Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Also, I'm confused, why are people saying that a nano-size form factor is too small for a touchscreen? I think it's great. The nano form factor has more than enough room for a keypad, d-pad, and a small screen. If there was a touchscreen all you would have to implement in terms of space is a keypad.

I took it to mean that there is not enough space inside the device for all the necessary components.

I am sorry I do not have the cite, but one official Apple comment (discussed on macrumors mainpages) said they developed the sub-price Apple phone concurrently with the iPhone.

Rocketman

Apple has made no official comments about any future iPhones.
 
Remember the backlit trackpad rumor? I think that the clickwheel would dynamically change depending on what you were doing. For example, if you were dialing a phone number, the click wheel would change to all numbers. Here's the patent:
 

Attachments

  • blah.GIF
    blah.GIF
    63.2 KB · Views: 134
Who do I trust more to come up with the best UI for a nano iphone that size.

Apple or...... Mac Rumors forum members?

Hmm.
 
Easy people easy....

is there a reason why folks get a little pissy about an apple product that is only RUMORED to come out looking the way these so called experts said it would..... sheesh.

jst my two lincolns....

Anyways, my vision for this iPhone nano would be a shruken down version of the iphone.

It will have the click wheel when the ipod is in use.....but if you want to make a phone call the click wheel will be replaced by numbers.... AND IT'S ALL TOUCH SCREEN baby.

I'm sure there are phones that have similar dimensions as the nano... i'm sure APPLE of all companies can make it happen.

--------- save me jebus
 
Exactly, what I know from Apple's design team, I'm pretty confident that the iPhone Nano will be 100% touchscreen. I don't know how they're gonna do it but, I'm sure it'll be great, in fact, where's that one time where Apple's Industrial Design Team let you down? :)
 
I wouldn't this.. but

I don't think Apple will come out with yet another type of interface anyways. The obvious thing to do woud be to have a screen about the size of the device (even if it is a little more expensive) and just use a "light" version of the OS that is on the current iPhone. All in all, I guess it would be less expensive to maintain the code and more appealing to potential buyers.


my 2cts
 
The multifunction/dynamic clickwheel seems like the most viable option for an iphone "nano" A non-multitouch touchscreen is really going a step backwards, I had phones like that, and is not a very apple-like way to work. Ill have some blind apple-fanboi trust here and either these patents represent something that works well, OR, they are diversion tactics/trying to lock up possible tech directions so no one else can use them.

In addition, we are talking about a product that will cost about 1/2 the iphone, it will need to differentiate itself from the iphone significantly. It will have ipod, phone, text, and take pictures, that will be about it. Its strength will be in music and contact management and sync'ing to the comp. Other phones STILL dont sync the way an ipod does for music, that is still a novel feature.
 
I doubt they'd call a device looking like that a 'nano' - it doesn't look terribly small.
 
As long as it comes without a contract I'll be happy!

Why? The iPhone can't be used with other providers, so unless you plan on stop using the iPhone in less than two years, who cares if it has a contract.

Regardless, could this simply be a patent for an iPhone prototype? It could be a rejected design for the original iPhone.
 
The point is that the iphone is a phone etc etc with ipod inside. But this is more an ipod with phone functionality. AND the click wheel is king on the ipod. You can operated even through cloth, with out having to look at it etc. So if the phone part is secondary I believe they may go for such a design. Then again, what do I know...
 
I'd like to throw my 2 cents worth in. IMO if the iPod Nano (or whatever) doesn't provide the basics that most low-end phones do these days, Apple will not sell very many. Specifically my wife's Moto Razr has phone, camera, text messaging, Gmail and basic WAP web access. If these features are not found on the cheaper iPhone I don't believe a lot of folks will buy it, even if it does have iPod features.
 
iPhone shuffle?

I think I'm going to hold out for the iPhone Shuffle. Just press the dial button and it calls a random friend! Who will it call today? Will it match your mood? Will it be someone you want to talk to, or someone you probably should talk to?

I hope they make an orange one.
 
This is just nonesense. Use your heads. What's being suggested here is that Apple go to two and a half year's trouble creating something as sexy and startling, and as hyped as the iPhone. AND THEN THEY FOLLOW IT UP WITH A PHONE WITH A SODDING TINY SCREEN AND A CLICKWHEEL??!!!

No.
 
I think I'm going to hold out for the iPhone Shuffle. Just press the dial button and it calls a random friend! Who will it call today? Will it match your mood? Will it be someone you want to talk to, or someone you probably should talk to?

I hope they make an orange one.

Well said fella
 
This is just nonesense. Use your heads. What's being suggested here is that Apple go to two and a half year's trouble creating something as sexy and startling, and as hyped as the iPhone. AND THEN THEY FOLLOW IT UP WITH A PHONE WITH A SODDING TINY SCREEN AND A CLICKWHEEL??!!!

My previous joke comment notwithstanding, this is exactly how I initially felt about the iPod shuffle. But now i have an iPod shuffle (2nd gen, colour) and it's perfect for what I need it for.
 
My previous joke comment notwithstanding, this is exactly how I initially felt about the iPod shuffle. But now i have an iPod shuffle (2nd gen, colour) and it's perfect for what I need it for.

Yes, and there are a hundred and two established mobile phone manufacturers who are already making the phone equivalent of an iPod shuffle. Apple did NOT spend as much time and money as it has done on the R and D of the iPhone to then take the wind out of its sails with a mediocre piece of crap that looks exactly like the product they are so blatently moving away from.

Look. The NEW iPod will have an interface like the iPhone music interface. There is no doubt that that is how Apple HAVE to go. They created the new benchmark WITH THE iPhone!

You really think they're gonna make a phone that looks like the OLD iPod after wowing the world with the iPhone we've been waiting bloody ages to see?

Does anyone around here understand the word ANTICLIMAX???!!!
 
My previous joke comment notwithstanding, this is exactly how I initially felt about the iPod shuffle. But now i have an iPod shuffle (2nd gen, colour) and it's perfect for what I need it for.

And by this I mean, some people, like me, are commenting on a forum, and some people are making a living as an Apple designer, and I expect that a: they're probably not the same people (but maybe, who knows) and b: one of these groups of people is likely to do a better job designing an iPhone nano than the other.
Personally, I'd like the next iMac to look like a giant sideways iPhone on a stand, but that's why I'm in video production, not computer design, isn't it?
 
Yes, and there are a hundred and two established mobile phone manufacturers who are already making the phone equivalent of an iPod shuffle. Apple did NOT spend as much time and money as it has done on the R and D of the iPhone to then take the wind out of its sails with a mediocre piece of crap that looks exactly like the product they are so blatently moving away from.

Well, now hold on there. Nobody's suggesting the iPhone nano would have the iPod shuffle's interface. The question is whether it'll have a clickwheel based interface, which is a tried and tested and extremely popular iPod technology - arguably it's what made the iPod so popular in the first place.

The iPhone interface is optimal for a large unit used for web browsing and watching movies. It isn't, from what I can see, as good as the iPod when it comes to listening to music. Close, perhaps, but the iPod's clickwheel is relatively optimal for non-visual use. Imperfect in some ways, but when it comes to changing the volume, clicking to the next track (or beginning of the current one, or previous one), pausing, unpausing, etc, you can't really get much better.

Advocating that a smaller iPhone should have the iPhone interface requires at least some justification beyond "The current interface is a 'mediocre piece of crap'" (tens of millions of iPod users would disagree with you on that one), or "That's where Apple is heading anyway". How would the iPhone interface improve upon the iPod interface for the iPod's primary purpose of listening to music? Would the presence of a clickwheel in some way undermine the iPhone nano's ability to be a phone, thus forcing the use of a touchscreen-only UI?

Does anyone around here understand the word ANTICLIMAX???!!!

I'm conservative when it comes to UI changes. There are many features I've seen added over the years that have caused no end of trouble and made computers less easy to use and understand. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

In this case, an interesting new UI is being apparently advocated for a device it would appear to be wholly unsuited for. As it is, with the lack of voice control or other forms of non-visual control on the iPhone, I'm not even convinced the iPhone is the "perfect" device its advocates pretend it is. It's a little like going back to 1984, and seeing the first Macintosh, in a sea of DOS clones. Because back then the Macintosh may have been revolutionary, but it also sucked. It was badly lacking in functionality. A small vocal minority loved it, and a large vocal group wanted to nothing to do with it.

Over time, that was fixed. The technologies were developed by Apple and others, and everyone started to get an idea of what computers should do and how to integrate the advances made by different groups with different needs into something close to an universal ideal. Companies like Commodore-Amiga, Acorn, Digital Research, and even Microsoft, did amazing things that ultimately made the concept of the GUI viable.

So don't get me wrong. When I'm saying the iPhone doesn't appear to be as perfect as its claimed, I'm not saying that the technologies that make it up are bad. But they're absolutely not fully developed yet. It'll take time before we can start to throw systems based upon it upon everything.

An iPhone nano with a multitouch UI may be fun, but it's unquestionably not an optimal platform for such a UI, not in its current state. If the device is supposed to be just an MP3 player married to a cellphone, the device is over-engineered in the wrong direction, and lacking in basic usability in others, if it goes the "all touchscreen, all the time" route.

The clickwheel's a great interface, don't knock it.
 
Well, now hold on there. Nobody's suggesting the iPhone nano would have the iPod shuffle's interface. The question is whether it'll have a clickwheel based interface, which is a tried and tested and extremely popular iPod technology - arguably it's what made the iPod so popular in the first place.

The iPhone interface is optimal for a large unit used for web browsing and watching movies. It isn't, from what I can see, as good as the iPod when it comes to listening to music. Close, perhaps, but the iPod's clickwheel is relatively optimal for non-visual use. Imperfect in some ways, but when it comes to changing the volume, clicking to the next track (or beginning of the current one, or previous one), pausing, unpausing, etc, you can't really get much better.

Advocating that a smaller iPhone should have the iPhone interface requires at least some justification beyond "The current interface is a 'mediocre piece of crap'" (tens of millions of iPod users would disagree with you on that one), or "That's where Apple is heading anyway". How would the iPhone interface improve upon the iPod interface for the iPod's primary purpose of listening to music? Would the presence of a clickwheel in some way undermine the iPhone nano's ability to be a phone, thus forcing the use of a touchscreen-only UI?



I'm conservative when it comes to UI changes. There are many features I've seen added over the years that have caused no end of trouble and made computers less easy to use and understand. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

In this case, an interesting new UI is being apparently advocated for a device it would appear to be wholly unsuited for. As it is, with the lack of voice control or other forms of non-visual control on the iPhone, I'm not even convinced the iPhone is the "perfect" device its advocates pretend it is. It's a little like going back to 1984, and seeing the first Macintosh, in a sea of DOS clones. Because back then the Macintosh may have been revolutionary, but it also sucked. It was badly lacking in functionality. A small vocal minority loved it, and a large vocal group wanted to nothing to do with it.

Over time, that was fixed. The technologies were developed by Apple and others, and everyone started to get an idea of what computers should do and how to integrate the advances made by different groups with different needs into something close to an universal ideal. Companies like Commodore-Amiga, Acorn, Digital Research, and even Microsoft, did amazing things that ultimately made the concept of the GUI viable.

So don't get me wrong. When I'm saying the iPhone doesn't appear to be as perfect as its claimed, I'm not saying that the technologies that make it up are bad. But they're absolutely not fully developed yet. It'll take time before we can start to throw systems based upon it upon everything.

An iPhone nano with a multitouch UI may be fun, but it's unquestionably not an optimal platform for such a UI, not in its current state. If the device is supposed to be just an MP3 player married to a cellphone, the device is over-engineered in the wrong direction, and lacking in basic usability in others, if it goes the "all touchscreen, all the time" route.

The clickwheel's a great interface, don't knock it.

I didn't knock it. I'm just pointing out that Apple are hardly going to introduce a product with a new interface only to introduce a cut-down version of that product with what looks like an old interface.

After seeing the iPhone do you seriously think the future of the iPod is going to be the clickwheel?
 
people should see the iphoneNano as un upgraded nano, with some phone capabilities.
i have no use for an iphone. it would be overkill for me.
i would have use for a nano that also makes (and, especially, receives) phone calls and allows me to send/read the occasional sms.
i think the clickwheel input would be great for that. As long as it works well AS A PHONE (reception, stability), i couldn't care less if it's a tidy slower in sending sms (which i bet it won't with practice).

one last point.
if and when this is released, apple will have it tested extensively.
it won't be released in an "unusable" form.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.