All I want is phone+ipod nano, I have no desire to pay for a data plan, and really don't need the internet on my phone. If they could integrate a click wheel into a number pad, I would be happy.
I want to combine two devices into one, without going to the smartphone profile. Most cell phone mp3 players have either crappy software, or lack physical buttons for changing tracks. I would love to have the ipod interface on a phone.
Simple. Apple will eventually phase out both the iPod Classic and the iPod Nano and go all-touch screens (except for the Shuffle). Once 64GB and 128GB Flash Memory chips are cheap enough, expect to the iPod Classic to go the way of the dodo.
If Apple puts in the R&D to make an iPhone Nano, they will also develop an "iPod Touch Nano" and phase out the iPod Nano. They did the same exact thing with the iPhone & iPod Touch Gen1, and the iPhone3G & iPod Touch Gen2.
Hmmm... its getting confusing with all these new products we are inventing. I don't think your example of how Apple fazed out the first gen iPhone and iPod Touch with the second gen versions is relevant. These are physically almost identical products.
I can see the idea of the touch interface on a nano but this has been discussed here at length before and the consensus then, as I remember it, was that a touch screen for a nano would be a step back in terms of usability. The Touch is being sold more as a gaming platform than an iPod and as such a Touch Nano would be too small, me thinks. But if the Nano Phone really does become a reality, and it features a touch screen (which I am sure it would), then maybe a Nano Touch makes more sense from a product line perspective.
I can certainly see a "normal" iPhone with 4GB, no GPS, no data plan, etc. selling in China and other foreign markets.
And the idea of something like an iPod nano with a phone in it, no touchscreen or data, is not without merit. That could be subsidized very cheap, like "free with plan" cheap the way RAZRs are now. I think that is less likely, but it could happen.
However, a scaled-down iPhone with a smaller touchscreen is hard to believe. The keyboard would only work in landscape mode! How many apps would that break? Would they stratify the iPhone app store into different levels of system requirements?
What would they take away from the iPhone to make it a "nano?" A smaller screen size?
Take away the price. The iPhone is great except when you are in a very public place and it is at risk of being stolen. For instance on the weekend I sometimes don't bring it if going to a club or bar, which is counter productive. A cheaper version would help in this matter.
Maybe we should stop talking about an "iPhone Nano" (which, after all, is just a made up product based on a very probably faulty analogy to Apple's existing product line) and start talking about the "iPhone Cheaper."
Because, as others have said, the iPhone is a platform based on certain UI conventions, and I think the current iteration is the smallest we'll see. Folks that want Apple to make "just a phone" with an iTunes app are forgetting that "phone" is just an app on the new platform. Apple is no more likely to make "just a phone" than they are to make "just an email" laptop.
The fact that the iPhone has a phone app (and despite its name, which is a marketing thing) doesn't mean Apple is a phone company, it just means that, at this point in time, there is some overlap between the old idea of a "phone" and the small computers Apple is making. Apple isn't going to go backwards to offer the old idea of a phone, I can't imagine they have much interest in making "phones", at all. Yes, it's a big market, but so are a lot of things that Apple doesn't and never will make. The money, and the future, is in small computers with connectivity apps. Skate to where the puck will be, remember?
So the real question is, how do they make it cheaper? As has been frequently pointed out, the real cost is in the data plan, but it's hard to imagine AT&T letting Apple sell an iPhone without that data plan. Still, the psychology of "cheap" phones, as in up front costs, is persuasive, so a $100 iPhone seems like the likely candidate, if in fact Apple feels they need to do something to goose sales.
How do they do that? Easy. They introduce new models with more memory, better processors, and a few hardware upgrades (better camera, better screen, etc.) at the current price points and continue to offer the current model at the lower price. Call it the iPhone "classic", or just make it the new bottom tier in a three tiered good better best scheme, just like Apple does with all its stuff.
That would all be in keeping with Apple's customary way of doing things, and keep the iPhone platform unified. For folks who want "just a phone" with no data plan, I don't think Apple is going to meet your needs-- although there's always the Touch with Skype.
and the conclusion in the lead, that the Nano is "slated to appear sometime this spring" is based on the statement in the supporting text, that " an official iPhone nano launch that would come no earlier than June". Where i come from, we call June or later "summer". \
IF we do see an iPhone Nano, I'd expect the styling to be completely different. I'd also expect them to use anodized alluminium. I agree with other people that it's hard to say what they'd ommit to make a 'nano' version, all the key features (bar GPS) are 'signature' features for the iPhone - screen size, touch sensitive, app store etc. Ommitting the camera would be obvious, but even the cheapest phones now have cameras, so that would be a bit odd.. Smaller screen would just be harder to use. A non-touch sensitive screen would be odd (and not really what the OS or apps are designed for). Ommitting the app store would lose Apple a load of income...
We'll see, but if it comes I reckon it'll be very different, in some way...
ATT is not stupid. they likely made sure that the contract covers all cellular capable devices created by Apple. so even if Apple added a 3g modem into their laptop, that service would be tied to ATT for the contract period.
because ATT makes the rules and they want it mandatory. they will tell you that they can't block data use on the phone so there has to be a data plan in place or you'd paid by use and could rack up huge bills.
also, ATT controls the price of the plan, not Apple. remember this always. if the phone were on Verizon, Verizon would control the price of service. so Apple can't offer a $15 data plan unless they want to built their own cell phone infrastructure etc. which they don't and that's why they went with an existing company as a partner. same for not wanting to run a credit card company/service which is why Juniper Bank runs it for them.
as the prices of components come down I could see them knocking $50 off the existing two sizes and perhaps adding a 32gb. but I don't see a 4gb being in the system anymore. it wasn't a big seller before the apps store and now it really wouldn't be cause you just can't hold that much on it.
AT&T already have a $15/month data plan for phones other than the iPhone and BB. It is obvious that Apple have some control over how much AT&T charges for their data plan and whether a data plan is required or not as long as Apple renews the contract. Why do you think the 3G iPhone plan is cheaper than the BB?! I am sure that Apple contract with AT&T is limited by the iPhone model and not the number of years. For example, the 1st iPhone contract expired when Apple introduced the 3G model and the 3G iPhone will expire once Apple release the next model.
I guess Apple biting its nails for signing ATT only contract. Now they have to make different device just to break away.
I think Nano touch screen is possible. It has to be a smart-phone because market is climbing towards that. Apple is not gonna make a device that is in a dying phase. As long as it does what Steve Jobs outlined for a smart-phone to do, that is: iTunes, Safari, and Phone, it should be fine.
A nano with a smaller screen, but the same res AND with the same flash capacity (8GB or more) would be HOT in any country. The iPhone is too big even for my big hands. The 3G's rounded back is easier to hold, but the width is still tough to grasp.
I understand that some people have small hands and extremely good eyesight. To me the current iPhone is great when it comes to apps, music, pictures, but sucks as a web browser because text is either too small to read or has to be scrolled constantly.
What interests me most about an iPhone nano is the possibility that it'll be available at a reasonable price without the horrendous cost of an iPhone data plan.
and the conclusion in the lead, that the Nano is "slated to appear sometime this spring" is based on the statement in the supporting text, that " an official iPhone nano launch that would come no earlier than June". Where i come from, we call June or later "summer". \
That yields a very small window of opportunity since spring ends on the solstice in late June.
How does this make them true? How about mac mini updates? Everyones been predicting those for a long time, and they're much more likely, yet nothings happened yet. not to mention, it's very very very obvious (plus i think he's said it) steve jobs hates buttons. i can't imagine him ever approving ADDING buttons to an iPhone (nano)
I don't think apple's ever thought about customers like that. they have their own schedule. Not to mention they're trying to get out of people's expectations driving their production cycle (hence leaving macworld) So why would they be worried about peoples original iphone contracts expiring, if they want a new iphone, they can get a 3g.
I was referring to a landscape only VIRTUAL keyboard. It could have the exact same number of buttons. I think a mac mini update will happen. It's just a matter of time.
I agree that Apple wants to keep its customers, and they are aware that people will need an incentive to upgrade to the new device. June is not January (the worst month of the year for releasing a product)
I think Nano touch screen is possible. It has to be a smart-phone because market is climbing towards that. Apple is not gonna make a device that is in a dying phase. As long as it does what Steve Jobs outlined for a smart-phone to do, that is: iTunes, Safari, and Phone, it should be fine.
There is no way the iPhone Nano would be a smart phone. The smart phone market may be a growing one but compared to the 'normal' phone market it is small. I think Apple is capable of 're-inventing' the normal cell phone and with moderate success it will sell millions. The advantage with a Nano Phone with a touch screen is that it could work for several markets. Also, MANY Many people over the age of 60 have a real problem with cell phones. Too many bells and whistles, bad displays and tiny buttons. The boomers is a growing market. And then there is rest of us all with different needs. Its all in the software and I think Apple could make an amazing low ambition phone if they wanted to.
There is no way the iPhone Nano would be a smart phone. The smart phone market may be a growing one but compared to the 'normal' phone market it is small. I think Apple is capable of 're-inventing' the normal cell phone and with moderate success it will sell millions. The advantage with a Nano Phone with a touch screen is that it could work for several markets. Also, MANY Many people over the age of 60 have a real problem with cell phones. Too many bells and whistles, bad displays and tiny buttons. The boomers is a growing market. And then there is rest of us all with different needs. Its all in the software and I think Apple could make an amazing low ambition phone if they wanted to.
Agreed. If you took the current iPod nano and add a phone to it I'd be all over that.
AT&T already have a $15/month data plan for phones other than the iPhone and BB.
You mean flip cellular phones that have a crap Internet experience and thus you are probably not going to use it but once in a blue moon? Phones that probably don't have 3G and thus would use allot less data?
How dare AT&T charge based on how you would use the phone
Lots of great thoughts on here. Many genuine possibilities.
I do think there's room for a lesser iPhone. The rumors that it is non US would seem to imply they're doing something AT&T wouldn't agree to. If true, of course.
So, we have
- iPod nano plus phone. iPod nano apps.
- iphone with smaller screen same resolution. Multi colours, less memory, no gps. Same iPhone apps. Perhaps no cell data.
- same a now but less functionality.
My first thought is remove 3g data, or think of it as upgrading the ipod touch with mic and earphone and 2g phone (smaller and cheap) - just byo sim if you want more than an iPod touch, or use as a pure voip phone.
But apple really wants to define a new type of device, so I'm not so sure. Interesting stuff.
Ps. The rumour that new iPhone firmware won't cache google maps leads me to wonder if a fully offline mapping app will be sold shortly. That makes non-3g data phone more appealing.
Comments
I want to combine two devices into one, without going to the smartphone profile. Most cell phone mp3 players have either crappy software, or lack physical buttons for changing tracks. I would love to have the ipod interface on a phone.
the Newton is going to redefine the Netbook hype!
iPhone nano?
well, only if you're having tinywiny little Chinese fingels
or one could shake his phone to get the number
Simple. Apple will eventually phase out both the iPod Classic and the iPod Nano and go all-touch screens (except for the Shuffle). Once 64GB and 128GB Flash Memory chips are cheap enough, expect to the iPod Classic to go the way of the dodo.
If Apple puts in the R&D to make an iPhone Nano, they will also develop an "iPod Touch Nano" and phase out the iPod Nano. They did the same exact thing with the iPhone & iPod Touch Gen1, and the iPhone3G & iPod Touch Gen2.
Hmmm... its getting confusing with all these new products we are inventing. I don't think your example of how Apple fazed out the first gen iPhone and iPod Touch with the second gen versions is relevant. These are physically almost identical products.
I can see the idea of the touch interface on a nano but this has been discussed here at length before and the consensus then, as I remember it, was that a touch screen for a nano would be a step back in terms of usability. The Touch is being sold more as a gaming platform than an iPod and as such a Touch Nano would be too small, me thinks. But if the Nano Phone really does become a reality, and it features a touch screen (which I am sure it would), then maybe a Nano Touch makes more sense from a product line perspective.
And the idea of something like an iPod nano with a phone in it, no touchscreen or data, is not without merit. That could be subsidized very cheap, like "free with plan" cheap the way RAZRs are now. I think that is less likely, but it could happen.
However, a scaled-down iPhone with a smaller touchscreen is hard to believe. The keyboard would only work in landscape mode! How many apps would that break? Would they stratify the iPhone app store into different levels of system requirements?
What would they take away from the iPhone to make it a "nano?" A smaller screen size?
Take away the price. The iPhone is great except when you are in a very public place and it is at risk of being stolen. For instance on the weekend I sometimes don't bring it if going to a club or bar, which is counter productive. A cheaper version would help in this matter.
Because, as others have said, the iPhone is a platform based on certain UI conventions, and I think the current iteration is the smallest we'll see. Folks that want Apple to make "just a phone" with an iTunes app are forgetting that "phone" is just an app on the new platform. Apple is no more likely to make "just a phone" than they are to make "just an email" laptop.
The fact that the iPhone has a phone app (and despite its name, which is a marketing thing) doesn't mean Apple is a phone company, it just means that, at this point in time, there is some overlap between the old idea of a "phone" and the small computers Apple is making. Apple isn't going to go backwards to offer the old idea of a phone, I can't imagine they have much interest in making "phones", at all. Yes, it's a big market, but so are a lot of things that Apple doesn't and never will make. The money, and the future, is in small computers with connectivity apps. Skate to where the puck will be, remember?
So the real question is, how do they make it cheaper? As has been frequently pointed out, the real cost is in the data plan, but it's hard to imagine AT&T letting Apple sell an iPhone without that data plan. Still, the psychology of "cheap" phones, as in up front costs, is persuasive, so a $100 iPhone seems like the likely candidate, if in fact Apple feels they need to do something to goose sales.
How do they do that? Easy. They introduce new models with more memory, better processors, and a few hardware upgrades (better camera, better screen, etc.) at the current price points and continue to offer the current model at the lower price. Call it the iPhone "classic", or just make it the new bottom tier in a three tiered good better best scheme, just like Apple does with all its stuff.
That would all be in keeping with Apple's customary way of doing things, and keep the iPhone platform unified. For folks who want "just a phone" with no data plan, I don't think Apple is going to meet your needs-- although there's always the Touch with Skype.
We'll see, but if it comes I reckon it'll be very different, in some way...
ATT is not stupid. they likely made sure that the contract covers all cellular capable devices created by Apple. so even if Apple added a 3g modem into their laptop, that service would be tied to ATT for the contract period.
because ATT makes the rules and they want it mandatory. they will tell you that they can't block data use on the phone so there has to be a data plan in place or you'd paid by use and could rack up huge bills.
also, ATT controls the price of the plan, not Apple. remember this always. if the phone were on Verizon, Verizon would control the price of service. so Apple can't offer a $15 data plan unless they want to built their own cell phone infrastructure etc. which they don't and that's why they went with an existing company as a partner. same for not wanting to run a credit card company/service which is why Juniper Bank runs it for them.
as the prices of components come down I could see them knocking $50 off the existing two sizes and perhaps adding a 32gb. but I don't see a 4gb being in the system anymore. it wasn't a big seller before the apps store and now it really wouldn't be cause you just can't hold that much on it.
AT&T already have a $15/month data plan for phones other than the iPhone and BB. It is obvious that Apple have some control over how much AT&T charges for their data plan and whether a data plan is required or not as long as Apple renews the contract. Why do you think the 3G iPhone plan is cheaper than the BB?! I am sure that Apple contract with AT&T is limited by the iPhone model and not the number of years. For example, the 1st iPhone contract expired when Apple introduced the 3G model and the 3G iPhone will expire once Apple release the next model.
I think Nano touch screen is possible. It has to be a smart-phone because market is climbing towards that. Apple is not gonna make a device that is in a dying phase. As long as it does what Steve Jobs outlined for a smart-phone to do, that is: iTunes, Safari, and Phone, it should be fine.
A nano with a smaller screen, but the same res AND with the same flash capacity (8GB or more) would be HOT in any country. The iPhone is too big even for my big hands. The 3G's rounded back is easier to hold, but the width is still tough to grasp.
I understand that some people have small hands and extremely good eyesight. To me the current iPhone is great when it comes to apps, music, pictures, but sucks as a web browser because text is either too small to read or has to be scrolled constantly.
What interests me most about an iPhone nano is the possibility that it'll be available at a reasonable price without the horrendous cost of an iPhone data plan.
and the conclusion in the lead, that the Nano is "slated to appear sometime this spring" is based on the statement in the supporting text, that " an official iPhone nano launch that would come no earlier than June". Where i come from, we call June or later "summer".
That yields a very small window of opportunity since spring ends on the solstice in late June.
How does this make them true? How about mac mini updates? Everyones been predicting those for a long time, and they're much more likely, yet nothings happened yet. not to mention, it's very very very obvious (plus i think he's said it) steve jobs hates buttons. i can't imagine him ever approving ADDING buttons to an iPhone (nano)
I don't think apple's ever thought about customers like that. they have their own schedule. Not to mention they're trying to get out of people's expectations driving their production cycle (hence leaving macworld) So why would they be worried about peoples original iphone contracts expiring, if they want a new iphone, they can get a 3g.
I was referring to a landscape only VIRTUAL keyboard. It could have the exact same number of buttons. I think a mac mini update will happen. It's just a matter of time.
I agree that Apple wants to keep its customers, and they are aware that people will need an incentive to upgrade to the new device. June is not January (the worst month of the year for releasing a product)
I think Nano touch screen is possible. It has to be a smart-phone because market is climbing towards that. Apple is not gonna make a device that is in a dying phase. As long as it does what Steve Jobs outlined for a smart-phone to do, that is: iTunes, Safari, and Phone, it should be fine.
There is no way the iPhone Nano would be a smart phone. The smart phone market may be a growing one but compared to the 'normal' phone market it is small. I think Apple is capable of 're-inventing' the normal cell phone and with moderate success it will sell millions. The advantage with a Nano Phone with a touch screen is that it could work for several markets. Also, MANY Many people over the age of 60 have a real problem with cell phones. Too many bells and whistles, bad displays and tiny buttons. The boomers is a growing market. And then there is rest of us all with different needs. Its all in the software and I think Apple could make an amazing low ambition phone if they wanted to.
There is no way the iPhone Nano would be a smart phone. The smart phone market may be a growing one but compared to the 'normal' phone market it is small. I think Apple is capable of 're-inventing' the normal cell phone and with moderate success it will sell millions. The advantage with a Nano Phone with a touch screen is that it could work for several markets. Also, MANY Many people over the age of 60 have a real problem with cell phones. Too many bells and whistles, bad displays and tiny buttons. The boomers is a growing market. And then there is rest of us all with different needs. Its all in the software and I think Apple could make an amazing low ambition phone if they wanted to.
Agreed. If you took the current iPod nano and add a phone to it I'd be all over that.
I want a Verizon iPhone damn it!!!!!
Probably won't happen until Verizon moves towards global GSM standards with their 4G network. You've got a while to wait
Agreed. If you took the current iPod nano and add a phone to it I'd be all over that.
Me too. In a heartbeat. But I really, really don't think Apple is going to do that.
AT&T already have a $15/month data plan for phones other than the iPhone and BB.
You mean flip cellular phones that have a crap Internet experience and thus you are probably not going to use it but once in a blue moon? Phones that probably don't have 3G and thus would use allot less data?
How dare AT&T charge based on how you would use the phone
I guess Apple biting its nails for signing ATT only contract.
What makes you say that? If they were so disappointed with AT&T why did they extend with them?
Your statement makes no sense.
I do think there's room for a lesser iPhone. The rumors that it is non US would seem to imply they're doing something AT&T wouldn't agree to. If true, of course.
So, we have
- iPod nano plus phone. iPod nano apps.
- iphone with smaller screen same resolution. Multi colours, less memory, no gps. Same iPhone apps. Perhaps no cell data.
- same a now but less functionality.
My first thought is remove 3g data, or think of it as upgrading the ipod touch with mic and earphone and 2g phone (smaller and cheap) - just byo sim if you want more than an iPod touch, or use as a pure voip phone.
But apple really wants to define a new type of device, so I'm not so sure. Interesting stuff.
Ps. The rumour that new iPhone firmware won't cache google maps leads me to wonder if a fully offline mapping app will be sold shortly. That makes non-3g data phone more appealing.