Apple's Low-Cost iPhone to be an 'iCloud' iPhone?

[iSee]

One potential flaw in the idea that Apple will be introducing a cloud-based iPhone in the near future is related to Apple's implementation of iCloud...

The flaw is actually in the mind of the author of this article.

Syncing from master copy is not mutually exclusive with streaming.

Syncing means download and store.
Streaming means playback while downloading -- whether or not the media file is also stored.

So Apple could
* sync on demand types that don't support streaming. E.g., apps, documents, app data.
* stream types that do support streaming. E.g., audio, video.
* sync storage could be a cache of limited size. E.g., only the most recently used items are cached. If you need something that isn't cached, it could be resynched on demand.
* If sync storage is large enough, even streamed media could be cached there as well.

 

[macnisse]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Maybe cheap up front but requires expensive data plans.

yes, you could use wi-fi, but wifi isn't available everywhere.

Exactly, therefore unlikely, unless Steve has some new service up his sleve.

 

[SiPat]

I have an iPodmini 4GB which I upgraded to 8GB by simply removing the tiny hard drive and installing a IDE compatible CF card.

 

[deconstruct60]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Exactly, therefore unlikely, unless Steve has some new service up his sleve.

There is zero need for a new service if the "iCloud Phone" works when not attached to iCloud. The "hook to iClound" option can be turned off and the phone should work just fine.


It might be a nicer phone with the iClound option turned on. But it doesn't have to be a requirement to use ( just like the other iPhones).

Tagging it the "iCloud" phone would help build iCloud brand but isn't necessarily an irremovable core feature of the phone. That's where folks are wondering off into the swamp on this rumor.

 

[rp2011]

If true this is going to be HUGE!

If true, this thing is going to be out of stock indefinitely. It's going to fly off the shelves. It's basically the rumored iPod touch phone. People will use the data at home or at the office through wifi like they do the iPod touch. With tiered data packages becoming the norm, the data problem will be moot anyway. If true this phone is going to take Apple to a whole other level. I really do need to buy more Apple stock. FREE? This is going to be huge.

 

[mariocapo]

They better not call it iCloud iPhone! Dumbest name ever

It would be iPhone Cloud if anything. Or maybe iPhone Air. I'm sure it'd be thinner and lighter than a regular iPhone anyway. Either way I hate the concept at this point in our technology progress. Maybe in the near future though.

 

[blybug]

The flaw is actually in the mind of the author of this article.

Syncing from master copy is not mutually exclusive with streaming.

Syncing means download and store.
Streaming means playback while downloading -- whether or not the media file is also stored.

So Apple could
* sync on demand types that don't support streaming. E.g., apps, documents, app data.
* stream types that do support streaming. E.g., audio, video.
* sync storage could be a cache of limited size. E.g., only the most recently used items are cached. If you need something that isn't cached, it could be resynched on demand.
* If sync storage is large enough, even streamed media could be cached there as well.

Yep. I suspect they will do all of the above intelligently and seamlessly. It will feel like almost like Magic™.

There is zero need for a new service if the "iCloud Phone" works when not attached to iCloud. The "hook to iClound" option can be turned off and the phone should work just fine.


It might be a nicer phone with the iClound option turned on. But it doesn't have to be a requirement to use ( just like the other iPhones).

Tagging it the "iCloud" phone would help build iCloud brand but isn't necessarily an irremovable core feature of the phone. That's where folks are wondering off into the swamp on this rumor.

Yep again. It's a minimal-storage iPod Touch that can make phone calls.

 

[manu chao]

The issue is NOT the cost of the phone, it's the cost of the monthly service that keeps some people away.

The reason for the high monthly costs is the $450 subsidy. Or if you want, the high monthly service costs are what allows these high subsidies.

If Apple were to figure out a way to bypass service providers to provide messaging and internet access via the iCloud, for a price... say $200 a year, I'd definitely be down for that!

Apple would just have to lobby congress to change and apply regulation such that it fosters more competition. In Germany you can get a 1 GB/month data plan for €10/month (no voice that comes extra).

 

[Mike Oxard]

A $200-300 phone isn't the bottom end. There are lots of phones less expensive than that. The question is whether Apple wants to put a phone into the middle of the market or stay up in the high end.

That's my point though, in the US it would be a mid range price at $200, but in Europe we are not having to pay more than $100 for the iPhone 4 at the moment (ok new models are more costly, but I got my iPhone 4 on launch day for ~$250 on a 24 month contract). The price of the mid range phone in Europe would be approaching zero, which kind of stops it being only a prestige product.

 

[captain kaos]

Perhaps this is the closing gap between the ipod touch and the iphone. A touch with 3g data only and a bit of storage. For some they would only use it for small amounts of streaming (email, a few songs) and not entire 16gbs worth of an itunes library.

 

[bretm]

The question I would add to this is: Would there be a special plan needed for this type of feature to work? A user could max out a 2GB data package quite quickly depending on exactly what activities the user is doing.

I assume you'd have to buy an unlimited plan... Oh wait- I guess that'd be why the phone would be cheap. The cell companies would be happy to subsidize something that's gonna eat up the data plans!

 

[i0Nic]

I just think it will be an iPhone 4 with 8gb of storage.

This.

The low cost phone is going to be an iPhone 4 with 4 or 8gb storage, and possibly cheaper materials used (no glass backing)

 

[SeattleMoose]

The Push Not Have You Own Anything "Locally"

is full-on......led by Apple fronting for media companies whose idea of a perfect world is EVERYTHING streamed ONLY.

No local storage for my music/video/other files = hello Android

The "cloud" is looking more like a Trojan Horse than ever.

 

[japanime]

Screwing the MobileMe users further.

How so? I've been a MobileMe user since the free "iTools" days. While I'm sorry that the MobileMe service will soon be discontinued, I don't understand how the potential introduction of a low-cost iCloud phone would "screw" me.

 

[eye]

I think Apple is playing a dangerous game pushing streaming and an absence of physical media as the wave of the future. Cable companies wont have it. It'd be great, but they'll cap us to keep their interests first. Just as oil companies do. The technology is there for something better, but it won't make them as much cash.

It seems like everyone is aware of this. Is Jobs ignoring reality on this one?

 

[deconstruct60]

That's my point though, in the US it would be a mid range price at $200, ....

I'm talking the real price. Not the subsidized contract price.

The price of the mid range phone in Europe would be approaching zero, which kind of stops it being only a prestige product.

That zero cost is just the upfront cost. If locked into a contract, you are going to pay the $200. You can pay upfront or pay monthly, but you are paying.

Furthermore, the 3GS is now $49 (with contract) on AT&T Wireless. That isn't that far from zero (closer to zero than $100) compared with the year one iPhone prices. Note that there will be two phones. One very high and another prices to sell. At some point "smartphones" will become the cellphone market. Even at $200 they are still an order of magnitude away from making the $20-60 phones. those are the low end of the market.

Apple may only make it down to $300 but even still they need more than a "one size fits all" phone. There are multiple Macs at a wide range of prices and that doesn't diminish the Mac brand. Each offering is still over the average selling price point for that general category. Apple has reached the stage where it is a bit lame to just rely on selling 1-2 year old model as the affordable model. They can just design and sell a more affordable model along with a higher end model. It is a mistake not to design to price point.

 

[deconstruct60]

I think Apple is playing a dangerous game pushing streaming and an absence of physical media as the wave of the future. Cable companies wont have it. It'd be great, but they'll cap us to keep their interests first.

They cap folks only because the whole 'unlimited' thing was a being taken literally. All the caps do is snag the data hogs. Where 'unlimited' means sit around all day and thing of gratituous ways of soaking up bandwidth. "All you can eat" == "become gluttonous consumer" .

Once they put a price on overage then folks can decide if that "extra" content is work pulling from Apple or another source. Apple will win with some customers and loose for others. They don't have to get all possible customers. Just the ones they have a match for.

 

[cdmoore74]

Is it that difficult for apple to slap a 3G chip into the current ipod touch? Sell a non 3G for $200 and a 3G model for $250 with no contract. Is the radio chip for cell use a $350 difference ($599 for iphone 4)?

I see this being the only action beating Android OS dominance.

 

[MacNewsFix]

As much as I think Apple is missing out on the entry level and, even more so, the prepaid markets, I don't see how such an approach makes sense.

Filing this rumor under B and S.

 

[MikeELL]

iPhone nano

Tell me if you can find a fault with my logic.
1) There is a business case for Apple making a cheaper phone that can be sold pre-paid.
2) Cheaper in Apple's dictionary is not the same as "budget". The only reason said phone will be cheaper is because it will contain less components, (and less expensive components). They will still have a healthy profit margin on whatever they produce.
3) If the device is going to have less on-board storage (say 4Gb or 8Gb), so it has to have a way of letting people have access to all their stuff. This smaller cheaper iPhone therefore had to wait until iCloud was up and running.
4) There is a business case for Apple making a smaller phone - whatever this model is, it will not be just a cheaper iphone 4, or an iPod touch with a 3g antenna. Apple must differentiate it from their current offerings - it should be a different category of device.
5) When Apple created the iPhone, then the iPad, they used the fundamentals of OSX, but they needed a new interaction paradigm.
6) The iPhone/iPad have applications, but these are for fixed resolution screens, and will not work on anything smaller.
7) The rumors tell us that Apple is working hard on a new interaction paradigm: Voice control.
8) Apple already produces a smaller device with a touchscreen and a cut-down version of OSX with voice-over capabilities: iPod Nano. They already produce headphones with a built in microphone.
9) Rumors also tell us that Bluetooth has a new low energy format which Apple has access to.

To state what I think at this stage is bleeding obvious: The iPhone nano will be to the iPod nano what the iPhone is to the iPod touch. How good the product is will depend entirely on how good the voice recognition/AI is, but it will be a smaller, cheaper iPhone, which gives you access to all your data through iCloud (email, contacts, calenders, rss feeds), as well as all your music. It will save battery life by being primarily a voice-control/voice-over phone, but if you want to use the screen you will have your clock apps, stocks, weather (and all the other Apple deisgned apps). Perhaps in the future they'll let developers develop for it too, but everything will be geared towards long battery life.

The reason the Nuance voice over partnership wasn't announced at WWDC was that it made more sense to talk about it at the launch of the next phones. It will be awesome in itself just to have advanced voice control on the iPhone 5, but it will be what makes the iPhone nano possible.

 

[THX1139]

The reason for the high monthly costs is the $450 subsidy. Or if you want, the high monthly service costs are what allows these high subsidies.

Yes.. .and no. You can buy a phone without a subsidy by paying extra... but all that does is get you out of a contract. They don't drop the month service charge just because you pay outright for the phone. Most people opt for the contract to save money on the phone. Those who don't get screwed just for the right to not be locked in. I would rather do a contract to lock in an affordable rate and then pay full price for the phone. I would pay an additional $450 or whatever for the phone, but I could save thousands of dollars on service fees. Like I said in my original post, I pay only $25 a month for unlimited text and internet. But it's not an iPhone.

 

[SeaFox]

Isn't that what the Sidekick essentially was?

Shhhhhhh! Apple's "Innovating" again.

 

[kendo88]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5288d Safari/7534.48.3)

I don't think this cloud phone has any truth in it what so ever. This only works if iCloud actually streamed data.

But I do think a lower cost iPhone could really be a good move for apple.

Ok, in the US it doesn't matter to much, your still stick with expensive plans no matter what handset you pick, but in the UK and Europe it works very different.

If you can walk out of a store with a free iPhone and pay £45 a month, and there are android phones where you could be paying £15 a month, then if apple could get something for £25-£30 a month, I think sales would sky rocket

 

[gpat]

I predict that Apple will launch something of some sort sooner or later.

 

[manu chao]

Yes.. .and no. You can buy a phone without a subsidy by paying extra... but all that does is get you out of a contract. They don't drop the month service charge just because you pay outright for the phone.

A lot of providers do drop the monthly charges if you don't get a subsidised phone. Just none (or almost none) in the US. Since you cannot as easily switch providers in the US (because of CDMA vs. GSM, different 3G frequencies), there is much less of providers to choose from for a any given unlocked phone. Once you buy a phone you are locked into one carrier (not sure about switching between Sprint and Verizon), that is not the best recipe for healthy competition.