jpmage2 said:
He didn't say without contract, he said without the $30 data plan, which would include 196 free phones with 2-year contract.
When I signed up with AT&T I got a $200 Motorola RAZR 3G for free with just the minimum voice plan.
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
He didn't say without contract, he said without the $30 data plan, which would include 196 free phones with 2-year contract.
When I signed up with AT&T I got a $200 Motorola RAZR 3G for free with just the minimum voice plan.
^ A RAZR is a pocket calculator compared to a smart phone, which is obvious what we're talking about when we speak of subsidies and data plans.
Regardless of current sales it's pretty obvious that the trend is moving towards convergence devices like smart phones, so why would Apple invest in something that we can both agree is on the way out? The economy won't be crippled forever. Companies don't invest long term strategies based on short term conditions. My point remains unchanged, people want convergent devices and that explains the iPhone's mass popularity. There is no logical reason for Apple to take a step backward to try to capture a market share that quite frankly is on the way out regardless of current economic conditions.
Oh and to clarify to my knowledge there are basically two rumors surrounding this nano. The first is that Apple will make a scaled down version of the current iPhone (so presumably with the same capabilities). For a number of reasons (refer to the news page and the subsequent discussion) this seems pretty unlikely. The 2nd rumor has kind of grown out of people speculating on what kind of "nano" might make sense, and it is here where people are saying that Apple might consider a simplified device like a $0 phone. The latter rumor is all the more unlikely (especially since it's a rumor based on a rumor) for a number of reasons some of which I have listed in this thread. Just to clarify, in case you were unaware.
Regardless of current sales it's pretty obvious that the trend is moving towards convergence devices like smart phones, so why would Apple invest in something that we can both agree is on the way out? The economy won't be crippled forever. Companies don't invest long term strategies based on short term conditions. My point remains unchanged, people want convergent devices and that explains the iPhone's mass popularity. There is no logical reason for Apple to take a step backward to try to capture a market share that quite frankly is on the way out regardless of current economic conditions.
Oh and to clarify to my knowledge there are basically two rumors surrounding this nano. The first is that Apple will make a scaled down version of the current iPhone (so presumably with the same capabilities). For a number of reasons (refer to the news page and the subsequent discussion) this seems pretty unlikely. The 2nd rumor has kind of grown out of people speculating on what kind of "nano" might make sense, and it is here where people are saying that Apple might consider a simplified device like a $0 phone. The latter rumor is all the more unlikely (especially since it's a rumor based on a rumor) for a number of reasons some of which I have listed in this thread. Just to clarify, in case you were unaware.
I was not putting the information for the use of a 'pro' or 'anti' iPhone nano debate. I was merely making a statement to clear up the fact that the cheaper lower end handsets are not dead, and the current trend for cheap pre-pay devices, which have actually been very popular for several years and not just recently. current market conditions have made it even more popular world wide and in emerging markets.
I am all for smarter all in one devices, which is the reason I chose and iPhone as my personal device along side the many devises I use for work. however they are still not accountable for anywhere near the market share of mid-lower spec handsets in the consumer market. smartphone have and always will be leaders in the business market.
I do however believe that an apple handset which is cheaper on a prepay plan would be a hit (the price of current pre-pay 3G is the only reason i have not purchased a second handset for my wife to use)
I accept as in all their products you pay a premium for apple devices but in the handset market it can not be justified
I agree. I don't think a hypothetical iPhone Nano would be very much like the current iPhone at all and definitely not have the same features.
I don't really think the point is that it would be a $0 phone but more that it would be a non-smart phone. $0 just comes from the idea that it could be subsidized just like virtually any phone you can get as a new customer (or eligible upgrade). I also think out of anything in this thread it is the most likely scenario out of any. It represents a real market and is significantly different than the iPhone - it would just be a question if Apple wants in this market, and if so, how soon they would enter it.
Anyways, this is what I imagine the device would be:
On a spectrum of the iPod Nano on one end and the iPhone on the other, I imagine a hypothetical iPhone Nano would be much closer to the iPod Nano in form factor. Probably the body much like the Nano with the front face like the iPhone - basically the opposite of the short stubby iPhone of the faked image. I don't think it would run the iPhone OS, have a home screen or home button, or run any apps from the store. It would only have its own modified versions of the Phone, Clock, Calender (?), SMS, and iPod (and maybe settings) apps - no virtual keyboard. If you go into your phone app and look at each screen, just imagine everything slimmed a bit (pretty easy since everything but the keypad is just two columns aligned on each border). Keypad can easily be made smaller to fit. Otherwise the phone would function just the same. Same thing applies to the iPod app, except the cover art would have to fit a bit different. Texting would probably just be the conversation view above the keypad. As far as the "home screen", I think it would need to show a keypad on the bottom half possibly with icons arranged 3x3 at the top. That way as soon as you unlock it, boom, it's a phone ready to call.
I have no idea if there will ever be an iPhone Nano, but I think a device like that sounds sensible and would be pretty damn sleek. Furthermore, it would cater to the consumers who don't need/want the data plan, and yet is still significantly different from both the iPhone and iPod Touch. Interesting to think about, at least.
His post was fine. When you see someone use the plural with companies, they're often from the UK:
Collective usage in British vs American English "In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week."
If you want to correct people, please go after all the illiterates here who don't know the difference between "there", "they're" and "their".
Cheers!
I think what many people are touching on but not discussing enough, that is probably even more important than anything else is this:
If it is true that an iPhone Nano is coming out, will it also be affected by AT&T's exclusivity deal with Apple? Or will Apple be free to offer this phone to any other carrier that would want it?
Does anyone know enough details about AT&T and Apple's agreement to be able to comment on this?
If it is true that an iPhone Nano is coming out, will it also be affected by AT&T's exclusivity deal with Apple? Or will Apple be free to offer this phone to any other carrier that would want it?
Does anyone know enough details about AT&T and Apple's agreement to be able to comment on this?
The fundamental issue is;
1. Will Apple continue to offer only a single product in this category?
2. If the answer to 1 is no then what type of device are they most likely to add to the category?
The argument many of us are making can be summarized as this;
The answer to question "1" is "no". Apple has always offered multiple products within a category to capture as much share as possible and maximize profit.
So then the question really is, what kind of handset is Apple most likely to introduce next?
If they follow the pattern of all of their other offerings, they start out with the premium product and then offer a budget version later for the "masses".
They could break the mold with the iPhone and continue to only offer high end fully featured handsets that are a premium in the market, but I kinda doubt it.
1. Will Apple continue to offer only a single product in this category?
2. If the answer to 1 is no then what type of device are they most likely to add to the category?
The argument many of us are making can be summarized as this;
The answer to question "1" is "no". Apple has always offered multiple products within a category to capture as much share as possible and maximize profit.
So then the question really is, what kind of handset is Apple most likely to introduce next?
If they follow the pattern of all of their other offerings, they start out with the premium product and then offer a budget version later for the "masses".
They could break the mold with the iPhone and continue to only offer high end fully featured handsets that are a premium in the market, but I kinda doubt it.
As far as I know Apple only has a distribution agreement with AT&T for the original iPhone. If they came out with a new handset I can't think of any reason that they couldn't distribute it with another vendor.
Where in the world do you derive this logic from? Carriers subsidize dumbphones all the time. Having a data plan is not a prerequisite to getting subsidization, and if you think it is, you clearly haven't got the slightest clue as to how the wireless industry works.
Dumbphones outsell smartphones - do you think all of those dumbphones are going out the door completely unsubsidized? Of course not. Those $0 phones carriers advertise? They're not actually $0 - they're subsidized.
The argument that an iPhone Nano would cost more than a regular iPhone because it would not be subsidized is not only wrong, but it's bred from completely ignorance as to the workings of the wireless industry. Let's stop spreading misinformation.
And even if the handset cost more, the savings by not having a mandatory data plan like the iPhone has would be $720+ over the course of a two-year contract. Blindly looking at the cost of the handset without considering the far more substantial cost of service is simply foolish.
And yes, if an iPhone Nano had a mobile iTunes Store, songs would cost more. That's the point: no data plan, but if you really want that song, you can download it, fast, easily, and conveniently. Amazon's Kindle uses the same methodology: books are downloaded over cell networks, and the cost for data is included in the cost of the book. Granted, books are smaller files than songs, but the theory works. And I'm sure Apple could negotiate an aggressive price per download for the mobile iTunes Store.
Not that any of that in any way affects the viability of the iPhone Nano, since it was only an idea I thought would be neat, and not something I expect a Nano to have.
Why do people buy dumbphones? Your logic is rooted in the assumption that presently, everyone buys smartphones. That is clearly not the case. There is a huge market for dumbphones, and I think that market will remain strong for a long time. Not everyone needs a convergence device, and not everyone wants to pay the extra costs (and deal with the added complexity) involved with owning one.
You ask "why would people buy it?" That question has been answered multiple times in this thread. If you don't see a market for an Apple dumbphone, then you're blind. Look around you the next time you're out and about, and tell me how many people are using smartphones vs. dumbphones. Every one of the dumbphone users is a potential iPhone Nano user. And I know, when I'm out, dumbphones far outnumber smartphones.
I think they only way they could justify the iPhone Nano is to leave out the GPS (looks like the camera is still there though) and make the data plan optional. More like the Touch...
If it's still All-AT&T (and it probably will be), I still take a pass - my T-Mo plan is sooooo much cheaper - with data!
If it's still All-AT&T (and it probably will be), I still take a pass - my T-Mo plan is sooooo much cheaper - with data!
The major obstacle to the introduction of an iPhone nano product, as characterized by this rumor, isn't hardware but rather software. It may require a probably minor augmentation of the current iPhone UI in order to make the smaller screen functional, perhaps via an onscreen cursor or some subtle magnification like the the current OS X dock effect. Then it again, it may not require anything at all to work and be useable.
I can't say I'm convinced one way or another as the only evidence are screenshots of cases and speculation. When it comes to Apple, especially since Steve Jobs return in 1997, it's probably wise to keep an open mind without buying into every rumor completely as something that is just waiting for Apple's little elves to pack on Phil Schillers sled. The naysayers are quick to forget the numerous proclamations of "Photoshop", "Fake", and "Doesn't make sense to Apple's bottom line," when it came to rumors of the one button iPhone, pictures of the iPod nano "fatty," or speculation of a version of OS X version compiled for Intel processors, all of which proved to be accurate. On the flip side, the iWalk will remain a reminder of gullibility and a well played prank, so who's to say for sure that an iPhone nano will or will never be an Apple product?
I can't say I'm convinced one way or another as the only evidence are screenshots of cases and speculation. When it comes to Apple, especially since Steve Jobs return in 1997, it's probably wise to keep an open mind without buying into every rumor completely as something that is just waiting for Apple's little elves to pack on Phil Schillers sled. The naysayers are quick to forget the numerous proclamations of "Photoshop", "Fake", and "Doesn't make sense to Apple's bottom line," when it came to rumors of the one button iPhone, pictures of the iPod nano "fatty," or speculation of a version of OS X version compiled for Intel processors, all of which proved to be accurate. On the flip side, the iWalk will remain a reminder of gullibility and a well played prank, so who's to say for sure that an iPhone nano will or will never be an Apple product?
Where in the world do you derive this logic from? Carriers subsidize dumbphones all the time. Having a data plan is not a prerequisite to getting subsidization, and if you think it is, you clearly haven't got the slightest clue as to how the wireless industry works.
Dumbphones outsell smartphones - do you think all of those dumbphones are going out the door completely unsubsidized? Of course not. Those $0 phones carriers advertise? They're not actually $0 - they're subsidized.
The argument that an iPhone Nano would cost more than a regular iPhone because it would not be subsidized is not only wrong, but it's bred from completely ignorance as to the workings of the wireless industry. Let's stop spreading misinformation.
And even if the handset cost more, the savings by not having a mandatory data plan like the iPhone has would be $720+ over the course of a two-year contract. Blindly looking at the cost of the handset without considering the far more substantial cost of service is simply foolish.
And yes, if an iPhone Nano had a mobile iTunes Store, songs would cost more. That's the point: no data plan, but if you really want that song, you can download it, fast, easily, and conveniently. Amazon's Kindle uses the same methodology: books are downloaded over cell networks, and the cost for data is included in the cost of the book. Granted, books are smaller files than songs, but the theory works. And I'm sure Apple could negotiate an aggressive price per download for the mobile iTunes Store.
Not that any of that in any way affects the viability of the iPhone Nano, since it was only an idea I thought would be neat, and not something I expect a Nano to have.
Why do people buy dumbphones? Your logic is rooted in the assumption that presently, everyone buys smartphones. That is clearly not the case. There is a huge market for dumbphones, and I think that market will remain strong for a long time. Not everyone needs a convergence device, and not everyone wants to pay the extra costs (and deal with the added complexity) involved with owning one.
You ask "why would people buy it?" That question has been answered multiple times in this thread. If you don't see a market for an Apple dumbphone, then you're blind. Look around you the next time you're out and about, and tell me how many people are using smartphones vs. dumbphones. Every one of the dumbphone users is a potential iPhone Nano user. And I know, when I'm out, dumbphones far outnumber smartphones.
It makes no more sense to invest in releasing a new "dumb phone" as it does for Apple to invest in DVD technology. Whether or not DVD players are still being sold is completely unrelated to whether its a smart idea to invest millions of dollars in R&D into a technology that is inevitably going to decline (and likely very rapidly). Do you see any commericals for 0 dollar phones? No, you don't. That suggests that consumer trends are pointing to convergence devices. If that is so (and trust me, it is), why would Apple spend time and money releasing something that no one is actually interested in? You guys say you want a simple phone, but I don't really believe it (and I'm sure you don't either, if you actually think about it). If you did, you'd just go buy yourself a RAZR or whatever else was hot about 3 years ago.
As to your misunderstanding of the iTunes Store, Apple already merely breaks even with the iTunes Store based on its current pricing model which is basically non-negotiable in its current form, so they're not going to pick up your data costs at all. Which means that a nano iPhone (even if it was somehow cheaper) would still end up costing the end user more (at least in terms of downloading audio). Imagine trying to market that. "Access to the largest music store in the world, where you pay 2x as much as everyone else."
Of course, it's all trivial, because you still didn't answer my question. Why would people pay the Apple premium for a phone that isn't anything special at all? The iPhone is unique, but you guys are basically arguing that Apple make a new RAZR. Something sleek, small, but overly simplified and without a lot of smart phone functionality. Great, but now add the x% extra that it'll cost you because there is an Apple logo on it. Where is the appeal now? I must be completely blind because I see absolutely no market for a nano iPhone at all. Besides the fact that it'll just canibalize Apple's regular iPhone sales, and it'll create a notable degree of brand confusion, I don't see why anyone would buy an Apple branded phone that has the same functionality as 0 dollar phones (and the nano would NOT be a 0 dollar phone). The UI would be a total bitch (assuming it was a touch screen). The keyboard is already small enough - any smaller and it would be more difficult to type with (and more people would bitch for physical keyboard). Put a physical keyboard on, and you screw up every single App Store App, you have to completely reconfigure the UI, and you basically negate all the R&D Apple spent making a great touch screen device (to be used primarily for TYPING).
Sorry, I guess I'm completely blind, because this just screams stupid investment from every angle.
Edit: and I'm not to worried about it. The proof that Apple doesn't care about this market lies with the fact that we still don't have copy paste. Apple actually loses customers based on that fact, but they don't really seem to care, so to my mind they probably don't really care that they're losing customers to people buying 0 dollar phones. Kind of like they're losing customers to people buying really cheap computers. Doesn't seem to bother them a bit.
There will be no iPhone nano... at macworld at least.
Seriously guys, if there was such a device, Steve Jobs would be doing this himself. If Steve Jobs was doing this Macworld, i would think different, but him not doing it confirms the iPhone nano is not true.
Seriously guys, if there was such a device, Steve Jobs would be doing this himself. If Steve Jobs was doing this Macworld, i would think different, but him not doing it confirms the iPhone nano is not true.
First thing I can think of off the top of my head is the LG shine commercial with Laura Conrad. She must be a pretty hot topic at the moment because even I know her name and haven't a clue what she's from.
You claim that dumb-phones are a dying breed so there won't be a market for them in the near future, but I just don't see that, and smart-phone v. dumb-phone sales don't really seem to back that up. You don't seem to have any sources to demonstrate this is the case.
Are you really claiming that Apple does not make a profit on the iTunes store? Need I say more?
"Sprint, which in October introduced a phone that allows consumers to download songs for $2.50. Verizon's service will charge $1.99". It is just pure speculation at what would be charged to download music from the hypothetical iPhone Nano, but it seems other carriers are already charging 2x as much as the iTunes store, so customers wouldn't be paying more than anyone else who downloads music to their phone. And of course, you can still download it via iTunes normally and just sync it.
Look at every other dumb-phone, what makes them special? They are all practically the same thing. But a full touch screen phone with the iPhone UI would be very special indeed. And who said anything about it costing more just because it's Apple? Nothing has been rumored about the price at all. All those phones are sleek, small, overly simplified, without a lot of smart phone functionality, and cost around $200. There's no reason to think that Apple wouldn't price a hypothetical iPhone Nano competitively.
You're probably right, but do keep in mind Steve Jobs has an incurable cancer - one that happened to kill a certain famous professor not long ago, so it could be health considerations.
You're confusing increasing smartphone market share (which I'm not denying), with market domination. Yes, smartphone use is increasing. But there will always be a market for simple, cheaper, handsets. There are plenty of people out there that neither need nor want a smartphone, with its added complexity and fees. Many people are looking for basic communication, or a cell phone to use in emergencies, and don't need a fancy smartphone.
So while smartphone use is increasing, I do not believe it will completely erase dumbphones anytime in the near future. And a dumbphone made by Apple, a company renowned for its ease-of-use, would do well in this market. The same sort of people that want a dumbphone want something simple to operate, so Apple could do very well here. Chances are these people might even be familiar with the iPod already, so they know the interface (if a NanoPhone is iPod Nano-based). As to your comments on UI: I'm talking about an Nano-based phone, not simply a miniature iPhone. A mini-iPhone would be idiotic imo, but a Nano-based phone would be very clever.
You keep asking why people would pay the Apple premium. Apparently you still fail to understand how subsidization works. Do you pay an "Apple premium" for the iPhone? No. In fact, it's very aggressively priced with subsidization. I don't know why you think a subsidized NanoPhone would not be aggressively priced.
And how on Earth would an iPhone Nano create brand confusion? Are iPod buyers confused because Apple offers the Shuffle, the Nano, the Classic, and the Touch? Are Honda buyers confused by the presence of the Fit, the Civic, the Accord, and the S2000?
Companies offer different products to suit different consumers' needs. That's just basic business sense. There is no "one size fits all" approach, and the iPhone, while a fantastic product, does not meet the needs of every consumer on the planet. Right now, those consumers that don't fit the mould are going to competitors like Nokia or LG for handsets. An iPhone Nano would capture that market segment. Yes, there might be some overlap between iPhone Nano and iPhone buyers, but there's also overlap between BB Pearl and Curve buyers, or Bold and Storm buyers, etc. The point is, a larger product pool pulls in more consumers, and Apple's net profits are higher.
By your logic, Apple would offer exactly one computer, with different sized harddrives. In reality, though, they offer three distinct models, each with a myriad of available configurations, to appeal to a broader base of consumers. Don't want or need a Mac Pro? Buy an iMac.
I'm sure that by selling a 24" iMac Apple looses some buyers that might otherwise buy a Mac Pro, and by selling a Mini they loose some buyers that might otherwise buy an iMac. But on net they sell more computers, and those Mini buyers might eventually upgrade to an iMac.
Offering more than one handset would be in Apple's best interest, imo.
Now, that does not mean Apple will do it. They are known to ignore certain markets, e.g., the headless iMac market. No one denies they could sell plenty of Mac Towers, but they have their reasons for not catering to those consumers. The same might end up being true of the iPhone Nano. They might well decide not to offer such a product.
But that's entirely different from a market for one not existing. I think it's incredibly foolish to pretend a market does not exist for this device - it's clearly there.
LOL... yeah, it's tough when you have no idea what you're talking about and need to make wildly incorrect assumptions about how the world operates to base your argument on.
Personally, I can't wait until there's no iPhone Nano at MacWorld 2009 and all the deniers proclaim that as proof that it will never happen. Because we all know that if Apple doesn't do something right now, then they never will.
But I hope they do announce one, just out of spite.
ZOMG!!
Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ublishes_photos_of_iphone_nano_protector.html
Proof!! iPhone Nano confirmed. I'm sorry I ever doubted it. Lesson learned.
Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ublishes_photos_of_iphone_nano_protector.html
Proof!! iPhone Nano confirmed. I'm sorry I ever doubted it. Lesson learned.
ZOMG!!
Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ublishes_photos_of_iphone_nano_protector.html
Proof!! iPhone Nano confirmed. I'm sorry I ever doubted it. Lesson learned.
please tell me this was merely distasteful sarcasm?