Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F5166b Safari/6533.18.5)

In market share or profit share?
 
I'm sorry, but this seems preposterous. A third smaller? Meaning smaller screen? Meaning Apple violates its own multi-touch best practices for button sizes, etc.?

THEY'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT ANDROID. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
 
I don't think a lot of people buy 3GS now, mainly because it's old news.

If apple just repackage them, give it a different name, I am sure a lot more people will buy them.

Bad assumption... there was just a report about the top 5 selling smart phones on the market.... iPhone4.0 was number 1 seller and iPhone 3Gs was number 3. I was surprised too. :)
 
I'm sorry, but this seems preposterous. A third smaller? Meaning smaller screen? Meaning Apple violates its own multi-touch best practices for button sizes, etc.?

THEY'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT ANDROID. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I don't see it either. It just doesn't seem like a smaller iPhone would have the needed real-estate for a Apple UI.

Besides... look at how many times they've tried to get the iPod Nano right and miss the mark due to the size. :)
 
A smaller iPhone would be pointless, in my opinion. First, the screen would lose so much. And second, Apple has problems fitting things into the phone as is, if they make it smaller they are obviously going to have to remove things.
 
A smaller iPhone would be pointless, in my opinion. First, the screen would lose so much. And second, Apple has problems fitting things into the phone as is, if they make it smaller they are obviously going to have to remove things.
Year, the Palm Pixi was pointless as is its successor the HP Veer.
(I am not saying it will come like this, just that it is not completely pointless.)
 
There are still a lot of people (like my wife) who like the iphone but wish it was smaller. To me this describes sort of a 'dumb phone' iphone. To go up against the dumb phone market. I don't think they'll make any significant dent considering you can buy pretty inexpensive dumb phones but who knows
 
I find this hard to believe goes against what Apple is and does. :cool:

Yes Apple has no history of taking a popular device splitting in to two device one that gets the most function it can within the same size and another that gets a targeted level of function in to a smaller size.

It's iPod all over again.
Plus they have enough volume and demand that splitting product works.

I could see 3inch screen as the 44px UI target size is still usable, that would also make one thumb typing practical for those with smaller hands. Given the screen is the biggest power draw if they can use one of the new lower power screens then that should off set battery volume reduction.

Not to mention if both this new device and iPhone5 keep the styling of 4 then it gives them much better differentiation between low end model and upper end model.
 
I'm sorry, but this seems preposterous. A third smaller? Meaning smaller screen? Meaning Apple violates its own multi-touch best practices for button sizes, etc.?

Nope. Buttons stay the same size. Apps have to be rewritten to show less buttons on a small screen.

They've blind-sided Mac developers with stuff like this before.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense to...

Lets look at this rationally.... Apple is selling the current 3GS at $49 with contract... subsidies are probably around $200 for this phone.

Soo...Wouldn't it make more sense to come out with a new version of the iPhone 3GS that has CDMA and GSM?

Leave the screen resolution where it is, possibly bump up the processor speed a tiny tiny bit... make the storage be 8 or 16GB only.
Sell for $200, $300 respectively.

No brainer. Much more likely than an iPhone nano.
Jobs himself has often lamented using phones with a tiny screen.
 
Apple doesn't make money on volume they make it on margin. Why would they make a cheap crappy phone to compete with the other cheap crappy phones in a race to the bottom?
 
such odd rumor

if it was to happen, it gonna have significant difference from itouch for the same price
 
Apple doesn't make money on volume they make it on margin. Why would they make a cheap crappy phone to compete with the other cheap crappy phones in a race to the bottom?

Maybe because profit from selling phones isn't the future? Maybe because profit from selling ads, apps, and services is?

Do you remember Apple from the mid 90's?

Will developers making iOS apps be able to make up for the smaller volume with a higher margin? Don't think so.
 
hmm. not sure I get this. Seems like majority of people in the US would rather pay $49 for an iPhone 3GS + 2 year contract then dig deep and pull out $200 for an unlocked phone with less features. Not saying it makes any financial sense, just stating an observation.
 
aaaaaah...

Welcome back "The iPhone Nano" discussions...

When will we see "the cases"... ;)

In celebration, I think I'm going to resurrect "Apple will discontinue the Mac Mini" threads... :eek:

Enjoy...
 
Lets look at this rationally.... Apple is selling the current 3GS at $49 with contract... subsidies are probably around $200 for this phone.

Soo...Wouldn't it make more sense to come out with a new version of the iPhone 3GS that has CDMA and GSM?

Leave the screen resolution where it is, possibly bump up the processor speed a tiny tiny bit... make the storage be 8 or 16GB only.
Sell for $200, $300 respectively.

No brainer. Much more likely than an iPhone nano.
Jobs himself has often lamented using phones with a tiny screen.

no.. the average ASP is $650 for all iPhones sold last quarter. no way the subsidy for on the 3GS is only $200. More like $500.
 
Well if Apple could ease up on their 84% profit margin all the time (yes, I'm exaggerating so calm down) then they could make a $200 non-contract iPhone with a FEW missing features. Make it:

1)Small 4GB storage
2)No GPS


But more likely Apple should just concentrate on a $99 iPhone WITH a contract to attract people who aren't going to spend a lot of money for a bleeping cell phone...this rumor has been reported a few times in Newsweek/WSJ type publications. They've been selling 8GB $49 3GS iPhones for awhile now...you telling me they can't make a version 4 or 5 for $99?!
 
Why so many negative votes?

Let us say even the iPhone nano is not exactly has all of the features of iPhone 4 (current version) - for $200 for a (less features) iPhone nano (Phone + iPod) is a bargain compared to iPhone 3GS ($449), iPhone 4 16GB ($599) and iPhone 4 32GB ($699)

also not everyone in the same household needs iPhone with full feature (if you provide a phone with iPod)

many developing nations does not have the data network or $65 monthly fee to pay for the iPhone but where they *might* pay $199 to Phone (phone + ipod)

what apple gains with this? More iOS devices and more customers to the app store (and many developing nations does not have iTune either)...

everyone of knows all these, but just saying again...
 
Well if Apple could ease up on their 84% profit margin all the time (yes, I'm exaggerating so calm down) then they could make a $200 non-contract iPhone with a FEW missing features. Make it:

1)Small 4GB storage
2)No GPS


But more likely Apple should just concentrate on a $99 iPhone WITH a contract to attract people who aren't going to spend a lot of money for a bleeping cell phone...this rumor has been reported a few times in Newsweek/WSJ type publications. They've been selling 8GB $49 3GS iPhones for awhile now...you telling me they can't make a version 4 or 5 for $99?!

storage is not that really expensive (for apple with millions of iPod touch, iPhone and flash usage pattern for other products) they can easily make 16GB minimum in all the products (iPod touch/iPhone/iPhone nano/iPod nano and so on)

my guess probably it will cost apple $5 more to go from let us say 8GB to 16GB
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.