This rumour makes no sense whatsoever. Internet connectivity is not ubiquitous enough for such a device to be practical.
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"?
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...![]()
This rumor doesn't make any sense. I suppose anything is possible, but this one seems quite unlikely, especially given AT&T's parsimonious data cap.
Of course it's going to have 3G, whatever it is it's not going to be a 30 euro Nokia 1100.
think of a voice enabled ipod touch. can be done easilyNope. The whole reason to make this phone is for those that don't want a data plan and the extra expense of the iPhone's monthly plan.
Thus no reason for 3g.
Plus if they want the phone to sell for $200 then they have to get rid of components. 3g is expensive.
Why is this concept so hard to understand??
There are tons of people that would buy an iPhone if it's cheaper. The typical response is buy an iPhone 3GS it's only $49. NO, it's not only $49. You have to enter a contract and pay the data fee.
Having this option opens up a lot of doors for them to gain more ground in market share.
Not everyone who has an iPhone uses the 16gb storage. Not everyone listens to music.
I would love to have an iPhone at $200 price and if i wanted to do prepaid voice and connect to wifi only i could, at only $200 and not have to be locked into a contract.
Who said I couldn't afford an iPhone? But you enjoy paying full retail price of $599 when something similar could be had at any time for $200?
This has the option of being able to be used on all wireless carriers if they go that route. It could be huge. But you are apparently still wrapped up in how the US carriers run the game by contract and contract pricing.
Imagine a ipod touch with voice at that price tag. they would sell like crazy.
Who said you had to have a huge data plan with lots of fees. most can connect to wifi very easily. Think a little bit.....it's not hard to grasp.
I'm sorry, but access to the app 'Angry Birds' is unavailable right now, due to No Service.
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)
This is probably a well-timed story designed to steal thunder from some big mobile conference taking place right now.
Exactly. This is why it won't happen anytime soon.
10-20 years from now, sure.
Remember when small phones were cool?