Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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)
Guess AT&T and Verizon are going to have to offer a HUGE data plan if we are going to be streaming audio/video/data to this new phone? I don't know, sounds foolish, but whatever, I just sit back and watch the "show."
Guess AT&T and Verizon are going to have to offer a HUGE data plan if we are going to be streaming audio/video/data to this new phone? I don't know, sounds foolish, but whatever, I just sit back and watch the "show."
Yep, my thoughts exactly. It's the ecosystem that keeps folks tied in, some happily, others not. But it's does set Apple apart from the competition.
Reduced storage maybe, no iPod or apps, not a chance.
Cloud approach seems to fancy to support a budget iPhone.
Also for app scaling isn't it easier to go down than up?
But I guess if anyone were to walk through the labs at Apple, you see all kinds of weird and wonderful prototypes. Maybe it's like Willy Wonkers in there!
Last edited:
can't see this happening. Poor rumour indeed! Things must be desperate in the land of journalism.
Market Segments
Entering the low and middle market is a good strategy to continue growth -- and a great way to lower costs on all iPhone parts.
I doubt Apple would completely eliminate apps from the iPhone Nano. Apps and the App Store are part of the iPhone mystique. Eliminate that or limit it to only native apps and there's really no incentive to purchasing the entry-level unit. I suspect the units will provide some storage for apps but it will be severely limited (either by capacity measurement or by a set number of apps within the OS) thereby giving consumers a taste of what a full-fledged iPhone experience is like.
Cloud syncing of apps would be nice but, to me, the bigger issue is cloud storage of media. Very rarely do I have the need to switch out apps but often I find myself wanting to switch out movies, music, and TV shows on my iPhone and iPad. When I go on a trip, I find it frustrating that I need to sync my devices with my computer and am stuck with that content for the duration of the trip. If iTunes is to grow, Apple needs to eliminate the requirement on the user to have significant drive storage and the technical skill (or money to hire someone) to setup and manage such drive systems.
Entering the low and middle market is a good strategy to continue growth -- and a great way to lower costs on all iPhone parts.
I doubt Apple would completely eliminate apps from the iPhone Nano. Apps and the App Store are part of the iPhone mystique. Eliminate that or limit it to only native apps and there's really no incentive to purchasing the entry-level unit. I suspect the units will provide some storage for apps but it will be severely limited (either by capacity measurement or by a set number of apps within the OS) thereby giving consumers a taste of what a full-fledged iPhone experience is like.
Cloud syncing of apps would be nice but, to me, the bigger issue is cloud storage of media. Very rarely do I have the need to switch out apps but often I find myself wanting to switch out movies, music, and TV shows on my iPhone and iPad. When I go on a trip, I find it frustrating that I need to sync my devices with my computer and am stuck with that content for the duration of the trip. If iTunes is to grow, Apple needs to eliminate the requirement on the user to have significant drive storage and the technical skill (or money to hire someone) to setup and manage such drive systems.
I'm calling bollocks on this one. I highly doubt Apple would turn away from App Store purchases now that they have been established as the norm.
Back in the beginning when Apple was insisting that web apps were good enough I would have believed this rumor. But now that they have a model in place that drives users to buy into the ecosystem this rumor just seems odd.
The cloud concept is probably in the future, but for now I just don't find the cellular networks reliable enough to handle constant streaming. Plus I doubt the cell companies want further congestion on their networks.
That being said, Apple has a way of changing the game without notice so my skepticism is probably unfounded
Back in the beginning when Apple was insisting that web apps were good enough I would have believed this rumor. But now that they have a model in place that drives users to buy into the ecosystem this rumor just seems odd.
The cloud concept is probably in the future, but for now I just don't find the cellular networks reliable enough to handle constant streaming. Plus I doubt the cell companies want further congestion on their networks.
That being said, Apple has a way of changing the game without notice so my skepticism is probably unfounded
It will never become a reality....
This is never going to become a reality... iPhone "Nano" has been a rumor since the original launched. It's not practical, there is no reason for it to exist and it doesn't seem to make sense on a business level. I mean who wants a stripped down version of the iPhone? You can now buy an iPhone 3GS for $49.99 That right there takes care of the low end market. Simple.
And as for cloud based memory? Seriously. It makes more sense that this whole story is one of Apple's 'Red Herring" tactic's, carefully 'leaked' out to the general media.
This is never going to become a reality... iPhone "Nano" has been a rumor since the original launched. It's not practical, there is no reason for it to exist and it doesn't seem to make sense on a business level. I mean who wants a stripped down version of the iPhone? You can now buy an iPhone 3GS for $49.99 That right there takes care of the low end market. Simple.
And as for cloud based memory? Seriously. It makes more sense that this whole story is one of Apple's 'Red Herring" tactic's, carefully 'leaked' out to the general media.
I know many people that have ZERO mp3s on their iPhone. And just a few apps here and there. 2 Gegs for these people are more than enough. I highly doubt though that there won't be an App Store.
I'm not quite sure what people are freaking out about, before credible rumors have even emerged. think about everyone who goes to a phone store these days and comes away with a cheap Android phone, and probably doesn't even use all of its features. if a smaller iPhone does go into production, it'll be targeting these people, not us power users.
Apple is looking to make an affordable iPhone for the masses.
Apple is looking to make an affordable iPhone for the masses.
This "news" could be:
* trial balloon
* misdirection for competitors
* ploy to grab mindshare during mwc
etc etc
I actually don't have too much issue with this concept - as long as it's not 100.0% based on the cloud.
Think of it this way, if you could load 10-20% of your music collection onto the phone and have the rest of it available via the cloud, that would probably be OK for many people, and would cover the "I can't connect to the cloud right now" scenario (traveling in a plane, subway, etc).
I don't think it would cover movies, the display would simply be too small.
There are PLENTY of people who want a phone from Apple but don't want a big screen. Nor would they constantly listen to music on it. A price point of $200 w/no contract or $0 with a contract could go a long way to open that segment up.
Note, I'm not saying it's a smart idea to do so, I actually have conflicting opinions on it.
* trial balloon
* misdirection for competitors
* ploy to grab mindshare during mwc
etc etc
I actually don't have too much issue with this concept - as long as it's not 100.0% based on the cloud.
Think of it this way, if you could load 10-20% of your music collection onto the phone and have the rest of it available via the cloud, that would probably be OK for many people, and would cover the "I can't connect to the cloud right now" scenario (traveling in a plane, subway, etc).
I don't think it would cover movies, the display would simply be too small.
There are PLENTY of people who want a phone from Apple but don't want a big screen. Nor would they constantly listen to music on it. A price point of $200 w/no contract or $0 with a contract could go a long way to open that segment up.
Note, I'm not saying it's a smart idea to do so, I actually have conflicting opinions on it.
A lot of this rumor is counter to Apple's strategy at least as it relates to their bottom line now.
First, a large part of iPhones revenue is not just the phone but also the App store revenue. This phone eliminates that source of income for Apple.
Strike one.
Another big part of the iPhone's success is that it acts like an iPod you can listen to your music or watch videos on the go (in an airplane, on the road, etc.).
By moving to cloud based, you eliminate that as well because now you can only stream music via Wi-Fi at home (when you have your computer and audio system available to play music on anyway), or use limited bandwidth to stream where you get good reception only.
If anyone here has taken a road trip, you know that reception is not very good even on major highways once you leave the big city. And of course, in Airplane mode your iPhone Nano is just a phone, can't listen to music there either.
So that's 2 strikes.
Then comes the size factor. If the size is made smaller, it will have a smaller battery. Combined with the fact that now you must use battery-intense 3G or WiFi just to even play music, your battery will drain VERY quickly. This would probably give the device no more than 3-4 hours of Mp3 playing (even with screen off) - that's assuming you started with a full battery - which is not acceptable.
Strike 3!
A more likely scenario: The screen size is the same with just smaller bezels, or the screen size is slightly reduced but not so much that it impacts usability and compatibility with current apps.
Storage is reduced to 8GB to keep things cheap (even the iPod nano has at least that much and it's cheap).
Alternatively, if storage is removed, then some sort of removable storage medium could be used. Perhaps a proprietary storage chip or even straight up Micro SD would be used.
That way users buy the $199 phone, then have to spend another $49+ to get adequate storage for it.
There is just no way that Apple will forgo the extra revenue from the App store (which they will need especially if they make this really cheap) AND effectively cripple the device from being used as an iPod.
Think about it guys, every device Apple makes has some revenue on the backend for Apple.
- Apple TV - iTunes Movies and Rentals
- iPods - Music & Movies from iTunes
- iPhone/iPad - App store purchases, Music & Movies from iTunes
What people are describing with this latest rumor is that Apple is going to make a device that they cannot make money from on the backend AND they will sell it for less than devices that they DO make money on the backend from (cannibalizing some sales while making less money). It just sounds wrong.
..... unless the new Free MobileMe/iTunes Streaming is THAT great that Apple is willing to bank on people putting up with 3 hours of Mp3 Playing time while paying for streaming over [unreliable, expensive, and highly limited] 3G connection.
I don't see it, I just don't see it.
First, a large part of iPhones revenue is not just the phone but also the App store revenue. This phone eliminates that source of income for Apple.
Strike one.
Another big part of the iPhone's success is that it acts like an iPod you can listen to your music or watch videos on the go (in an airplane, on the road, etc.).
By moving to cloud based, you eliminate that as well because now you can only stream music via Wi-Fi at home (when you have your computer and audio system available to play music on anyway), or use limited bandwidth to stream where you get good reception only.
If anyone here has taken a road trip, you know that reception is not very good even on major highways once you leave the big city. And of course, in Airplane mode your iPhone Nano is just a phone, can't listen to music there either.
So that's 2 strikes.
Then comes the size factor. If the size is made smaller, it will have a smaller battery. Combined with the fact that now you must use battery-intense 3G or WiFi just to even play music, your battery will drain VERY quickly. This would probably give the device no more than 3-4 hours of Mp3 playing (even with screen off) - that's assuming you started with a full battery - which is not acceptable.
Strike 3!
A more likely scenario: The screen size is the same with just smaller bezels, or the screen size is slightly reduced but not so much that it impacts usability and compatibility with current apps.
Storage is reduced to 8GB to keep things cheap (even the iPod nano has at least that much and it's cheap).
Alternatively, if storage is removed, then some sort of removable storage medium could be used. Perhaps a proprietary storage chip or even straight up Micro SD would be used.
That way users buy the $199 phone, then have to spend another $49+ to get adequate storage for it.
There is just no way that Apple will forgo the extra revenue from the App store (which they will need especially if they make this really cheap) AND effectively cripple the device from being used as an iPod.
Think about it guys, every device Apple makes has some revenue on the backend for Apple.
- Apple TV - iTunes Movies and Rentals
- iPods - Music & Movies from iTunes
- iPhone/iPad - App store purchases, Music & Movies from iTunes
What people are describing with this latest rumor is that Apple is going to make a device that they cannot make money from on the backend AND they will sell it for less than devices that they DO make money on the backend from (cannibalizing some sales while making less money). It just sounds wrong.
..... unless the new Free MobileMe/iTunes Streaming is THAT great that Apple is willing to bank on people putting up with 3 hours of Mp3 Playing time while paying for streaming over [unreliable, expensive, and highly limited] 3G connection.
I don't see it, I just don't see it.
This is never going to become a reality... iPhone "Nano" has been a rumor since the original launched. It's not practical, there is no reason for it to exist and it doesn't seem to make sense on a business level. I mean who wants a stripped down version of the iPhone? You can now buy an iPhone 3GS for $49.99 That right there takes care of the low end market. Simple.
And as for cloud based memory? Seriously. It makes more sense that this whole story is one of Apple's 'Red Herring" tactic's, carefully 'leaked' out to the general media.
you still don't understand the concept here. the iPhone 3GS does not cost just $50. SUBSIDIZED, yes it does. The point of this device would be for people who do prepaid and those user's who aren't eligible for an upgrade etc or break a phone.
Who wants to pay $450 for an iPhone 3gs to use on their prepaid plan when they could come to market with a cheaper smaller iphone that would only cost $200 without a contract.
An Apple wifi-only phone. Almost like those wifi handsets from Skype. I don't know if that would be a big hit. Or a cheap iPod that you can only use at home. I'd rather stick to my Airport Express for music at home.
I agree, but the system would have to recognize it as ram; due to Apple not having a true file system on iOS (other than a few apps that have dropbox, Mobile Studio, or filesharing capability). I would love to be able to pop in 32gb - but then again this would be like the old days of switching out floppies?
this is not affordable yet - but like everything else, the price will come down eventually. I would love to pop one of these in an iphone, ipad or even my mac:
http://www.sandisk.com/microsites/compactflash/index.html
didn't you read what is happening to nokia? havent you noticed how android has evolved to all tipes of smart phones from cheapest to top of the line?
that model you think that apple is targeting is actually disappearing in front of your own eyes, sooner or later every phone (including the most inexpensive phone in the market) is going to have a complex OS like the IOS and all its competitors.
Bwahahahaha, so how do I do such rare things like listen to music on the tube? Or where there's no signal (like parts of my house - thick Victorian walls)?
8GB of flash is cheap - you can buy 8GB in SD format for under £8 these days, so Apple can get that amount wholesale for even cheaper.
Unless that's what they mean by 'barely enough to buffer content'.
Ridiculous if there's anything less than 8GB on board.
8GB of flash is cheap - you can buy 8GB in SD format for under £8 these days, so Apple can get that amount wholesale for even cheaper.
Unless that's what they mean by 'barely enough to buffer content'.
Ridiculous if there's anything less than 8GB on board.
ridiculous for YOU. for people who don't need the space it's a waste of cashola. This is a "cheaper" version for a reason. Obviously it would not fit you.
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)
It's cheaper to load devices with flash than it is to pay the massive data tariffs a cloud-based phone would create. Battery life would also be severely impacted. Cool ideas for things plugged into walls, but that's it's for now.
It's cheaper to load devices with flash than it is to pay the massive data tariffs a cloud-based phone would create. Battery life would also be severely impacted. Cool ideas for things plugged into walls, but that's it's for now.
What prepaid plan are you talking about? Because the concept of an iPhone Nano is to use a data hungry cloud based model that will cost a fortune in prepaid data fees? Like thats a good idea. And do you really think Apple gives a toss if you break your original iPhone? "oops, you broke you iPhone but can't afford to have it fixed or replaced? Well here's an iPhone Nano that maybe you can afford."
I don't think you understand what you're saying...
is this a joke?? r we being punk'd??...ffs i don't want to pay at&t for more data!!! ***** u jobs!!!