iPhone nano rumor update

[Small White Car]

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.

And this is exactly the point I was making.

The CURRENT iPhone is a good product at a reasonably cheap price.

A cheaper iPone Nano would be competing with dirt-cheap, entry level cell phones.

So as you point out with computers, Apple does offer inexpensive, good-value items. (Current iPhone) They do not offer dirt-cheap, entry-level items. (iPhone Nano)

That's exactly what I was trying to say before.

 

[rockinrocker]

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...

yeah, this sort of thing would make sense. phone and ipod only.

all this back and forth about the pricing tiers is irrelevant. whatever the initial cost of the hand set is, it's a small fraction of what the total cost including plan is.

so yes, there's tons of room in the pricing scheme for a phone that doesn't require a data plan.

iphone nano = no interwebs, no apps, no data plan. phone and ipod only.


i'm not saying they're coming out soon, but i bet they'd sell crap tons of those and wouldn't be surprised to see them sometime....

 

[kas23]

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

Yeah, but AT&T is pouring billions of dollars into their 3G network. Pretty soon, all you'll be able to buy are 3G capable phones. 3G doesn't automatically mean you'll be surfing the web with it, it also produces dramatically better call reception.

We just got my in-laws the LG CU515, which is a basic non-smartphone that cost us $49.99 each. And it's 3G capable (like most of LG non-smartphones that are out now). The reason we got them 3G phones is because their area has shoddy EDGE coverage and some 3G. But since 3G greatly boosts reception and reduces dropped calls, their phones using 3G has much better reception than by using EDGE. They don't even have data plans.

Regardless if it's not going to do hardcore data transfer, I can't see Jobs putting out some crappy near-obsolete EDGE-only phone...well, on second thought, maybe I could.

 

[kas23]

i'm not saying they're coming out soon, but i bet they'd sell crap tons of those and wouldn't be surprised to see them sometime....

Especially if they come out with cute colors. Every teenager in the country would kill for one of them, a phenomena that isn't quite happening with the current iPhone.

 

[rockinrocker]

Especially if they come out with cute colors. Every teenager in the country would kill for one of them, a phenomena that isn't quite happening with the current iPhone.

exactly.

and mommy and daddy would be much likelier to spring for one if there's no added cost of the data plan.

 

[milani]

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.

Dude, what's with all the logic? Don't you know this is a place for blind speculation without any consideration for the logistics of decisions?

 

[basesloaded190]

Yeah, but AT&T is pouring billions of dollars into their 3G network. Pretty soon, all you'll be able to buy are 3G capable phones. 3G doesn't automatically mean you'll be surfing the web with it, it also produces dramatically better call reception.

We just got my in-laws the LG CU515, which is a basic non-smartphone that cost us $49.99 each. And it's 3G capable (like most of LG non-smartphones that are out now). The reason we got them 3G phones is because their area has shoddy EDGE coverage and some 3G. But since 3G greatly boosts reception and reduces dropped calls, their phones using 3G has much better reception than by using EDGE. They don't even have data plans.

Regardless if it's not going to do hardcore data transfer, I can't see Jobs putting out some crappy near-obsolete EDGE-only phone...well, on second thought, maybe I could.

i agree with that, i just don't want to be forced to pay the $60 a month for the data plan if i don't plan on using it. thats why i think a phone+ipod+camera+wifi= a great little phone that a lot of people would be interested in.

 

[Demosthenes X]

So as you point out with computers, Apple does offer inexpensive, good-value items. (Current iPhone) They do not offer dirt-cheap, entry-level items. (iPhone Nano)

iPod Shuffle.

**

When I say the iPhone Nano would not have 3G, what I mean is it would not have a browser (and hence, the need for data) like the iPhone does. I suppose it would have 3G, given the better call quality and whatnot you mentioned, but it wouldn't have or need Safari or the App Store. It would obviously have some form of mobile browser to get onto Facebook mobile or whatever, though.

I think they would sell loads of these things. Everyone in my high school had a cell phone and an iPod already - Apple could capture both markets in one fell stroke, and if they got a cut of the contract revenue, it would be a big money maker, I think.

 

[milani]

iPod Shuffle.

**

When I say the iPhone Nano would not have 3G, what I mean is it would not have a browser (and hence, the need for data) like the iPhone does. I suppose it would have 3G, given the better call quality and whatnot you mentioned, but it wouldn't have or need Safari or the App Store. It would obviously have some form of mobile browser to get onto Facebook mobile or whatever, though.

I think they would sell loads of these things. Everyone in my high school had a cell phone and an iPod already - Apple could capture both markets in one fell stroke, and if they got a cut of the contract revenue, it would be a big money maker, I think.

They did. It's call the iPhone. If it's too expensive for you, then don't buy it.

 

[eplchamps0304]

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...

I agree with you. Also, only a moron will buy an overpriced phone like that.

 

[Demosthenes X]

They did. It's call the iPhone. If it's too expensive for you, then don't buy it.

Time to go back to college and take a course in introductory business.

Yes, the iPhone fills both roles very well. But for those consumers who find the iPhone + Plan too expensive, Apple offers nothing for them. They wind up going to competing products to satisfy their phone needs. Whereas, if Apple offered a cheaper alternative to the iPhone, they could capture those consumers who want an iPhone, but don't want the associated data plan.

 

[NT1440]

So hearing more rumors now translates to them being "solid" ?

 

[226896]

The only way I can see an iPhone Nano ever being released if it was really basic, like all it would be is an iPod nano with 'Phone' and 'SMS' added to the menu screen. But I can't see it being touch screen, so Apple would have to shift to... dare I say it... PHYSICAL KEYS . Nah, don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[fireshot91]

I don't think it could ever happen. If it did, it probably would have the same camera the current 3G has (and the top of the line iPhone at that time would have a better camera), It would also probably not have any wi-fi, touch screen, or a forced data plan. Like, I'm sure you COULD get a data plan for it, and surf the internet like a normal current flip phone does (w/ arrow keys). And it'd probably not be a flip phone.

 

[kas23]

i agree with that, i just don't want to be forced to pay the $60 a month for the data plan if i don't plan on using it. thats why i think a phone+ipod+camera+wifi= a great little phone that a lot of people would be interested in.

You can by a 3G enabled phone without a data plan.

However, do we even know if this would be coming out on AT&T? I wonder if there is any language in the original iPhone contract about iPhone spin-off products?

 

[kas23]

I think they would sell loads of these things. Everyone in my high school had a cell phone and an iPod already - Apple could capture both markets in one fell stroke, and if they got a cut of the contract revenue, it would be a big money maker, I think.

However, if this comes out without MMS (which teenager need more than food), it WILL fail.

As for a cut of the contract share, a non-data line on a family plan is just $9.99+tax, so not much to get a cut from.

 

[question fear]

The major reason I call BS on the rumor is the lack of 3G. IIRC, a 3G chip isn't more expensive, and since most carriers prefer 3G phones (for reception as well as data reasons) it makes no sense to create an EDGE phone.

If even the free to semi free phones on ATT are 3G, that makes it even less likely that new EDGE phones (especially hot phones) will be forthcoming. That does not preclude there being no mandatory data plan, just that it won't have older tech for no good reason.

 

[Demosthenes X]

However, if this comes out without MMS (which teenager need more than food), it WILL fail.

As for a cut of the contract share, a non-data line on a family plan is just $9.99+tax, so not much to get a cut from.

It wasn't that long ago that I was a teenager, and I never once used MMS on any of my phones. But judging by the number of complaints I read on this forum, I'll agree: a NanoPhone without MMS would be silly.

The line might be cheap, but don't forget about extras like Call ID, Voicemail, SMS/MMS, etc. I was on an Add a Line (on Telus) and while my line was only $10/month, the extras pushed it up to about $30/month. And there's a lot of profit in those extras.

 

[basesloaded190]

You can by a 3G enabled phone without a data plan.

However, do we even know if this would be coming out on AT&T? I wonder if there is any language in the original iPhone contract about iPhone spin-off products?

yes, but not an iphone. i have a 3g phone that i didn't have to buy a plan for, but if you buy the iphone you must purchase the plan to go with it.

 

[TurboSC]

there's no way they're going to backtrack on the touchscreen technology for a nano. It's just not the forward advance moving Apple we know.

 

[jmpage2]

And this is exactly the point I was making.

The CURRENT iPhone is a good product at a reasonably cheap price.

A cheaper iPone Nano would be competing with dirt-cheap, entry level cell phones.

So as you point out with computers, Apple does offer inexpensive, good-value items. (Current iPhone) They do not offer dirt-cheap, entry-level items. (iPhone Nano)

That's exactly what I was trying to say before.

It's not the up front cost of the current iphone that makes it expensive, it's the total cost with monthly charges over the two year contract life.

The total cost of an iphone with contract over two years is close to $2000 assuming entry level text and voice plan. This is far out of the price of the average family (I do see tons of 12 year olds around here with iphones but this is a pretty affluent area and not typical of most of the US).

It's extremely naive to assume Apple won't want to tap the massive market of those who would like many of the iphone features but with a more affordable cell plan.

Apple has in all likelihood done a study on the biggest objection to the current iphone and the data plan is probably the sticking point.

If Apple can sell a $199 iPhone Nano with wi-fi, touch screen and no data plan requirements and BETTER margins than iphone 3g they will probably do it. They will probably sell millions of them here and abroad too.

I would be willing to bet that if we don't see this in the next 90 days we will see it by mid-year 2009.

(I'm personally going to come back here and laugh at you idiots when it gets announced too).

 

[milani]

Time to go back to college and take a course in introductory business.

Yes, the iPhone fills both roles very well. But for those consumers who find the iPhone + Plan too expensive, Apple offers nothing for them. They wind up going to competing products to satisfy their phone needs. Whereas, if Apple offered a cheaper alternative to the iPhone, they could capture those consumers who want an iPhone, but don't want the associated data plan.

Already in college and business is a cop out degree, so I don't feel the need to waste my time.

Apple has never followed your premise. They don't make a low end desktop, they don't make a low end notebook. They never have, and as of right now they've stated they're not interested in that market, so to my mind it doesn't make any sense that they would go against their established trend with a phone. Besides, the iPhone is a premium phone, and thus has little real competition (some high end Blackberrys, Android, and Win Mo handsets, but thats essentially just three names to compete with). If Apple jumps into the low end market it has to compete with many very well established players (LG, Samsung, Motorola, the list goes on and on). The money required to adequately compete in that market wouldn't be worth it - besides cheap products would just dilute the "premium" premise of the brand.

So yah, I completely disagree with you, and I think I will be vindicated when an iPhone nano is never released, and I didn't need to take a business class to figure that one out either.

 

[Michael CM1]

I'll throw my 2 cents in again and say that a theoretical "iPhone Nano" would likely be the same form factor as the iPhone 3G with some of the guts stripped out. Take out the 3G and GPS and basically make it an iPod Touch with a phone. I don't know how much the 3G data circuits and voice circuits are meshed into one, but that's the idea behind what I would do.

If a model like that was available, I'd have my parents on one as soon as they were eligible for an upgrade at $99 or less.

 

[Saladinos]

As far as Applications go, there's nothing stopping Apple releasing a lower-resolution iPhone nano (although high resolution small screens are available).

They could partition the App Store. It'd be like releasing a new App Store for iPhone nanos only. It wouldn't be more complicated - if you're on an iPhone/iPod touch, you wouldn't see any difference. One device doesn't need access to the other's store. Sharing the same mobile-OSX OS will allow easy porting between devices and submission to both stores.

An iPhone Nano with it's own version of the store will lead in nicely to a new iPod Nano, which would be the same, but without the phone part.

Still, despite there being on technical barrier, I don't think Apple will introduce an iPhone Nano. It'd be too hard to use, if your thumb covers half the touch-screen. And if Apple are working on an iPhone Nano, it will be touch-screen.

 

[threezero]

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...

i can really see apple releasing something like this for dirt cheap. Just a barebone phone with iPod functions and it would runs all the games in itunes that are meant for ipods.

While quite a few of my frds have caved in a got an iphone, many still wish there is a barebone version cuz they dunt use data... rarely tinkers with the phone and just want something that is stylish and doesn't come with a 80$ month plan.