I know I may just be a cat, but I think you miss the point. The iPhone changes the meaning of the word "phone." It's a multifunction handheld computer with a penchant for communication. Hobbling the software to diversify the product line would stunt the growth of the new platform. Anything less than an iPhone would be an... iPod. The iPhone itself will continue to be a robust and versatile handheld computer without compromise. They wouldn't turn off Safari just to make a Nano.
"Turning off Safari", as you put it, is just part of the equation. There wont be any maps, internet, widgets or eMail either, hence it wont be a Smartphone. It'll be a regular phone and an iPod, so to speak. It'll be smaller then the iPhone too and wont have a qwerty keyboard, but it will still have a full front screen of glass. It will have a onscreen T9 similar to the Prada phone. It will have a glass multi-touch screen too. And it will have the same 3 sensors. It will come out in 2008, and will come in the same storage capacities the iPhone does now, that storage will cost half what it does now by then, so they'll be able to price the two versions at $349 and $449 respectively. That's what I think they'll do, but I could be wrong. I'd buy that device myself though.
I think an "iPhone mini" is a plausible idea. My guess is it would have about the same features as the most popular cell phones out there today, like the RAZR or the Chocolate or whatever else and be about the same size too. Maybe multi touch. It would probably still cost a pretty penny, but that's Apple.
etc., etc.
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel? About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
This kind of thing drives me crazy-- we go through all kinds of back and forth on the merits, and then someone comes along and blithely reasserts "iPod--Nano so therefore iPhone-- little iPhone" as if that made the case.
Rebut the particulars if you want, but "Apple will do it cause they're magic and they should and hey look iPod Nano" don't cut it.
This kind of thing drives me crazy-- we go through all kinds of back and forth on the merits, and then someone comes along and blithely reasserts "iPod--Nano so therefore iPhone-- little iPhone" as if that made the case.
Rebut the particulars if you want, but "Apple will do it cause they're magic and they should and hey look iPod Nano" don't cut it.
Whilst I do like to see people present good reasoning, I also like the odd post that at least demonstrate that not everyone is agreeing with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel? About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
Yes the current iPhone is a new platform. But I really don't think that all iPhone models will be built on that platform. You've already shown that to shrink the iPhone (phsyically and financially), multi-touch and the powerful CPU (and therefore the new OS X platform) have to be done away with, resulting in a traditional "candy bar" phone.
I ask again: given that Apple have already said that they are working on other models, just what are you expecting? Something even bigger? I still don't get why you are stuck in this "all iPhones will have multi-touch and OS X" mentality. Just look at the iPod Shuffle - it's still got the "iPod" name, but doesn't have the same interface, or the same hardware platform as the Nano and HDD iPod. I'm sure a similar thing is going to happen with iPhone: top-end model = Palm-top computer + Mobile Phone + iPod, lower models = Mobile Phone + iPod.
"Turning off Safari", as you put it, is just part of the equation. There wont be any maps, internet, widgets or eMail either, hence it wont be a Smartphone. It'll be a regular phone and an iPod, so to speak. It'll be smaller then the iPhone too and wont have a qwerty keyboard, but it will still have a full front screen of glass. It will have a onscreen T9 similar to the Prada phone. It will have a glass multi-touch screen too. And it will have the same 3 sensors. It will come out in 2008, and will come in the same storage capacities the iPhone does now, that storage will cost half what it does now by then, so they'll be able to price the two versions at $349 and $449 respectively. That's what I think they'll do, but I could be wrong. I'd buy that device myself though.
At that point, I think you emasculate the iPhone to such an extent, you confuse the brand and take out the fun.
Obviously, the iPod itself will evolve and include the iPhone-like features you name. However, the phone function is the dividing line, a threshold between products and philosophies. Adding phone to an iPod and no more blurs the line. What you've described is a prettied-up Rokr and Apple isn't going there. As soon as the phone function is added to the ipod, Apple will provide every other iPhone feature as well. No phone and limited features = iPod. Phone + all features = iPhone. Otherwise, you dilute the iPhone platform and it crumbles.
Any apple device with a phone from now on will include a constellation of features that together define the iPhone computer. And once a feature is added, it will never be taken away. Remember the dust up over including an FM tuner on an iPod - same thing. Once added, it could never be removed; hence its availability solely as an option.
sure there will be smaller and prettier iPhones, or larger and uglier ones, or ones that look exactly the same but with different capacities, like different Macs with different hardware configurations. But just as all Macs run the same operating system and include the same constellation of OSX software components, so will the iPhone grow as a platform that will include all of its OSX-based software components. Deactivating software on the iPhone to diversify the line is as unlikely as Apple deactiviting OSX software components in, say, an iMac or a Macbook.
Just as the word "Mac" implies a platform that runs a full-featured operating system, I think Apple wants the public to understand "iPhone" as a new, growing, communications-based computer platform that runs a full-featured operating system rather than an increasingly anachronistic way to dial up one's mum.
Whilst I do like to see people present good reasoning, I also like the odd post that at least demonstrate that not everyone is agreeing with you.
Disagreement with spirited defense and an awareness of the evolving debate good.
Disagreement with no acknowledgment of previously discussed sticking points based on little more than "I think it would be rad if Apple made that" bad.
Quote:
Yes the current iPhone is a new platform. But I really don't think that all iPhone models will be built on that platform. You've already shown that to shrink the iPhone (phsyically and financially), multi-touch and the powerful CPU (and therefore the new OS X platform) have to be done away with, resulting in a traditional "candy bar" phone.
I ask again: given that Apple have already said that they are working on other models, just what are you expecting? Something even bigger? I still don't get why you are stuck in this "all iPhones will have multi-touch and OS X" mentality. Just look at the iPod Shuffle - it's still got the "iPod" name, but doesn't have the same interface, or the same hardware platform as the Nano and HDD iPod. I'm sure a similar thing is going to happen with iPhone: top-end model = Palm-top computer + Mobile Phone + iPod, lower models = Mobile Phone + iPod.
I have no idea what Apple might do, but I do think the inevitable iPod analogies miss the mark.
MP3 players are much simpler devices that are "playback" only-- the user need only select a menu item to access all functions, which is why something like the Shuffle is even possible, and why it was trivial to make a smaller iPod.
Cell phones, even "simple" cell phones, are much more complex, and require user input beyond selecting an item from a list.
Again, I just disagree that it's inevitable that Apple will release a full line of cell phones in the manner of the iPod. I don't think Apple made a decision to get into the cell phone business-- they made a decision to get into the iPhone business, with all that entails.
Yeah, I know that there is the feeling that Apple "has" to respond to mass market music phones to avoid iPod cannibalization, which means a small candybar phone that does proper iPod like things. So maybe they have something up their sleeve.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Apple would try to make "an iPod that just happens to make phone calls" and sell along side other iPods at not a huge premium. That way, they could have very basic phone functionality (meaning simpler interface) and pitch it as, not a compromised phone, but an enhanced iPod. Truth be told, that's what I expected them to do in the first place.
But my main, original point, is that the iPhone itself does not scale the way the original iPod did, and that just sticking the Apple logo on a basic keypad candybar phone plus click wheel strikes me as something Apple wouldn't do.
And, again, that Apple looked at the problem of crummy cell phone interfaces and solved it with the iPhone, and that the iPhone isn't biggish and expensive because Apple went crazy with features, but because that's what it takes to make a simple, intuitive interface for a cell phone-- internet or no.
So that that "simple" candybar phone that should be so straightforward to make without all the big, cumbersome apparatus of full on multi-touch is, in fact, every bit as complicated as a smart phone, just with a couple fewer apps.
At least, if your talking about the average midmarket phone, these days, which has all these other apps beyond "just a phone" that people fully expect it to have.
Which is why the only thing I can think of is for Apple to pull a fast one and offer a surprisingly un-featured phone that's hiding in an iPod, so that some simple extension of the iPod interface suffices.
Obviously, the iPod itself will evolve and include the iPhone-like features you name. However, the phone function is the dividing line, a threshold between products and philosophies. Adding phone to an iPod and no more blurs the line. What you've described is a prettied-up Rokr and Apple isn't going there.
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel?
As assertion thus far without a significant amount of backing IMHO...but if there is an iPhone Mini I expect the scroll wheel on the iPhone that is the same or slightly larger size as the Nano only double the thickness. The Nano sized screen could be touch screen (single, not MT) and handle keypad entry or they could just use the click wheel and keep the current simpler screen.
My guess is that it wont be much cheaper but offers a smaller form factor.
This phone is possibly a scam (reports are their M300 never shipped BUT there were pirate copies of the M300 on EBay...odd given they seem to work) but there are other really SMALL phones in the same weight category.
Quote:
About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
As Mr. H (or someone) has stated the iPhone can be a family of products much like the iPod is a family of related products. The simpler iPod + Phone is much easier to place in the iPhone family than the iPod family.
As assertion thus far without a significant amount of backing IMHO...but if there is an iPhone Mini I expect the scroll wheel on the iPhone that is the same or slightly larger size as the Nano only double the thickness. The Nano sized screen could be touch screen (single, not MT) and handle keypad entry or they could just use the click wheel and keep the current simpler screen.
My assertion about the iPhone multi-touch interface not scaling down (much) is based on simple observation while you can make the interface elements smaller, my finger stays the same size.
I don't want to use a shrunken version of the iPhones virtual keyboard, I don't want to use a shrunken version of the the keypad, and I don't want to have to cycle through more screens if that's what's required to fit everything in. I don't want truncated names in list views, and I don't want to have to look at 4 pt type to make them fit.
Is that not clear?
I'm not getting how a Nano sized screen makes a plausible candidate for any kind of touch. My fingertip practically covers the whole thing. I think you could fit, what, maybe two of the icons from the iPhone on there?
And, that patent making the rounds notwithstanding, does anyone actually think making you dial numbers with a scroll wheel is a good idea?
Quote:
My guess is that it wont be much cheaper but offers a smaller form factor.
This phone is possibly a scam (reports are their M300 never shipped BUT there were pirate copies of the M300 on EBay...odd given they seem to work) but there are other really SMALL phones in the same weight category.
Yes, there are tiny phones. Their interfaces really, really suck. The smaller they get, the worse the UI gets. Even if Apple were to make a smaller phone, I can't see why they'd make it Nano sized-- it just turns the phone UI into a PITA. Unless you think that a phone where everything is driven by hierarchical lists is a design win.
Quote:
As Mr. H (or someone) has stated the iPhone can be a family of products much like the iPod is a family of related products. The simpler iPod + Phone is much easier to place in the iPhone family than the iPod family.
Vinea
Well, people keep saying that but I haven't heard any plausible suggestions for how Apple maintains a clean, easy to use UI that incorporates the various complexities of modern "simple" phones as it adds to the family.
You say I'm not supporting my assertion that the iPhone UI doesn't scale, but I think I've been pretty specific. At the same time, as far as I can make out the support for an iPhone Mini boils down to "Apple needs one" and "they did it with the iPod", which verges on being a non sequitur.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
An iPhone watch perhaps...
A watch could implement the scroll wheel dial patent when operated as a phone with clock numbers becoming dialing numbers. A watch form factor could also integrate well with the Nike running kit, offer basic music and phone services in a crunch, and be rather James Bond cool.
My assertion about the iPhone multi-touch interface not scaling down (much) is based on simple observation while you can make the interface elements smaller, my finger stays the same size.
I don't want to use a shrunken version of the iPhones virtual keyboard, I don't want to use a shrunken version of the the keypad, and I don't want to have to cycle through more screens if that's what's required to fit everything in. I don't want truncated names in list views, and I don't want to have to look at 4 pt type to make them fit.
Is that not clear?
Its still assertion based on personal opinion. Weak in other words and does not prove that you cannot scale down the iPhone interface into a non-MT, smaller display environment.
Quote:
I'm not getting how a Nano sized screen makes a plausible candidate for any kind of touch. My fingertip practically covers the whole thing. I think you could fit, what, maybe two of the icons from the iPhone on there?
4 can fit. You can do single-touch to enter numbers by tracing the digits on the display. You can do simple gestures for navigation although the click wheel should be just as good for navigation.
Examples would be flick up to page up, flick down to page down, counter clockwise circle to go back up one level, touch to select, double tap to activate.
Your finger only obscures the screen for a brief moment and its stuff you've already seen or something you want to select.
Quote:
And, that patent making the rounds notwithstanding, does anyone actually think making you dial numbers with a scroll wheel is a good idea?
How bad do you think it is? Jeez, its 13-14 items (digits, *, #, <blank>, <bs>) to scroll through, all of which are visible at the same time. Scroll to desired number, click on wheel to select, when done click in the center (no, I didn't read the patent so my method may differ from theirs).
Wont take that much muscle training to make fast given the scroll items don't move and have the same target size. If the phone speaks the number when you click and emits a click as you pass each number you can likely learn to do it without looking.
Quote:
Yes, there are tiny phones. Their interfaces really, really suck. The smaller they get, the worse the UI gets. Even if Apple were to make a smaller phone, I can't see why they'd make it Nano sized-- it just turns the phone UI into a PITA. Unless you think that a phone where everything is driven by hierarchical lists is a design win.
Well there's simple speculation and there's simply mapping out the menu tree to see how bad it really is.
Level 1: Phone, Songs, Pictures, Extras. Click on Phone
Level 2a: Call, Address Book, Messages, SMS. Click on Call
Level 3a: Say "Phone Home"
Level 3b: Click wheel desired number and call.
Level 2b: Call, Address Book, Messages, SMS. Click on Address Book
Level 3: First Letters of Last Names: Click on desired letter
Level 4: All last names that start with selected letter: Select desired name via scrolling and hit Play to call
OMG! 4 levels of no more than 4 options per level except for alphabetical searches. If the list is short enough the phone can dispense with the grouping by first letter and just scroll through the list of names.
Well within the HCI design guidelines for heirarchical menus.
As for why nano sized...um...because its SMALL? Noooo...couldn't be.
Quote:
Well, people keep saying that but I haven't heard any plausible suggestions for how Apple maintains a clean, easy to use UI that incorporates the various complexities of modern "simple" phones as it adds to the family.
What complexity? The only real limitation with a touch screen and a click wheel in a Nano sized package is texting. Most things fall neatly into existing iPod categories (pictures, games, etc).
For example if you add a camera those functions would naturally go under the "Pictures" list item. The iPod interface already allows control of fairly complex functions and access to large sets of data via heirarchical menus.
Do you believe the iPod interface sucks?
Quote:
You say I'm not supporting my assertion that the iPhone UI doesn't scale, but I think I've been pretty specific. At the same time, as far as I can make out the support for an iPhone Mini boils down to "Apple needs one" and "they did it with the iPod", which verges on being a non sequitur.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
Your "support" consists of "I don't wanna". I've just listed details on how the UI for the iPhone Nano can be designed. It isn't exactly rocket science and follows the principles of good design (I can provide citations if you like...I did look briefly in Shneiderman for the menu depth rule of thumb).
apple price points will be for the next 12 18 months be based on storage as more "cheap" storage" comes on board then the price drops and models expand. how long before the nano, mini came along???
i'm not sure i want to surf with a smaller screen. perhaps the discussion should be "what's the smallest practical screen size then define the iphone around it.
4 249-299
8 399
16 499
32 599
i don't think a "new" format unless they can combine all features on a single chip and keep it small
unless when they "take it apart" (maybe see the strip down) there is extra space to make it more compact. but how small of a screen would you accept tokeep the apple experience. what the ipod video screen size???? you complained that it's already too small.
isn't this a wafer like product as is???
they will or could keep the prices and add features like 3g etc
Which is why the only thing I can think of is for Apple to pull a fast one and offer a surprisingly un-featured phone that's hiding in an iPod, so that some simple extension of the iPod interface suffices.
That's what I'd expect. The only problem IMO is how to make text entry fast enough. Numbers are entered rarely enough in today's usage that even if their entry was slow I don't see that as a real hindrance.
I don't get your antipathy with hierarchical lists though. It's simple enough to be obvious, works for my iPod nano and works for my Nokia 1100. The 1100 isn't any slower or more difficult to use. In the course of basic operation I actually have to drill deeper in UI hierarchy on the iPod than on the phone!
Except it is as likely that Apple would make a tiny, hobbled convoluted iPhone as it is that they would make a tiny hobbled convoluted Mac.
Apple's interest is to develop the iPhone platform, not just to make pretty little phones. Like the Mac, the iPhone is 1 stop shopping, and every model will include the full complement of OSX-based software components.
What Vinea is describing is the equivalent of a Mac that did everything except, say, Safari, iTunes, DVD Player, and .Mac.
You've got to be joking. I can barely type on the regular size iphone with my big ass thumbs!
Anything smaller and it'd be useless. At least for me.
If I was to make a prediction tho, I'd say that eventually, Apple will update the regular video ipods with a iphone like touch screen and wifi for those that don't need or want a phone.
It's hard to imagine touch screens being effective on something the size of an ipod nano tho. I mean even the smallest thumb would be as big as the screen!
Its always fun to speculate with Apple. And pointless to complain. Love it or hate it, thats why people are willing to wait in line for days for an apple release. Apple is like a really HOT woman. We will put up with things we'd never put up with for any other tech company. Apple is the ultimate "Tech-Teaser". But they get away with it, because we lust after their "stuff" sooo much. :-)
Anyway, as pointless as it is for me saying this...I hope Apple comes out with a regular video ipod with a touch screen and wifi this fall. They HAVE to eventually. But of course they won't for awhile because it would eat into iphone sales. Just as iphone sales would have eaten into regular ipod sales if Apple gave the iphones bigger harddrives. They could have easily given the iphone larger harddrives. Not doing so was a brilliant strategy. That way people with ALOT of music will still need to buy a regular ipod.
Alot of people on wall street were saying the iphone would hurt Apple's dominance in the mps market because the iphone would eat away at its own share of the ipod. But this is not the case. By giving the iphone smaller drives it keeps both lines viable. It also gives Apple the leverage to keep the ipod without a touch screen...so it won't eat into iphone sales.
This way Apple has its cake and gets to eat it too. Brilliant.
I want either an iphone with a huge hard drive, or an ipod with a touch screen and wifi. Looks like I will be waiting awhile.
Except it is as likely that Apple would make a tiny, hobbled convoluted iPhone as it is that they would make a tiny hobbled convoluted Mac.
You mean like the Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse or monitor? In any case, I've just shown its not convoluted unless 4 breath 4 deep menus are too complex for you...
Quote:
Apple's interest is to develop the iPhone platform, not just to make pretty little phones. Like the Mac, the iPhone is 1 stop shopping, and every model will include the full complement of OSX-based software components.
Its a Nano with phone functions. How is that outside of Apple's product line? It sits better under the iPhone line than the iPod line.
As far as every model having the full complement of OSX yada yada yada that remains to be seen since there's currently only one model in that line.
Quote:
What Vinea is describing is the equivalent of a Mac that did everything except, say, Safari, iTunes, DVD Player, and .Mac.
Or an iPod without video? Oh wait...that's the nano. Or an iPod without a display? Oh wait...that's the shuffle. Will Apple make a iPod Nano + phone? Dunno but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The UI is not a limiting factor. Neither is limiting the functionality for lesser products.
Once you drop WiFi and the large display then basic phone features is pretty much what you get. No display space for MT, movies, web surfing, etc...but still a nice little phone for those that don't want a Smart Phone but do want iPod functionality. The only folks left out are those that do a lot of texting and even there you could manage about as well as a regular cell phone...just differently.
You mean like the Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse or monitor?
That's exactly the point. Apple varies the hardware, but the software remains the same. The Mini runs the same OS as any other mac. Apple views the iPhone in the same way they view the Mac - as a platform. iPhone models will vary in hardware configuration, speed, storage, etc., but will all run the same OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
In any case, I've just shown its not convoluted unless 4 breath 4 deep menus are too complex for you...
Apple is in the process of unifying not diversifying UI across multiple products, from their website to Safari. Indeed, Safari for Windows is a trojan horse to disseminate an increasingly unified interface. Multiple UI protocol for the iPhone is un-Apple and un-iPhone. Just as the UI for OSX is consistent on any Apple computer, from Mini to Pro, the UI for iPhone will be consistent on any iPhone, from version one to the special U2 version that dials Bono whenever you hanker to chat with an aging philanthropic rocker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Its a Nano with phone functions. How is that outside of Apple's product line? It sits better under the iPhone line than the iPod line.
Because Apple is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar campaign to build and brand an entirely new platform, just as the Mac is a platform. Simply adding a phone function to a Nano is much more pedestrian than Apple's plans. Apple wants the idea of the iPhone to include a constellation of communication tools beyond the conventional definition of "phone." To create a watered-down iPhone would undermine a huge and so far successful effort. To propose a nano with phone function only is to misunderstand Apple's committment to the iPhone as a robust, branded platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Or an iPod without video? Oh wait...that's the nano. Or an iPod without a display? Oh wait...that's the shuffle. Will Apple make a iPod Nano + phone? Dunno but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The UI is not a limiting factor. Neither is limiting the functionality for lesser products.
Again, exactly. The iPod accomodates a variety of capabilities. The Mac and the iPhone do not. The dividing line between the iPod and iPhone is the phone. As soon as an iPod includes a phone, it will be considered an iPhone and include every other iPhone capability. Devices with limited capabilities will be iPods, and not include a phone. Everything we know about how Apple has organized the iPhone project, team, resources, and marketing points to this distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Once you drop WiFi and the large display then basic phone features is pretty much what you get. No display space for MT, movies, web surfing, etc...but still a nice little phone for those that don't want a Smart Phone but do want iPod functionality. The only folks left out are those that do a lot of texting and even there you could manage about as well as a regular cell phone...just differently.
Yes. Technically, they could do this. However, this would erode essential distinctions between Apple and more entrenched competitors in the phone business and that's not how Apple wants to compete. The Apple advantage (Jobs called it a 5 year lead) would dissapear with the rich, integrated experience of the full iPhone. In the mature phone market, Apple is interested in dominating in the space in which it competes with a revolutionary not incremental advantage.
Comments
I know I may just be a cat, but I think you miss the point. The iPhone changes the meaning of the word "phone." It's a multifunction handheld computer with a penchant for communication. Hobbling the software to diversify the product line would stunt the growth of the new platform. Anything less than an iPhone would be an... iPod. The iPhone itself will continue to be a robust and versatile handheld computer without compromise. They wouldn't turn off Safari just to make a Nano.
"Turning off Safari", as you put it, is just part of the equation. There wont be any maps, internet, widgets or eMail either, hence it wont be a Smartphone. It'll be a regular phone and an iPod, so to speak. It'll be smaller then the iPhone too and wont have a qwerty keyboard, but it will still have a full front screen of glass. It will have a onscreen T9 similar to the Prada phone. It will have a glass multi-touch screen too. And it will have the same 3 sensors. It will come out in 2008, and will come in the same storage capacities the iPhone does now, that storage will cost half what it does now by then, so they'll be able to price the two versions at $349 and $449 respectively. That's what I think they'll do, but I could be wrong. I'd buy that device myself though.
I think an "iPhone mini" is a plausible idea. My guess is it would have about the same features as the most popular cell phones out there today, like the RAZR or the Chocolate or whatever else and be about the same size too. Maybe multi touch. It would probably still cost a pretty penny, but that's Apple.
etc., etc.
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel? About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
This kind of thing drives me crazy-- we go through all kinds of back and forth on the merits, and then someone comes along and blithely reasserts "iPod--Nano so therefore iPhone-- little iPhone" as if that made the case.
Rebut the particulars if you want, but "Apple will do it cause they're magic and they should and hey look iPod Nano" don't cut it.
This kind of thing drives me crazy-- we go through all kinds of back and forth on the merits, and then someone comes along and blithely reasserts "iPod--Nano so therefore iPhone-- little iPhone" as if that made the case.
Rebut the particulars if you want, but "Apple will do it cause they're magic and they should and hey look iPod Nano" don't cut it.
Whilst I do like to see people present good reasoning, I also like the odd post that at least demonstrate that not everyone is agreeing with you.
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel? About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
Yes the current iPhone is a new platform. But I really don't think that all iPhone models will be built on that platform. You've already shown that to shrink the iPhone (phsyically and financially), multi-touch and the powerful CPU (and therefore the new OS X platform) have to be done away with, resulting in a traditional "candy bar" phone.
I ask again: given that Apple have already said that they are working on other models, just what are you expecting? Something even bigger? I still don't get why you are stuck in this "all iPhones will have multi-touch and OS X" mentality. Just look at the iPod Shuffle - it's still got the "iPod" name, but doesn't have the same interface, or the same hardware platform as the Nano and HDD iPod. I'm sure a similar thing is going to happen with iPhone: top-end model = Palm-top computer + Mobile Phone + iPod, lower models = Mobile Phone + iPod.
"Turning off Safari", as you put it, is just part of the equation. There wont be any maps, internet, widgets or eMail either, hence it wont be a Smartphone. It'll be a regular phone and an iPod, so to speak. It'll be smaller then the iPhone too and wont have a qwerty keyboard, but it will still have a full front screen of glass. It will have a onscreen T9 similar to the Prada phone. It will have a glass multi-touch screen too. And it will have the same 3 sensors. It will come out in 2008, and will come in the same storage capacities the iPhone does now, that storage will cost half what it does now by then, so they'll be able to price the two versions at $349 and $449 respectively. That's what I think they'll do, but I could be wrong. I'd buy that device myself though.
At that point, I think you emasculate the iPhone to such an extent, you confuse the brand and take out the fun.
Obviously, the iPod itself will evolve and include the iPhone-like features you name. However, the phone function is the dividing line, a threshold between products and philosophies. Adding phone to an iPod and no more blurs the line. What you've described is a prettied-up Rokr and Apple isn't going there. As soon as the phone function is added to the ipod, Apple will provide every other iPhone feature as well. No phone and limited features = iPod. Phone + all features = iPhone. Otherwise, you dilute the iPhone platform and it crumbles.
Any apple device with a phone from now on will include a constellation of features that together define the iPhone computer. And once a feature is added, it will never be taken away. Remember the dust up over including an FM tuner on an iPod - same thing. Once added, it could never be removed; hence its availability solely as an option.
sure there will be smaller and prettier iPhones, or larger and uglier ones, or ones that look exactly the same but with different capacities, like different Macs with different hardware configurations. But just as all Macs run the same operating system and include the same constellation of OSX software components, so will the iPhone grow as a platform that will include all of its OSX-based software components. Deactivating software on the iPhone to diversify the line is as unlikely as Apple deactiviting OSX software components in, say, an iMac or a Macbook.
Just as the word "Mac" implies a platform that runs a full-featured operating system, I think Apple wants the public to understand "iPhone" as a new, growing, communications-based computer platform that runs a full-featured operating system rather than an increasingly anachronistic way to dial up one's mum.
Whilst I do like to see people present good reasoning, I also like the odd post that at least demonstrate that not everyone is agreeing with you.
Disagreement with spirited defense and an awareness of the evolving debate good.
Disagreement with no acknowledgment of previously discussed sticking points based on little more than "I think it would be rad if Apple made that" bad.
Yes the current iPhone is a new platform. But I really don't think that all iPhone models will be built on that platform. You've already shown that to shrink the iPhone (phsyically and financially), multi-touch and the powerful CPU (and therefore the new OS X platform) have to be done away with, resulting in a traditional "candy bar" phone.
I ask again: given that Apple have already said that they are working on other models, just what are you expecting? Something even bigger? I still don't get why you are stuck in this "all iPhones will have multi-touch and OS X" mentality. Just look at the iPod Shuffle - it's still got the "iPod" name, but doesn't have the same interface, or the same hardware platform as the Nano and HDD iPod. I'm sure a similar thing is going to happen with iPhone: top-end model = Palm-top computer + Mobile Phone + iPod, lower models = Mobile Phone + iPod.
I have no idea what Apple might do, but I do think the inevitable iPod analogies miss the mark.
MP3 players are much simpler devices that are "playback" only-- the user need only select a menu item to access all functions, which is why something like the Shuffle is even possible, and why it was trivial to make a smaller iPod.
Cell phones, even "simple" cell phones, are much more complex, and require user input beyond selecting an item from a list.
Again, I just disagree that it's inevitable that Apple will release a full line of cell phones in the manner of the iPod. I don't think Apple made a decision to get into the cell phone business-- they made a decision to get into the iPhone business, with all that entails.
Yeah, I know that there is the feeling that Apple "has" to respond to mass market music phones to avoid iPod cannibalization, which means a small candybar phone that does proper iPod like things. So maybe they have something up their sleeve.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Apple would try to make "an iPod that just happens to make phone calls" and sell along side other iPods at not a huge premium. That way, they could have very basic phone functionality (meaning simpler interface) and pitch it as, not a compromised phone, but an enhanced iPod. Truth be told, that's what I expected them to do in the first place.
But my main, original point, is that the iPhone itself does not scale the way the original iPod did, and that just sticking the Apple logo on a basic keypad candybar phone plus click wheel strikes me as something Apple wouldn't do.
And, again, that Apple looked at the problem of crummy cell phone interfaces and solved it with the iPhone, and that the iPhone isn't biggish and expensive because Apple went crazy with features, but because that's what it takes to make a simple, intuitive interface for a cell phone-- internet or no.
So that that "simple" candybar phone that should be so straightforward to make without all the big, cumbersome apparatus of full on multi-touch is, in fact, every bit as complicated as a smart phone, just with a couple fewer apps.
At least, if your talking about the average midmarket phone, these days, which has all these other apps beyond "just a phone" that people fully expect it to have.
Which is why the only thing I can think of is for Apple to pull a fast one and offer a surprisingly un-featured phone that's hiding in an iPod, so that some simple extension of the iPod interface suffices.
Obviously, the iPod itself will evolve and include the iPhone-like features you name. However, the phone function is the dividing line, a threshold between products and philosophies. Adding phone to an iPod and no more blurs the line. What you've described is a prettied-up Rokr and Apple isn't going there.
I'm gonna assume that was a joke.
Have you read the many posts on this thread going into detail on why the iPhone interface doesn't automagically scale down like a scroll wheel?
As assertion thus far without a significant amount of backing IMHO...but if there is an iPhone Mini I expect the scroll wheel on the iPhone that is the same or slightly larger size as the Nano only double the thickness. The Nano sized screen could be touch screen (single, not MT) and handle keypad entry or they could just use the click wheel and keep the current simpler screen.
My guess is that it wont be much cheaper but offers a smaller form factor.
For example specs try these: http://www.mymobilewatch.com/watch_specification.php
This phone is possibly a scam (reports are their M300 never shipped BUT there were pirate copies of the M300 on EBay...odd given they seem to work) but there are other really SMALL phones in the same weight category.
About how Apple would be unlikely to make an analogue to the Chocolate unless they could bring something substantially new to the table? About how the iPhone represents a new platform, not just a device that happens to have "multi-touch", which could be tossed onto any other form factor that Apple cared to?
As Mr. H (or someone) has stated the iPhone can be a family of products much like the iPod is a family of related products. The simpler iPod + Phone is much easier to place in the iPhone family than the iPod family.
Vinea
I'm gonna assume that was a joke.
Adding the word "again" to that sentence should dissipate any residual ambiguity like an unintended fart on a warm summer's day:
"What you've described is a prettied-up Rokr and Apple isn't going there again."
As assertion thus far without a significant amount of backing IMHO...but if there is an iPhone Mini I expect the scroll wheel on the iPhone that is the same or slightly larger size as the Nano only double the thickness. The Nano sized screen could be touch screen (single, not MT) and handle keypad entry or they could just use the click wheel and keep the current simpler screen.
My assertion about the iPhone multi-touch interface not scaling down (much) is based on simple observation while you can make the interface elements smaller, my finger stays the same size.
I don't want to use a shrunken version of the iPhones virtual keyboard, I don't want to use a shrunken version of the the keypad, and I don't want to have to cycle through more screens if that's what's required to fit everything in. I don't want truncated names in list views, and I don't want to have to look at 4 pt type to make them fit.
Is that not clear?
I'm not getting how a Nano sized screen makes a plausible candidate for any kind of touch. My fingertip practically covers the whole thing. I think you could fit, what, maybe two of the icons from the iPhone on there?
And, that patent making the rounds notwithstanding, does anyone actually think making you dial numbers with a scroll wheel is a good idea?
My guess is that it wont be much cheaper but offers a smaller form factor.
For example specs try these: http://www.mymobilewatch.com/watch_specification.php
This phone is possibly a scam (reports are their M300 never shipped BUT there were pirate copies of the M300 on EBay...odd given they seem to work) but there are other really SMALL phones in the same weight category.
Yes, there are tiny phones. Their interfaces really, really suck. The smaller they get, the worse the UI gets. Even if Apple were to make a smaller phone, I can't see why they'd make it Nano sized-- it just turns the phone UI into a PITA. Unless you think that a phone where everything is driven by hierarchical lists is a design win.
As Mr. H (or someone) has stated the iPhone can be a family of products much like the iPod is a family of related products. The simpler iPod + Phone is much easier to place in the iPhone family than the iPod family.
Vinea
Well, people keep saying that but I haven't heard any plausible suggestions for how Apple maintains a clean, easy to use UI that incorporates the various complexities of modern "simple" phones as it adds to the family.
You say I'm not supporting my assertion that the iPhone UI doesn't scale, but I think I've been pretty specific. At the same time, as far as I can make out the support for an iPhone Mini boils down to "Apple needs one" and "they did it with the iPod", which verges on being a non sequitur.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
An iPhone watch perhaps...
A watch could implement the scroll wheel dial patent when operated as a phone with clock numbers becoming dialing numbers. A watch form factor could also integrate well with the Nike running kit, offer basic music and phone services in a crunch, and be rather James Bond cool.
My assertion about the iPhone multi-touch interface not scaling down (much) is based on simple observation while you can make the interface elements smaller, my finger stays the same size.
I don't want to use a shrunken version of the iPhones virtual keyboard, I don't want to use a shrunken version of the the keypad, and I don't want to have to cycle through more screens if that's what's required to fit everything in. I don't want truncated names in list views, and I don't want to have to look at 4 pt type to make them fit.
Is that not clear?
Its still assertion based on personal opinion. Weak in other words and does not prove that you cannot scale down the iPhone interface into a non-MT, smaller display environment.
I'm not getting how a Nano sized screen makes a plausible candidate for any kind of touch. My fingertip practically covers the whole thing. I think you could fit, what, maybe two of the icons from the iPhone on there?
4 can fit. You can do single-touch to enter numbers by tracing the digits on the display. You can do simple gestures for navigation although the click wheel should be just as good for navigation.
Examples would be flick up to page up, flick down to page down, counter clockwise circle to go back up one level, touch to select, double tap to activate.
Your finger only obscures the screen for a brief moment and its stuff you've already seen or something you want to select.
And, that patent making the rounds notwithstanding, does anyone actually think making you dial numbers with a scroll wheel is a good idea?
How bad do you think it is? Jeez, its 13-14 items (digits, *, #, <blank>, <bs>) to scroll through, all of which are visible at the same time. Scroll to desired number, click on wheel to select, when done click in the center (no, I didn't read the patent so my method may differ from theirs).
Wont take that much muscle training to make fast given the scroll items don't move and have the same target size. If the phone speaks the number when you click and emits a click as you pass each number you can likely learn to do it without looking.
Yes, there are tiny phones. Their interfaces really, really suck. The smaller they get, the worse the UI gets. Even if Apple were to make a smaller phone, I can't see why they'd make it Nano sized-- it just turns the phone UI into a PITA. Unless you think that a phone where everything is driven by hierarchical lists is a design win.
Well there's simple speculation and there's simply mapping out the menu tree to see how bad it really is.
Level 1: Phone, Songs, Pictures, Extras. Click on Phone
Level 2a: Call, Address Book, Messages, SMS. Click on CallLevel 2b: Call, Address Book, Messages, SMS. Click on Address BookOMG! 4 levels of no more than 4 options per level except for alphabetical searches. If the list is short enough the phone can dispense with the grouping by first letter and just scroll through the list of names.
Well within the HCI design guidelines for heirarchical menus.
As for why nano sized...um...because its SMALL? Noooo...couldn't be.
Well, people keep saying that but I haven't heard any plausible suggestions for how Apple maintains a clean, easy to use UI that incorporates the various complexities of modern "simple" phones as it adds to the family.
What complexity? The only real limitation with a touch screen and a click wheel in a Nano sized package is texting. Most things fall neatly into existing iPod categories (pictures, games, etc).
For example if you add a camera those functions would naturally go under the "Pictures" list item. The iPod interface already allows control of fairly complex functions and access to large sets of data via heirarchical menus.
Do you believe the iPod interface sucks?
You say I'm not supporting my assertion that the iPhone UI doesn't scale, but I think I've been pretty specific. At the same time, as far as I can make out the support for an iPhone Mini boils down to "Apple needs one" and "they did it with the iPod", which verges on being a non sequitur.
I would welcome such a beast, but I can't see how they do it, and make it worth their time. If anyone has any plausible ideas, I'm all ears.
Your "support" consists of "I don't wanna". I've just listed details on how the UI for the iPhone Nano can be designed. It isn't exactly rocket science and follows the principles of good design (I can provide citations if you like...I did look briefly in Shneiderman for the menu depth rule of thumb).
Vinea
apple price points will be for the next 12 18 months be based on storage as more "cheap" storage" comes on board then the price drops and models expand. how long before the nano, mini came along???
i'm not sure i want to surf with a smaller screen. perhaps the discussion should be "what's the smallest practical screen size then define the iphone around it.
4 249-299
8 399
16 499
32 599
i don't think a "new" format unless they can combine all features on a single chip and keep it small
unless when they "take it apart" (maybe see the strip down) there is extra space to make it more compact. but how small of a screen would you accept tokeep the apple experience. what the ipod video screen size???? you complained that it's already too small.
isn't this a wafer like product as is???
they will or could keep the prices and add features like 3g etc
Which is why the only thing I can think of is for Apple to pull a fast one and offer a surprisingly un-featured phone that's hiding in an iPod, so that some simple extension of the iPod interface suffices.
That's what I'd expect. The only problem IMO is how to make text entry fast enough. Numbers are entered rarely enough in today's usage that even if their entry was slow I don't see that as a real hindrance.
I don't get your antipathy with hierarchical lists though. It's simple enough to be obvious, works for my iPod nano and works for my Nokia 1100. The 1100 isn't any slower or more difficult to use. In the course of basic operation I actually have to drill deeper in UI hierarchy on the iPod than on the phone!
Thanks for that excellent post, Vinea.
Except it is as likely that Apple would make a tiny, hobbled convoluted iPhone as it is that they would make a tiny hobbled convoluted Mac.
Apple's interest is to develop the iPhone platform, not just to make pretty little phones. Like the Mac, the iPhone is 1 stop shopping, and every model will include the full complement of OSX-based software components.
What Vinea is describing is the equivalent of a Mac that did everything except, say, Safari, iTunes, DVD Player, and .Mac.
You've got to be joking. I can barely type on the regular size iphone with my big ass thumbs!
Anything smaller and it'd be useless. At least for me.
If I was to make a prediction tho, I'd say that eventually, Apple will update the regular video ipods with a iphone like touch screen and wifi for those that don't need or want a phone.
It's hard to imagine touch screens being effective on something the size of an ipod nano tho. I mean even the smallest thumb would be as big as the screen!
Its always fun to speculate with Apple. And pointless to complain. Love it or hate it, thats why people are willing to wait in line for days for an apple release. Apple is like a really HOT woman. We will put up with things we'd never put up with for any other tech company. Apple is the ultimate "Tech-Teaser". But they get away with it, because we lust after their "stuff" sooo much. :-)
Anyway, as pointless as it is for me saying this...I hope Apple comes out with a regular video ipod with a touch screen and wifi this fall. They HAVE to eventually. But of course they won't for awhile because it would eat into iphone sales. Just as iphone sales would have eaten into regular ipod sales if Apple gave the iphones bigger harddrives. They could have easily given the iphone larger harddrives. Not doing so was a brilliant strategy. That way people with ALOT of music will still need to buy a regular ipod.
Alot of people on wall street were saying the iphone would hurt Apple's dominance in the mps market because the iphone would eat away at its own share of the ipod. But this is not the case. By giving the iphone smaller drives it keeps both lines viable. It also gives Apple the leverage to keep the ipod without a touch screen...so it won't eat into iphone sales.
This way Apple has its cake and gets to eat it too. Brilliant.
I want either an iphone with a huge hard drive, or an ipod with a touch screen and wifi. Looks like I will be waiting awhile.
Apple you are such a cruel mistress! :P
Always keeping us waiting and wanting more. Argh!
Except it is as likely that Apple would make a tiny, hobbled convoluted iPhone as it is that they would make a tiny hobbled convoluted Mac.
You mean like the Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse or monitor? In any case, I've just shown its not convoluted unless 4 breath 4 deep menus are too complex for you...
Apple's interest is to develop the iPhone platform, not just to make pretty little phones. Like the Mac, the iPhone is 1 stop shopping, and every model will include the full complement of OSX-based software components.
Its a Nano with phone functions. How is that outside of Apple's product line? It sits better under the iPhone line than the iPod line.
As far as every model having the full complement of OSX yada yada yada that remains to be seen since there's currently only one model in that line.
What Vinea is describing is the equivalent of a Mac that did everything except, say, Safari, iTunes, DVD Player, and .Mac.
Or an iPod without video? Oh wait...that's the nano. Or an iPod without a display? Oh wait...that's the shuffle. Will Apple make a iPod Nano + phone? Dunno but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The UI is not a limiting factor. Neither is limiting the functionality for lesser products.
Once you drop WiFi and the large display then basic phone features is pretty much what you get. No display space for MT, movies, web surfing, etc...but still a nice little phone for those that don't want a Smart Phone but do want iPod functionality. The only folks left out are those that do a lot of texting and even there you could manage about as well as a regular cell phone...just differently.
Vinea
Thanks for that excellent post, Vinea.
My pleasure.
Vinea
Ireland
You mean like the Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse or monitor?
That's exactly the point. Apple varies the hardware, but the software remains the same. The Mini runs the same OS as any other mac. Apple views the iPhone in the same way they view the Mac - as a platform. iPhone models will vary in hardware configuration, speed, storage, etc., but will all run the same OS.
In any case, I've just shown its not convoluted unless 4 breath 4 deep menus are too complex for you...
Apple is in the process of unifying not diversifying UI across multiple products, from their website to Safari. Indeed, Safari for Windows is a trojan horse to disseminate an increasingly unified interface. Multiple UI protocol for the iPhone is un-Apple and un-iPhone. Just as the UI for OSX is consistent on any Apple computer, from Mini to Pro, the UI for iPhone will be consistent on any iPhone, from version one to the special U2 version that dials Bono whenever you hanker to chat with an aging philanthropic rocker.
Its a Nano with phone functions. How is that outside of Apple's product line? It sits better under the iPhone line than the iPod line.
Because Apple is in the middle of a multi-billion dollar campaign to build and brand an entirely new platform, just as the Mac is a platform. Simply adding a phone function to a Nano is much more pedestrian than Apple's plans. Apple wants the idea of the iPhone to include a constellation of communication tools beyond the conventional definition of "phone." To create a watered-down iPhone would undermine a huge and so far successful effort. To propose a nano with phone function only is to misunderstand Apple's committment to the iPhone as a robust, branded platform.
Or an iPod without video? Oh wait...that's the nano. Or an iPod without a display? Oh wait...that's the shuffle. Will Apple make a iPod Nano + phone? Dunno but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The UI is not a limiting factor. Neither is limiting the functionality for lesser products.
Again, exactly. The iPod accomodates a variety of capabilities. The Mac and the iPhone do not. The dividing line between the iPod and iPhone is the phone. As soon as an iPod includes a phone, it will be considered an iPhone and include every other iPhone capability. Devices with limited capabilities will be iPods, and not include a phone. Everything we know about how Apple has organized the iPhone project, team, resources, and marketing points to this distinction.
Once you drop WiFi and the large display then basic phone features is pretty much what you get. No display space for MT, movies, web surfing, etc...but still a nice little phone for those that don't want a Smart Phone but do want iPod functionality. The only folks left out are those that do a lot of texting and even there you could manage about as well as a regular cell phone...just differently.
Yes. Technically, they could do this. However, this would erode essential distinctions between Apple and more entrenched competitors in the phone business and that's not how Apple wants to compete. The Apple advantage (Jobs called it a 5 year lead) would dissapear with the rich, integrated experience of the full iPhone. In the mature phone market, Apple is interested in dominating in the space in which it competes with a revolutionary not incremental advantage.