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?

pmz said:
Something close to this would be acceptable.
f6iv7o
Click to expand...

My attempt... This nano has a 3"-ish display which is still usable.

I don't think that Apple would let the screen interfere with the curved areas, and I also think there needs to be a little room for a thumb bezel at the bottom.



The button could be more lozenge-shaped too.
 
I don't believe this rumor. I can see it having around 4GB or even as low as 2GB but not zero.

Unless they aren't planning on having the app store on the device.

Music and video streaming from the cloud are fine because you only need a small portion of the video or sond at a certain point in time. With apps you need all the code and content at once.

And I really doubt the would do an iPhone without an app store at this point.
 
NinjaHERO said:
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.
Click to expand...

Music can be buffered to prevent drop outs. This introduces at seconds long delay that would not work on a phone conversation. So the assumption that because the phne has drop out your music will also have to is not correct
 
Wait, I don't get it. The vast majority in this forum is dismissing an iPhone without local storage in favor of cloud Internet-based storage (the thing is more or less always connected to the Internet anyway), but completely gung ho for removing the optical drive on Macs in favor of even less ubiquitous internet on a Mac? How does that make sense?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I agree with this assessment of media rivals spouting BS just to splinter the public from Apple. This idea is preposterous. Even on the $99 AppleTV, Apple has 8GB of buffer flash. They could easily offer 4GB/8GB for this mini phone. I don't buy for a second that there is any truth to this speculation, which I still maintain was conjured and spewed as reliable reporting to simply stir the masses.
 
kdarling said:
Remember the iPhone when it first came out? No apps allowed.

It was a tightly closed, super simple system with just one homescreen.
Click to expand...
JAQ said:
That's what Steve kept calling it when he introduced such a device back in 2007.
Click to expand...
mdelvecchio said:
please see first iphone release. no apps or games. still an iphone. actually, it defined iphone quite literally.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get your collective point about a future "iPhone nano" being similar in scope (in theory) to the iPhone 1, and therefore still appropriately named in the "iPhone" family.

However, it's not still 2007. Now the App Store ecosystem does exist and is a huge selling point for the iPhone, constantly showcased and lauded by Apple. Apple clearly assumes that the whole world wants apps, and Apple's giving them to them! Apple won't shut up about them!

So won't a device cut off from that app ecosystem (which a half-sized iPhone would have to be due to afforementioned user interface and local storage issues), be seen as a severely hobbled device with a limited experience that points backwards in time? Is Apple going to decide the whole world doesn't want apps after all? Some of the world wants a more modest experience, one that just does a couple of things?

Seems unlikely to me. Yes, some of Apple's iPod line evolved down market in specs/price. But those iPod nanos and shuffles weren't cut off from huge parts of the iTunes music store experience! Because that iPod music experience was not tied to screen interface specs the way the iPhone app experience is.
 
The5thElephant said:
A little perspective people.

Stop panicking and calling Apple stupid.

Apple regularly develops a range of prototypes and concept devices to see what is feasible now and in the future. At any one time they probably have numerous devices that don't make sense for the current market, but help them develop tech for the next few years.

Furthermore if this came out this year or next year, it WOULD NOT replace the iPhone, but would be in addition to it. This will be the cheaper phone to help migrate people from old dumbphones (which are still the vast majority of users) to smartphones.

You all need to relax and untwist your panties.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Until proven to be true. This is just a rumor. Perhaps Apple has developed a new data compression algorithm that would help deemphasize sheer storage. Are there really millions of people who need at exabyte of storage on a mobile? Given some recent threads, I will admit that there are people with large content collections who want to carry it everywhere and would probably jump at the chance to but a 1TB idevice. Personally, I'm not in that category.
 
Yebubbleman said:
Wait, I don't get it. The vast majority in this forum is dismissing an iPhone without local storage in favor of cloud Internet-based storage (the thing is more or less always connected to the Internet anyway), but completely gung ho for removing the optical drive on Macs in favor of even less ubiquitous internet on a Mac? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

One is connected by a fast, cheap, available connection. It has enough storage that you can use it away from a connection without a problem and still have all your media and apps with you.

The other is often taken into areas without a fast connection, or a connection at all, and if you use too much of that connection your bills skyrocket.
 
rstansby said:
The AppleTV doesn't have local storage.
Click to expand...

True, but the AppleTV uses the owner's broadband connection, which is typically far faster, more reliable, and cheaper than the real-world mobile data networks.

I'm sure it's possible to do on an iPhone, but IMO the experience would be far different.

(Never mind what the networks would think, with millions of users streaming pretty much everything - they barely can cope at the moment! :p )
 
Intarweb said:
How would you run these apps from this special app store with no memory? You aren't going to be streaming them.
Click to expand...

Why not? Check out the online photoshop app. Photos are stored and edited "in the cloud". Results are "streamed" to your computer.
 
With our data costs, something like this would never work in Australia. Not that Apple would really care about that, since we're a comparatively tiny market.
 
rstansby said:
Why not? Check out the online photoshop app. Photos are stored and edited "in the cloud". Results are "streamed" to your computer.
Click to expand...

Yes a computer with high speed access to it. We're talking about 3g here. Verizon's 3g is slow as a snail and ATT's is super finicky everywhere. Running web apps is not feasible on 3g. And lets not forget data caps. Sorry, not happening.
 
Kinda cool and Kinda stupid.

The cloud idea is awesome, stream you media from mobile me sounds useful but you have to some onboard storage for your apps or it's NOT iPhone.

Pros
-Cheaper iPhone $99 or FREE (nice option there)
-Stream from iTunes your media (probably done well too, it's Apple)
-iOS will still be iOS (it will work/play nicely + there'll be jailbreak for it)

Cons
-Limited storage for apps (assuming they will give you any? I'm assuming 8GB total storage, whatever left over from system files is yours to use.)
-Mobile Me cost (Probably not going to be FREE, add cost might be a deal breaker)
-Apple must allow to stream major video codecs for this adoption to happen. (avi, mkv, etc)
 
Hattig said:
One is connected by a fast, cheap, available connection. It has enough storage that you can use it away from a connection without a problem and still have all your media and apps with you.

The other is often taken into areas without a fast connection, or a connection at all, and if you use too much of that connection your bills skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Unlimited data plans, buffering options. Also, how is a broadband connection anywhere near as available or ubiquitous in coverage as a cell network?
 
I'd buy an iPhone 4 with 8 GB and reduce bevel. In fact I'd prefer that over a regular iPhone 4. I find smart phone sizing a little ungainly, and don't like the idea of carrying around something that expensive.
 
This -seems- pretty crazy.

But I'd say Apple and everyone else WILL go this direction - but not for another year - maybe two.

1. Web Apps
2. LightSquared wholesale 4G access retailed through Apple and other hardware manufactures.

90% U.S. 4G LTE coverage, anyone?

http://www.lightsquared.com

This is no pipe dream.

This future will cut out the wireless provider middle-man. You will buy wireless service from Apple (and other device makers) who wholesale it from Light Squared.
 
Last edited:
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