Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone Nano Rumors Revived in Otherwise Quiet Lead-in to Macworld

Well, I also can not comment on the validity of the rumor itself, but I agree with the other guys that find it a great product.

To those we (rightfully) said that the smartphone market is growing, contrary to the regular cell phone market, I have to say this:

Don't you think that the mp3 player market is also "jeopardized" by the ability of even the cheapest "dumbphone" to play music?

Probably in the near future, many people will not be willing to invest 150-250 dollars just for an mp3 player, like the Nano, if they can use a regular cellphone with 4-8 GB storage.

Just like the PDA is dying, since people either:
a) find almost all of its basic functionality in every dumbphone (calendar, tasks, contacts, memos),
or
b) prefer a smartphone in order to free themselves from the burden to carry two devices.

I think the era of the standalone mp3 player is coming to an end.

Additionally, there is a huge market imo out there, who is not tech savvy. Who simply want an elegant basic phone, with PIM capabilities, the ability to purchase music from iTunes and do not care about gaming or thousands of apps.

To me it sounds a very reasonable move from Apple.
They can capture a vast segment of the mobile phone market, while at the same time they will increase their potential iTunes clientele, which is a significant source of revenue fom Apple.

I used to own an iPhone. And while it was a great device, I got tired very quickly by its volume.
While I have been a smartphone & PDA user for a decade, I have finally settled for a slick and light Nokia E51 & an ipod Nano.

If Apple can merge the two, I 'd buy it immediately. And I am sure that millions of others would too.
 
I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Certainly many can't afford the iPhone's monthly fee. And have no need for all its extra features.

So I could see Apple combining a Nano with a phone for the lower end of the market ie,... The folks that don't want to pay for a data plan, just want a cellphone and would love to carry one device instead of 2.

In such a device there would be no wi-fi or data plan and so no internet or app store etc.

But if they could get that to $99 subsidized by AT&T with a standard ~$40 monthly fee for cellphone service then it would be a big hit. Possibly their contract with ATT doesn't preclude Apple from shopping a nano phone to other carriers as well while keeping the iPhone exclusive to AT&T.

After all the Nano is the most popular product in the iPod lineup. I don't see why a similar strategy wouldn't work with in their Ipod+Phone lineup.
 
If the screen is the same proportion as the iPhone why couldn't it just sampled down? You can always make an image smaller, but not bigger.
 
Cash Cow

Anyone who thinks Apple would bring out a device without the cash cow that is the App Store is a crazy fool.

I don't think a iPhone nano is inconceivable - Apple are good at unbiggening things.

And, please, enough talk of Tablet. It wont happen. iPhone IS a tablet computer running OS X.

I think we might see iWork - with the ability to open and edit Office docs - on the iPhone at MacWorld.

I'd love to see the Mac Home Server I keep going on about produced. It would make such sense to fit into their product line + DRM nastiness.
 
This is still going on?!
There have been rumors about this since day one of the iPhone.
I may buy it, depending on the UI and the price.
This may be connecting to the $99 iPhone at Walmart rumors.
May people are already complaining that the screen on the current iPhone is too small.
If the "iPhone Nano" had a touch screen too, people would just complain even more.
Now this would be pretty sweet if it was pay as you on on AT&T.
 
trip1ex said:
But if they could get that to $99 subsidized by AT&T with a standard ~$40 monthly fee for cellphone service then it would be a big hit.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, IF this happend it would be a big hit. And if the iMac cost $200 it would be a big hit too.

Here's the deal: A simpler cell phone done to Apple's standards is not going to be all that much cheaper to make. A little bit, sure. But not a whole lot.

Now, take away that big AT&T subsidy. They pay for iPhones because they know they'll get it back from users paying data plans. You've just described a situation where AT&T is making much less money off these users. So are they going to subsidize? Maybe a little, but not nearly as much.

So add that together, and what do you get? A smaller phone that does less and costs about the same as the regular iPhone.

Yeah, SOME people will buy it, but enough to make it worth Apple's time? I don't see it.
 
Small White Car said:
This is 100% correct. This type of phone will continue to exist.

But you still haven't answered this question: What's in it for Apple? Why should THEY make this phone?

Why would they want to start making devices with a razor-thin profit margin when every other part of their business is based around items with fairly large profit margins?
Click to expand...

Who says the profit margin would be razor thin? Unlike the free phones offered by carriers this one would sell for ~$99 still. The rest of the cost would be subsidized the carriers just like they subsidize the free phones and iPhone.

Apple sells Nanos for $150 so I don't see why this pricepoint would be unreasonable.

The Nano is Apple's best selling iPod and I imagine a Nano phone would be their best selling phone. It wouldn't have a data plan. It would be pretty much a standard phone combined with the Nano's music/video capabilities.

The only knock on such a device that I can see is battery life being a problem because it's your phone and your mp3/video player. I don't hear many complain about the iPhone though so ..
 
Small White Car said:
Yeah, SOME people will buy it, but enough to make it worth Apple's time? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

The iPhone is already a household name. But a relatively small amount of people can afford it. Sure it's the hottest selling smartphone out there, and recently surpassed the Razr as the best selling phone, but think about how long Razr held its reign for. 12 quarters. That's 3 years that a small, affordable fashion phone was the top-selling phone. It was sexy, it was sleek, and it was cheap. A large part of the iPhone 3G rising to the top was just because of its much-hyped launch and the popularity surrounding it. I imagine in 2009 its popularity will wane. If Apple manages to make a new hot-selling fashion phone that's affordable to the masses like the Razr is, then the mobile companies have loads to gain.
 
talkingfuture said:
I'd love it to be true but I'm not convinced.

Its strange how quiet the rumour mill has been. Either leaks have been plugged or there isn't anything :eek:
Click to expand...

I really hope its the case that most of the leaks have been plugged. It wold be HIGHLY dissapointing if the case was that there isn't anything exciting at the upcoming Macworld. :(
 
Small White Car said:
Yes yes, IF this happend it would be a big hit. And if the iMac cost $200 it would be a big hit too.

Here's the deal: A simpler cell phone done to Apple's standards is not going to be all that much cheaper to make. A little bit, sure. But not a whole lot.

Now, take away that big AT&T subsidy. They pay for iPhones because they know they'll get it back from users paying data plans. You've just described a situation where AT&T is making much less money off these users. So are they going to subsidize? Maybe a little, but not nearly as much.

So add that together, and what do you get? A smaller phone that does less and costs about the same as the regular iPhone.

Yeah, SOME people will buy it, but enough to make it worth Apple's time? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Apple sells the low-end Nano for $150, which is the best selling iPod and carriers subsidize basic phones for no cost to the consumer so I don't see why a Nano phone for $99 is such an outrageous proposition that you have to say something like, 'if the $1200 iMac was $200 it would be a big hit too.'
 
iPhone nano

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. Take the previous iPhone nano rumors and add in the recent patents on the virtual controller.

We're all assuming you'll be able to run all the apps from the iPhone app store on this new device. Take that assumption out and you've got the possibility for a nice device.

For the phone functionality, the size of the screen is still okay for a touch-style keypad.

For iPod functionality, use the "virtual controller" patents and it works.
 
Why not?

1. The on-screen keyboard would be too small to use.
2. One assumes the current iphone is as small/thin as Steve could get it. That was only five months ago.
3. The current iPod Touch is half the thickness of the iPhone, meaning that about half the thickness is related to phone functions.
4. Apple revealed its hand in how it plans to improve its devices: the user interface stays the same, but the item gets thinner.
5. No rumblings from the FCC on a new device.
6. Making a smaller phone would be MORE expensive, not less expensive. Has the MacBook Air taught us nothing?
7. There are so many fake iPhones in China that this picture could probably have been taken by thousands of people.
 
trip1ex said:
Who says the profit margin would be razor thin? Unlike the free phones offered by carriers this one would sell for ~$99 still. The rest of the cost would be subsidized the carriers just like they subsidize the free phones and iPhone.
Click to expand...

And why would the carriers do that? They're making less money back from these users.

Obviously there's no way to know, but I think this "nano iPhone" would still cost between $150 - $200, and at that price Apple would STILL be making less money per unit than they do with their current model.
 
IndyJonez said:
Hahaha, anyone read the bottom?

"We will be back with more news on the prototype as soon as we get them. Our source has given us word that he will be messing around with the VIDEO CHAT application on his next correspondense."
Click to expand...
Why is that funny? Phones in Europe have had forward facing cameras and video chat on them for a few years. Even if it's WiFi only, I don't see why the iPhone couldn't have this feature in the future.
 
ASSUMING it is true. Apple could have a different OS for the smaller device with rows of only 2-3 icons and a more limited range of things it can do. It could have a special SDK for it and its new display method.

It could simply be a higher resolution screen and everything is just smaller. That would lower the age demographic to people with good vision.

ASSUMING.

Rocketman
 
The iPhone nano rumor is just like the tablet and mini-tablet rumors. Multiple rumors over time with no product in sight. (I would prefer a mini-tablet or even a tablet over an iPhone nano, though.)

Bonte said:
Seems to me this would be an update for the basic iPhone, not a nano. Especially if it has the same resolution.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea there. Would this hint at a "pro" iPhone or mini-tablet with a larger display at MWSF?

ruku said:
many screens of equal size to the iphone have a much denser pixel ratio. its totally possible to match the pixels of the iphone in a smaller screen as long as screens of that size are produced somewhere.
Click to expand...
The resolution isn't as much a problem as the problem of the fixed finger size. At least with the mini-tablet, the apps can always be in windows.

talkingfuture said:
Its strange how quiet the rumour mill has been. Either leaks have been plugged or there isn't anything :eek:
Click to expand...
Let's hope it's the former. :) But it looks like it may be the latter (with no announcement of Jobs keynote, etc.). :(
 
Surely an iPhone nano will have the internet and the app store or else it isn't an iPhone, its just a good looking phone. That won't get me people buying it in huge numbers.
 
I call bs.

I really struggle to see the point of a smaller iPhone, the same res on a smaller screen would be fine for watching videos (for some, not me) but browsing? Forget the apps, the browsing experience is what separates the iPhone from the competition. Good luck trying to activate a link on a same res smaller screen without having to pinch zoom first.

Which leaves you with a mp3/mp4 playing phone, of which there are already countless on the market that perform that task well enough.
 
yegon said:
I call bs.

I really struggle to see the point of a smaller iPhone, the same res on a smaller screen would be fine for watching videos (for some, not me) but browsing? Forget the apps, the browsing experience is what separates the iPhone from the competition. Good luck trying to activate a link on a same res smaller screen without having to pinch zoom first.

Which leaves you with a mp3/mp4 playing phone, of which there are already countless on the market that perform that task well enough.
Click to expand...

Steve jobs said 'Why would we want to compete with cut down flash mp3 players that people just shove in the drawer?" Within a year they'd launched the shuffle.

It's not about whether there's countless models on the market that can do the job, it's because you can come into this market it and dominate it, make the rest look like a joke and laugh all the way to the bank.

Jobs may not say this on stage, but he's sure as hell thinking it. ;-)
 
Judging from the history of accurate and inaccurate rumors, and the various arguments and rationales for and against, that have circulated in the past there's an even chance that this could be true.

For instance, there were numerous naysayers who denounced the rumors of the original iPod Nano, the pictures of the iPod Nano fatty, and the whispers of a one button touchscreen phone that Apple was developing. All these rumors turned out to be true despite the skeptics.

Similarly, there were numerous rumors that proved false, most infamously for this website the iWalk.

Bottom line is that there's no proof for or against such a device. What is known is that there is pressure on Apple to produce a lower cost variant of the iPhone. What form such a device would take, whether it's a nano form factor or a lower capacity version of the iPhone, is known only to Apple.

We can only speculate that nano version of the iPhone would retain the pixel resolution of the current model if a smaller screen is indeed part of the mix in order to retain compatibility with current applications. Other than that liklihood it would be anyone's guess what other features such a form factor loaded with the current UI would possess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back