Will iPhone nano announced at MacWorld? (poll)

[wmp.dll]

Im going to say Yes it will be annouced.

I think it will be like what Engadget said in their podcast. Keynote will go on and then at the end Jobs will walk out saying something like 'I couldnt miss this last macworld Keynote, I have something really special to show you. The iPhone Nano'

Another reason I think there will be an iPhone nano, is that how much cheaper can the iPhone 3G get? So Apple introduces an iPhone nano at 0$ on a 2 year contract. That would bring in a lot more people to the app store, etc.

 

[Theaser]

Im going to say Yes it will be annouced.

I think it will be like what Engadget said in their podcast. Keynote will go on and then at the end Jobs will walk out saying something like 'I couldnt miss this last macworld Keynote, I have something really special to show you. The iPhone Nano'

Another reason I think there will be an iPhone nano, is that how much cheaper can the iPhone 3G get? So Apple introduces an iPhone nano at 0$ on a 2 year contract. That would bring in a lot more people to the app store, etc.

0 dollars!? You got to be kidding me, at least 59 bucks for a 4 gig and 99 bucks for a 8 gig. I would love to get an iPhone and replace my crappy phone but i cannot afford the data plan.

Yes, it is going to come out, not necessarily this year. But Apple must bring out more phones, the so called iPhone Pro is way far more BS than the iPhone Nano. Basic handset=iPhone Nano, Smartphone=iPhone 3G. iPhone owners, get out of this thread please...

 

[Demosthenes X]

0 dollars!? You got to be kidding me, at least 59 bucks for a 4 gig and 99 bucks for a 8 gig. I would love to get an iPhone and replace my crappy phone but i cannot afford the data plan.

Yes, it is going to come out, not necessarily this year. But Apple must bring out more phones, the so called iPhone Pro is way far more BS than the iPhone Nano. Basic handset=iPhone Nano, Smartphone=iPhone 3G. iPhone owners, get out of this thread please...

Hey! I'm an iPhone lover, and I agree with you in full.

Market for a "super-smart phone": tiny, if not non-existent.

Market for a "dumbphone": massive.

Now, even someone without the merest hint of sense about how a business operates should be able to figure out which market makes more sense to enter...

 

[Theaser]

Hey! I'm an iPhone lover, and I agree with you in full.

Market for a "super-smart phone": tiny, if not non-existent.

Market for a "dumbphone": massive.

Now, even someone without the merest hint of sense about how a business operates should be able to figure out which market makes more sense to enter...

I'm trying to put an end to this iPhone Nano existent debate thing. Tons of people keep saying iPhone Nano WOULD NOT come out, most of them are full of iPhone owners or just skeptical about their size. Guess what? You haven't even seen the real damn thing yet, so hold onto your seats and wait till it is announced and you tried it. If it isn't announced, oh well, too bad. The reason these threads are around is because the case makers put up hints and they were accurate before about the iPhone 3G and iPod Nano 4G and the analyst post this morning at Macrumors. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE THREADS IF YOU ARE SICK OF THEM !!!

Now back on topic, if the iPhone Nano comes out, I believe these should be the MINIMUM SPECS:

- 3G for voice and EDGE for internet or both (Most 'dumbphones' have 3G now) Therefore no data plans required
- Wi-Fi
- 4 gig and 8 gig models
- App Store
- At least a 3.2 megapixel camera WITH VIDEO RECORDING

These kinds of specs would place the iPhone Nano as a killer to the Nokia 5800 and other music phones. Apple should update the iPhone 3G ASAP to counter the Nokia N97 if you guys heard, most commentators noted that this is an iPhone killer.

 

[Demosthenes X]

I'm trying to put an end to this iPhone Nano existent debate thing. Tons of people keep saying iPhone Nano WOULD NOT come out, most of them are full of iPhone owners or just skeptical about their size.

Agreed. I get a sense a lot of negativity for such a device stems from "I wouldn't want one, therefore nobody wants/should want one". That's not limited to the iPhone, though.

- 3G for voice and EDGE for internet or both (Most 'dumbphones' have 3G now) Therefore no data plans required
- Wi-Fi
- 4 gig and 8 gig models
- App Store
- At least a 3.2 megapixel camera WITH VIDEO RECORDING

I'm not sure about the need for WiFi (since those that wanted the full internet experience would, imo, probably buy a 3G + data plan anyway), but otherwise, agreed. I also think more storage would be important: my thought behind the iPhone nano is that it will become a replacement for both your cell phone and your iPod. I think by capping the iPhone at 16GB they would defeat that purpose. I believe the reason Apple does not currently produce a 32GB iPhone is because of space issues: the 32GB iPod touch uses two 16GB chips - the iPhone does not have space inside for two chips. So I think it's a practical issue, not a conscious marketing issue, and I think (and hope) any iPhone nano would offer the same storage options as the iPod nano.

 

[Theaser]

I'm not sure about the need for WiFi (since those that wanted the full internet experience would, imo, probably buy a 3G + data plan anyway), but otherwise, agreed. I also think more storage would be important: my thought behind the iPhone nano is that it will become a replacement for both your cell phone and your iPod. I think by capping the iPhone at 16GB they would defeat that purpose. I believe the reason Apple does not currently produce a 32GB iPhone is because of space issues: the 32GB iPod touch uses two 16GB chips - the iPhone does not have space inside for two chips. So I think it's a practical issue, not a conscious marketing issue, and I think (and hope) any iPhone nano would offer the same storage options as the iPod nano.

Wi-Fi is on every phone that is on the market now, I do not see why you would want to eliminate Wi-Fi. It is by the way, the best and fastest way to surf the web wirelessly on the iPhone. I heard about a single 32GB being developed, but I bet they might have to do a little redesign because the Nokia N97 can get up to 32 GB of internal memory.

Another issue is about the entire iPhone category, I would like to see the iPhones more accessible. As you pointed out about how Apple should get more into the massive dumb cellphone category, I think it is about time they should start selling the iPhone like any other smartphone. Yes, I am talking about unlocked Apple iPhones directly from Apple Store. Sorry I don't know much about Apple and their policies but I think this is the best way. Think of China, one of its mobile phone carriers, China Mobile has over 400 million users (THAT IS MORE THAN THE US POPULATION) 3/4 of those users are using prepaid. (I know you guys might think they would buy knock offs) but no, I know Chinese electronic knock offs don't last long (Maybe if you go shopping for clothes there it would be the best). Anyways, Apple tackling into this market with a cheap unlocked/prepaid iPhone Nano and the iPhone 3G WOULD DEFINITELY increase Apple's marketshare ten folds immediately as also around the world.

 

[MacsBestFriend]

huge curve on this poll, lol. but i NEED a verizon iPhone or i may buy a OMNIA

 

[Demosthenes X]

I'm just not sure I see the point of WiFi. IMO if anyone were buying the device for mobile internet, they would buy the regular iPhone anyway... although having WiFi would be handy, I don't really see it as a make-or-break feature.

As to prepaid... in some places (e.g., the United Kingdom) the iPhone is available on PaYG. I'm not sure why it's not in the United States (or Canada! ), but agree it would be nice to see.

If Apple offered an iPhone nano on PaYG, I think they would have a real winner. Especially if it were available on all networks (though I don't see that happening, sadly).

 

[SFStateStudent]

Craig Berger, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co, reported today that Apple is getting ready to introduce a "lower-cost version" of the iPhone.

I'm goin' with the "lower-cost version" of the iPhone as the 3G iPhone REFURB...

The...$99 refurb phone, two-year contract...

+1 ^^^ Refurber...

I have no opinion, cuz I've already worn out my opinion on another thread just like this one...

 

[Demosthenes X]

I like how you quote me, and still somehow manage to completely miss the point. The refurb iPhone is hardly "cheaper" - it stills comes with a mandatory data plan. Over a two year contract, that data plan adds $720 + taxes to the cost of the iPhone.

So yeah, you save $100. Less than 6% of the total cost of ownership of the iPhone. Nice.

 

[Theaser]

I'm just not sure I see the point of WiFi. IMO if anyone were buying the device for mobile internet, they would buy the regular iPhone anyway... although having WiFi would be handy, I don't really see it as a make-or-break feature.

As to prepaid... in some places (e.g., the United Kingdom) the iPhone is available on PaYG. I'm not sure why it's not in the United States (or Canada! ), but agree it would be nice to see.

If Apple offered an iPhone nano on PaYG, I think they would have a real winner. Especially if it were available on all networks (though I don't see that happening, sadly).

Hmmm, lets say if you travel to another area and staying in Internet service free hotels but you don't have a laptop, you can use their wireless services and browse the web when you are on the go that way or other scenarios. Yes, Wi-Fi isn't really a make or break feature on the iPhone Nano, but all phones have it as standard and therefore I think it should be implemented.

Another issue, I keep on hearing the apps issue that it will not be usable on the iPhone nano because of it's screen, how would Apple tackle this issue? Or is there even an issue with this at all?

 

[Demosthenes X]

The screen issue can be address by simply keeping the same screen resolution, but at a smaller physical size.

Frankly, I think that's the smallest concern about an iPhone nano. Apple is exceptionally good at producing products that "just work". I have no doubt they can find a clever and innovative way to deal with the supposed "screen size" issue. Those who cite it as a surefire reason the nano will not happen have clearly not been paying attention to what Apple has been doing...

 

[Theaser]

The screen issue can be address by simply keeping the same screen resolution, but at a smaller physical size.

Frankly, I think that's the smallest concern about an iPhone nano. Apple is exceptionally good at producing products that "just work". I have no doubt they can find a clever and innovative way to deal with the supposed "screen size" issue. Those who cite it as a surefire reason the nano will not happen have clearly not been paying attention to what Apple has been doing...

Ahhh, great. I hope it comes out as prepaid for Fido (If it ever does), but its Apple so who knows.

 

[SFStateStudent]

Wi-Fi is on every phone that is on the market now, I do not see why you would want to eliminate Wi-Fi.

No, WiFi is not on the Blackberry Storm...

 

[Theaser]

No, WiFi is not on the Blackberry Storm...

Well, almost every phone has internet capabilities, like my 4 year old phone. I think the lack of wi-fi was why people hated it along with its clicking touchscreen.

 

[SFStateStudent]

So yeah, you save $100. Less than 6% of the total cost of ownership of the iPhone. Nice.

If you do the math, saving $100 is cheaper; and you're still going to pay for the 2-year agreement regardless of the phone, the carrier or the plan; duh...

 

[iMacmatician]

The screen issue can be address by simply keeping the same screen resolution, but at a smaller physical size.

Same finger size. Smaller GUI elements. Worse user experience.

Frankly, I think that's the smallest concern about an iPhone nano. Apple is exceptionally good at producing products that "just work". I have no doubt they can find a clever and innovative way to deal with the supposed "screen size" issue. Those who cite it as a surefire reason the nano will not happen have clearly not been paying attention to what Apple has been doing...

Or they could just skip the problem entirely by reducing the display size only a bit (if at all), not using iPhone OS, or not making an iPhone nano.

 

[Theaser]

Same finger size. Smaller GUI elements. Worse user experience.

Or they could just skip the problem entirely by reducing the display size only a bit (if at all), not using iPhone OS, or not making an iPhone nano.

Well this is a thread about the iPhone Nano, and suggesting that they shouldn't make it with the same reason all over again like the other people in other threads just makes us go in circles. Everyone always complain, complain, complain about their own imagination of what an iPhone Nano would look like. iPhone Nano is imminent from what we see, so you might as well just go discuss about it somewhere else instead. We are here to discuss possibilities of HOW IT WILL WORK not how it IS non-existent.

 

[Michael CM1]

Hey! I'm an iPhone lover, and I agree with you in full.

Market for a "super-smart phone": tiny, if not non-existent.

Market for a "dumbphone": massive.

Now, even someone without the merest hint of sense about how a business operates should be able to figure out which market makes more sense to enter...

Holy crap. Ten minutes into 2009 (for me) and someone makes the same genius point I try to make every day. Hallelujah! I thought I was the only one who thought the iPhone 3G is about as "pro" as Apple would go with a phone.

 

[Theaser]

Holy crap. Ten minutes into 2009 (for me) and someone makes the same genius point I try to make every day. Hallelujah! I thought I was the only one who thought the iPhone 3G is about as "pro" as Apple would go with a phone.

YES! Finally another person that agrees with me. I see people suggesting BS ideas about iPhone Pros and stuff. What a bunch of BS, I don't think I would want to spend my New Years Eve trying to convince people that fact now....

 

[Michael CM1]

Now back on topic, if the iPhone Nano comes out, I believe these should be the MINIMUM SPECS:

- 3G for voice and EDGE for internet or both (Most 'dumbphones' have 3G now) Therefore no data plans required
- Wi-Fi
- 4 gig and 8 gig models
- App Store
- At least a 3.2 megapixel camera WITH VIDEO RECORDING

These kinds of specs would place the iPhone Nano as a killer to the Nokia 5800 and other music phones. Apple should update the iPhone 3G ASAP to counter the Nokia N97 if you guys heard, most commentators noted that this is an iPhone killer.

Why exactly would using those cell radios make no data plan required? It's not really "required" now with the phone. The carriers (well, at least AT&T) just does that to force the most money out of people. I would put having WiFi as a reason no data plan would be required. Limited data users wouldn't need to spend that extra money on the data, so they'd just use WiFi when available.

I don't see any such product having an 8GB model. Apple may have different research, but I would guess that the people who want a cheap phone wouldn't need even 4GB of memory. I don't think the Storm or G1 even come with that much (I think they both use some sort of SD card). Therefore, keep the flash down (or maybe go the SD card route) to save money.

The App Store is pretty obvious. These things aren't worth selling if they can't get more money for Apple via apps. I assume the OS could scale down the apps to fit the screen since you can do that on most computer applications with no issues.

I don't a high-end camera would be needed either. The present iPhone camera would be good enough (and cheap enough) for a lower-end model. This would only be done if you're talking a couple dollars difference between the two. Video recording would just require a firmware upgrade since jailbroken phones can do it. That's no biggie in this scheme.

As far as the N97, I think every smartphone since the iPhone came out was supposed to be an iPhone killer. Problem is none of them seem to get why iPhone users like the thing so much and they just tweak their own stuff.

 

[Theaser]

Why exactly would using those cell radios make no data plan required? It's not really "required" now with the phone. The carriers (well, at least AT&T) just does that to force the most money out of people. I would put having WiFi as a reason no data plan would be required. Limited data users wouldn't need to spend that extra money on the data, so they'd just use WiFi when available.

I don't see any such product having an 8GB model. Apple may have different research, but I would guess that the people who want a cheap phone wouldn't need even 4GB of memory. I don't think the Storm or G1 even come with that much (I think they both use some sort of SD card). Therefore, keep the flash down (or maybe go the SD card route) to save money.

The App Store is pretty obvious. These things aren't worth selling if they can't get more money for Apple via apps. I assume the OS could scale down the apps to fit the screen since you can do that on most computer applications with no issues.

I don't a high-end camera would be needed either. The present iPhone camera would be good enough (and cheap enough) for a lower-end model. This would only be done if you're talking a couple dollars difference between the two. Video recording would just require a firmware upgrade since jailbroken phones can do it. That's no biggie in this scheme.

As far as the N97, I think every smartphone since the iPhone came out was supposed to be an iPhone killer. Problem is none of them seem to get why iPhone users like the thing so much and they just tweak their own stuff.

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about, normal iPod users use up to at least 5 gigs of memory, i have almost finished using up my 8 gigs on my iPod. Unless you have used iPods and iTunes, tell me about it. People getting the iPhone are intending to COMBINE AND REPLACE their MP3/iPod and cell phones together so yes more memory will be required (Also seeing that iPhone does not have any sort of MicroSD slot and will never have one). I see you have poorly done your research on phones before posting information, not everyone knows how to jailbreak an iPhone and that would be breaking the ATT/Rogers 2 year contract. A 2 megapixel phone is WAY behind all the standard phones, the best they should do is a 3.2 MP, the jailbreak BS you were talking about, I think I rather request Apple to make video rec official. Also, no, you have done no research, almost every smartphone that came out after the iPhone failed to beat it in terms of ease of use and quality.

 

[Daveecee]

The reason these threads are around is because the case makers put up hints and they were accurate before about the iPhone 3G and iPod Nano 4G and the analyst post this morning at Macrumors. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE THREADS IF YOU ARE SICK OF THEM !!!

The problem is the number of threads on this bull**** rumor. There are so many other threads already on the iPhone Nano; I am tired of seeing new ones.

 

[Theaser]

The problem is the number of threads on this bull**** rumor. There are so many other threads already on the iPhone Nano; I am tired of seeing new ones.

Well, I can only see this one now, and I think its a fine discussion.

 

[Demosthenes X]

If you do the math, saving $100 is cheaper; and you're still going to pay for the 2-year agreement regardless of the phone, the carrier or the plan; duh...

AT&T requires a $30/month data plan to buy an iPhone. The iPhone nano, as described/predicted, would not have the same requirement. So yes, you're still paying for a two year commitment. The difference is, that commitment is $30/month cheaper than the commitment on the 3G. That's $720 + taxes over the length of the contract, and that's a substantial amount of money.

The math is not open to debate. You'd have to be incredibly daft to believe that ($40 x 24) = ($70 x 24)...

Same finger size. Smaller GUI elements. Worse user experience.

Or they could just skip the problem entirely by reducing the display size only a bit (if at all), not using iPhone OS, or not making an iPhone nano.

That's why I don't pretend to be an engineer for Apple. The point is twofold:
1) If anyone can find a clever, innovative way to control a device, it's Apple. The mouse. The click wheel. Multi-touch. Apple is very, very good at making devices easy to use. Why would they suddenly find themselves unable to make an iPhone nano work?
2) The second part of your defence seems to be "it's hard". And you're right, it would be easier to simply not produce this product. But let's take your logic one step further: by the exact same consideration, it would be easier still not to produce any products. Do you think Apple is going to stop producing products because it's easier? Of course not. What a silly argument.

Holy crap. Ten minutes into 2009 (for me) and someone makes the same genius point I try to make every day. Hallelujah! I thought I was the only one who thought the iPhone 3G is about as "pro" as Apple would go with a phone.

I agree entirely. I'm just floored when I see people argue that there's "no market" for an iPhone nano, and then turn around and say that Apple will release an "iPhone Pro". What a load or rubbish.

I do firmly believe than an "iPhone Pro", as described by some sources, is coming. But it will not be labelled a "Pro" - it will simply be the natural progression of the iPhone. Just like there was always "iPod"* and then the "lesser" models, there will be "iPhone" and then the lesser models. The iPhone Pro will exist, but it will be an evolution of the iPhone 3G, not a new model on top of the 3G.

* - true, this has changed with the introduction of the touch. But I expect that eventually the iPod classic will disapear, and eventually we will see the iPod touch and iPod touch nano, and be in the same place we were prior to the touch.

The problem is the number of threads on this bull**** rumor. There are so many other threads already on the iPhone Nano; I am tired of seeing new ones.

I'm a fan of the concept, but I agree that the number of threads is out of hand. All of this discussion could easily be condensed into one thread. But:
1) This is bound to happen with any big rumour. If there is enough attention, it will always generate multiple threads.
2) It's really not that hard to not click on a thread...