No 3 is great to have but strains a family's budget significantly. My daughter has a Samsung a707 that can play music. Synchronizing it is a major pain. Scrolling through music and playlists is a major pain. If there were a phone that had ipod functionality, she would jump on it in a second. As a father, I would approve it because i would not have to pay another $30 for data. She still can synchronize with "ipod phone" at home as she does now with the Samsung but with the ease of itunes. Anyone who currently has an ipod and a separate (basic) phone is a perfect candidate for such a "ipod phone" - and there are millions and millions of people in that category.
There are a lot of phones available that do this as well, Nokia have a Multimedia transfer utility available for the Mac that will transfer iTunes playlists (excluding the DRM infected files), and photos to iPhoto
While there is a market for that, there are tons of phones on the market already that combine just a simple phone and your music.
Why Apple would bother to go backward and go after that market that has a lot of competition (and basically no prophets) is beyond me.
True and true, but remember that despite more and more phones being able to play music people are still preferring their iPod for this task. Be it style, look, feel, usage, familiarity, it still reigns supreme. As for going backwards, one could say that about the Mini or the Shuffle coming to market. For me personally, the original iPod was too large; the Mini was perfect for my arm for gym use. That is until the Nano came out. That us until the 2G Shuffle came out.
I still say ? a phone and nothing but a phone, and at $80.00 price range, and they will not be able to keep up with the demand!
And now, many more folks will have their feet wet, and want to trade-up to the iPhone 3G (or 4G by the time they up-grade).
This will not hurt the sells of the iPhone, and those who are winning to pay $199.00 - $399.00 for a phone that does all that the iPhone does, will still do so.
But man it will KILL the rest of the market ? big time!
A iPhone mini
- No Music
- No internet
- No Mail
- No Games
- No downloading
- No anything BUT a phone!
Hell, make it in colors JUST for kids ? can you imagine how many MILLIONS will be in Xmas stocking ? if kids wait until then to get one.
And there might be a way for apple to sell this via ANY vendor / source i.e., Verizon, ATT, US Cellular, Apple Stores, Apple online ?
There are a lot of phones available that do this as well, Nokia have a Multimedia transfer utility available for the Mac that will transfer iTunes playlists (excluding the DRM infected files), and photos to iPhoto
You are right, there are utilities that attempt to synchronize phones with itunes. I do not know how well Nokia's transfer utility integrates with itunes but have tried the ones for Sony Ericsson and Samsung phones with varying success. They are not true plug-and-play with itunes and the end result is still having a phone that does not even come close to ipods in terms of ease of use to play music. That's why my daughter continues to carry her ipod next to her Samsung phone even though the Samsung device could play all her songs, too. Among her friends (apart from the ones where the parents gave into the iphone and are willing to fork over $30/month for data), most of them carry a phone and a separate ipod, too (yes, a few of them even carry a Zune! )
"entry level, low cost (less than $99 subsidized) prepaid iPod/phone that would be restricted to music playback and voice calls."
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
"entry level, low cost (less than $99 subsidized) prepaid iPod/phone that would be restricted to music playback and voice calls."
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
The iPod Shuffle, the Mac Mini, the MacBook, ... in fact Apple does this all the time.
The thing keeping them from doing this isn't the "low-end" thing, it's the "low-margin" thing. Apple is a value-add company, not a compete-on-price company like Dell. Apple looks for the packages that people are willing to pay extra for and bundle them.
If they did something innovative with your standard address book, calendar, ringtones, and visual voicemail and integrated it with iTunes but left EVERYTHING else off they'd probably still sell an awful lot of them at higher margins than everyone else.
The iPod Shuffle, the Mac Mini, the MacBook, ... in fact Apple does this all the time.
The thing keeping them from doing this isn't the "low-end" thing, it's the "low-margin" thing. Apple is a value-add company, not a compete-on-price company like Dell. Apple looks for the packages that people are willing to pay extra for and bundle them.
If they did something innovative with your standard address book, calendar, ringtones, and visual voicemail and integrated it with iTunes but left EVERYTHING else off they'd probably still sell an awful lot of them at higher margins than everyone else.
It could happen...sometime down in the future... I think it's too early for Apple to be introducing a another new phone so early. Actually, I think it's too early for AT&T too. anyway, just like before AT&T usually prepares for such a big Apple release like they've done with the iPhone. Vacation freezes for AT&T employees, hiring temps to handle the oncalls, etc, etc.... I didn't hear a peep so I call -F A I L on this analyst.
I can't imagine a future phone product from Apple that doesn't have app store compatibility. I really don't expect to see it this year, if at all, and remember this whole thread is total speculation:
"Analyst Mike Abramsky made the comments in a research note Wednesday"
This is some guy laying out scenarios for APPL's future stock price, not a tip of a product in development.
What would such a product be called? Certainly not iPhone Nano. The Nano moniker to me means smaller form factor, less storage capacity, but not crippled functionality. Should Apple market such a product, I'm still trying to imagine their upside. Either way, it would cannibalize either iPod or iPhone sales. And why would Apple want to cut off its' own revenue stream from the app store? Seems silly.
I've run through several different scenarios myself, and I keep coming to a dead end. The only thing I can come up with that makes remotely any (business) sense is a smaller version of the iPod Touch, with added phone capabilities, and maybe a horizontally sliding qwerty keyboard. Basically a smallish iPhone with no data plan. Does that sound like something Apple would do?
Makes no sense to me. but what makes even less sense to me is "nothing but a phone". That is the antithesis of what Apple is, and even the lowest end free phones these days have cameras, bluetooth, organizer, etc. Why Apple would want to enter that market is inconceivable. and yes, I know what inconceivable means.
It's not that Apple needs to make an iPhone nano. They need to make an iPhone "tween."
I was at a park with my 18-month old the other day, and all the 12-14 year olds had cell phones. It seems to be their life. They text, they talk, and when they're home they facebook and myspace or whatever.
Now the iPhone would be perfect for them except one thing: There's no way mom and dad will shell out $35 a month for data and SMS.
So the real trick is to make an iPhone with *limited* (but still robust) data services. Texting-check. Photos-check. Music-check. Wi-Fi, yes, but unlimited cell-data, no way. Keep the monthly cost for the data plan under $10 and mom and dad will say yes.
There's no need to change the form factor. In fact, having access to the app-store and the social networking that makes possible will be essential.
There's not millions, but 100s of millions of people for whom this would be attractive, and I bet Apple knows it.
Man, that is one ugly phone. No wonder Nokia can't sell here.
I think they had a bunch of these around 2003 that they tried to push. I recall at least one other model with triangular, jagged numbers. They looked so unintuitive.
Besides being a phone it also disperses pills and tells you when your cycle is due.
While there is a market for that, there are tons of phones on the market already that combine just a simple phone and your music.
Why Apple would bother to go backward and go after that market that has a lot of competition (and basically no prophets) is beyond me.
People who want to combine their music and simple phone that has no data plan already can.
They don't need an Apple branded product with neither a clean touch screen nor a clean click wheel but rather some mish-mash combination.
We will continue to hear about the nano-phone forever.
That's because they aren't going to build one, and that will mean people can keep saying it.
A better idea? There isn't one. Apple has the best on the table and is running with it.
My speculation on what they WILL do is focus on the next higher up market, and make the iPhone as is their low-end product. (people can say it becomes the nano-phone, it's just the classic iPhone to me)
I'm not saying that they will come out with one, or that they won't. But there is a large market out there for Apple products these days, which is growing. I can see this selling well. Esp. to kids who want an iPod and a phone, and don't want, or can't afford (and yes, that means their parents as well) to buy both.
If predictions are true, and music players will eventually merge with phones all around, and I agree that they will, as Jobs has said about the original iPhone, Apple would prefer that they cannibalize their own product lines, rather than allowing others to do so.
"entry level, low cost (less than $99 subsidized) prepaid iPod/phone that would be restricted to music playback and voice calls."
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
So I guess the Mac Mini, and iPod Shuffle don't really exist.
Are you people trying to turn Apple into a cellphone company or what? Let Apple build a Pro (heavy duty) version iPhone for the enterprise and forget about building these $100 cellphones. You say this area is for the taking, but there's seems to be an awful lot of competition in that price range. Apple has many other areas they can profit from. A tablet computer or improve upon AppleTV. A stripped-down cellphone seems downright ridiculous for Apple to produce.
Are you people trying to turn Apple into a cellphone company or what? Let Apple build a Pro (heavy duty) version iPhone for the enterprise and forget about building these $100 cellphones. You say this area is for the taking, but there's seems to be an awful lot of competition in that price range. Apple has many other areas they can profit from. A tablet computer or improve upon AppleTV. A stripped-down cellphone seems downright ridiculous for Apple to produce.
Not at all. Apple is still a personal computer company at heart as none of their devices work properly without communicating with Tunes which runs on a computer. The idea isn't to jump into the commodity cellphone market where little profit is had or offer a stripped-down cellphone, the idea is to add a dressed-up iPod Nano. Apple sells iPods for $150 for 4GB and $200 for 8GB. As these prices drop as HW becomes cheaper Apple will have to cut margins or find a new angle. Since these need little to become bona fide phones, and it's something that Apple is now getting accustomed to, I think it's possible scenario. The add very little HW for a GSM phone and they get to jack the price up by quite a bit. After all, the consumer now can consolidate two pocket electronics into one smart device and doesn't have the costly iPhone 3G HW price and service fees. I don't think Apple of the market is ready for it now, but I do think it's inevitable and that prior patents can be construed to be leading in this direction. Remember, this helps sell the iPhone 3G and Macs later down the road as it pulls people off other cell phone brands while keeping them on iPod Nano for this music at the same time.
PS: I think an iPhone Nano that straps to your arm while walking/working out would be great if I could take a call if needed. I am not a heavy phone user by any means, but I do hate that I find the iPhone too cumbersome to take to the gym/jogging.
Comments
No 3 is great to have but strains a family's budget significantly. My daughter has a Samsung a707 that can play music. Synchronizing it is a major pain. Scrolling through music and playlists is a major pain. If there were a phone that had ipod functionality, she would jump on it in a second. As a father, I would approve it because i would not have to pay another $30 for data. She still can synchronize with "ipod phone" at home as she does now with the Samsung but with the ease of itunes. Anyone who currently has an ipod and a separate (basic) phone is a perfect candidate for such a "ipod phone" - and there are millions and millions of people in that category.
There are a lot of phones available that do this as well, Nokia have a Multimedia transfer utility available for the Mac that will transfer iTunes playlists (excluding the DRM infected files), and photos to iPhoto
While there is a market for that, there are tons of phones on the market already that combine just a simple phone and your music.
Why Apple would bother to go backward and go after that market that has a lot of competition (and basically no prophets
True and true, but remember that despite more and more phones being able to play music people are still preferring their iPod for this task. Be it style, look, feel, usage, familiarity, it still reigns supreme. As for going backwards, one could say that about the Mini or the Shuffle coming to market. For me personally, the original iPod was too large; the Mini was perfect for my arm for gym use. That is until the Nano came out. That us until the 2G Shuffle came out.
And now, many more folks will have their feet wet, and want to trade-up to the iPhone 3G (or 4G by the time they up-grade).
This will not hurt the sells of the iPhone, and those who are winning to pay $199.00 - $399.00 for a phone that does all that the iPhone does, will still do so.
But man it will KILL the rest of the market ? big time!
A iPhone mini
- No Music
- No internet
- No Mail
- No Games
- No downloading
- No anything BUT a phone!
Hell, make it in colors JUST for kids ? can you imagine how many MILLIONS will be in Xmas stocking ? if kids wait until then to get one.
And there might be a way for apple to sell this via ANY vendor / source i.e., Verizon, ATT, US Cellular, Apple Stores, Apple online ?
Skip
There are a lot of phones available that do this as well, Nokia have a Multimedia transfer utility available for the Mac that will transfer iTunes playlists (excluding the DRM infected files), and photos to iPhoto
You are right, there are utilities that attempt to synchronize phones with itunes. I do not know how well Nokia's transfer utility integrates with itunes but have tried the ones for Sony Ericsson and Samsung phones with varying success. They are not true plug-and-play with itunes and the end result is still having a phone that does not even come close to ipods in terms of ease of use to play music. That's why my daughter continues to carry her ipod next to her Samsung phone even though the Samsung device could play all her songs, too. Among her friends (apart from the ones where the parents gave into the iphone and are willing to fork over $30/month for data), most of them carry a phone and a separate ipod, too (yes, a few of them even carry a Zune!
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
"entry level, low cost (less than $99 subsidized) prepaid iPod/phone that would be restricted to music playback and voice calls."
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
The iPod Shuffle, the Mac Mini, the MacBook, ... in fact Apple does this all the time.
The thing keeping them from doing this isn't the "low-end" thing, it's the "low-margin" thing. Apple is a value-add company, not a compete-on-price company like Dell. Apple looks for the packages that people are willing to pay extra for and bundle them.
If they did something innovative with your standard address book, calendar, ringtones, and visual voicemail and integrated it with iTunes but left EVERYTHING else off they'd probably still sell an awful lot of them at higher margins than everyone else.
The iPod Shuffle, the Mac Mini, the MacBook, ... in fact Apple does this all the time.
The thing keeping them from doing this isn't the "low-end" thing, it's the "low-margin" thing. Apple is a value-add company, not a compete-on-price company like Dell. Apple looks for the packages that people are willing to pay extra for and bundle them.
If they did something innovative with your standard address book, calendar, ringtones, and visual voicemail and integrated it with iTunes but left EVERYTHING else off they'd probably still sell an awful lot of them at higher margins than everyone else.
Great point!
I still say ? a phone and nothing but a phone, and at $80.00 price range, and they will not be able to keep up with the demand!
. . .
A iPhone mini
- No Music- No internet
- No Mail
- No Games
- No downloading
- No anything BUT a phone!
I can't for the life of me figure why Aapple would do a phone without music. I just can't.
"Analyst Mike Abramsky made the comments in a research note Wednesday"
This is some guy laying out scenarios for APPL's future stock price, not a tip of a product in development.
What would such a product be called? Certainly not iPhone Nano. The Nano moniker to me means smaller form factor, less storage capacity, but not crippled functionality. Should Apple market such a product, I'm still trying to imagine their upside. Either way, it would cannibalize either iPod or iPhone sales. And why would Apple want to cut off its' own revenue stream from the app store? Seems silly.
I've run through several different scenarios myself, and I keep coming to a dead end. The only thing I can come up with that makes remotely any (business) sense is a smaller version of the iPod Touch, with added phone capabilities, and maybe a horizontally sliding qwerty keyboard. Basically a smallish iPhone with no data plan. Does that sound like something Apple would do?
Makes no sense to me. but what makes even less sense to me is "nothing but a phone". That is the antithesis of what Apple is, and even the lowest end free phones these days have cameras, bluetooth, organizer, etc. Why Apple would want to enter that market is inconceivable. and yes, I know what inconceivable means.
A iPhone mini
- No Music
- No internet
- No Mail
- No Games
- No downloading
- No anything BUT a phone!
No music?
What are you smoking?
Here:
Although I don't expect way cheaper than $199. It'll probably be $199 with no contract, when it gets released.
I was at a park with my 18-month old the other day, and all the 12-14 year olds had cell phones. It seems to be their life. They text, they talk, and when they're home they facebook and myspace or whatever.
Now the iPhone would be perfect for them except one thing: There's no way mom and dad will shell out $35 a month for data and SMS.
So the real trick is to make an iPhone with *limited* (but still robust) data services. Texting-check. Photos-check. Music-check. Wi-Fi, yes, but unlimited cell-data, no way. Keep the monthly cost for the data plan under $10 and mom and dad will say yes.
There's no need to change the form factor. In fact, having access to the app-store and the social networking that makes possible will be essential.
There's not millions, but 100s of millions of people for whom this would be attractive, and I bet Apple knows it.
Man, that is one ugly phone. No wonder Nokia can't sell here.
Man, that is one ugly phone. No wonder Nokia can't sell here.
I think they had a bunch of these around 2003 that they tried to push. I recall at least one other model with triangular, jagged numbers. They looked so unintuitive.
Besides being a phone it also disperses pills and tells you when your cycle is due.
While there is a market for that, there are tons of phones on the market already that combine just a simple phone and your music.
Why Apple would bother to go backward and go after that market that has a lot of competition (and basically no prophets
People who want to combine their music and simple phone that has no data plan already can.
They don't need an Apple branded product with neither a clean touch screen nor a clean click wheel but rather some mish-mash combination.
We will continue to hear about the nano-phone forever.
That's because they aren't going to build one, and that will mean people can keep saying it.
A better idea? There isn't one. Apple has the best on the table and is running with it.
My speculation on what they WILL do is focus on the next higher up market, and make the iPhone as is their low-end product. (people can say it becomes the nano-phone, it's just the classic iPhone to me)
I'm not saying that they will come out with one, or that they won't. But there is a large market out there for Apple products these days, which is growing. I can see this selling well. Esp. to kids who want an iPod and a phone, and don't want, or can't afford (and yes, that means their parents as well) to buy both.
If predictions are true, and music players will eventually merge with phones all around, and I agree that they will, as Jobs has said about the original iPhone, Apple would prefer that they cannibalize their own product lines, rather than allowing others to do so.
"entry level, low cost (less than $99 subsidized) prepaid iPod/phone that would be restricted to music playback and voice calls."
I doubt it. Apple doesn't release low grade (ie. feature poor) versions of their products. I guess the only exception to this would be the iPod shuffle.
So I guess the Mac Mini, and iPod Shuffle don't really exist.
(I like Nokia 7900, the third one)
Not at all. Apple is still a personal computer company at heart as none of their devices work properly without communicating with Tunes which runs on a computer. The idea isn't to jump into the commodity cellphone market where little profit is had or offer a stripped-down cellphone, the idea is to add a dressed-up iPod Nano. Apple sells iPods for $150 for 4GB and $200 for 8GB. As these prices drop as HW becomes cheaper Apple will have to cut margins or find a new angle. Since these need little to become bona fide phones, and it's something that Apple is now getting accustomed to, I think it's possible scenario. The add very little HW for a GSM phone and they get to jack the price up by quite a bit. After all, the consumer now can consolidate two pocket electronics into one smart device and doesn't have the costly iPhone 3G HW price and service fees. I don't think Apple of the market is ready for it now, but I do think it's inevitable and that prior patents can be construed to be leading in this direction. Remember, this helps sell the iPhone 3G and Macs later down the road as it pulls people off other cell phone brands while keeping them on iPod Nano for this music at the same time.
PS: I think an iPhone Nano that straps to your arm while walking/working out would be great if I could take a call if needed. I am not a heavy phone user by any means, but I do hate that I find the iPhone too cumbersome to take to the gym/jogging.