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

Smaller iPhone to Eliminate Storage, Rely on Cloud-Based Content?

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,149
38,925



095754-toshiba_nand.jpg


Following up on recent reports of a smaller, cheaper iPhone, Cult of Mac claims that Apple will cut costs on the smaller iPhone in large part by drastically slashing the on-board memory of the device and relying on cloud-based content delivery.
Apple decided to lose some of the memory, which is by far the most expensive component of the iPhone (up to one-quarter of the device’s cost, according to iSuppli estimates).

By "some" of the memory, we mean ALL of the memory. The iPhone nano will have no memory for onboard storage of media, our source says. It will have only enough memory to buffer media streamed from the cloud.

"I'm talking strictly storage memory here," said our source.
Click to expand...
According to the report, the smaller iPhone would pull essentially all of its media through a revamped MobileMe service, reducing the need for significant on-board storage in the same way that the Apple has been able to slash storage on the second-generation Apple TV by shifting to a streaming model.

The report notes that some on-board storage would clearly be required for the operating system itself and other critical system data, including caching of data handed down from the cloud and perhaps storage of photos and videos taken by the device should it include a camera.

We also suspect that such a device would not be able to support the App Store, as Apps depend on locally-stored content, and would thus require significant modification to run from the cloud. Apple may avoid the potential user interface issues of a smaller, lower-resolution screen by simply not allowing third-party apps at all, and opting to use only built-in apps specifically designed for the smaller screen. But given the runaway success of the platform, it would still be surprising for Apple to shift away from an App Store-focused ecosystem for the new device.

Article Link: Smaller iPhone to Eliminate Storage, Rely on Cloud-Based Content?
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/14/smaller-iphone-to-eliminate-storage-rely-on-cloud-based-content/
Retarded. I understand limiting device storage...but total cloud reliance is the most stupid thing ive ever heard...what happens when you want to listen to music/watch movie/read on an airplane or someplace without access?



-1000000 Apple
 
Ehhhhhhhh...

So this thing won't have any apps? So it will be the current iPod Nano with phone functionality... ?

I'm good, thanks...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

As Apple proved with the first iPhone 2G, the SDK and App store don't have to be ready when a device first ships. The new SDK with big enough buttons can come later. Developers will still flock.
 
Who is making this stuff up!

Let's add the following to the rumor.

The "nano" iPhone will also only have 1" x 1" display and will have a full keypad.

Oh wait, I describing the mobile devices from 10 years ago.

It might be time to give up a MacRumors as a worth while Apple rumor site.

Can anyone recommend any others?
 
I conur with MacRumors that whatever this is, it's not something that will rely on the existing App Store ecosystem. If the device is truly only "half the size of the iPhone 4" then it will be too small for the existing app user interfaces, and will furthermore need a redesigned interface of it's own. Can something that calls/texts/emails, but has no 3rd party apps or games still be called an "iPhone"?
 
Hypothetical question - if you have content Apple doesnt approve of will they block it or remove or cancel your subscription? If you read the terms and conditions of the current mobileme set up if you upload porn or anything Apple doesnt approve of then your account will be suspended. How do you then access all the content you have paid for?

And before anyone says it... no I'm not worried about watching porn on my iDevices I'm worried about Apple having the say on what I can and cannot view/listen to on my device.

Also what happens when you cant get a signal and/or what happens if you hit your bandwidth limit from you ISP?

I dont like this Cloud idea.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that sounds like an awful idea for a phone? I can't have a conversation without dropping a call and now if I want to listen to music I have to hope that the same network doesn't glitch out? No thanks. Me and my harddrive are just fine.
 
With the bandwidth usage limitations imposed by carriers, I hope it's not going to be a wifi-only feature like facetime..
 
This is completely the wrong direction that Apple should be heading. Completely cloud based devices are ridiculous with cell carriers now limiting the amount of GBs that can be downloaded and given the extreme inconsistency in 3G connectively currently experienced by AT&T and Verizon. I'd like to see Steve Jobs try to stream a video from 3G on a moving bus just one time and he would understand.

If anything, I'd love a BIGGER screened iPhone with 64 GB. Completely opposite of where they are heading. The rest of the market seems to understand this. Apple is going to lose this battle.

Tony
 
It has to have some memory for Apps otherwise it's not what we know of as an iPhone. I can see it being limited to 1GB and maybe apple would consider that memory not "media memory" But come on no memory for camera? Does it even have a camera? The mockups already out show it could have the classic screen by shrinking the top and bottom plus shrinking the pixel size so apps would not have to change.
 
sbrhwkp3 said:
No longer interested.
Click to expand...

I agree. The prospect of an off-contract iPhone was attractive to my wife, who would like "basic" apps and music.

With cloud-based media storage, you no longer can use the iPod in the car (as she does now with her old Nano) without a big data plan, which would get expensive.

I'd be interested in a low end iPhone to replace my TracFones, but I don't want to get into a big data plan. My ideal device would be a voice pay-as-you-go iPhone with no data plan (WiFi only network access). But it'd have to be App Store-able and be able to store songs in order to be worth my trouble.
 
no apps??? Sounds wrong. So this will basically be a cloud based iPod that can make phone calls? What happens if you drive through a long tunnel or in some subs where you don't have connection? No music than?
 
Pure speculation of course...what's the point of the device if it can't store anything? Isn't the iPhone 4 small enough?
 
This rumour makes no sense whatsoever. Internet connectivity is not ubiquitous enough for such a device to be practical.
 
So basically, take the iPhone. Remove the Apps. Then remove the iPod part. What's left?

This rumour makes no sense whatsoever. Internet connectivity is not ubiquitous enough for such a device to be practical.
Click to expand...
Forget internet, what about 3g radio power. The battery use alone would mean a 3 hour battery life, max.
 
This can only be possible/practical when we have blanket coverage of the planet with highly reliable and fast internet access. It will happen one day but right now i still can't get a 3G signal over a 45 minute train journey.
 
LOL

Looking forward to bunches more comments from people who didn't think a cheaper iPhone would come with compromises.

I, for one, don't jump up and down when I hear "cheaper," but apparently that's a magical word for some people. It doesn't usually mean what they thought it would mean, I guess?

This news is, by the way, the reason I've always doubted this rumor. But hey, I guess that's why I'm not the Wall Street Journal.
 
Well.... it may not be THAT far fetched.

As it is you have to pick and choose what music or videos you keep on your iDevice, because it only has 8 or 16 or 32 gigs of memory and that's probably far less than your full iTunes library.

And if you're anything like me, you don't sync to your PC as often as you should, and often find yourself thinking "Oh, if only I had remembered to copy over that new album I just bought, I could be listening to it right now."

So to be able to pull it from the cloud would be pretty cool. (I sort of already do this, by listening to a YouTube version of whatever song I might be in the mood for if it's not already on my device).

My only concern is that limited memory = limited apps.
 
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