I'm sad to say I have, and it's all based on misconceptions about how companies actually function.
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.
iPhone nano - don't just dismiss it as a silly idea
- Thread starter dominicrusho
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sad to say I have, and it's all based on misconceptions about how companies actually function.
They might make the on-screen keyboard the standard numeric with alpha subfunctions e.g. 2=abc 3=def 4=ghi etc. etc..
Of course if they do, they would be the first company in history to implement this
And the iPhone is not the most innovative 'cellphone' in history, it's a evolutionary product developed on the back of the likes of Nokia, Motorola etc that laks many functions but does so in a nice way!
Of course if they do, they would be the first company in history to implement this
And the iPhone is not the most innovative 'cellphone' in history, it's a evolutionary product developed on the back of the likes of Nokia, Motorola etc that laks many functions but does so in a nice way!
Wait... Companies don't like profits? My God... you're right! An iPhone Nano will never happen! Apple doesn't want to target new consumers and make money!
Sorry, who has misconceptions about how companies "actually function". 'Cause I'm pretty sure anyone can tell you that for a publicly traded company, profits = good.
Equally funny are all of the people pining about how Apple is a luxury brand, blah blah blah.
Seriously funny when we now know that Apple is launching the "Lamborghini" of handsets at that poo on a stick of a big box retailer, Wal Mart, where you would be lucky to even find someone who can spell "iPhone" among the illiterate employees.
If Apple was as concerned with their image as some of you guys say then they would have launched it at Target if they wanted a more upscale environment.
Seriously funny when we now know that Apple is launching the "Lamborghini" of handsets at that poo on a stick of a big box retailer, Wal Mart, where you would be lucky to even find someone who can spell "iPhone" among the illiterate employees.
If Apple was as concerned with their image as some of you guys say then they would have launched it at Target if they wanted a more upscale environment.
Apple could easily design an iPhone Nano that would be a "luxury item" within the feature phone market segment. It would be a high-end feature phone, like the LG Dare, solidly built, with a full touch screen and great media functions, but it would not have full data functions like a smartphone. It could be sold for $100 or maybe even $200 on a subsidized basis (the Dare is $179 before rebate, on a 2 yr contract), but without the $30/mo data penalty, it would be an appealing option for those that simply don't need full data.
I don't see Apple building a phone that can be subsidized down to $0. They will always be more high-end than that. But they have not tapped the feature phone market, and the Nano could do that.
This is even an opportunity to improve a few things, like up the megapixels on the camera, add a flash, and louder speakers.
IMO this would appeal to a huge market, and it would not dilute the appeal of the iPhone 3G or the quality of the Apple brand. Those who need a smartphone are going to stick with the 3G. Those who don't really need a smartphone but are willing to cross over in order to get the iPhone have probably already done so. The rest won't make the leap, but a Nano might just be what Apple needs to draw them over.
And if Apple IS worried about diluting 3G sales, they can always release new phone software that adds MMS, cut-and-paste, video, and who knows what else to keep us anchored to our 3Gs
I don't see Apple building a phone that can be subsidized down to $0. They will always be more high-end than that. But they have not tapped the feature phone market, and the Nano could do that.
This is even an opportunity to improve a few things, like up the megapixels on the camera, add a flash, and louder speakers.
IMO this would appeal to a huge market, and it would not dilute the appeal of the iPhone 3G or the quality of the Apple brand. Those who need a smartphone are going to stick with the 3G. Those who don't really need a smartphone but are willing to cross over in order to get the iPhone have probably already done so. The rest won't make the leap, but a Nano might just be what Apple needs to draw them over.
And if Apple IS worried about diluting 3G sales, they can always release new phone software that adds MMS, cut-and-paste, video, and who knows what else to keep us anchored to our 3Gs
Oh my! People, don't you see, that this is not at all such a silly idea! Just stop for a minute and try to think a little. There are lots of people who would love such a device because of its size. Remember that there lots of cell phones besides an iPhone, which are smaller. And a smaller screen is not at all a problem, really. For example there is already an HTC Touch with a 2.8 in. screen. Of course all the applications at App Store are not going to work on this thing and would need an upgrade, but, as far as I know, there are also games which dont run on every iPod. And if Apple would sell it without a contract, it's going to ROCK the world.
...
...
It's funny how it took, what, two MONTHS of speculation for someone to realize it just might not be an iPhone because that would be idiotic?
Kudos to you, sir!
Thing is, the iPhone nano, could be used as a selling point for more compact products, such as the Mac mini. The Mac mini, a smaller, cheaper device which gives you Mac OSX, so an iPhone nano, could be a smaller, cheaper alternative, but still gives users the "iPhone experience"
But that's the thing, the Mac Mini runs OS X. The one OS Apple makes.
An iPhone Nano would either run no mobile OS (which would be dumb) or it would run mobile OS X (which would make it an iPhone anyway).
People are forgetting that the controls on ipods are independent of the scalable interface. while the iPhone's controls are dependent on the interface.
------
From another person on the internet: (wobegon at AppleInsider)
A Click Wheel iPod's controls are independent from its scalable interface.
An iPhone/iPod touch's controls are dependent on its touch screen interface and vice versa - the iPhone's controls, interface, and screen are one and the same.
Also, all of the iPods are under the (once exploding and still growing) mp3 player market umbrella, while the only major growth in the cell phone world is in the emerging smartphone segment (not the over-saturated dumbphone market).
...
...
It's funny how it took, what, two MONTHS of speculation for someone to realize it just might not be an iPhone because that would be idiotic?
Kudos to you, sir!
2 months to write it down
My thought of the day - can bicker over yay or nay for the iPhone nano - Consider the nuvifone though. Garmin might have to go Android.
Because we all know if Apple doesn't release a product at MacWorld they'll never release it. I guess, since Apple is dropping out of MacWorld after this year, they'll never release another new product, ever?I'll agree that MacWorld is an obvious choice to release an iPhone Nano. But not getting one next month does not mean we never will... though I admit, it might make it less likely.
Possible, but unlikely imo. Apple just introduced a new generation of iPod Nano (not an update, but an entire new generation). It seems unlikely to me that they would abandon that model after only five months.
MacWorld might bring a smaller iPod Touch, though. Right now the Touch is the same size (pretty much) as an iPhone, but without a camera, GPS, or cellular modem. With a single-chip 32GB storage solution going into mass production, and even bigger sizes on the horizon, could Apple be planning to shrink the iPod Touch while keeping the same storage requirements?
I doubt it, myself, but...
I'll agree that MacWorld is an obvious choice to release an iPhone Nano. But not getting one next month does not mean we never will... though I admit, it might make it less likely.
Man ... it'll be pretty lame if people start saying "Wait for June/July!" then "Wait for December!" then "Wait for January 2010!" .....
Honestly ... I (in my opinion) think it's more likely apple will introduce an HD iPhone (with a really, nice clear HD screen ... like the HTC HD) and reduce the pricing on the existing iPhone, than introduce a "crippled" iPhone.
i believe that if this crazy idea does happen then it will have WiFi, Safari, and Mail, Weather, Calculator, Contacts, Calender, and Notes.
There will probably also be the ability to install apps, but not directly from the device.
The would control all non-phone features like Safari, Mail, and other apps that require it.
There will probably also be the ability to install apps, but not directly from the device.
The would control all non-phone features like Safari, Mail, and other apps that require it.
I don't see why the other threads on this were not enough to help you understand. The idea is silly, because it would cannibalize not only the iPhone, but also the iPod touch.
So would a 32GB iPhone "cannibalize" 8GB and 16GB iPhone sales?
- You can't launch that product
- Why?
- Because they might not buy the other Apple product instead
- ...
I'd called it nano Touch, but I meant a shrunk Touch. I still like the concept of a nano form factor iPhone. Doesn't bother me too much, as I see v3 iPhone as being much more of a leap forward.
This "logic" keeps on coming up, and I'm not sure why people continue to swear by it.
We all know that some people buy iMacs instead of Mac Pros. Yet Apple still makes the iMac. Some people buy iPod Nanos instead of iPod Touches. Yet Apple still makes the Nano.
And the same is true of any industry. Some people buy Honda Fits instead of Fits. Yet Honda still makes the Fit. Some people buy Bud Light, instead of Budweiser. Yet they still make Budweiser.
Honestly, the "canibilization" logic holds very little water. Companies produce different products to appeal to different market segments. Yes, there's always some overlap (like professionals buying iMacs and not Mac Pros). But the point is to appeal to the widest possible consumer base.
Let's take a hypothetical, small scale example. Say Apple only builds one computer: the Mac Pro. Say they sell 50 computers a year.
Now let's say they decide to introduce a new model, the iMac. It's a big success, and they sell 100 iMacs a year. Some people who might have bought a Mac Pro buy an iMac instead, so they only sell 30 Mac Pros per year.
Here's the rub: they're now selling 130 computers per year, instead of only 50.
Saying that an iPhone Nano would hurt iPhone sales is shortsighted. I don't doubt some buyers would opt for the Nano instead of the iPhone. But the important point is that Apple's net consumer base gets larger.
Doubt this will happen for at least another year. Higher rez = more battery drain, which is the opposite of what they should be working on. Especially since the existing iPhone screen has a pretty generous amount of pixels.
I don't see Apple "cluttering" the iPhone line with a new version that will raise compatibility issues with existing apps, considering both phones would be in the smartphone category.
But when it comes to entering a whole new phone market segment, ie. the feature phone segment, that's another story.
I really don't see why so many people hate the idea of one. Not everyone wants to carry around a 3.5 inch screen iPhone, some people would prefer a smaller iPhone device.I'm all for the idea! And I hope in less than 2 weeks, these speculations turn into reality.
Isnt the screen what makes the iphone great.
