The previously circulating rumors about an iPhone nano are getting more solid. If they are true the new iPhone is indeed an iPhone nano (or Nano Phone).
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 rumor update
- Thread starter 4np
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iPhone Nano rumours are as old as the iPhone itself. And while I like the idea, this does nothing to make me believe it's actually coming... Especially this bit:
The current iPhone is already so low priced it's selling not for a "few" (read: three) hundred, but $200. An iPhone Nano would, realistically, need to be selling for $100 or less to make sense.
Now, that said, the only thing that has me believing that the Nano might finally be coming is all the talk about WalMart selling a $99 iPhone. A $99 iPhone Nano at Walmart makes a lot more sense to me than a $99 iPhone 3G.
I would love to see this product, but I'll believe it when I see it.
The current iPhone is already so low priced it's selling not for a "few" (read: three) hundred, but $200. An iPhone Nano would, realistically, need to be selling for $100 or less to make sense.
Now, that said, the only thing that has me believing that the Nano might finally be coming is all the talk about WalMart selling a $99 iPhone. A $99 iPhone Nano at Walmart makes a lot more sense to me than a $99 iPhone 3G.
I would love to see this product, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I really think all Apple and its providers need to do is develop an iPhone of the same size that doesn't require a 3G/EDGE connection. If the iPhone was $200 for the same rate as standard phones, it would sell even better. It's hard to ask people to spend $70/month on phone service, even with e-mail and Internet involved. I barely use my EDGE cell service (my phone says 120MB used), so I kinda wish there were cheaper plans that weren't "unlimited". I would probably use 3G more, but I'm often in WiFi areas.
Until there's way more use for cell data, it's just not really worth the $30/month. AT&T needs to realize that one size fits all is not what their 50 million or whatever customers are.
Until there's way more use for cell data, it's just not really worth the $30/month. AT&T needs to realize that one size fits all is not what their 50 million or whatever customers are.
^ Yeah, I feel bad for American iPhone owners. I'm on Rogers, and right now have no Data plan (I have WiFi 90% of the time). But even if I wasn't, Rogers at least offers a tiered data plan (i.e. $30/month if you use <500 MBs, $35 if you use 500-1000, etc.)
They're overpriced, but it's the right approach.
They also just announced a new Data Value pack which is a pretty decent deal... much better than the AT&T system, at least.
That said, I wouldn't be a big fan of an "iPhone" and an "iPhone Pro". I think an iPhone Nano without multitouch or 3G and the regular iPhone would be a better approach... like the BB Pearl vs. BB Bold.
They're overpriced, but it's the right approach.
They also just announced a new Data Value pack which is a pretty decent deal... much better than the AT&T system, at least.
That said, I wouldn't be a big fan of an "iPhone" and an "iPhone Pro". I think an iPhone Nano without multitouch or 3G and the regular iPhone would be a better approach... like the BB Pearl vs. BB Bold.
No compleatly false.
This is not apples game. They will never get into the high volume low profit model which ultimately leads to not having a company.
They do not want to turn the iphone into a commodity.
I would put money on this being false.
This is not apples game. They will never get into the high volume low profit model which ultimately leads to not having a company.
They do not want to turn the iphone into a commodity.
I would put money on this being false.
Why do people keep repeating this claim? Ever heard of the iPod Shuffle? Or the Mac Mini? Both are low price, high volume sellers designed as a "gateway" to get users into more expensive, higher profit products...
Apple is NOT foreign to low profit items...
Please provide proof that they are "high volume sellers," because I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
Now this is more like it. Someone might buy a $900 Mac Mini today but a $2,000 iMac next year. That's a big price jump there.
So what's your theory? That Apple is going to sell a $99 phone (that will steal sales from the $199 phone) on the theory that those people might someday go out and buy that $199 phone?
Excuse me if this doesn't really sound like the same thing.
I've said it before: I'll consider the iPhone Nano rumors when I hear ONE good reason why Apple should make one. To date, that has yet to happen. Now that the full sized iPhone costs $199, I see even LESS chance of that happening.
If Apple gets really desperate for low-end sales (and they're not desperate at the moment) they'll make the 8 GB iPhone $99. Wait and see, that will happen long before any iPhone Nano comes out.
EDIT: In other words, the analogy to the iPhone Nano is not the $599 Mac Mini. No, an iPhone Nano is more like a $249 Dell Desktop. You don't see Apple selling machines like that, do you?
I don't know, this guy sounds pretty darn confident in what he's saying.
I just wonder if Apple is going to add more features to the existing iPhone because a $99 phone (that has no internet, but possibly everything else) may canabilize it. Just watch them place MMS on this iPhone Nano. Then a lot of people won't think twice about picking this $99 phone over the existing iPhone.
I just wonder if Apple is going to add more features to the existing iPhone because a $99 phone (that has no internet, but possibly everything else) may canabilize it. Just watch them place MMS on this iPhone Nano. Then a lot of people won't think twice about picking this $99 phone over the existing iPhone.
Side A: Some guy on the internet no proof.
Side B: You, with perfectly well thought out reasons.
Believe in yourself, you make perfect sense. Forget "I don't know." Yes, you do know!
Neither the Mini nor the Shuffle are priced down with the commodity bottom-end PCs and cheap mp3 players often found at Walmart and similar discount houses.
.
Ah - reducto at statisterum. The argument that "if you can't back it up with statistics, it's invalid".
No, I'm not going to go find sales figures for the Shuffle. My point was only that Apple has been known to sell low cost, low profit products. The argument that Apple will never make a $99 iPhone is kind of undercut by the existance of a $49 Shuffle, no? Clearly they are willing to offer a low-priced item to lure buyers in.And no, my point was not that Apple will sell a cheaper iPhone. Only that the argument that they won't because "they don't sell cheap items" is flawed. There are many reasons Apple might choose not to sell an iPhone Nano. But "they don't sell cheap stuff" isn't one of them. If the market suits it, they have shown they will offer a cheap product.
@firewood: $49 for a Shuffle is pretty cheap. It might not be as cheap as some of the Walmart junk, but for an MP3 player from the pre-eminent mp3 player company, I would call it cheap. Put another way, $49 for an iPod is cheap.
Ah - reducto at statisterum. The argument that "if you can't back it up with statistics, it's invalid".
Why does the iMac get updated frequently and the Mini rarely? My theory is that the iMac sells well and the Mini does not.
So see, there I've given a reason why I think this whereas you've disagreed but still given no reason. Forget statistics, I'm just looking for ANY explanation.
Yes, it is a reason. A cheap dell is $279. A cheap Mac is $599.
You keep trying to claim that those are equivalent. They're not.
at my store iPhone 3G sales cover about 70% of all our phone sales, the other 30% is for people who just want a basic/emergency phone, HTC fanatics that say they will never change, or business customers required to use a blackberry.
anyone that wants an iphone, is getting or has one already... 199 is a damn good deal.
anyone that wants an iphone, is getting or has one already... 199 is a damn good deal.
We're not talking about sales figures, we're talking about what Apple will offer for sale. You say "they won't sell cheap stuff". I say they already do. The iPod Shuffle is dirt cheap. The Mini is not as cheap as a POS Dell, no, but it represents good value (or rather, it would if they ever got around to updating it). If they dropped the new MB's processor and graphics chip in the Mini and sold it for $599, that would be an excellent value. Yes, it's more expensive than a POS Dell, but it's still a cheap product when you consider the power vs. price ratio.
Offering cheap products does not mean a company has to compete with the entry-level Dell boxes. It means they offer a good product at a reasonably cheap price, which an updated Mini would be.
iPhone = 480x320 pixel screen, works perfectly for touchscreen use. Thousands of apps created and made specifically for quoted screen resolution.
There will not be an iPhone nano any time soon for the above reason. Imagine, they'd have to burden every single developer with making two versions of each app, and complicating the app store by having two available downloads. Ridiculous.
The only way Apple would possibly think to release one would be to make it without ANY 3rd party app functionality... which Apple would never do either.
There will not be an iPhone nano any time soon for the above reason. Imagine, they'd have to burden every single developer with making two versions of each app, and complicating the app store by having two available downloads. Ridiculous.
The only way Apple would possibly think to release one would be to make it without ANY 3rd party app functionality... which Apple would never do either.
I actually believe it could be true...at least the smaller iPhone part.
Why?
Because iPhone is the new iPod.
The are going to milk the cow as much as they can, and why not use the same strategy as with the iPod, meaning bringing out multiple sizes.
Plus a lot of people (including me) think that the current iPhone is too large, just like a lot of people thought that the first iPods were to large.
And they of course, have to stay ahead of competition by continually innovating. They aren't just gonna stand still until the 4G network is ready.
Now I'm not sure if it's going to be announced in Jan. '09, but I'm pretty sure Apple is already working on.
I would guess it will appear in either late '09 or early 2010.
Why?
Because iPhone is the new iPod.
The are going to milk the cow as much as they can, and why not use the same strategy as with the iPod, meaning bringing out multiple sizes.
Plus a lot of people (including me) think that the current iPhone is too large, just like a lot of people thought that the first iPods were to large.
And they of course, have to stay ahead of competition by continually innovating. They aren't just gonna stand still until the 4G network is ready.
Now I'm not sure if it's going to be announced in Jan. '09, but I'm pretty sure Apple is already working on.
I would guess it will appear in either late '09 or early 2010.
They may do this. Not allowing apps on the iPhone nano would eliminate any worry about it cannibalizing the existing iPhone. However, by not allowing apps via App Store, this will kill any potential revenue from apps. Apple doesn't like potential revenue avenues closed off.
I think an iPhone Nano without Apps is entirely reasonable. I don't see an iPhone Nano as being a touch-screen device. I think it would look more like this:
No touch, no WiFi, no 3G. Just a phone and an iPod. I think introducing a touch-screen iPhone Nano would canibilize iPhone sales (and hurt AT&T's revenue, since they couldn't sell mandatory data plans with it). I think that something like the above is more likely...
No touch, no WiFi, no 3G. Just a phone and an iPod. I think introducing a touch-screen iPhone Nano would canibilize iPhone sales (and hurt AT&T's revenue, since they couldn't sell mandatory data plans with it). I think that something like the above is more likely...
Although what you're saying is true, let's just think about this. Let's say the iMac never got updated, just like the mini, do you think people would continue buying them as much as they are now? I don't believe so. The reason to this being is because they aren't being updated as often as the consumers would like it. So if the Mini were to be updated in some form or fashion, don't you think its sales would go up?
Just my thoughts..
see i think that would be sweet. I like the idea of no 3g, but still including wifi. I don't have 3g in my area and having to pay for that would be something i don't want to do if i don't have to. I would love a phone from apple that has at least 8gb of storage, wifi, camera, and a slick interface. I would buy one if a heartbeat