Yes to both. Everything would be smaller (but still work), and some developers would want to make a different version for the smaller screen.
No, if everything is smaller things would not "still work." That's the problem. Not only would App Store developers have to make two versions of each app, Apple would have to resize and tweak a ton of UI elements and text to accommodate a smaller display. This could also impact aesthetics as things would be bunched up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
I think an iPhone Nano could target teenagers etc - younger people have better eyes and smaller or more agile fingers. Also more attractive to the asian markets.
You are oversimplifying things. There are many students with bad eyesight, 30-40 year olds with good eyesight, and people of all ethnic backgrounds with differently proportioned digits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Regarding macworld - either
1) There's nothing to announce so Steve is peeved and won't do it
2) There's great stuff to announce, but Steve is sick
3) There's great stuff to announce, but Apple wants anyone-but-Steve to announce, so that people start believing that Great Stuff can happen even without Steve.
1) Steve is peeved!?
2) If his cancer has returned, Apple is obligated by law to say so.
3) Or they simply have nothing major to announce and just like the last Macworld New York, Phil will close it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Yep.
Also, if Apple rewrote their main apps to take advantage of a finer resolution screen and allowed horizontal orientation for email that would be good.
Hey just jumping out of the square with some not-fully thought out ideas...
Is any of the following possible in an iPhone Nano?
1) gets data only from wifi (students at home, or at school).
2) Phone uses GSM only, or 3G only (reducing size of phone).
3) has google maps heavily cached for your local area, as well as the SkyHookWireless location data
4) possibly doesn't have a mobile network AT ALL - but works as a phone when on wifi.
(progressively unlikely - could a hobbled iPhone connect to an Apple-based wifi network like Fon, which all Apple products start to 'share' - or relay messages via full iPhones when other data connections aren't available?)
What you are hypothesizing - a contract-free, WiFi-only iPhone - already exists for the most part: They call it the iPod touch.
It's smaller (thickness-wise), has no contract, no 3G antenna, and coupled with a third party VOIP app (fring, for instance) and headphones w/ built-in mic (like Apple's new In-Ear Headphones, which also have volume controls), you have the iPhone nano.
No, if everything is smaller things would not "still work." That's the problem. Not only would App Store developers have to make two versions of each app, Apple would have to resize and tweak a ton of UI elements and text to accommodate a smaller display. This could also impact aesthetics as things would be bunched up.
I said finer resolution - so everything would be smaller.
So nothing would be 'bunched up' (which to me implies the buttons are the same size but closer together - but perhaps I misunderstand you?). But yes smaller.
And it would certainly make it harder to see and navigate - I'm just not sure how MUCH harder and whether for some people it'd be attractive.
Quote:
You are oversimplifying things. There are many students with bad eyesight, 30-40 year olds with good eyesight, and people of all ethnic backgrounds with differently proportioned digits.
Absolutely, I was generalising. That doesn't mean they wouldn't target certain markets (knowing that a good proportion of that market might be interested, but not all, and that a portion of people from other target groups will also be interested).
The point is that there are people who could use a smaller screen and might actually prefer it.
Quote:
1) Steve is peeved!?
Now I'm trying to remember if that's a word I ever heard used in the US... hmmm... ??
Quote:
What you are hypothesizing - a contract-free, WiFi-only iPhone - already exists for the most part: They call it the iPod touch.
It's smaller (thickness-wise), has no contract, no 3G antenna, and coupled with a third party VOIP app (fring, for instance) and headphones w/ built-in mic (like Apple's new In-Ear Headphones, which also have volume controls), you have the iPhone nano.
Ta da.
Yep - my #4 was exactly that hypothesis. Or a slight modification anyway - an iPod touch with a built in microphone/earphone. An iChat account, a phone number supplied by Apple, store-and-forward SMS sending (so SMS and email transmit when it gets a connection), and visual voicemail to download a copy of voicemail when connected.
(Whether it has a smaller screen or not is irrelevant)
I said finer resolution - so everything would be smaller.
So nothing would be 'bunched up' (which to me implies the buttons are the same size but closer together - but perhaps I misunderstand you?). But yes smaller.
And it would certainly make it harder to see and navigate - I'm just not sure how MUCH harder and whether for some people it'd be attractive.
Ok, I think we understand each other. I guess I disagree about smaller being Ok. Apple doesn't make devices specially made for only people who can see well. Every single product they make is attractive to anyone with decent eyesight (and to some extent, bad eyesight). Making a scaled down iPhone would cut out a lot of people and for what? What's the point of making a smaller, less expensive, and thus, less profitable iPhone when the current iPhone just surpassed the RAZR to become the best selling phone in the US after the RAZR held that title for the past 12 consecutive quarters, is smaller, has a smaller screen, costs less, etc? A great deal of App Store apps would have to be revised and Apple would have to do a ton of UI revising itself. Where is the upside here?
Apple's not jumping into the profitless, over-saturated dumbphone market just as they're not jumping into the profitless, stagnant segment of the desktop PC market, yet their Macs are outpacing the industry 4 to 1. So that means an iPhone nano would be a smaller, more cramped smartphone with the same expensive voice+data plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Absolutely, I was generalising. That doesn't mean they wouldn't target certain markets (knowing that a good proportion of that market might be interested, but not all, and that a portion of people from other target groups will also be interested).
The point is that there are people who could use a smaller screen and might actually prefer it.
Sure, there will always be the netbook crowd who want something smaller, less expensive, more cramped. Apple hasn't shown an interest in serving them however, and is doing quite well with everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Now I'm trying to remember if that's a word I ever heard used in the US... hmmm... ??
Hah, Americans say peeved too. I simply don't know why he would be peeved. They're finally getting out of Macworld, I'd expect him to be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
Yep - my #4 was exactly that hypothesis. Or a slight modification anyway - an iPod touch with a built in microphone/earphone. An iChat account, a phone number supplied by Apple, store-and-forward SMS sending (so SMS and email transmit when it gets a connection), and visual voicemail to download a copy of voicemail when connected.
(Whether it has a smaller screen or not is irrelevant)
I'll say I can see the iPhone and iPod touch merging in the future, but that'll only be after contracts die, which ain't happening for a while, unless ubiquitous WiFi materializes soon. I think if Apple were in the position to create a truly next gen VOIP phone, they wouldn't settle with creating a knock-off of SkypeIn. They could be in that position some day, but the ubiquitous WiFi network - or whatever we use for connecting wirelessly to whatever the internet is in the future - has to be in place (just as AT&T's 3G network had to be filled out enough to warrant the iPhone 3G).
I think if Apple were in the position to create a truly next gen VOIP phone, they wouldn't settle with creating a knock-off of SkypeIn. They could be in that position some day, but the ubiquitous WiFi network - or whatever we use for connecting wirelessly to whatever the internet is in the future - has to be in place (just as AT&T's 3G network had to be filled out enough to warrant the iPhone 3G).
Yeah, wifi isn't ubiquitous enough. Apple would need to make something like FON has made - turn every Mac & Airport into a wireless relay or similar. I'd happily open up my internet if there was a limit on what others could abuse since I have to pay for my 30GB quota here in Australia (eg: make it a low bandwidth for VoIP, with a maximum quota per MAC address).
Yeah, wifi isn't ubiquitous enough. Apple would need to make something like FON has made - turn every Mac & Airport into a wireless relay or similar. I'd happily open up my internet if there was a limit on what others could abuse since I have to pay for my 30GB quota here in Australia (eg: make it a low bandwidth for VoIP, with a maximum quota per MAC address).
Ah, that could work and we wouldn't have to wait around for the pipe dream that is ubiquitous WiFi because millions of people (and thousands of businesses) already have WiFi networks they could share. Reminds me of this article: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...irport-mobile/
Yeah I could see that happening in the near future, perhaps the next couple years.
Ah, that could work and we wouldn't have to wait around for the pipe dream that is ubiquitous WiFi because millions of people (and thousands of businesses) already have WiFi networks they could share. Reminds me of this article: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...irport-mobile/
Yeah I could see that happening in the near future, perhaps the next couple years.
Yep RoughlyDrafted wrote their article after reports that Steve was talking with FON about the concept. It was a good article iirc.
My internet provider sells a modem/router which can actually provide 2 wifi networks - my own internal secure network that lets me connect to other computers and print internally, and an open network that prevents users from seeing my other computers and can have bandwidth limits applied and has a charge (of which I'd get half). I'd rather give it away, if I could restrict abuse.
To be really pervasive, it's the sort of thing that takes a BIG player to make a move in.
For example
* An ISP could alter their standard wireless routers to provide a second, open network (like my ISP can, as above) and also route that over a separate ADSL stream so that any quota isn't counted against the home user. An ISP with 5% of the ADSL market suddenly has an open wifi point somewhere on most streets. Many apartment blocks would have an open point. Then they charge a minimal amount for low usage.
* As I said in my earlier post - Apple could do similar with their Airports. There are also many iMacs and Minis that are wired and have wifi disabled... why not share wifi as "Apple Wifi"? For MacBooks, I'm not sure whether doing similar by relaying wifi would be bad for speed though.
The key to success is that
1) There have to be a lot of them
2) It has to be very secure from abuse of your home/business network
3) It has to prevent overusing your quota.
4) It has to be so simple that as a 'provider' you don't even think about it
5) Connecting machines should just connect, without weird setup issues
I think T-Mobile had a similar concept they were trying to push, a VoIP / cellular hybrid service. You connect a device to your home network and that device became some thing like a personal WiFi "cell tower". I think calls through this kind of device didn't count against your minutes, provided you were in range. The hope that it would be pervasive, but I don't know if it went anywhere. I think it was supposed to take the load off the towers and reinforce weaker areas, but really, WiFi has such a dismal range in practice. It's easy to spot active networks from a distance, but getting actual data over them in a manner stable enough for voice means having to get pretty close. Even if you can mooch it for web, that use is more tolerant of retransmits because of bad packets, voice is harder to do well.
Such relying on a WiFi mesh on its own is almost certainly not useful on a highway, unless the device can somehow handoff between WiFi networks once a second and still relay enough data between handoffs in more densly populated areas, if there aren't enough networks in lower population areas, you have no connection much of the time.
Yes. BT also was doing something similar. Their original idea was really interesting - BT doesn't have a Cell network so they wanted to make a VoIP cordless handset that worked from multiple locations (principally your home and work) which then roamed onto their MVNO (on Vodafone) when out of range. The plan was to really take advantage of BT's strengths in wireline technology and internet.
The result wasn't quite as exciting. They had problems with the VoIP, the wifi, and with the interface/roaming to Vodafone. (Not much left to have a problem with eh?).
They chose instead to sell a Vodafone mobile phone which roamed to your home landline using a regular home cordless phone technology (DECT) over a regular landline back to a BT server which simulated a Vodafone tower. That way the phone always thought it was a mobile phone but occasionally switched to this tower in the home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Such relying on a WiFi mesh on its own is almost certainly not useful on a highway, unless the device can somehow handoff between WiFi networks once a second and still relay enough data between handoffs in more densly populated areas, if there aren't enough networks in lower population areas, you have no connection much of the time.
Yeah, this technology is not for jumping between wifi networks!
Has anyone verified the presence of a tab for selecting an iPhone Nano on the Vaja website?
Why don't the mock-ups for an iPhone Nano show an equal number of application icons proportionate to a slightly smaller screen size, mimicking the existing iPhone screen layout?
Comments
Yes to both. Everything would be smaller (but still work), and some developers would want to make a different version for the smaller screen.
No, if everything is smaller things would not "still work." That's the problem. Not only would App Store developers have to make two versions of each app, Apple would have to resize and tweak a ton of UI elements and text to accommodate a smaller display. This could also impact aesthetics as things would be bunched up.
I think an iPhone Nano could target teenagers etc - younger people have better eyes and smaller or more agile fingers. Also more attractive to the asian markets.
You are oversimplifying things. There are many students with bad eyesight, 30-40 year olds with good eyesight, and people of all ethnic backgrounds with differently proportioned digits.
Regarding macworld - either
1) There's nothing to announce so Steve is peeved and won't do it
2) There's great stuff to announce, but Steve is sick
3) There's great stuff to announce, but Apple wants anyone-but-Steve to announce, so that people start believing that Great Stuff can happen even without Steve.
1) Steve is peeved!?
2) If his cancer has returned, Apple is obligated by law to say so.
3) Or they simply have nothing major to announce and just like the last Macworld New York, Phil will close it out.
Yep.
Also, if Apple rewrote their main apps to take advantage of a finer resolution screen and allowed horizontal orientation for email that would be good.
Hey just jumping out of the square with some not-fully thought out ideas...
Is any of the following possible in an iPhone Nano?
1) gets data only from wifi (students at home, or at school).
2) Phone uses GSM only, or 3G only (reducing size of phone).
3) has google maps heavily cached for your local area, as well as the SkyHookWireless location data
4) possibly doesn't have a mobile network AT ALL - but works as a phone when on wifi.
(progressively unlikely - could a hobbled iPhone connect to an Apple-based wifi network like Fon, which all Apple products start to 'share' - or relay messages via full iPhones when other data connections aren't available?)
What you are hypothesizing - a contract-free, WiFi-only iPhone - already exists for the most part: They call it the iPod touch.
It's smaller (thickness-wise), has no contract, no 3G antenna, and coupled with a third party VOIP app (fring, for instance) and headphones w/ built-in mic (like Apple's new In-Ear Headphones, which also have volume controls), you have the iPhone nano.
Ta da.
No, if everything is smaller things would not "still work." That's the problem. Not only would App Store developers have to make two versions of each app, Apple would have to resize and tweak a ton of UI elements and text to accommodate a smaller display. This could also impact aesthetics as things would be bunched up.
I said finer resolution - so everything would be smaller.
So nothing would be 'bunched up' (which to me implies the buttons are the same size but closer together - but perhaps I misunderstand you?). But yes smaller.
And it would certainly make it harder to see and navigate - I'm just not sure how MUCH harder and whether for some people it'd be attractive.
You are oversimplifying things. There are many students with bad eyesight, 30-40 year olds with good eyesight, and people of all ethnic backgrounds with differently proportioned digits.
Absolutely, I was generalising. That doesn't mean they wouldn't target certain markets (knowing that a good proportion of that market might be interested, but not all, and that a portion of people from other target groups will also be interested).
The point is that there are people who could use a smaller screen and might actually prefer it.
1) Steve is peeved!?
Now I'm trying to remember if that's a word I ever heard used in the US... hmmm... ??
What you are hypothesizing - a contract-free, WiFi-only iPhone - already exists for the most part: They call it the iPod touch.
It's smaller (thickness-wise), has no contract, no 3G antenna, and coupled with a third party VOIP app (fring, for instance) and headphones w/ built-in mic (like Apple's new In-Ear Headphones, which also have volume controls), you have the iPhone nano.
Ta da.
Yep - my #4 was exactly that hypothesis. Or a slight modification anyway - an iPod touch with a built in microphone/earphone. An iChat account, a phone number supplied by Apple, store-and-forward SMS sending (so SMS and email transmit when it gets a connection), and visual voicemail to download a copy of voicemail when connected.
(Whether it has a smaller screen or not is irrelevant)
I said finer resolution - so everything would be smaller.
So nothing would be 'bunched up' (which to me implies the buttons are the same size but closer together - but perhaps I misunderstand you?). But yes smaller.
And it would certainly make it harder to see and navigate - I'm just not sure how MUCH harder and whether for some people it'd be attractive.
Ok, I think we understand each other.
Apple's not jumping into the profitless, over-saturated dumbphone market just as they're not jumping into the profitless, stagnant segment of the desktop PC market, yet their Macs are outpacing the industry 4 to 1. So that means an iPhone nano would be a smaller, more cramped smartphone with the same expensive voice+data plan.
Absolutely, I was generalising. That doesn't mean they wouldn't target certain markets (knowing that a good proportion of that market might be interested, but not all, and that a portion of people from other target groups will also be interested).
The point is that there are people who could use a smaller screen and might actually prefer it.
Sure, there will always be the netbook crowd who want something smaller, less expensive, more cramped. Apple hasn't shown an interest in serving them however, and is doing quite well with everyone else.
Now I'm trying to remember if that's a word I ever heard used in the US... hmmm... ??
Hah, Americans say peeved too.
Yep - my #4 was exactly that hypothesis. Or a slight modification anyway - an iPod touch with a built in microphone/earphone. An iChat account, a phone number supplied by Apple, store-and-forward SMS sending (so SMS and email transmit when it gets a connection), and visual voicemail to download a copy of voicemail when connected.
(Whether it has a smaller screen or not is irrelevant)
I'll say I can see the iPhone and iPod touch merging in the future, but that'll only be after contracts die, which ain't happening for a while, unless ubiquitous WiFi materializes soon. I think if Apple were in the position to create a truly next gen VOIP phone, they wouldn't settle with creating a knock-off of SkypeIn. They could be in that position some day, but the ubiquitous WiFi network - or whatever we use for connecting wirelessly to whatever the internet is in the future - has to be in place (just as AT&T's 3G network had to be filled out enough to warrant the iPhone 3G).
I think if Apple were in the position to create a truly next gen VOIP phone, they wouldn't settle with creating a knock-off of SkypeIn. They could be in that position some day, but the ubiquitous WiFi network - or whatever we use for connecting wirelessly to whatever the internet is in the future - has to be in place (just as AT&T's 3G network had to be filled out enough to warrant the iPhone 3G).
Yeah, wifi isn't ubiquitous enough. Apple would need to make something like FON has made - turn every Mac & Airport into a wireless relay or similar. I'd happily open up my internet if there was a limit on what others could abuse since I have to pay for my 30GB quota here in Australia (eg: make it a low bandwidth for VoIP, with a maximum quota per MAC address).
Yeah, wifi isn't ubiquitous enough. Apple would need to make something like FON has made - turn every Mac & Airport into a wireless relay or similar. I'd happily open up my internet if there was a limit on what others could abuse since I have to pay for my 30GB quota here in Australia (eg: make it a low bandwidth for VoIP, with a maximum quota per MAC address).
Ah, that could work and we wouldn't have to wait around for the pipe dream that is ubiquitous WiFi because millions of people (and thousands of businesses) already have WiFi networks they could share. Reminds me of this article: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...irport-mobile/
Yeah I could see that happening in the near future, perhaps the next couple years.
Ah, that could work and we wouldn't have to wait around for the pipe dream that is ubiquitous WiFi because millions of people (and thousands of businesses) already have WiFi networks they could share. Reminds me of this article: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...irport-mobile/
Yeah I could see that happening in the near future, perhaps the next couple years.
Yep RoughlyDrafted wrote their article after reports that Steve was talking with FON about the concept. It was a good article iirc.
My internet provider sells a modem/router which can actually provide 2 wifi networks - my own internal secure network that lets me connect to other computers and print internally, and an open network that prevents users from seeing my other computers and can have bandwidth limits applied and has a charge (of which I'd get half). I'd rather give it away, if I could restrict abuse.
To be really pervasive, it's the sort of thing that takes a BIG player to make a move in.
For example
* An ISP could alter their standard wireless routers to provide a second, open network (like my ISP can, as above) and also route that over a separate ADSL stream so that any quota isn't counted against the home user. An ISP with 5% of the ADSL market suddenly has an open wifi point somewhere on most streets. Many apartment blocks would have an open point. Then they charge a minimal amount for low usage.
* As I said in my earlier post - Apple could do similar with their Airports. There are also many iMacs and Minis that are wired and have wifi disabled... why not share wifi as "Apple Wifi"? For MacBooks, I'm not sure whether doing similar by relaying wifi would be bad for speed though.
The key to success is that
1) There have to be a lot of them
2) It has to be very secure from abuse of your home/business network
3) It has to prevent overusing your quota.
4) It has to be so simple that as a 'provider' you don't even think about it
5) Connecting machines should just connect, without weird setup issues
Such relying on a WiFi mesh on its own is almost certainly not useful on a highway, unless the device can somehow handoff between WiFi networks once a second and still relay enough data between handoffs in more densly populated areas, if there aren't enough networks in lower population areas, you have no connection much of the time.
I think T-Mobile had a similar concept
Yes. BT also was doing something similar. Their original idea was really interesting - BT doesn't have a Cell network so they wanted to make a VoIP cordless handset that worked from multiple locations (principally your home and work) which then roamed onto their MVNO (on Vodafone) when out of range. The plan was to really take advantage of BT's strengths in wireline technology and internet.
The result wasn't quite as exciting. They had problems with the VoIP, the wifi, and with the interface/roaming to Vodafone. (Not much left to have a problem with eh?).
They chose instead to sell a Vodafone mobile phone which roamed to your home landline using a regular home cordless phone technology (DECT) over a regular landline back to a BT server which simulated a Vodafone tower. That way the phone always thought it was a mobile phone but occasionally switched to this tower in the home.
Such relying on a WiFi mesh on its own is almost certainly not useful on a highway, unless the device can somehow handoff between WiFi networks once a second and still relay enough data between handoffs in more densly populated areas, if there aren't enough networks in lower population areas, you have no connection much of the time.
Yeah, this technology is not for jumping between wifi networks!
Why don't the mock-ups for an iPhone Nano show an equal number of application icons proportionate to a slightly smaller screen size, mimicking the existing iPhone screen layout?