More iPhone Nano Case Design Photos

[bobsentell]

Same Song, Next Verse

So another picture shows up. So there is a rumor there is an iPhone Nano in the works. Got it. Can we wait until we have some physical evidence and not just pictures before we post anymore about this thing? Anyone can make this crap up. Until I see a picture of an ACTUAL product, and not just concept pics, this is all hearsay.

I will say this: if Apple sells a phone with a smaller screen, I won't buy it. The screen on my new 3G is small enough. Some people might, and if Apple is doing this then their research says there is a demand. I don't think a nano will canniblize the 3G sales. Most people who want a smaller phone weren't buying the 3G to begin with.

 

[sk8ordie]

It's funny how people get mad when Apple "might" release a new product. What do they want Apple to do, stand still?

Anyway, I think that they WILL release an iPhone Nano, but of course I don't know when. I think that:

-the screen can stay the same size while shrinking the top and bottom of the phone.

-it will not have 3G or GPS (no data plan = cheaper monthly bills)

-it WILL have WiFi.

-it will use all the same apps as it used to. Remember the App Store and the iTunes Store are big drivers for the iPhone.

-the iPhone Nano will probably have 4GB and 8GB, while the iPhone move to 16GB and 32GB.

-it'll be priced at $59 for the 4Gb and $99 for the 8GB. The 4GB might eventually be discontinued if it doesn't do very well, but it gives a very good entry price.

Think about Apple's strategy. They want Safari, music distribution and application development on their devices to rise continually...not to mention phone marketshare. Selling a cheaper iPhone that's cheaper to make with a much cheaper monthly bill is the way to do it. It'll be the "smartphone for everyone". Apple doesn't need to dumbdown the phone, they just need the price to be more accessible. $99 for a phone with a $40 monthly bill is how you do it.

Good post, very well thought out. Im picturing my ipod touch with a built in phone....that would be sweet.

Fingers crossed, hope this happens!

 

[fobfob]

-the screen can stay the same size while shrinking the top and bottom of the phone.

Why? If it's possible, Why not just do that with the current Iphone. Does anyone actually want the top and bottom, or a choice of two models (as some are proposing here), one with, one without?

In any case this will cost, and the nano has to be *cheaper* than the iPhone, because that's part of the brand image "nano". The nano represents a smaller, cheaper, cooler, alternative that lacks some features.

-it will not have 3G or GPS (no data plan = cheaper monthly bills)

Sorry but there is no way Apple is going back to pre 3G, now that they have the chipset. You don't understand. 3G != "data". 3G is just a (label for) a set of communications protocols (third generation). Most of the world is migrating to 3G for voice. Yes, it can support data at a much higher rate, and that's perhaps the killer app for 3G. But increasingly, there are areas with only 3G. When the original IPhone came out without 3G, most of the world laughed.

-it WILL have WiFi.

Why? I can't sync with iTunes over wifi. But I admit, that the presence of wifi will be contingent on the presence of Safari. (See below)

-it will use all the same apps as it used to. Remember the App Store and the iTunes Store are big drivers for the iPhone.

You haven't addressed how this can be done with a smaller screen. People are already complaining that the current on-screen keyboard is too small. Can't be done. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, there is no reason that a customised version of the iTunes app couldn't be provided on the Nano to allow purchase of music and video. In fact, they'd be crazy not to do it.

-the iPhone Nano will probably have 4GB and 8GB, while the iPhone move to 16GB and 32GB.

OK....

-it'll be priced at $59 for the 4Gb and $99 for the 8GB.

So how is something that is smaller and virtually identical in functionality to the present product except missing GPS (a couple of dollars) and 3G (can't be much more) is going to be cheaper than the present product? Why not just discontinue the present iPhone and replace it with the nano (in which case, why call it a nano?)

Think about Apple's strategy. They want Safari, music distribution and application development on their devices to rise continually...not to mention phone marketshare.

Cool. First of all, a stripped down nano would do exactly that- massive market penetration in the phone market. As for Safari, there's no revenue generation there so why is that part of Apple's strategy? Sure, they want to increase revenue from music and apps, but don't forget, this product is aimed to ween users off ipod nanos (which they're doing anyway, see my earlier post) and their rubbish 2G phone that cost them nothing, to slowly get them hooked in the Apple ecosystem, oh yeah, and to make a profit..

Selling a cheaper iPhone that's cheaper to make with a much cheaper monthly bill is the way to do it. It'll be the "smartphone for everyone". Apple doesn't need to dumbdown the phone, they just need the price to be more accessible. $99 for a phone with a $40 monthly bill is how you do it.

Agree with the first part. But the second part falls down. All you are really saying is that the iPhone should be cheaper to capture more of the market, and since we're talking about nanos them umm, how about lopping off the top and bottom.

Sure, I'd like to see a cheaper iPhone, and if possible, why not lop the top and bottom off. But that's not a nano. Remember, a "Nano" iProduct is smaller, cooler, cheaper and therefore has less functionality. An espresso version.

Just my 2c...

 

[bobsentell]

I'll say this and then I'm calling it done with this rumor:
If you want to know what apple will do next, just look at their history. The iPod Mini/Nano was the same thing as the iPod but with a smaller screen and less memory. The price still was in the $200. If Apple is coming out with a smaller iPhone, it will probably follow the same track.

Apple makes money on the sell of it's equipment, not the ATT contracts. Apple is a Billion Dollar corporation that's in it to make money. Unlike Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, who sell their hardware at a loss but make out like bandits in the software department, Apple does not follow that strategy. Whatever they sell will will be priced at least $150. Odds are the iPhone Nano, if it exists, will be a basic touchscreen phone with an iPod built in and 8GB of memory. Apple will discontinue the current 8GB and move the 16GB into the lower price category and add a 32GB model.

The iPod is still the same iPod that was introduced years ago. It's still priced the same. The only thing that changed was the styling and the software. The mini/nano is a cheaper, yet slimmed down model. I'd expect the same thing with the iPhone Nano.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Thank you, my point exactly.

And they would buy the iPhone Nano too.

Well of course people will buy the iPhone nano. People buy pet rocks and fart apps.

My point is iPhone contracts suck because the prices suck.

 

[MacTraveller]

I don't want an iPhone Nano. I want an AT&T Phone Bill Nano.

The iPhone hardware is not the primary problem. The AT&T poor-service high-cost monopolistic lock is the problem.

 

[jmpage2]

I'll say this and then I'm calling it done with this rumor:
If you want to know what apple will do next, just look at their history. The iPod Mini/Nano was the same thing as the iPod but with a smaller screen and less memory. The price still was in the $200. If Apple is coming out with a smaller iPhone, it will probably follow the same track.

Apple makes money on the sell of it's equipment, not the ATT contracts. Apple is a Billion Dollar corporation that's in it to make money. Unlike Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, who sell their hardware at a loss but make out like bandits in the software department, Apple does not follow that strategy. Whatever they sell will will be priced at least $150. Odds are the iPhone Nano, if it exists, will be a basic touchscreen phone with an iPod built in and 8GB of memory. Apple will discontinue the current 8GB and move the 16GB into the lower price category and add a 32GB model.

The iPod is still the same iPod that was introduced years ago. It's still priced the same. The only thing that changed was the styling and the software. The mini/nano is a cheaper, yet slimmed down model. I'd expect the same thing with the iPhone Nano.

This is the best post in this thread.

Apple has done this with every product they've introduced. Bring out a flagship product, and then offer a lower priced/featured version for "the masses" while continually ramping up the flag ship over time.

I would also point out that there's probably a LOT more demand for an iphone Nano than an ipod touch.

 

[fobfob]

The iPod is still the same iPod that was introduced years ago.

Technically, no, but we'll go with it (from the point of view of the customer). The gap (in number of songs stored) between the nano and full sized ipod was much greater than now, and more telling, the outright number of songs stored was so low on a nano that you really had to think long and hard about the choice. This sort of difference is nothing like the choice between 4GB vs 16GB on an iPhone. A memory difference is not enough to require a "nano" designation on the iphone.

It's still priced the same. The only thing that changed was the styling and the software. The mini/nano is a cheaper, yet slimmed down model. I'd expect the same thing with the iPhone Nano.

Well you contradict yourself because you said the price was the same. So did you mean that the iPhone Nano will be smaller and cheaper? Sure, the memory will be lower but that surely contributes only a small part of the cost/size of the phone, especially if we're going through an expensive slimming design cycle building a new smaller product at least physically from scratch.

I agree, the software is the main difference. However, a smaller screen size represents a major compatibility problem with the iphone. The only comparison for this disconnect between model capability with the ipod/ipod nano is in games and the viability of watching video, which are hardly major factors.

So the software difference that removes the app store and therefore compatibility with iPhone also means that they can use a cheaper computing platform (cpu/mem/video acceleration) than iphone that would also be smaller physically.

BTW I'm sure I'm wrong, just debating for the sake of it! Merry Xmas!

 

[fobfob]

I would also point out that there's probably a LOT more demand for an iphone Nano than an ipod touch.

Agreed, and this is the dilemma that Apple faces, because the market for standalone players (ie. Nano) is slowly falling.

So Apple's brand new product, which is basically a whole new computing platform is poised to take over where the Nano left off. Only it's not.

Why not? My guess? Convergence is finally here. The rise of the functionality of non-smart phones is one major factor. Even a $0 phone has a camera and probably takes an SD card that could have as much capacity as a Nano. Even if they're using iTunes (most likely on a PC), drag and drop is doable, if not as easy as syncing, assuming they're using MP3s. For all I know some now play AAC.

Another factor is the aesthetics. To me, the phone and touch look cold, monolithic, business like. Sleek, sure. Sexy, maybe. But take a look at the ipod nano. Basically, it's cute and non threatening. That leads us on to functionality.

The user interface of the Nano is simple, and importantly, tactile. You can use it without looking at it.

Even with the coolness of the touch "you had me at scrolling" interface, it doesn't capture the simplicity of the ipod. And as much as I love my iphone, the "ipod" interface is seriously annoying to use compared with a physical ipod, not just because of the lack of wheel, just the design of the screen layout and controls. I find it fussy and inefficient. But no-one else seems to.. (eg. why can't I rate a song and look at the playing details at the same time on such a massive screen?)

So how to penetrate or expand the market for ipods when your only supposed replacement is not really right? Build a simple phone, and make the interface even simpler than the iphone. Tweak the few apps that remain so they are just so simple even my mum can use it. Once people are truly comfortable with touch as a replacement input device for the wheel, they'll upgrade to the higher spec iPhone/touch.

 

[w0by]

iphone nano

I'd like it if apple came out with the iphone nano. I like my iPhone 3G but it's too big. I like really small phones that can be in my pocket and I don't even know they're there. Most phones that are small such as the Samsung Trace are nice and small but don't have a nice touch screen with features. I think it would be cool to have a "smaller" iphone.

 

[PowerFullMac]

That's the "Urbanspoon" app on the screen.

I am starting to think there will be a iPhone nano, just because of the sheer volume of rumors, and because we know the case companies got measurements for the iPhone 3G so they could have got the iPhone nano ones at the same time.

I don't think it will have WiFi or the App Store and iTunes store (due to the lack of WiFi) though.

 

[dannyboxer]

I don't think that having a touch screen iPhone Nano would be a good idea- the screen would be to small to type on and use. Instead, I would personaly much prefer something that looks excatcly the same as the current gen iPod Nanos wih a slide out number pad like this.

Maybe the number pad could be touch screen so the numbers could turn into letters for typing.

I think that if Apple do release a iPhone Nano it would be on PAYG because then a lot more people including myself would buy it.

I think that a phone like this from Apple would be around £150 and it would come in 8GB and 16GB versions just like the new iPod Nano. If it came in all the same colours it would be great as well. It could be exactly the same as the iPod Nano just with a slide out keypad and phone and text functionalities.

 

[trekkie604]

If they sold these unlocked at retail so they can be used on any GSM network they would sell like hotcakes.

 

[PowerFullMac]

If they sold these unlocked at retail so they can be used on any GSM network they would sell like hotcakes.

The probability of that is extremely low, unfortunately.

 

[dannyboxer]

Just made a mockup.

Under the screen there is a trackpad like on the new MacBooks. It can change between numbers for dialing and letters when it is rotated on it's side for texting, and of course it can be click-wheel for using the iPod functions and going through menus.

 

[Simplicated]

removed

 

[dannyboxer]

removed

huh?

 

[mccldwll]

Apple makes money on the sell of it's equipment, not the ATT contracts. ...... Odds are the iPhone Nano, if it exists, will be a basic touchscreen phone with an iPod built in and 8GB of memory. Apple will discontinue the current 8GB and move the 16GB into the lower price category and add a 32GB model.

...... I'd expect the same thing with the iPhone Nano.

Bingo. Except not sure what you mean about making money on sale of phones, not T contracts. Aapl gets probably around $450/iPhone from T. Doesn't really matter if get upfront, or over 2 year contract. In either case, the amount is determined by what T can get monthly, and data plan bumps that amount. An iPhone w/o data plan can't get much subsidy. While one could put in wifi to drive apps sales, then just have a smaller iPod Touch phone. If it arrives, I still see it as an iPod nano w/ phone. Touch a different product. Existing iPhone merges the 2 distinct lines. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[mccldwll]

Bingo. Except not sure what you mean about making money on sale of phones, not T contracts. Aapl gets probably around $450/iPhone from T. Doesn't really matter if get upfront, or over 2 year contract. In either case, the amount is determined by what T can get monthly, and data plan bumps that amount. An iPhone w/o data plan can't get much subsidy. While one could put in wifi to drive apps sales, then just have a smaller iPod Touch phone. If it arrives, I still see it as an iPod nano w/ phone. Touch a different product. Existing iPhone merges the 2 distinct lines. Different strokes for different folks.

Touchscreen iPod nano w/ phone.

 

[bananas]

I hope this turns out to be true. If there was an iPhone nano that would only cost around 100 €, I would get one immediately.

It doesn't matter to me if there wasn't 3G or GPS. Just a basic touch screen phone with iPod and maybe wifi for browsing the web. Heck, I'm ready to buy one for 150 € right now.

 

[mccldwll]

I hope this turns out to be true. If there was an iPhone nano that would only cost around 100 €, I would get one immediately.

It doesn't matter to me if there wasn't 3G or GPS. Just a basic touch screen phone with iPod and maybe wifi for browsing the web. Heck, I'm ready to buy one for 150 € right now.

It probably would have to have a camera since most do these days. If you give it both phone and wifi, that's getting pretty close to an iPhone and Touch--phone, apps, and no data plan. aapl's big $$ is w/ iPhone due to subsidy. Cannibalizing those sales probably not a good idea. If there is a nano on horizon, a touch screen kiddie phone (tunes and calls w/ no web) and no data plan $ better fits the products niche. Kids then can buy both nano phone AND Touch, and not have a data plan. Others can buy iPhone and get everything, and more, in one.

 

[Detlev_73]

I'm not sure what benefit Apple was able to get from making the iPhone exclusive-- perhaps it was a way to get AT&T to pitch in what was necessary to make the back-end work (visual voice mail and what not) (I was originally led to believe that Apple getting a cut of the monthly subscriber fees for iPhone users was what turned off other cell phone providers that Apple approached-- I don't know, but Apple doesn't get a portion of subscriber fees from iPhone 3g customers now). The benefit to AT&T is obvious-- anyone in the U.S. who wants an iPhone (aside from those willing to pay exorbitant amounts to get unlocked versions from overseas, etc) has to sign up with AT&T if they're not already with them. They also have to sign up for a relatively expensive data plan.

But how can you NOT see the benefit to Apple of having a wider distribution channel and increased market to sell to? There are a host of people who will not switch to AT&T but might otherwise snap up an iPhone.

Fascinating. When the iPhone was originally introduced, I told myself I wasn't going to get one because all I wanted was a plain phone. Then, when I actually got to play with one, I was instantly hooked. I was with Verizon (with one of their phones they ALWAYS cripple with their limited OS, but supposedly 'best' network), and the first chance I got I switched, no looking back. I guess it depends on personal choice: me, I'd rather have a sophisticated, sexy phone, with a mediocre network. Verizon had their chance: they lost to lack of vision, and they are still trying to get my $200 early cancellation fee...nothing like caller ID, someday they'll get tired of calling and just write off the bogus 'early cancellation fee': they can stick it up their rear end.

 

[cloud]

That's the "Urbanspoon" app on the screen.

I am starting to think there will be a iPhone nano, just because of the sheer volume of rumors, and because we know the case companies got measurements for the iPhone 3G so they could have got the iPhone nano ones at the same time.

I don't think it will have WiFi or the App Store and iTunes store (due to the lack of WiFi) though.

No App Store or iTunes? lol, that'd be a HUGE mistake. The iPhone Nano will sell more units than the iPhone. They MUST include those. The iPhone Nano can still have WiFi. The iPhone has the most WiFi use than any other type of phone. I don't think they should go backwards with that.

 

[kolax]

Just made a mockup.

Under the screen there is a trackpad like on the new MacBooks. It can change between numbers for dialing and letters when it is rotated on it's side for texting, and of course it can be click-wheel for using the iPod functions and going through menus.

lol

 

[slu]

I haven't finished reading this thread all the way yet, but I find it hilarious. Reminds me of the original iPod thread, the original shuffle thread, and the original nano thread. I don't see how more product choice at a potentially cheaper price point would be bad for anyone...

You people have no idea. I would have loved to have the choice of this device over the iPhone 3G that I currently have. I have the 8 GB iPhone and I use hardly any space on it. You know why? Because I have a 160 GB iPod for my media. I have a couple of podcasts on my phone and that is it. A phone with 4 GB of disk or less is hardly useless as many of you portray it to be.