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?

Iphone 3gs is the new iphone nano!

iphone 3gs is already outdated compared to IP4 and be really far behind IP5. right now it is $49 with contract.

Internally redesigned 3GS will become iphone mini/nano and sell for $149 with no contract! Pick your carrier

No need to make a smaller phone with no storage. people are thinking too hard
 
Thunderhawks said:
Think different!

Who says this has to be via 3G or Wifi? Who needs cell towers?

For all we know Apple is launching it's own Satellite or renting Satellite space. They have the money.

So, maybe this is a Satellite phone, no data plan etc.

Another Apple game changer!

Also, I can't understand the bitching about a rumor.

If whatever is known/rumored at this moment is not for you, you will not be the consumer this is for. Simple!
Click to expand...

Satellite, yea so you can get 500 Kbps download (when no one else is using the service), have shockingly high latency and 20 minutes of talk time that will sell millions.
 
Stella said:
I don't think Apple are interested in the low end user. They won't be being much from the AppStore - and the data rate plus contract would be too expensive.

There isn't much value for Apple in trying to get low end user to buy an iPhone.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point, but I can assure you they are interested in the low end user.

That's why a smaller phone with 4-8 gigs of storage makes sense, where the user would still download apps/music over their wifi network, as well as doing light browsing on their limited plans. This is targeting the prepaid market with phones such as Galaxy Europa, x10 mini and SE walkman series.
 
This sounds more like a concept project than something that can be made a reality by this summer.

It doesn't make sense for them to offer an iphone that's not really an iphone either...apps, anyone?
 
MacRumors said:
Apple will cut costs on the smaller iPhone...relying on cloud-based content delivery.
Click to expand...

Hey Apple! How about you get your existing iDevices not to rely on a separate computer with iTunes to work before you worry about a smaller iPhone. Do people really think the iPhone is too big? Have you seen some of the Android phones out there?

How about you get wireless syncing (local network cloud) down first.
 
This idea might work.......in like 10-20 years. The infrastructure isn't ready for an all-cloud media device.

I just don't see this happening this year.
 
shervieux said:
Cloud computing is coming and some companies are already there. However, I say we are still a way too early in the game for a cloud only smart-phone.

1. AT&T still has not caught up to verizon with rural 3G coverage.
Click to expand...

AT&T is finally catch up to Verizon with urban 3G coverage. There is no rural 3G coverage or at least very little. You will barely get a phone signal more than a mile from the interstate.
 
This seems a strange idea by :apple: we all use our iphones to listen to our music as we go and do a days pain, so we bounce to our music until we loose signal or we get on the underground and loose everything we then have to log back in get to where we were till we loose signal again.

In the UK 3G isn't as good as it would need to be for this and the major phone providers wont entertain 4G because they don't want to pay for it some of them cant even get visual voicemail on the iphone 4 working because they wont pay for it or they are just to thick to sort it.

So if :apple: pushed this though then in the UK at least they would have to put a firework up the collective phone companies backsides to sort the infrastructure or it just wont work as T-Mobile, Orange, Vodafone etc will not pay to do it and hurt their bosses bonuses :mad:
 
BigQid said:
The phone isn't what's expensive, it's the plan.
Click to expand...

And with a cloud-only phone, you would need the more expensive bigger plans for the biggest monthly caps.

This makes no sense as far as reducing the total cost of ownership.
 
dlewis23 said:
Satellite, yea so you can get 500 Kbps download (when no one else is using the service), have shockingly high latency and 20 minutes of talk time that will sell millions.
Click to expand...

I have a Sirius Receiver, traveled all over the country and had good reception all the time (except in tunnels)

That technology has a logical upside.

Had one receiver washed in the laundry and took it apart. If you switch out all the button activated parts to touch, it can be very small.

Apple could thus be a competitor to the cell carriers without attacking them directly.

We know they are itching to do it via itunes.
 
Surely said:
This idea might work.......in like 10-20 years. The infrastructure isn't ready for an all-cloud media device.

I just don't see this happening this year.
Click to expand...

I agree. Usually I like the forward looking decisions by apple that many cry about (like removing Floppy and soon DVD) since they do it a times that are just starting to be right (when you don't need that stuff anymore, even so everybody is just used to it) - but we are still far away from unlimited data network everywhere (and no roaming fees in other countries). I like that they go cloud and add all the stuff - but for now, some local storage is needed. This is a nice feature to ADD to the existing phone.

But well, this is just a *RUMOR* - doesn't mean that this will really come out. At least, if it turns out to be true, they keep the original iPhone so that I can ignore than "iPhone Cloud" until I have network coverage as needed.
 
Thunderhawks said:
Think different!

Who says this has to be via 3G or Wifi? Who needs cell towers?

For all we know Apple is launching it's own Satellite or renting Satellite space. They have the money.

So, maybe this is a Satellite phone, no data plan etc.

Another Apple game changer!

Also, I can't understand the bitching about a rumor.

If whatever is known/rumored at this moment is not for you, you will not be the consumer this is for. Simple!
Click to expand...

the problem with satellite:

1. Line of site digital beam. It gets blocked with trees, tall buildings, plus it would have to rotate Unless the receiver is omni-directional. think of your TV satellite - you have to point it in a certain direction.

2. Cloud cover During a storm or on a really cloudy day, it would not work. One of the reasons I dropped Satellite TV.

3. Cost? Another reason I dropped satellite TV.

4. Download speed great when you get a signal. Upload speeds are pathetic that is why you do not see too many with Hughes.Net

4247_10.jpg
 
This rumor is likely true in that it is an idea on a wall somewhere being considered.

But it won't make it to market because it is not practical and not desirable.
 
Thunderhawks said:
I have a Sirius Receiver, traveled all over the country and had good reception all the time (except in tunnels)

That technology has a logical upside.

Had one receiver washed in the laundry and took it apart. If you switch out all the button activated parts to touch, it can be very small.

Apple could thus be a competitor to the cell carriers without attacking them directly.

We know they are itching to do it via itunes.
Click to expand...

Problem is it won't work in many situations, e.g. in airplanes - and when I sit for 12 hours in the airplane, I really would have some use for my music ...

another problem is roaming fees in other countries.
 
There has definitely been a misunderstanding. This isn't going to be a phone. This is the iPager. Apple is going retro. If they put up some more pay phones in NYC, I'm sold.
 
i just don't believe that apple will take this step. this is were apple is pointing to in the future but the present is very limited with subway travel that basically disconnects you from your provider, buildings that have weak wifi and network provider signals, airlines that don't have wifi with the exception of a hand full, and remote areas that at the moment only have edge to feed internet in there phone and to top it all of no space to install apps? this alone is a red flag shouting out BAD RUMOR!

i really don't believe this is going to happen. but if it is true apple is just moving way to fast. and the hole world is just eating dust.
 
I didn't read all the comments... but I find it hard to believe that Apple would build an iPhone without App Store capability. It's a big reason the iPhone, iPod and iPad exist... to sell Music, Videos, and Apps.
 
You lot are pathetic.

It's a low end device, not the iPhone 4's replacement.

Good move IMO, because Apple are probably going for the simple phone users that are still rocking old Nokia's because 'they are easy to use'

Some of you really need to have a word with yourselves.
 
toddybody said:
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
Click to expand...

sounds like this won't be the right phone for you. Both my wife and I have 16gb iphone 4 and we don't use the storage whatsoever. we are not heavy iphone users at all so a phone like the rumor would be perfect. Not everyone loads their phone up with music and movies. Some just like email and a few apps and text messaging. so pay all that extra money to have storage doesn't make sense.

Just like everyone complaining about the storage in the new MacBook Air. If you have all your data on the cloud, there is no point to have massive storage. It's the future...
 
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