I agree that this doesn't sound right. But neither does a thicker iPhone.
K
But a thicker iPhone potentially means thicker battery and thicker battery means longer times between charges and the ability to use apps and I'm all for that.
If you are in america, and I'm guessing you are because you quoted the price in dollars, unlocking for ANY carrier isn't possible.
Yes, thanks for bringing this up. I meant offer the GSM version on AT&T and T-mobile over here and also on every single carrier in Europe, such as Vodafone, Orange and other big European ones out there.
Something about the screen. The current iPod Nano features a 2" screen and although not great is adequate to watch videos. IMO if they really want to appeal to the masses (especially in Europe) a smaller factor is a must, so yes I see the screen getting smaller (=< 2.8"). A smaller screen will also help with battery consumption.
I also see them coming up with a smart solution for more comfortable texting. I remember when I saw the iPhone for the very first time I thought, why didn't they use a slightly smaller screen? After all it's supposed to be a portable phone
After reading through this entire thread I'm surprised at the negativity towards plastics. Plastics do not have to imply cheapness or an inferior product from the standpoint of strength. Modern engineering resins could be leveraged to make for a much more durable iPhone. Materials like Ultem are extremely durable and frankly could make for a stronger iPhone.
See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.
So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.
After reading through this entire thread I'm surprised at the negativity towards plastics. Plastics do not have to imply cheapness or an inferior product from the standpoint of strength. Modern engineering resins could be leveraged to make for a much more durable iPhone. Materials like Ultem are extremely durable and frankly could make for a stronger iPhone.
See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.
So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.
Dave
If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.
Could the introduction of a iPhone nano be alluded to by the two bridges in that Dev Conference photo?
I personally doubt that they are launching a smaller screen phone unless it has very similar resolution. They spent massive effort introducing the development environment for developers to find out that much the work they did is screwed because the screen just got smaller.
a. The picture of the "future" iphone is like the ugliest thing ive seen in my life.....
b. why would they downgrade the screen.....and make it plastic....and make it thicker.....looks like im sticking with with the original.....
c. apple is too smart to do all the above...theres NO WAY that they would shrink the screen....i think that thickness and maybe backing will the only really major visual redisgns...i like what the iphone looks like right now i dont want it to change
If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.
According to the 1996 American Automobile Manufacturers Association Facts & Figures (which references American Metal Market, for which AM&P columnist Al Wrigley is a writer), in 1996 there were 245 lbs. of plastic and plastic composites used in a "typical family vehicle." That is 12% of the overall weight.
The supposed 'iPhone Nano' if it were ever released would likely have a plastic shell. If you look at Apple's past experience, they start with a plastic shell then upgrade to an anodised aluminium shell for the next generation, so that people upgrade to stop getting their device scratched...
It seems improbable that they'll go from a metal shell to a plastic shell for the iPhone, I'd say it's more likely that they go for an anodised aluminium shell like the iPod Classic, iPod Nano and MacBook Pros currently have.
One of the selling points is the screen. They will not make it smaller.
Yes! I bought my iPhone mainly for the screen. (Also the web browser.) The onscreen widgets couldn't be smaller, or it'd be impossible to touch them accurately.
A smaller screened iPhone would be a huge step backwards.
But who are these people who don't want internet on their phone? That is the future (and plenty of the present). All the screen-gadgets like weather, stocks, movies, etc. etc. wouldn't work. An iPhone without internet doesn't have enough wow-features to differentiate it dramatically from what would be its competition.
:raises hand:
I don't live in Gotham or a bustling metropolis that has 3G. My lifestyle isn't one where I need to surf online or check my email when I'm away from work or home. I don't care to spend an extra $20 per month for that ability. I just want a better phone than my free crappy Nokia that works like my iPod Touch (for which I haven't paid the $20 to add the extra apps).
I don't agree. There's a diffrence between buying more memory, and buying a smaller, cheaper, phone.
If there's enough of a difference, there are people who, while they couldn't afford it before, could afford it now.
South America comes to mind, as does Asia, and Africa. While there are plenty of people who can afford the current phone, there are plenty more who can't, but would like one.
That's why Apple has different versions of several of its products.
If what you are saying were true, then there would be only one Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac, Mac Book, and of course, iPods.
Since they all have different models, with different price points and features, and even (except for the Mac Pro) different sizes, we can say that what you are saying is indeed, not true.
Mobile phone market is very different than computers market. When it comes to mobile phones people want features. Still, people will not pay $200 for a stripped down iPhone while they can get a phone for free. Any new additional device that compromise any of the current iPhone features will be a complete failure. The average person don't care if it has an Apple logo on the back, they care about how much they get for the money. When it comes to budget phones other manufacturers will win because the only innovation is price. Unless Apple give free iPhone Nano with contracts!!
There is no way Apple will produce this abomination of an iPhone to take the place of the current large screen model. Are they gonna call it the pansy iPhone? A smaller browsing window and a smaller virtual typing window. No effing way. This "iPhone thing" they're talking about has to be an alternate model for females or children or something. As it is I would want the corporate bad boy version of the current model with a thicker body for road warrior 24-hour straight battery life.
Can you imagine playing decent games on some crappy little screen. A normal-sized American would probably cramp their hands holding onto some tiny little case trying to play a labor-intensive game. And how the heck would they get 32GB of memory into the case with all the other goodies it's supposed to come with. Those writer are nuts making up this crap and calling it a replacement for the current model. Why do these type of rumors have to get started. I say string them up by their thumbs.
All the people that think the "iPhone nano" won't have internet capabilities are out of their mind. Have you forgotten about the iTunes store or App store that is on the iPhone? No way in hell are they going to let that NOT be on the nano. After all, the nano will sell better than the original if it is released.
I currently own an iPhone and if anything I'd want a larger screen not a smaller one. Screen real estate trumps size and weight for me (big time). Not only is a bigger screen better for Safari, video, photos, maps, etc., it's especially better for the virtual keyboard. Apple would be crazy to do that.
I want 3G speeds. I want laptop tethering (using the iPhone as a modem for accessing the internet without paying AT&T for yet another data plan). I want 3rd Party software applications. I want a bluetooth supported external keyboard so I can type lengthy text passages once in a while.
I do not want a smaller, lighter iphone with a tiny screen. YUK!
Comments
I agree that this doesn't sound right. But neither does a thicker iPhone.
K
But a thicker iPhone potentially means thicker battery and thicker battery means longer times between charges and the ability to use apps and I'm all for that.
Here's my mock-up from months ago:
If you are in america, and I'm guessing you are because you quoted the price in dollars, unlocking for ANY carrier isn't possible.
Yes, thanks for bringing this up. I meant offer the GSM version on AT&T and T-mobile over here and also on every single carrier in Europe, such as Vodafone, Orange and other big European ones out there.
Something about the screen. The current iPod Nano features a 2" screen and although not great is adequate to watch videos. IMO if they really want to appeal to the masses (especially in Europe) a smaller factor is a must, so yes I see the screen getting smaller (=< 2.8"). A smaller screen will also help with battery consumption.
I also see them coming up with a smart solution for more comfortable texting. I remember when I saw the iPhone for the very first time I thought, why didn't they use a slightly smaller screen? After all it's supposed to be a portable phone
Well done Ireland
See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.
So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.
Dave
After reading through this entire thread I'm surprised at the negativity towards plastics. Plastics do not have to imply cheapness or an inferior product from the standpoint of strength. Modern engineering resins could be leveraged to make for a much more durable iPhone. Materials like Ultem are extremely durable and frankly could make for a stronger iPhone.
See I don't know where Apple is going with the next rev's construction but I do know that plastics do not have to imply a step backwards. In many ways they are a better alternative to aluminum for the environment. The are a better alternative to Aluminum with respect to RF performance also. Given that the iPhone isn't well known for its RF performance, plastics could lead to an upgrade with respect to that issue.
So metal or not we really shouldn't be focused on things that are for the most part non issues.
Dave
If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.
I personally doubt that they are launching a smaller screen phone unless it has very similar resolution. They spent massive effort introducing the development environment for developers to find out that much the work they did is screwed because the screen just got smaller.
Could the introduction of a iPhone nano be alluded to by the two bridges in that Dev Conference photo?
This is the age old trap, Apple marketing. Don't go there. Besides, the bridges likely mean: 1, the Mac. 2, the iPhone.
I think lighter, same size screen would prob be better
a. The picture of the "future" iphone is like the ugliest thing ive seen in my life.....
b. why would they downgrade the screen.....and make it plastic....and make it thicker.....looks like im sticking with with the original.....
c. apple is too smart to do all the above...theres NO WAY that they would shrink the screen....i think that thickness and maybe backing will the only really major visual redisgns...i like what the iphone looks like right now i dont want it to change
If that was the case then plastic cars would be everywhere. A plastic phone would seem to me, counter to the direction Apple has been heading in lately.
According to the 1996 American Automobile Manufacturers Association Facts & Figures (which references American Metal Market, for which AM&P columnist Al Wrigley is a writer), in 1996 there were 245 lbs. of plastic and plastic composites used in a "typical family vehicle." That is 12% of the overall weight.
the above quote came from a ge plastics page
It seems improbable that they'll go from a metal shell to a plastic shell for the iPhone, I'd say it's more likely that they go for an anodised aluminium shell like the iPod Classic, iPod Nano and MacBook Pros currently have.
One of the selling points is the screen. They will not make it smaller.
Yes! I bought my iPhone mainly for the screen. (Also the web browser.) The onscreen widgets couldn't be smaller, or it'd be impossible to touch them accurately.
A smaller screened iPhone would be a huge step backwards.
Amorya
:raises hand:
I don't live in Gotham or a bustling metropolis that has 3G. My lifestyle isn't one where I need to surf online or check my email when I'm away from work or home. I don't care to spend an extra $20 per month for that ability. I just want a better phone than my free crappy Nokia that works like my iPod Touch (for which I haven't paid the $20 to add the extra apps).
I don't even need Wi-Fi. Heretical, I know.
I don't agree. There's a diffrence between buying more memory, and buying a smaller, cheaper, phone.
If there's enough of a difference, there are people who, while they couldn't afford it before, could afford it now.
South America comes to mind, as does Asia, and Africa. While there are plenty of people who can afford the current phone, there are plenty more who can't, but would like one.
That's why Apple has different versions of several of its products.
If what you are saying were true, then there would be only one Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac, Mac Book, and of course, iPods.
Since they all have different models, with different price points and features, and even (except for the Mac Pro) different sizes, we can say that what you are saying is indeed, not true.
Mobile phone market is very different than computers market. When it comes to mobile phones people want features. Still, people will not pay $200 for a stripped down iPhone while they can get a phone for free. Any new additional device that compromise any of the current iPhone features will be a complete failure. The average person don't care if it has an Apple logo on the back, they care about how much they get for the money. When it comes to budget phones other manufacturers will win because the only innovation is price. Unless Apple give free iPhone Nano with contracts!!
Can you imagine playing decent games on some crappy little screen. A normal-sized American would probably cramp their hands holding onto some tiny little case trying to play a labor-intensive game. And how the heck would they get 32GB of memory into the case with all the other goodies it's supposed to come with. Those writer are nuts making up this crap and calling it a replacement for the current model. Why do these type of rumors have to get started. I say string them up by their thumbs.
All the people that think the "iPhone nano" won't have internet capabilities are out of their mind. Have you forgotten about the iTunes store or App store that is on the iPhone? No way in hell are they going to let that NOT be on the nano. After all, the nano will sell better than the original if it is released.
2.8" sounds like either a decoy or an iPhone nano.
Here's my mock-up from months ago:
I like the mockup, and seeing it makes me think a smaller phone is possible.
But I was thinking...
Wouldn't a smaller phone make it impossible to hold to your ear and talk on?
Unless Apple includes a free headset.
Then the electronics for talking and listening can be eliminated from the body of the phone.
Think different indeed!
This isn't Digg.
I agree. While this is probably false, the only way it's true is if there are two devices coming in June.
Those pics were fake. I was a 2G iPhone with a case and a little photoshopping of the back text.
You're outa order.
I want 3G speeds. I want laptop tethering (using the iPhone as a modem for accessing the internet without paying AT&T for yet another data plan). I want 3rd Party software applications. I want a bluetooth supported external keyboard so I can type lengthy text passages once in a while.
I do not want a smaller, lighter iphone with a tiny screen. YUK!