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

[osx11]

This would require unlimited internet.

 

[AWeber3030]

I was starting to gain some interest in this story till I saw this, and I actually thought it might be possible.

 

[0815]

With the bandwidth usage limitations imposed by carriers, I hope it's not going to be a wifi-only feature like facetime..

Bandwidth limitation is not the only problem. We are still far away from having connection everywhere - partly due to bad carriers, partly because you don't have connection everywhere (Airplane, ....).

Also: I travel a lot. What if I go overseas? Ok, doesn't work on the airplane - but even when I am at my final destination, do I really want to pay $1 roaming charge per minute to listen to my favorite songs?

 

[whooleytoo]

Sounds like a terrible idea. (They'll probably sell millions..)

 

[Stella]

How is this going to work? Mobile data is relavitely expensive still and WIFI isn't available everywhere.

This was dreamed up by some crack head!

I'm sure we are heading this direction but cloud based is still way off - the infrastructure isn't there - still too expensive for the average person.

Critically, I doubt it would get much carrier support.. especially for incomponent ones such as AT&T where they are already cracking under pressure. OTH Robelus will see this as an additional method to further rip off the customer - jack up data rates, lower bandwidth with stupidly high overage charges ( they already are - and that's just for cable!)

 

[MarkNY]

Apple is not going to release a phone that can't utilize the app store. No way.

And it has to have some local storage for media, too, for obvious reasons.

Smaller, slow processor, no retina display, bad camera...Why would consumers bother? The hardware cost is a fraction of the overall cost of having a cellphone with a data plan.

 

[ogee]

I hope this isnt the future direction. I travel to and from work on the metro. there is no internet connection there. How the hell would I listen to my music.

Same on holiday, data roaming is too expensive.

Bad move.

 

[GLS]

The "killer app" of the iPhone is the app store...and the possibility of taking this away makes sense how?

Just can't see this.

 

[quietstormSD]

Why is this even considered a rumor? Why even give any credence to the story even by a little bit by calling it a rumor. The story is not a rumor, it's someone talking out of their butt.

 

[celo48]

Not even a memory slot???

 

[NoExpectations]

Simple Math

Simple Math

Cloud Based Services = Delay + Higher Cost + Lower Customer Experience

 

[dethmaShine]

- I think a smaller phone is OK.
- No Apps functionality might make sense in the first go.

But cloud storage in this way, is No-go for many; at this time at the least.

Maybe Apple is trying something new? Let's wait and see what's next.

 

[dasmb]

"Guys I can't use my phone where there's no service, so this idea for a phone that requires service is insane."

Actually it's pretty good differentiation.

I need a media player with wifi -- iPod Touch
I need one thing that's both a media player and a phone -- iPhone
I just need a phone, and love the apple design/UI -- iPhone Cloudy

Not even a memory slot???

snort.

 

[Meandmunch]

So it is an iPod sans apps with phone capability. Don't believe it.

 

[rumplestiltskin]

No storage? You mean my contacts and calendars are stored in the cloud and not on my phone? Sounds like something Microsoft would propose. NFW!

 

[Mister Snitch]

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"?

Lots of hate on this rumored device. (Not from TheSlush, but other posters.) I can see this thing coming, regardless. The plan is simple: Apple wants the low end of the market, too, just as it wanted the low end of the music player market. Apple probably wants the low end of the smartphone market MORE than it wanted the low end of the music player market, in fact, because unlike the music player market, they have a legitimate rival in the smartphone market, and they can compete on price.

And this device will serve that purpose. The iPhone brand name will insure that it can make inroads at the low end. People who want something more than the low end offers will eventually upgrade. People who just "want an iPhone", on the other hand, will be fine with it. (Not everyone's life revolves around this stuff.)

 

[MagicWok]

So much for using it on an Airplane.

And on trains, in the underground/tube, cars, on holiday and generally anywhere indoors lol.

Has now gone from solid prediction and debate, to just coming up with whatever pops in their heads first.

 

[moderately]

Here is my question- If you were going to make a cheap iPhone how would you cripple it? This is sort of a reverse wish list.

Camera- I never have had one (iPT 4 really dosen't count it is soo lame) so no one needs one.
Storage- yea cripple this. it's cheap, ya gotta suffer. room for apps, or links to the cloud. keep selling stuff even if ya can't always access it. Apple can work a deal for data plans- get a cut?
Same size screen- but the pixels are the size of your thumb- is that Lincoln in a top hat?
lame processor
keep some of the feel of the iPhone

How's that for a start?

 

[CylonGlitch]

What if they made something like 1GB & 2GB models but did not support music or videos, only apps. BUT if you're on WiFi, you can stream music (maybe video). Would this make more sense? I know for me it would.

 

[mirko.meschini]

It's not possible. Pure speculation.

 

[christian_k]

Don't think this is a good idea.

The cost for streaming the same music over a mobile network over and over again would soon be higher than the price for at least "some" (~4 GB?) local memory. It also would not work well, there are still areas with only EDGE (or even GPRS). Data traffic always has lower priority than voice, I would not like my music to stall just because someone else starts a phone call.
I would be prohibitively expensive when roaming and it would suck the battery quickly.

There are enough smart phnes <300€ that do not have as much memory as an iPhone, but still enough to be usefull.

Christian

 

[kdarling]

Can something that calls/texts/emails, but has no 3rd party apps or games still be called an "iPhone"?

Remember the iPhone when it first came out? No apps allowed.

It was a tightly closed, super simple system with just one homescreen.

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.

As I commented in another thread, Apple had no problem asking developers to create retina-screen apps, and to create iPad-screen apps. They could easily do the same thing again.

Or... if cloud based... they could rely on a system akin to Skyfire, Flash or Silverlight. That is, a local player.

Or just go back to using web based apps, a capability that Jobs once termed "sweet".

Also, lack of fragmentation is one of the key benefits versus Android. Starting to suddenly fragment yourself is insanity.

Developers deal with that already. The iOS target audience is quite fragmented with all the screen sizes, sensor differences, memory differences, and OS versions and capabilities.

 

[MacBoobsPro]

My guess is it could just be 'a phone'. No iPod, no apps just a phone, so all it would need to sync via the cloud are contacts. No music, movies etc which would make sense and I dont mind.

I'm against a cloud for storing content I own and being told what I can and cant store in said cloud. Like if iTunes went cloud only I'd use something else (and I have a 2TB library).

 

[kerryb]

I like it!

I am still using the version 1 iPhone since the second day it became available. Here is why a smaller less function loaded phone would make me happy. I am in my 50's not 20's and talk with friends when I am at home. I do not bother my friends and family during the work day, they have good jobs and don't have time for chit chat. I've downloaded, purchased many apps during the past few years and realize that what I really need is just a few and those are the ones that come standard with the iPhone, Safari, Mail, Weather, Maps and a few others. I don't use more than 15 minutes per month (I'm not kidding) and hate talking while walking on a sidewalk, shopping or other anti-social behavior. I don't like paying $80 per month for this amount of use. I would love a small, long battery life, simple iPhone that cost around $50 per month. I love Apple products but and rather not have a cell than buy an Android clone.

 

[Padraig]

Lots of hate on this rumored device. (Not from TheSlush, but other posters.) I can see this thing coming, regardless. The plan is simple: Apple wants the low end of the market, too, just as it wanted the low end of the music player market. Apple probably wants the low end of the smartphone market MORE than it wanted the low end of the music player market, in fact, because unlike the music player market, they have a legitimate rival in the smartphone market, and they can compete on price.

And this device will serve that purpose. The iPhone brand name will insure that it can make inroads at the low end. People who want something more than the low end offers will eventually upgrade. People who just "want an iPhone", on the other hand, will be fine with it. (Not everyone's life revolves around this stuff.)

What good is it creating a 200 dollar off contract phone if you've to also have an expensive data plan? There's no way that will attract the low end user.