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

More Claims of Smaller, Square iPod Nano Next Week, Along With Possible 3G iPod Touch and iLife

polaris20 said:
Right, just like there's no $25 3G plan for the iPad 3G. Oh wait.........there is.
Click to expand...

$25 for 2GB of data is something quite different from $30 for all one can consume.

Can we at least pretend to be honest in this debate?

My last effort here.

Look, in principle I think such a device would be fantastic, I just don't see it being realistic even if Apple wanted to manufacture it. Maybe I'm underestimating the ability of the At&T network. Maybe I'm reading too much into the fact that telecoms from AT&T to O2 to Sonera are promoting the use of wifi hotspots in addition to 3G broadband. Maybe I'm underestimating Apple's willingness to release a device and let all consumers (even in the US) fool around with APNs and find their own microsim cards.

But, I just don't see how in a period where conventional wisdom is that AT&T is losing exclusivity on the iPhone that they are willingly going to offer cheap data to millions of iPhone-like devices that are going to be streaming netflix all day and tax the network.

So let's assume that there is a figurative big red button at Foxconn that can be hit to start manufacturing a 32GB iPod touch with 3G/GPS, Retina display, and two cameras all for the price of $450; it won't happen unless Jobs can get on stage and say "We have reached an agreement with AT&T to extend the breakthrough 3G pricing that iPad customers enjoy to iPod touch customers."

This is not about trying not to offend current iPhone customers. This is also not about intentionally treating iPod touch customers as second class citizens. Everybody would probably love cheaper data with fewer contracts.

This is about a rumor that states: "the company [Apple] has strongly considered mimicking its iPad offerings by adding a 3G option to some of its iPod touch portable media players, though it is unclear whether the Cupertino-based company has decided to proceed with those plans..."

Of course Apple would strongly consider such a move as it is in its long-term benefit to reduce 3G broadband to a dumb pipe. Despite unlocked devices such as the iPad, Apple has always had mobile partners. I doubt there's a willing telecom partner for such a device.
 
jb1280,

I'm not sure I follow your logic ... why is this able to happen for the iPad but not the Touch?

And I would think AT&T would be motivated to offer broadband only service precisely because they're losing the exclusive rights to the iPhone. They want revenue don't they? If they don't think their networks will support it they'll just change the terms (eg. 200MB for $20/month, 1GB for $30/month). Most people don't use more than 200MB / month anyways. Or perhaps the service quality will just degrade.

Anyways, either way it will be fun to see what Apple introduces on Wednesday!
 
ATT would be happy to gain more customers. After all they lowerd the price on the data plans and its been said if you lower the price on an item and more people buy it you will eventually make up for the loss (since double or tripple the amount of people will take advantage)

Maybe apple would even allow a CDMA one? but I really think that would happen next year if the 500,000th rumor of the iphone to verizion comes true
 
To be fair, the 9to5mac.com article entitled, Are we going to see an iWatch next week?http://www.9to5mac.com/22979/are-we-going-to-see-an-iwatch-next-week didn't say that Apple was going to produce a watch - - in fact it explicitly states:

"I’m not saying Apple is or isn’t going to release an iWatch. I’m just saying that if Apple does release a 1.8-inch iPod nano touch screen device, all of the kids are going to be ‘harnessing’ them on their wrists. It is the natural way to use a device like this. Think about it. Why do people wear watches on their wrists? It makes sense. Don’t fight it. Apple’s founders haven’t."

Others in this thread have suggested a necklace. Others will want to carry it like they carry their current iPod. It doesn't matter whether Apple actually calls it an iWatch or never refers to it in this mounting solution. Whether it's in this iteration, or the next, or the next - - wearable iPods will soon be upon us.
 
gtommers said:
jb1280,

I'm not sure I follow your logic ... why is this able to happen for the iPad but not the Touch?

And I would think AT&T would be motivated to offer broadband only service precisely because they're losing the exclusive rights to the iPhone. They want revenue don't they? If they don't think their networks will support it they'll just change the terms (eg. 200MB for $20/month, 1GB for $30/month). Most people don't use more than 200MB / month anyways. Or perhaps the service quality will just degrade.
Click to expand...

It's not totally clear, but not beyond the realm of possibilities that there was a level of coupling between AT&T exclusivity on the iPhone and the iPad data deal. What is clear is that AT&T was caught off-guard with the demand for 3G iPads. Remember when the CEO said that the iPad was going to be primarily a "wifi driven product?"

Of course AT&T wants to increase revenue, but increasing revenue does not necessarily equate increasing profitability or sustainability in the network.

What's the number one thing that would seemingly drive current U.S. iPhone customers to Verizon? Network quality.

What would happen to AT&T's network quality if millions of new iDevices were put on their network between now and Christmas? I would imagine the network quality deteriorate.

The 250MB and 2GB caps I think are great in providing some level of sustainability, but in an age of microcells and promoting wifi usage, I don't think we are there yet for an iPod on carriers.

The iPad is also probably a bad model to follow. I don't think Apple expected to sell as many as they have and I certainly doubt AT&T expected to be servicing as many as they are.

I could be totally wrong and we'll see one on Wednesday. My whole point was that this entire discussion has been about why or why not Apple would discriminate against iPod users; why or why not Apple would want to offend iPhone users; and how great a 3G iPod would be to so many people. What has been conspicuously missing is any discussion about the 3G providers.
 
bobob said:
To be fair, the 9to5mac.com article entitled, Are we going to see an iWatch next week? didn't say that Apple was going to produce a watch - - in fact it explicitly states:

"I’m not saying Apple is or isn’t going to release an iWatch. I’m just saying that if Apple does release a 1.8-inch iPod nano touch screen device, all of the kids are going to be ‘harnessing’ them on their wrists. It is the natural way to use a device like this. Think about it. Why do people wear watches on their wrists? It makes sense. Don’t fight it. Apple’s founders haven’t."

Others in this thread have suggested a necklace. Others will want to carry it like they carry their current iPod. It doesn't matter whether Apple actually calls it an iWatch or never refers to it in this mounting solution. Whether it's in this iteration, or the next, or the next - - wearable iPods will soon be upon us.
Click to expand...

There is already a wearable iPod and it is the Shuffle.
 
I don't get why people think there would be a "watch" I rarely see anyone with a watch these days

These are my thoughts I pulled from another thread..
They should make two sizes of the ipod touch , a revamped shuffle and nix everything else. Start with the current screen size and shrink the form factor, move the button on the side then have a 5" model.
Click to expand...
 
puffnstuff said:
I don't get why people think there would be a "watch" I rarely see anyone with a watch these days

These are my thoughts I pulled from another thread..
Click to expand...

I wear a Breitling Cosmonaute and Superocean Chrono, more for fashion purpose than time. It´s the only piece of juwellery I wear myself (I´m 35 years old).

I have many Apple products because I like the way they work together and decrease complexity. But, I would never wear an Apple watch. It might be nicely designed, but I cannot imagine it working with the headphone cord connected to my wrist. In addition I have never seen an LCD screen based watch that is remotely wearable with a suit or anything else stylish for that matter.
 
Well, Apple obviously has realized that they lost the phone war against Android and is now concentrating on the "fun" market only for people that buy the iPhone just for games and other apps but not for its smartphone features. That's where a iPod touch with 3G for something like $249 comes into play.
 
zacman said:
Well, Apple obviously has realized that they lost the phone war against Android
Click to expand...

You DO understand that there is no way to judge that there is a war going on (and who´s winning), and that both Apple and Google have totally different mobile strategies?

e.g. Apple only sells and produces one type of cellphone with one dedicated OS. Google doesn´t manufacture cellphones (anymore) and has an open source OS that is used by many manufacturers in many different versions.

There is no way that the number of sold Android phones means that Google is more successful than Apple.
 
peterdevries said:
I wear a Breitling Cosmonaute and Superocean Chrono, more for fashion purpose than time. It´s the only piece of juwellery I wear myself (I´m 35 years old).

I have many Apple products because I like the way they work together and decrease complexity. But, I would never wear an Apple watch. It might be nicely designed, but I cannot imagine it working with the headphone cord connected to my wrist. In addition I have never seen an LCD screen based watch that is remotely wearable with a suit or anything else stylish for that matter.
Click to expand...
I'm a huge Breitling [Navitimer] fan myself, but comparing a simple LCD watch with anything remotely this expensive isn't fair.

BTW: Schaap en Citroen is one of my favorite addresses when I'm in Amsterdam ;) My wife got her first Omega there. Must have been 1986 or something like that.
 
peterdevries said:
You DO understand that there is no way to judge that there is a war going on (and who´s winning), and that both Apple and Google have totally different mobile strategies?

e.g. Apple only sells and produces one type of cellphone with one dedicated OS. Google doesn´t manufacture cellphones (anymore) and has an open source OS that is used by many manufacturers in many different versions.

There is no way that the number of sold Android phones means that Google is more successful than Apple.
Click to expand...

+1 Thanks for being aware. :apple:
 
peterdevries said:
You DO understand that there is no way to judge that there is a war going on (and who´s winning), and that both Apple and Google have totally different mobile strategies?

e.g. Apple only sells and produces one type of cellphone with one dedicated OS. Google doesn´t manufacture cellphones (anymore) and has an open source OS that is used by many manufacturers in many different versions.

There is no way that the number of sold Android phones means that Google is more successful than Apple.
Click to expand...
+1 I challenge someone to name 1 Android device that has moved as many units as any iteration of the iPhone. The general public, not the macrumor/engadget/gizmodo reading tech geek is more than likely buying Android because that's the closest to the iPhone they will get on their carrier that isn't AT&T.
 
Master Chief said:
I'm a huge Breitling [Navitimer] fan myself, but comparing a simple LCD watch with anything remotely this expensive isn't fair.

BTW: Schaap en Citroen is one of my favorite addresses when I'm in Amsterdam ;) My wife got her first Omega there. Must have been 1986 or something like that.
Click to expand...

Agree on your first point, but there are many stylish watches (like Festina, the eternal Breitling copy-cats) that look much more stylish than a Casio G-Shock.

On your second point.. Schaap en Citroen is allright, although you have to time your visits in between the moments they get robbed. The problem I have with the Amsterdam jewellers (and most juwellers for that matter) is that they only have mainstream watches. I searched for 4 years before I found the Cosmonaute in Curacao. No-one was willing to order the watch for me to just take a look.
 
macchiato2009 said:
all videos are mostly widescreen, why making a square ipod? :confused:
Click to expand...
it's obviously not for videos ya dumb dumb

It's for music only. With Album cover display art w/ track name and time info.
It's simple stuff, elegant and it works.

If you need more than music get a touch. :)
 
This article has been the leader ALL weekend. Haven't we said all that is worth saying about this?
How about some NEWS MacRumors!
 
Scott549 said:
Maybe because it's intended more as a controller than as a display for watching videos.
Click to expand...

I remember watching Sopranos episodes on my iPod Video about three or four years back. At the time it was OK, but I cannot imagine that anymore being used now to watching video on my iPhone or iPad for that matter.

I also assume that a device that small does not have the processing power or battery stamina to play video on a backlit screen for a longer period of time. I agree that a screen as such is probably dedicated to a flexible controller interface with the odd album artwork to spice it up.
 
zacman said:
Well, Apple obviously has realized that they lost the phone war against Android and is now concentrating on the "fun" market only for people that buy the iPhone just for games and other apps but not for its smartphone features. That's where a iPod touch with 3G for something like $249 comes into play.
Click to expand...

And exactly how did Apple lose the phone war against Android?

The only companies making money from Android phones are the carriers.

The handset makers. Unlike Apple they have to bend to the will of the carrier. In other words business is as usual with them and with the customers.

By controlling the entire product, Apple has leverage over their carriers. How may carriers have dropped the iPhone? None, if this was to happen then I would say the iPhone was losing the battle.

In the current model it will be difficult for the other handset companies to keep up with the iPhone.

Apple must laughing, because Google has to report a lost on their books for Android development, since they don't make money from it.
 
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