions of ultra-portable, minimalist tablets - the iPhone and iPod touch. Seems like they have two rather obvious options for getting visual MultiTouch functionality into their Macs:
1. Harness the collective, large, and fast growing iPhone/iPod touch install base already in existence and with their Macs, which are outpacing the industry 4 to 1, by enabling the iPhone to serve as an external MultiTouch trackpad, where one could perform the gestures already possible on MacBooks as well as pull things from the main computer's display down into the iPhone's display for more precise manipulations (ie doodling, messing with Google Maps, fiddling with GarageBand dials, etc.)
2. Replace all the MacBooks' built-in static trackpads with MultiTouch displays that would still serve as static MT trackpads by default, but through some trigger (hardware or software) would turn on the display to enable the same functionality as option #1 - pull down programs/elements/widgets from the main computer's display (in this case the MacBook's LCD) down into the visual MultiTouch display, perform manipulations with your fingers, then throw it back up to the main display when finished.
Obviously, these two ideas are courtesy of DED of RDM:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...-iphone-touch/
I really haven't had that much trouble with landscape. I think a lot of the problem is that landscape keyboard takes almost all of the screen. Another is that it's used so rarely, so you're not getting much practice with that mode, so it makes sense that the mode you use more often works better.
Then again, if you could use horizontal mode anywhere, perhaps you'd find it slower and less accurate than vertical mode, regardless of practice.
Apple is still trying to build it's iPhone/iPod Touch platform.
They still have not released the push notification service to developers(3 months overdue).
Releasing a different form factor that needs new software will divert momentum from the iPhone platform.
They could release an iPhone nano that comes with a predefined set of apps without diverting momentum.
After the platform has become more firmly entrenched, then Apple will be willing to begin the next phase of it's plan for world domination.
Then again, if you could use horizontal mode anywhere, perhaps you'd find it slower and less accurate than vertical mode, regardless of practice.
Anything is possible, but it's not getting near what I would call too big to be comfortable and efficient to use, but the portrait keyboard is already on the margin of being small to be comfortable and efficient for me.
Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible.
Does anyone remember before the iPhone 3G came out, there were rumours that it was going to be smaller, using a screen of the same resolution as the first iPhone but reduced size?
I agree with many others that if Apple releases an iPhone Nano it'd have the same resolution, with a smaller screen size.
Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.
Yes to both. Everything would be smaller (but still work), and some developers would want to make a different version for the smaller screen.
I think an iPhone Nano could target teenagers etc - younger people have better eyes and smaller or more agile fingers. Also more attractive to the asian markets.
Look, if Apple were to announce an iPhone Nano, don't you think Steve Jobs would do the Keynote at Macworld? If the announcement won't be at MacWorld, why is XSKN already shipping the skin?
Regarding macworld - either
1) There's nothing to announce so Steve is peeved and won't do it
2) There's great stuff to announce, but Steve is sick
3) There's great stuff to announce, but Apple wants anyone-but-Steve to announce, so that people start believing that Great Stuff can happen even without Steve.
It is true that an iPhone nano with no 3G, no GPS, and a smaller screen would not be attractive to those of us who have iPhones, but the millions of people who would like a little iPhone magic in a smaller, fully unlocked and less costly product would be enchanted.
Yep.
Also, if Apple rewrote their main apps to take advantage of a finer resolution screen and allowed horizontal orientation for email that would be good.
Hey just jumping out of the square with some not-fully thought out ideas...
Is any of the following possible in an iPhone Nano?
1) gets data only from wifi (students at home, or at school).
2) Phone uses GSM only, or 3G only (reducing size of phone).
3) has google maps heavily cached for your local area, as well as the SkyHookWireless location data
4) possibly doesn't have a mobile network AT ALL - but works as a phone when on wifi.
(progressively unlikely - could a hobbled iPhone connect to an Apple-based wifi network like Fon, which all Apple products start to 'share' - or relay messages via full iPhones when other data connections aren't available?)