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.
Besides screen size, why would people buy the current iphone over nano iphone?
- Thread starter brinycbri
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Keep it in the three dozen other threads on this, thanks. There was one just opened up.
Here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6926764#post6926764
Here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6926764#post6926764
Because then we'd look like those people with the ultra-small candy-bar phones of the early 2000's. They looked ridiculous holding these little 1"x3" things to their head.
As you say, it'll probably be crippled.
-No GPS?
-Low Capacity
-Some form of restriction in terms of data plan
-No apps - presumably there would be issues with getting them to run (screen size and processor capability).
Obviously a LOT of people paid for the "big one" rather than sacrificing some features.
Why does everyone assume that an iPhone nano will never exist? Theres and ipod nano right? If the ipod nano didnt exist, would we not believe that Apple was going to come out with an ipod nano?
There will be an iPhone nano, because it makes sense. Iphone, IPhone Nano, and eventually iphone shuffle when they figure out how to make a phone that small. Each will have less features, iphone nano maybe no 3G or just no GPS. All of them will have the app store because Apple can make more money that way.
I doubt we actually see an iPhone Nano. Who would want it if it couldn't run apps and the screen/keyboard was even smaller than the current iPhone. Imagine the outrage!
I think the display size is a big factor.
Just like the PowerBook G5. Apple won't release something if they don't think they've got it right.
Not when you consider the GUI element size problem.
And how would that work? Randomly dials numbers? Or alphabetically?
Just like the PowerBook G5. Apple won't release something if they don't think they've got it right.
Just like the iPod nano that didn't support Video, couldn't play the games (I'm talking about the 1G and 2G iPod nano - both incredibly popular), had smaller screens, restricted battery life (1G nano), supported fewer accessories, smaller click wheel (harder to use) and reduced storage.
As long as the device was designed well, the issues could be solved easily.
In many ways the iPhone is missing features and has flaws, but those can be overlooked by many users (as is the case with any product).
Anyone who compares the iPhone to a click wheel iPod completely invalidates their opinion on the matter.
I don't see why.
My opinion is just as valid as yours. I think I've fully justified everything I posted here.
Many people complained that the iPod nano (and the mini) was too small (physically) and in terms of capacity for it to be a big seller.
They were totally wrong. I still hear people complaining about the capacity of the iPod nano.
The iPhone nano would be aimed at the same market as the iPod nano was.
-Younger People
-Less technology-savvy people
-People looking for something compact
-People with a smaller budget (particularly prepaid users)
If you want a "does everything" smartphone, you probably already have an iPhone or other similar device.
But if you don't want or need such a device, then you'd be stupid to pick the current iPhone. It's simply overkill for many people.
An iPhone nano should cost less to buy and if it had a cut down feature set, then the carriers could offer it with lower tariffs or on a prepaid service that more people could afford.
While yes, Apps probably wouldn't work on it and it would have to drop some of the features (I think GPS would go due to size and "need"). But the device would cope without these features because the target market wouldn't need them. This is why I mentioned the iPod nano. It offered fewer features, but the price and target market balanced that out.
click wheel ipods have scalable interfaces that are independent of the physical controls
iPhones and Touches don't have scalable interfaces and are dependent on the physical controls
iPhones and Touches don't have scalable interfaces and are dependent on the physical controls
But there's no need for the device to share the exact OS.
Apple must have planned for the day when they make the iPhone's screen bigger, higher resolution or smaller.
If they dropped App support from the device (or made it so that only apps made for the iPhone nano would work) then there should be no problem at all.
Apple would simply resize their existing apps (assuming they would be present on such a device, some of them could be dropped).
what exactly are you basing this on?
yes, that right. nothing. did you see the interface on an iPhone nano? what makes you think it will look like the current one? Don't you think that the software can be modified to accommodate a smaller screen? like for example two columns of apps instead of 4 per page.
think different.
Simply a fork of the existing one.
Imagine iPhone 2.2 with the App Store taken out and things scaled down.
I can't see it being a huge amount of work.
Perhaps it would even prove beneficial in the long run. They could do it in such a way that the same OS could meet any of their future needs (for example in making a much larger device). Apple could then quickly release a new iPhone in a few years where the screen was slightly bigger.
It might become a bit like Windows Mobile (minus all the bad parts), such that the OS could be transplanted onto any suitable device (I'm not suggesting that Apple licence it or anything). There was talk of the 3.0 software supporting Quad Core processors. The OS would support all of these features (specific to the device be that iPhone or iPod touch) and only the supported features would work. If they got that work done and out of the way, the future would be much simpler.
Who knows?
Maybe the work is already done and the OS could be put on a larger/smaller screen. They certainly have the OS working on two iPhones and two iPod touch devices with updates being released simultaneously.
What would ol' sausage fingers here do with a nanophone? It would have to come with a pretty sharp stylus, then you'd lose the bloody thing, but imagine all the rainbow coloured nanophone stylus accessories one could get... A nanophone would be fat-ist.
...wut?
10' screen, perfectly navigatable with a click wheel
10' screen, not navigatable with a (presumably 10') touch screen
1" screen, perfectly navigatable with a click wheel
1" screen, not navigatable with a (presumably 1") touch screen
Anyhow ... this conversation has been beat to death.
Precisely my point.
You simply wouldn't be in the target market.
You own an iPhone 3G with the largest capacity they offer and you don't like the idea of a small device.
I bet you felt the same about the iPod nano VS an iPod classic.
I just used those examples to illustrate the logical (if extreme) conclusions of that way of thinking. Using 100' and .1" would still be applicable
Gosh those click wheels are handy! In my ever so humble opinion, I suspect Apple will continue to improve the hardware while lowering the costs of the existing offerings. The iPhone of today is the $0 phone of tomorrow.
Also, I don't know what it is like in the US, but where I am nobody has iPhones without a contract. If you buy an iPhone it costs you an arm and a leg, however if you buy it with a contract, the cost of the phone is almost token. So, we can assume that the contracts will be more or less the same, as the functionality that uses costly telecoms services will be the same, they would have to give the nanophone away for free in order to get people to use them and even then I wonder if people wouldn't think 'for a few bucks more I could get a whole lot more..'
There would be no bang for the buck compared to the iPhone.
There would be no bang for the buck compared to the iPhone.
+1 ^^^ I agree, next iPhone release will have Apple paying us to take the iPhone off their hands...