Good idea, let’s just all of us use a chocolate boxes, instead of phones. Communication is sweet
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2010 Email From Steve Jobs Confirms Apple Had Considered Launching an 'iPhone Nano'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Heh, you're off by a year 😏 The original iPad debuted in April 2010, this meeting was in October 2010. The iPad 2 was released the following March, but by then it was just starting the iterative update cycle that would be the norm for the next couple of years.
We may never know how far along this idea got, but I personally suspect that at the time Apple may have been thinking along the lines of what eventually became the seventh-generation iPod nano.
Consider that Apple had released the 6th-gen iPod nano only a few weeks before this meeting, and if anything that seemed like a precursor to the Apple Watch — it was a massive departure from every iPod we'd seen before.
However, that may also have been clearing the design stage for the "iPhone nano" — my guess is that when Apple realized that it either couldn't or shouldn't produce an iPhone that small, they simply turned the idea into the 7th-gen iPod nano instead. From a design perspective, it was the weirdest "traditional" iPod that Apple ever released... the only one to feature Bluetooth connectivity and a Lightning port, and a design that looked so much like the iPhone that I still hear from people who are confused as to why they can't install apps on it.
I just wish Apple didn’t “catch up” to certain aspects of google’s material design (and the Windows Phone) that still feel like steps backwards from where Apple’s mobile UI was around 2010. From day 1 I felt like material design was Google’s attempt to copy & try to be as good as Apple’s UI, but without shamelessly copying it 100%. It never felt as intuitive and as rich/interesting an experience as Apple’s then-UI. Then lo and behold, Apple throws their decades-refined UI mechanics out the window, and flattens and reworks certain UI elements to the point where it truly looked like Apple was following Google more than Google initially followed Apple. Just awful (to this day).
Nice to finally get to know what was hidden behind the word «CONFIDENTIAL» in the email originally revealed 7+ years ago:
qz.com
The Steve Jobs email that outlined Apple’s strategy a year before his death
In 2010, a year before his death, Steve Jobs outlined Apple’s strategy in an email to the company’s 100 most senior employees. He heralded the “Post PC era,” vowed “Holy War with Google,” promised to “further lock customers into our ecosystem,” and warned that Apple was “in danger of hanging on...
But you don’t recall the iPhone 3G/3GS which is exactly this. ??
Still it would not be ideal. I think eventually this idea became the iPhone 12 mini.
I could really see an iPhone Nano rocking this next year. I can see a purpose for an iPhone Nano.
I'm a special case, possibly, because I liked the iPod 'stick', but for people that have active lives, having a solid system like Siri, and not having a huge display, and relying on verbal communication between the device and the user, I really can see using one. I mean, the Apple Watch is kinda like that, but I can still see a 'headless iPhone' being a tremendous asset for MAMIL's, and all people that feel that if they were only a 'few years younger' they could be a star!
Plus ALL athletes everywhere that are too old to be pros, but still get up everyday and rock it!
To all you those athletes, I salute you!!!
I'm a special case, possibly, because I liked the iPod 'stick', but for people that have active lives, having a solid system like Siri, and not having a huge display, and relying on verbal communication between the device and the user, I really can see using one. I mean, the Apple Watch is kinda like that, but I can still see a 'headless iPhone' being a tremendous asset for MAMIL's, and all people that feel that if they were only a 'few years younger' they could be a star!
Plus ALL athletes everywhere that are too old to be pros, but still get up everyday and rock it!
To all you those athletes, I salute you!!!
Google's "Material Design" language was their attempt to compete with the then-recently-released iOS 7. It was just as ugly if not more, given all the blasted whitespace it used. At least iOS 7 had some transparency.
Google released Material Design 1.x after Apple released iOS 7 the few months prior, starting with Android 5.0, Lollipop. I think you might have confused Google's "Holo" design language, starting in Android version 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich (or on tablets-only, Android 3.0 Honeycomb) that tried to compete with Apple circa 2010-11.
Holo Design:
Material Design 1.0, Android 5, Lollipop:
As you can see, Material, coming after iOS 7, starting in Android 5 Lollipop, also took the cues such as circular contact photos, flat UI design, and light colors. I still can't stand round contact photos. Holo UI design was flat as well in a lot of places, but kept the dark theme, button shapes, and some useful interaction cues (the angled arrows indicating a drop down box). Holo did introduce some regressions, however. Hamburger menus, redundant settings icons (gear, ellipsis or 'three dot menus') and various other unnecessary changes.
One of few things I do actually miss from the Holo era were that the apps and Google services had a ton of UI consistency in them, unlike today, where design changes at the drop of a hat (or updates that come twice a day it seems!). Apps then conformed quite well to the Holo language and it lasted a couple of years. Nothing since has come close. It was also the last gasps of AOSP, or Android Open Source Project, where all the apps (music, messages, gallery, phone, etc) were NOT relying on Google for anything. Since Google Play Servicecs took over, even Android without Google apps is either stuck in time (AOSP apps haven't been updated since 2011!) or is completely broken without core apps (no phone, messages, or even browser out the gate). The latter is a mess until you sideload a ton of replacement apps and end up with a half broken mess.
Last edited:
Perhaps YOU don't recall, but the iPhone 4S had the same 3.5 inch screen as the iPhone 3G.
I do recall the 3G and 3GS as I owned both before going to the 4S.
3G/3GS are the same height but width and thickness make them both bigger than the 4S.
Proof: 3GS vs 4S.
Compare Apple iPhone 3GS vs. Apple iPhone 4s - GSMArena.com
3GS screen: 320 x 480 pixels, 3:2 ratio (~165 ppi density).
4S screen: 640 x 960 pixels, 3:2 ratio (~330 ppi density).
Definitely NOT the same screen.
higher resolution on the 4S. So you don’t have to imagine a smaller smartphone than the 4S, it was already here for 2 generations prior.
Last edited:
I’m sorry you’re not getting this. The 3.5 inch screen size was in fact the same for the first four generations of the iPhone.I do recall the 3G and 3GS as I owned both before going to the 4S.
3G/3GS are the same height but width and thickness make them both bigger than the 4S.
Proof: 3GS vs 4S.
Compare Apple iPhone 3GS vs. Apple iPhone 4s - GSMArena.com
m.gsmarena.com
3GS screen: 320 x 480 pixels, 3:2 ratio (~165 ppi density).
4S screen: 640 x 960 pixels, 3:2 ratio (~330 ppi density).
Definitely NOT the same screen.
higher resolution on the 4S. So you don’t have to imagine a smaller smartphone than the 4S, it was already here for 2 generations prior.
In your original response to mine you appeared to suggest the earlier phones were in fact smaller phones, and if only I had “remembered” those I would be able to comprehend a smaller iPhone.
Now you seem to be suggesting those phones were in fact physically larger.
Not sure what your point is here. A physically smaller phone has nothing whatsoever to do with pixel density.
I’m getting it.
YOu stated SAME screen. Not just size.
As I’ve stated iPhone 3GS was smaller in resolution and physical size to the iPhone 4/4S which you claimed you couldn’t imagine a “modern” smartphone too. You’ve been proven wrong by both accounts but you’re having issue with that. It’s ok it’s your feelings.
Re read what I posted above you’ll get it … IF you click on the comparison link which you clearly avoided.
I deal in facts, not feelings. I understand why you want to confuse the issue, when the facts are not on your side. And the entire thread is about the physical size of a “smaller” iPhone. There is no reason for anyone to assume I was referring to anything other than physical size of the screen. I made no claim regarding pixel density, which is very much a red herring to this discussion, an issue you brought up, quite independent of my post.
Nor did I ever claim I could not imagine a modern smart phone. You really are just making things up here, aren’t you?