Wouldn't a new phone coming out in Q4 have to be submitted to the FCC for approval about...now? So we'd know, right?
Oops, Strieck beat me to it.
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.
Cheaper iPhone Nano?
- Thread starter Le Big Mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wouldn't a new phone coming out in Q4 have to be submitted to the FCC for approval about...now? So we'd know, right?
Oops, Strieck beat me to it.
This seems right in line with what everyone else outside of the US is predicting as well. In India, every news channel proclaims that in the end, there will be an iPhone in everyone's pocket, including kids. And I really don't think kids need a smartphone.
I did have an idea though: what about a SkypePhone? Makes calls wherever there is a WiFi network just like Skype? Or it could be through Cisco, because that's what their iPhone does, right? It makes VoIP calls. Could this be what apple meant by compatibility with Cisco's services in the future? It could browse the internet where there are hotspots, but otherwise remain just an iPod with internet functionality? Kinda beats the purpose of naming it a Phone, but this way Apple doesn't need to really make a phone, just put some type of software into it and then let people pay IF they want to use the phone service. Otherwise, just sell it as an OSX iPod.
I did have an idea though: what about a SkypePhone? Makes calls wherever there is a WiFi network just like Skype? Or it could be through Cisco, because that's what their iPhone does, right? It makes VoIP calls. Could this be what apple meant by compatibility with Cisco's services in the future? It could browse the internet where there are hotspots, but otherwise remain just an iPod with internet functionality? Kinda beats the purpose of naming it a Phone, but this way Apple doesn't need to really make a phone, just put some type of software into it and then let people pay IF they want to use the phone service. Otherwise, just sell it as an OSX iPod.
CNBC reporter, Erin Burnett, now giving the "iPhone Nano" claim by JP Morgan's Kevin Chang creedence this morning on Joe Scarborough's show. However, I don't buy it.
First off, Apple would be foolish to submit drawings related to future products to the patent office in 'literal" form for all to see. Patent drawings are meant to be interpretive; and a tech-savvy company like Apple is smart to try and lead people down false paths while these ideas are being explored.
The timing might seem odd, considering their recent payout to Creative Technology, but Apple could simply be exploring a new 3D selection menu, a la Front Row. I think it makes sense, from a branding point-of-view, to bring Front Row's menu design to the iPod.
I think Chang is a nimrod for calling this one. I don't doubt that Apple might explore a smaller, less feature-rich version of the iPhone, but for all of the money Apple has put into the iPhone's design and launch, not to mention the huge risk doing so, it makes zero sense to backtrack on the product's design by launching a smaller version of an iPhone that looks like yesterday's iPod. The glass and metal design IS the iPhone. It may also be the future design of the iPod...but the scroll-wheel iPod is not (well, shouldn't be) the "back to the future" design of ANY device carrying the iPhone name.
In other words,
A) iPhones will always look like iPhones
B) iPods of the future might start looking more like iPhones (Apple's commercial says the iPhone is the best iPod they've ever made), yet retain some of the scroll wheel's conveniences
C) iPhones will not look like yesterday's scroll wheel iPods
First off, Apple would be foolish to submit drawings related to future products to the patent office in 'literal" form for all to see. Patent drawings are meant to be interpretive; and a tech-savvy company like Apple is smart to try and lead people down false paths while these ideas are being explored.
The timing might seem odd, considering their recent payout to Creative Technology, but Apple could simply be exploring a new 3D selection menu, a la Front Row. I think it makes sense, from a branding point-of-view, to bring Front Row's menu design to the iPod.
I think Chang is a nimrod for calling this one. I don't doubt that Apple might explore a smaller, less feature-rich version of the iPhone, but for all of the money Apple has put into the iPhone's design and launch, not to mention the huge risk doing so, it makes zero sense to backtrack on the product's design by launching a smaller version of an iPhone that looks like yesterday's iPod. The glass and metal design IS the iPhone. It may also be the future design of the iPod...but the scroll-wheel iPod is not (well, shouldn't be) the "back to the future" design of ANY device carrying the iPhone name.
In other words,
A) iPhones will always look like iPhones
B) iPods of the future might start looking more like iPhones (Apple's commercial says the iPhone is the best iPod they've ever made), yet retain some of the scroll wheel's conveniences
C) iPhones will not look like yesterday's scroll wheel iPods
Great News!
Iphone, Baby!
Baby iPhone, Baby!
You have to like the sound of this one. Now if I could only get my Mac keyboard to do that iPhone auto correct thingy.
What does this 2nd iPhone do for the sales estimates of 10 million?
Double, triple? It's less money. Less price resistance...
"Chang concluded by saying that Apple could potentially sell about 40 million units of this "iPhone nano" in 2008, severely damaging the Motorola RAZR market."
If Apple sells 40 million iPhone Nanos and 10 million iPhone originals that would be 50 million monthly royalty payments to Apple. If the payment is $3/mo from each bill that would mean $1.8 BILLION dollars in PURE PROFIT each year for Apple Inc.
You Gotta love that!
Iphone, Baby!
Baby iPhone, Baby!
You have to like the sound of this one. Now if I could only get my Mac keyboard to do that iPhone auto correct thingy.
What does this 2nd iPhone do for the sales estimates of 10 million?
Double, triple? It's less money. Less price resistance...
"Chang concluded by saying that Apple could potentially sell about 40 million units of this "iPhone nano" in 2008, severely damaging the Motorola RAZR market."
If Apple sells 40 million iPhone Nanos and 10 million iPhone originals that would be 50 million monthly royalty payments to Apple. If the payment is $3/mo from each bill that would mean $1.8 BILLION dollars in PURE PROFIT each year for Apple Inc.
You Gotta love that!
Cheaper iPhone Nano. Get over it this is going to happen. Do you really thing everyone is going to spend 500-600 hundred us dollars on a phone even if the dollar is tanking in the world. 
I wouldn't buy an iPhone, but I'd buy an iPhone Nano, and Apple knows that a lot of people are in this situation and I bet they're going to do something about it, sooner or later.
It's not that I find the price tag on the iPhone outrageous, but the phone itself is too big for my daily usage.
I want something small to replace my iPod Nano and Nokia crapphone, iPhone Nano would be puuuurfect
It's not that I find the price tag on the iPhone outrageous, but the phone itself is too big for my daily usage.
I want something small to replace my iPod Nano and Nokia crapphone, iPhone Nano would be puuuurfect
The 55% profit margin is nonsense. That 55% is the difference between the cost to build an iPhone and the end user sales price. This is not how you calculate profit.
First, Apple keeps profits for (Apple the hardware/software manufacturer) and (Apple the retailer) separate. If you buy an iMac for $999 at an Apple Store, (Apple the hardware manufacturer) doesn't count it as $999, but as whatever an independent retailer would pay to Apple for an iMac, say $800. Same with the iPhone. So Apple will count the iPhone only as say $500 instead of $599, so that the Apple Retail Store can make a bit of money from the difference between $500 and $599.
Next, Apple's cost is not the cost of building an iPhone. You have to add cost of shipping, warranty replacements, support. If Apple builds 1,000,000 iPhones, some will be broken, lost, stolen, left in a box under some staircase, all that needs to be added. When you take everything into account, you get gross margin - gross margin is how much Apple is better off if _you_ go into a store and buy one iPhone instead of buying a Razr or Treo or whatever. Expect gross margin to be more like 30%.
Then you subtract development cost, cost of advertising, paying for all the managers sitting in management meetings, all the cost that Apple has whether _you_ buy a phone or not. When you subtract that, then you end up with profit margin, and that is likely around 10% - 15% and not more.
criminals
You are right, but I thing most people like to have a choice even when it comes to being ripped off.
Besides, I could list a few operators I found and tried that are really fine. No contracts, very, very cheap, and reliable.
You are right, but I thing most people like to have a choice even when it comes to being ripped off.
Besides, I could list a few operators I found and tried that are really fine. No contracts, very, very cheap, and reliable.
I believe it
Think back. When rumors of the iPhone first started coming out, they were oddly split between (mostly) rumors of a well-made Phone/iPod combi, and (fewer) rumors of a new breed of Smartphone.
Why would Apple release the Smartphone first? Good business. You don't want to release two new products at once, too risky, too much self-competition, too expensive, etc. If you have two products, you release the higher-end one first, because early adopters are willing to pay a premium. Wait for people like me ($600 on opening day for 1.0? Sure!) to buy the iPhone... then, down the road, release the iPhone nano for people who don't want to pay as much.
My predictions on some details:
Size: Just like the iPhone is slightly larger than an iPod, the iPhone nano will be slightly larger than a nano. They can get away with it when combining multiple devices in one, and releasing a 1.0 product.
Form Factor: This will either be a candybar integrating phone and iPod functions, or a smaller widescreen touch screen. I'd say 70% odds its a mini-iPhone, 30% odds its a clever variation on the nano. (Slider, flip, dial-wheel, etc.)
Web: This phone won't have the web. This will reduce power consumption, work better with a smaller screen, cut cost in a big way. Also, it means it doesn't compete with the iPhone-- one is a nice MP3 Phone, the other is a Unique Smartphone. iPhone competes with the Treo, iPhone nano competes with the RAZR2.
Price: Just like the iPhone costs a fraction more than the iPod, the iPhone nano will cost a fraction more than the iPod nano. I am guessing $250 or $300.
Capacity: Just like the iPhone stores less than the iPod, the iPhone nano will store less than the iPod nano. (Again, don't compete with yourself-- differentiate products.) I predict this will come as a single 2 GB or 4 GB model, no choice.
Subsidy: Apple demanded that this phone not be sibsidized because it would cannibalize sales of the upcoming widescreen iPod (and the current iPods in the meantime). The iPhone nano would compete with other phones (Chocolate, Fusiq, RAZR, etc.) that have MP3 players more directly, so a subsidy here would make more sense. $199 with a contract at first wouldn't surprise me.
Functions: Phone (w/Contacts, Favorites, etc.), SMS, Photos, Camera, Calculator, Calendar, Clock, Notes, Settings. (No Notes if it doesn't have the widescreen multi-touch.)
Limited Web Access: One strong possibility is that the web access could be there, but not limited. No browser, just EDGE apps like Google Maps, Weather, and other widgets. If they do this, iChat will appear first on the iPhone nano, then on the regular iPhone soon after.
Colors: This phone will eventually come in colors. Expect to see black at release, then white, then all-silver, then possibly bright colors.
Think back. When rumors of the iPhone first started coming out, they were oddly split between (mostly) rumors of a well-made Phone/iPod combi, and (fewer) rumors of a new breed of Smartphone.
Why would Apple release the Smartphone first? Good business. You don't want to release two new products at once, too risky, too much self-competition, too expensive, etc. If you have two products, you release the higher-end one first, because early adopters are willing to pay a premium. Wait for people like me ($600 on opening day for 1.0? Sure!) to buy the iPhone... then, down the road, release the iPhone nano for people who don't want to pay as much.
My predictions on some details:
Size: Just like the iPhone is slightly larger than an iPod, the iPhone nano will be slightly larger than a nano. They can get away with it when combining multiple devices in one, and releasing a 1.0 product.
Form Factor: This will either be a candybar integrating phone and iPod functions, or a smaller widescreen touch screen. I'd say 70% odds its a mini-iPhone, 30% odds its a clever variation on the nano. (Slider, flip, dial-wheel, etc.)
Web: This phone won't have the web. This will reduce power consumption, work better with a smaller screen, cut cost in a big way. Also, it means it doesn't compete with the iPhone-- one is a nice MP3 Phone, the other is a Unique Smartphone. iPhone competes with the Treo, iPhone nano competes with the RAZR2.
Price: Just like the iPhone costs a fraction more than the iPod, the iPhone nano will cost a fraction more than the iPod nano. I am guessing $250 or $300.
Capacity: Just like the iPhone stores less than the iPod, the iPhone nano will store less than the iPod nano. (Again, don't compete with yourself-- differentiate products.) I predict this will come as a single 2 GB or 4 GB model, no choice.
Subsidy: Apple demanded that this phone not be sibsidized because it would cannibalize sales of the upcoming widescreen iPod (and the current iPods in the meantime). The iPhone nano would compete with other phones (Chocolate, Fusiq, RAZR, etc.) that have MP3 players more directly, so a subsidy here would make more sense. $199 with a contract at first wouldn't surprise me.
Functions: Phone (w/Contacts, Favorites, etc.), SMS, Photos, Camera, Calculator, Calendar, Clock, Notes, Settings. (No Notes if it doesn't have the widescreen multi-touch.)
Limited Web Access: One strong possibility is that the web access could be there, but not limited. No browser, just EDGE apps like Google Maps, Weather, and other widgets. If they do this, iChat will appear first on the iPhone nano, then on the regular iPhone soon after.
Colors: This phone will eventually come in colors. Expect to see black at release, then white, then all-silver, then possibly bright colors.
skype
There's a Hong Kong based company in Italy, "3", they offer a Nokia Symbian with Skype incorporated. You don't need a wifi spot. "3" works on 3G and Skype takes advantage of flat data rates on its network.
What's strange is that if you go on Skype internet site they have no version for Symbian. But now wee see their software being sold for "3" and locked to work only for them.
So Skype was supposed to be the champion of freedom from Telecoms, but apparently they are finding the Microsoft/Apple ways a lot more attractive. They would also like to select companies for you.
There's a Hong Kong based company in Italy, "3", they offer a Nokia Symbian with Skype incorporated. You don't need a wifi spot. "3" works on 3G and Skype takes advantage of flat data rates on its network.
What's strange is that if you go on Skype internet site they have no version for Symbian. But now wee see their software being sold for "3" and locked to work only for them.
So Skype was supposed to be the champion of freedom from Telecoms, but apparently they are finding the Microsoft/Apple ways a lot more attractive. They would also like to select companies for you.
I could see myself getting an Iphone/Ipod/Newton thing, but my wife would have to get the simplest and cheapest phone-only option. She is not at all interested in computer or Ipod functions.
There are a lot of possibilities for different needs and Apple will probably address all of them, but likely not quickly.
My concern is with the cost and disappointments of hooking up land lines, WiFi, cell coverage, etc. more than the cost of various devices.
There are a lot of possibilities for different needs and Apple will probably address all of them, but likely not quickly.
My concern is with the cost and disappointments of hooking up land lines, WiFi, cell coverage, etc. more than the cost of various devices.
hey man my AAPL stock is going up through the rooooooof!! let the rumors fly!
this would be awesome because i could get one for my little brother, since i could only afford my own iphone... lol
See, my idea was to make this just a widescreen iPod with the option of being a phone. Skype's rates are awesome, but if you use 3G you once again are paying for data and that almost always means that you end up with a large phone bill. Tons of people use Skype, so why not just make the widescreen iPod running OS X that we know is coming come BTO with Skype and a speaker and mic, so you can use it as a phone as well?
rob@robburns.co said:
Oh, so you want the choice of which criminal group services you. You're wish is granted. There's never been more criminal groups to choose from.
It's been mentioned a few times in this thread already that Apple is always putting out patents on technologies we may never see or Apple doesn't intend to use...
To most of the Apple regulars we are always seeing these rumors and speculating and we take it all with a grain of salt.
I think this is just the media capitalizing on all the iPhone hysteria... I am sure they'd like to keep these stories rolling as long as possible...
As far as Apple dominating the phone market... well, boy I'd like to see some new COMPUTER hardware sometime soon... ... ...
And maybe and update to iLife.... oh and I heard something about a new OS... wonder where that is...
To most of the Apple regulars we are always seeing these rumors and speculating and we take it all with a grain of salt.
I think this is just the media capitalizing on all the iPhone hysteria... I am sure they'd like to keep these stories rolling as long as possible...
As far as Apple dominating the phone market... well, boy I'd like to see some new COMPUTER hardware sometime soon... ... ...
And maybe and update to iLife.... oh and I heard something about a new OS... wonder where that is...
It can't be too small, though. It will need to be big enough to use the touchscreen. I tried the iPhone out and it fit nicely in my hand and I was able to do everything using only my thumb!
If they stick it to us again and it's available only on AppleT&T, then I'm going to SCREEEEEAM!!!
If they stick it to us again and it's available only on AppleT&T, then I'm going to SCREEEEEAM!!!
Yeah, man. I called that wrong. No complaints from me, though. I know it's up on rumors, I'm just surprised that this one is getting so much official attention.
Actually speaking of which I love to eat some dead duck once in awhile you know?
There isn't one in Europe any more. Maybe people still have that heap of **** phone in the USA...