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?

Obviously these people are totally out of touch.

I understand that NYC isn't the whole world, but honestly, these plans sound like they don't even understand what kind of service AT&T offers here.

In NYC, this device would be nothing more than a phone that drops calls -- if they wrapped it in a $100 bill and gave it to you for free, it would still be worthless to anyone who lives or works in NYC.

There is no "cloud" here -- only a faint haze that Apple keeps telling me I can use to get directions on some Google Maps app. If I believed my iPhone data, all of NYC is a gray-on-gray grid with a useless dot in the middle. Some version of Tron with the lights off.

How can you stream music when you can't even download an email message? Come on people -- get real. It would sound like morse code.
 
No sale. Not interested.

Did we learn nothing from Microsoft's Danger/Sidekick fiasco?

MobileMe data on my iPhone and Mac in addition to being sync'ed to the cloud is fine, but cloud-only storage isn't.
 
can someone school me on the ramifications of a cloud based phone for users in low/no service areas. For instance, on the subway here in NYC, i shuffle through photos, listen to music, etc...i'm guessing those things won't be available to me on a cloud based phone?
 
Funny... I never knew "********" was a synonym of "rumors".

Well this is a pretty good example statement.
 
It would be crazy to do cloud storage. It doesn't even make regular sense for the iPhone 4. The bandwidth would be expensive (AT&T only allows 4gb per month), and it just wouldn't work in some areas.
 
So essentially a sort-of iOS based dumb phone then? I guess if they sell them for <$10 it might be useful for grabbing a bunch of dumb phone (& low profit) market share away from Nokia, for whatever reason.
 
Doubt it. Apple devices is all about storage.

Supplemented by cloud maybe, but cloud-only could be fail (unless Apple revolutionizes cloud industry).

Heck, before the iPhone, most people believed a touchscreen phone = fail.
 
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)

The phone isn't what's expensive, it's the plan.
 
Can't see it having no storage myself. I reckon it may go with low storage for your apps (8GB or so) and have all your iTunes content in the cloud though. That would surely be doable at a reasonably low retail price.
 
With no iPod capability (streaming my music from a "cloud" won't work when I am actually in the clouds at 37,000 ft) makes it useless to me. But I question the validity of this rumor.
 
Will Ferrel found to be the source of tiny iPhone leak:

picresized_1231342960_436f6e5332e741cd7e1342f943202a68.jpg
 
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)

Not a phone for many of us.
We would never buy the low end model anyway.
 
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.
 
This is one device I won't be buying. I really don't like this cloud business. By using a cloud, one is relying on your carrier for continuous, unlimited, no-strings-attached service, which is something Santa and the Easter Bunny only enjoy.

Now, if Apple wanted to get into the Internet business and provide me with unlimited connectivity everywhere I go, I'll be all for this device. But, until then, I don't think this phone will float for another 10 years. And even in 10 years, I bet carriers will restrict all of us to 1 gig per month.

Come on, haven't the Apple executives stepped off the Cupertino campus in the last 5 years. Free unlimited internet access (or any internet access) is not as accessible as one thinks. And what about people who live off the beaten track? This phone will be completely useless to them.
 
STUPID idea!

This would be one of the dumbest things Apple ever did. Assuming this phantom iPhone can play music, just how would someone be able to do that when there is no wireless or wi-fi connection available?

DUMB!
 
A quick glance at my phone shows that 80% of my 32 GB of storage is taken up by media.

That means I could survive just fine with 8 GB -- if my media were stored in the cloud, and served reliably with a minimum of lag.

You'll notice two problems in that last statement. But they aren't problems for everyone. I could see folks making the trade off for a far slimmer, far less expensive phone.

But really, how much slimmer can you get? Ram takes up less than 1 square inch on the iPhone 4. Sure, you'd lose some battery too, but there's not much further to got unless you also dump the dual cameras, dual speakers and home button.

And how much cheaper? NAND costs aren't that high, and even when you consider support costs and build complexity, you can't shave much more than $100 off the selling price for a device with much less storage.
 
I don't think the "no apps" theory is far-fetched at all. Remember how originally the iPod was the "awesome media player because of its click wheel?" Starting with the iPod shuffle, and continuing with the iPod touch and now the new iPod nano, the meaning of "iPod" became "awesome media player," with no additional qualifier.

Currently, iPhone stands for "awesome mobile phone because of its extensibility via the App Store." It will soon stand simply for "awesome mobile phone."

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised for this "iPhone nano" to mirror the new iPod nano in a lot of ways. It will have a touch screen and its interface will resemble the iPhone, but it won't be running iOS as we know it. It'll be sort of like how the current Apple TV runs iOS--it is, but from the user's perspective it could easily be running something else. No third party apps is the key distinction.
 
I call BS on this one.

It would be insane for Apple to release an iPhone that doesn't feed into it's App store ecosystem. The very thought is absurd. Also, lack of fragmentation is one of the key benefits versus Android. Starting to suddenly fragment yourself is insanity.
 
The story makes no sense. My understanding is that the iPhone "nano" would be targeted at the Pre pay market, very few of these plans have much in the way/if any data allowance e.g. 50mb a day for 99cent. Cloud computing by it's very nature demands a decent data plan.
 
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