Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Here Comes iPhone Nano, But Not In the US

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the rampant-speculation dept.

Handhelds 177

jehovajerieh writes to us in the time-honored tradition of rampant Apple speculation, pointing to an article over on IBTimes suggesting that while the iPhone Nano may be on the way, the US might not be the first to experience this gadget bliss. "Despite limited information in the supplier channels and typical secrecy with new Apple products, insiders have confirmed that the iPhone nano is not yet in the testing labs at AT&T, Marshal says, leading him to believe that the launch will most likely be with a non-US carrier. 'Obviously, the best-case scenario here would be a China launch (~600mil+ wireless subscribers total in the country), but we have no definitive knowledge of this and are working on identifying the [locale] of launch and other pertinent details,' he said."

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iPhone Shito (0, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422183)

Who cares?

Stupid (0)

Jonah Bomber (535788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422189)

Stupid AT&T.

makes sense (-1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422235)

Chinese need smaller electronics so their wangs look big in comparison.

Re:makes sense (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422697)

"We are very simple people, with very small penis"

Re:makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423477)

I believe the plural is "penii"

Re:makes sense (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26424031)

nah, the entire country only has one. It's detachable.

Why build an iPhone Nano? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422311)

What'd be the point? iPhone applications aren't coded to run at multiple resolutions (something that will be a problem when/if a hybrid MacOS/iPhone tablet PC comes along), and there's not much to be gained by using a smaller battery or lower-power CPU. I don't understand why everyone expects a smaller, cheaper iPhone to be released. Who'd buy it, and why?

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (-1, Flamebait)

joaommp (685612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422541)

people who still want to adhere to the Apple pseudo-fashion but either can't afford the non-nano iPhone or are too bored/too dumb/too simple to use anything else than the basic stuff.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422723)

What'd be the point? iPhone applications aren't coded to run at multiple resolutions (something that will be a problem when/if a hybrid MacOS/iPhone tablet PC comes along), and there's not much to be gained by using a smaller battery or lower-power CPU. I don't understand why everyone expects a smaller, cheaper iPhone to be released. Who'd buy it, and why?

replace all instances of "iphone nano" with "iphone"
replace all instances of "iphone" with "blackberry"
replace macos/iphone tablet pc with VOIP over mobile broadband
now you have the same scenario from years ago.

Apple's iphone platform (unlike their professional computer line) serves no use, but they made a market for it anyway as a fashion accessory.

Fashion is not subject to the laws of usability, interface design, or return on income.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423073)

replace all instances of "iphone nano" with "iphone"

Cannot find string "iphone nano". Replace 0 occurrence(s).

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

Supergibbs (786716) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423141)

You forgot the \IncludeTitle flag....

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423211)

or "include summary"

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

x102output (536049) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423421)

Fashion is not subject to the laws of usability, interface design, or return on income.

Um...according to anyone outside of slashdot, the iPhone is ALL about interface and usability. That's why it's selling so good.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423595)

500,000 Apple users with a bad case of cognitive dissonance doesn't change 30 years of UI research and development.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (4, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422795)

It makes them happier to be one step closer to the iPhone shuffle?

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (5, Funny)

0prime (792333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423617)

*dial*
Help, my office is on fire, sen... what? You're not the fire department, ok, ok... ok, bye.
*>>*
Help, my office is on fi... Roy? Well, can you call the fire department and tell them the of... what do you mean you bought an iPhone shuffle too?! Fine... FINE... bye.
...
*gets on computer*
*opens e-mail*

"Subject: Fire.

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to inform you of a fire that has broken out on the premises of 123 Cavendon Road..."

no, that's too formal.
*deletes text, starts again*
"Fire! fire! help me! 123 Cavendon Road. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly, Maurice Moss."

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

GraffitiKnight (724507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26424203)

I love IT Crowd (for those that didn't get the reference). I'm hoping they release the DVDs here in the US as I'd rather not have to import them.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26424227)

Ah, the iPhone shuffle. One speaker, one receiver, and one button. Perfect for the drunk dialer in your family...

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (5, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423035)

Actually, a lot of iPhone apps would auto-scale to any resolution. Interface Builder defines the way panes adjust when the window size changes. It's the 3D games that will likely have to change if they've hardcoded frame buffer sizes, but even those should be a quick port to alternate dimensions. It's kind of inevitable that Apple will release an iPhone-like device of different screen dimensions, and they're pretty well-prepared for it even if perhaps it won't run EVERY fart-noise generator on the market from day 1.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (5, Funny)

Cynonamous Anoward (994767) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423875)

"a quick port to alternate dimensions"

Strange...Jobs told me that Apple wouldn't have that working until 2013.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423063)

Well I'm not buying the current iPhone because it's too large. It's not going to fit in pocket as well as my 83g Samsung SGH-E730, which I hardly notice is there most of the time - perfect. It's pretty functional too, giving my POP3 and SMTP access anywhere I go in the world except Japan and S. Korea. Maybe a Nano would be something I could consider as an eventual replacement.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (2, Insightful)

cinderblock (1102693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423399)

This will be a completely different class of iPhone. They don't want to make a small iPhone, they want a cheap iPhone. That means say goodbye to all the fun UI stuff that has made the iPhone so good because they'll probably make it an iPhone wheel (think MacBook wheel).

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (2, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423557)

Because the classic iPhone is huge heavy brick that many potential customers would be embarresed lugging around. By going down a size the new iPhone nano might be the size of a mobile phone.

Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423581)

For me, the purpose of an iPhone "Nano" isn't about getting a smaller phone, but rather offering a version of the iPhone that doesn't cost you ~$80-$90 a month to own. That's the biggest thing holding me back right now and I imagine a lot of others. I would be willing to pay for a WiFi version of the iPhone if I could use with my existing plan without having any extra fees...

You breaking apps will stop Apple? (2, Insightful)

Kalewa (561267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423911)

Do you honestly think Apple would give more than a passing thought to inconveniencing programmers?

Here's how it would go.

Launch Day: Programmers are notified that they will have to rewrite their programs to work on the Nano. Everyone whines, bitches, moans, and claims that the Nano will fail within weeks without programmer support. A lot of them vow not to buy it or program for it.

Fifteen minutes later: The first fart app for the Nano is ported.

A week after launch day: Programmers of apps that make obscene amounts of money grudgingly announce that they're working on porting their apps.

Six months after launch day: The Nano 2nd generation is announced. All apps have either been ported, or portable equivalents have been written.

You know that's how it'll go down.

Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (5, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422319)

TFA has absolutely nothing of substance. Looks like they're just trying to attract click revenue.

If Apple did release the Nanophone elsewhere then it would be the first time they'd done a product launch that excluded USA.

Of course it would not be surprising if competitors are pushing the concept to create demand which they can fill with a "me too" product. "Me too" that is, except that the original does not exist. Various Chinese companies make a bundle out of "me toos", so this strategy could appeal there.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422477)

"Looks like they're just trying to attract click revenue."

Agreed but I did my part to foil their plans - Firefox with AdBlock for the win. :)

Seriously though, fluff pieces like this shouldn't appear on Slashdot. They're nothing more than attempts to inflate ad revenue. They have absolutely nothing of substance. That "article" didn't tell me a single thing. Complete waste of thee minutes of my life.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (5, Funny)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422999)

What is this "Article" you speak of?

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423005)

Slashdot uses these fluff pieces to inflate THEIR ad revenue. The more people reply and bitch about TFA, the more money /. makes from ads.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423159)

you're not supposed to actually rtfa. this is slashdot.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (1)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423583)

wait, you must be new here...

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (5, Funny)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422719)

People actually visit the linked articles? Astounding...

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423367)

The what, now?

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#26424113)

Only for the purposes of slashdotting their server.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (4, Interesting)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423591)

Actually Apple has released products that never sold in the US. Of course this was in the evil Performa times. PowerMac 8200, Black 5400,Color Classic II.

Er... what? (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422321)

So this guy is insisting that Apple's providing an iPhone Nano in spite of having no evidence other than, "I think it would make sense for them to do it", and when there's evidence that AT&T doesn't know anything about it, he draws the conclusion that they'll launch it in China first?

Based on what? How many products have Apple launched in countries other than the US in the past few years?

Re:Er... what? (2, Insightful)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422895)

That's all it takes to make money off the web ads on the page.

Re:Er... what? (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423435)

Moreover, the iPhone only sells through the secondary market in mainland China -- you can buy unlocked iPhones in Hong Kong due to regulations.

Hmm... (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422327)

insiders have confirmed that the iPhone nano is not yet in the testing labs at AT&T, Marshal says, leading him to believe that the launch will most likely be with a non-US carrier.

Simpler explaination: It doesn't exist.

Re:Hmm... (3, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422583)

Alternate explaination: A US carrier other than AT&T. Perhaps T-Mobile.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26424007)

I'd be very surprised if, due to the exclusive US distribution contract, either Apple or AT&T have much flexibility - Apple's probably prohibited from selling phones through any other carrier & I doubt that AT&T can carry anything that directly competes with the iPhone. Pulling numbers out of my ass, we're probably talking about a 2-5 year deal.

Re:Hmm... (1)

lethargic8 (1179029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423405)

I guess this writer never heard of Occam's Razor

They have a new app at the iPhone store (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422353)

You shake up your iPhone and it tells you where the next iPhone rollout will be and where to get good sushi.

ScuttleMonkey (4, Insightful)

Kuj0317 (856656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422361)

Can we just get rid of him?

Re:ScuttleMonkey (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422745)

(Score: -2, ineedthisjob)

Re:ScuttleMonkey (4, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422941)

Yes. Your user screen -> preferences -> authors. Uncheck the box of any you don't want to see.

Re:ScuttleMonkey (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423065)

I tried that and ended up unchecking ALL of them; kind of defeats the point, doesn't it?

Re:ScuttleMonkey (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423297)

No no. There's a hidden button which I'll link to indirectly [tinyurl.com] which completely changes all the authors. Warning. Do not follow link without having a non nerd helper on standby. It may have a stronger effect on you than a .cx link.

Re:ScuttleMonkey (2, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423097)

Annoyingly, those preferences don't work for the RSS feed...

Re:ScuttleMonkey (0)

flosofl (626809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423731)

Annoyingly, those preferences don't work for the RSS feed...

And if you'd think about it for second, you'd realize why.

Re:ScuttleMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423625)

Yay! You just made /. a 100% better for me. Thank you.

Re:ScuttleMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423749)

The same way we 'got rid of' Roland Piquepalle...?

Who cares? (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422369)

The iPhone is a different platform from the original iPod. The nano worked there because there were no third part applications that depended on screen size assumptions and things like that. I would be surprise if a lot of the software written for the iPhone would work as well on the nano because it's going to be a smaller device, and that means that the user interface will be harder to deal with. Safari is just barely usable comfortably, for example. I can't imagine using it if it were even smaller.

Re:Who cares? (2, Informative)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423031)

This is something every mobile developer should already know and prepare for - alternate viewing resolutions. I know I do. Just like a windowed application one can determine the proper display format based on system information and adjust the display accordingly. IMHO It's not a huge hurdle for development, more like a tiny speed bump.

Yes it's tricky making apps on really small screens. Welcome to mobile development.

Re:Who cares? (4, Interesting)

joh (27088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423747)

There's no reason to assume that an iPhone nano will run *any* third-party apps at all. Think of it as an iPod nano with an integrated phone and it almost makes sense. There's no need for an sophisticated OS or third-party apps then. Just a small iPod with a phone, that's it. Nothing wrong with that idea either.

Smaller? (5, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422381)

How much smaller can they make the iPhone while still retaining the trademark touchscreen applications?

The appeal of the iPhone is that you can do anything with it... it's an iPod, a phone, a browser, a gameboy, a GPS, etc. Making it even half as small is going to severely hamper a lot of this functionality. Who wants a browser with even less screen size than the current iPhone? What games could you play on a screen that small? How would you be able to use it as a TomTom when the screen size is no larger than a pack of matches?

This is to say nothing of how difficult it would be to control such a tiny interface with the already inaccurate touchscreen.

Re:Smaller? (2, Insightful)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422563)

"The appeal of the iPhone is that you can do anything with it... "

uh, MMS?

Re:Smaller? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422737)

It's an Apple product. Anything it does is an essential feature that all competing products must not only have, but improve upon. Conversely, anything it lacks is a useless, tacked-on 'feature' designed to add a bullet point to a buzzword list, and you neither want, nor need it.

Re:Smaller? (3, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423423)

Email can do everything MMS can. Clearly it is the phones that do MMS but not email that are broken.

Re:Smaller? (2, Interesting)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423675)

Can you email pictures to all 98.5% of worlds population that doesn't have iPhones? If 98,5% of devices does something in a certain way, it is not broken, it may be inefficient or silly, but it is the standard. Doing something else makes you non-compatible, and for a communications device, that means useless.

Re:Smaller? (2, Interesting)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26424135)

Can you email pictures to all 98.5% of worlds population that doesn't have iPhones?

Yes, if they have an email address, which generally has nothing to do with what kind of phone they have.

Any other questions?

Re:Smaller? (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423127)

I think you'll find a large number of people would say they crossed the functionality vs. size line with iPhone already.

Re:Smaller? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423229)

This is to say nothing of how difficult it would be to control such a tiny interface with the already inaccurate touchscreen.

So, I have fat fingers, you insensitive clod !

Re:Smaller? (1)

astrodoom (1396409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423289)

What games could you play on a screen that small?

pixel tetris, micro mario brothers, racing games where the only car choices you have are pt cruisers, VW bugs, and electric cars.

Re:Smaller? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423459)

How would you be able to use it as a TomTom when the screen size is no larger than a pack of matches?

Errr, maybe they'd make it do voice turn-by-turn directions like a GPS device is intended to do...

Re:Smaller? (1)

jrmcc (703725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423463)

Didn't you see Zoolander? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196229/)

Re:Smaller? (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423547)

Who says the screen has to be smaller? They could make a flip phone that is half the size when closed, but has the same sized screen when open.

Could be a legal shuffle, yes? (3, Interesting)

Lester67 (218549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422391)

Maybe the specific, full sized iPhone is the only product that that Apple is required to carry through AT&T for 5 years?

Maybe the release of the iPhone Nano would open the door for another wireless vendor to handle that product.

Just thinking out loud.

Re:Could be a legal shuffle, yes? (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423479)

Yes if that was the case, Apple would be launching it on another GSM network like T-Mobile if Apple decided to go that route. But using another network would require some work by the network. Remember Apple got AT&T to implement a number of network features like visual voicemail. As for launching first in China, that's pure speculation considering the iPhone isn't in China now and there are no immediate plans so far. The analyst justifies this with saying China is a large market, but that's virtually true of any product but you don't see every company launching their gadgets in China.

tag: rumorsrumorsrumors (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422403)

Pure speculation. Is this a slow news day?

Hmm... (1, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422435)

I think we can all agree that if the iPhone was on Verizon instead of AT&T, it would be even more popular then it is now. Verizon's network is far superior to AT&T's in terms of speed, reliability and coverage.

*sigh* I guess I will have to wait for Verizon to get a decent touch-screen phone. T Mobile has the G1...AT&AT has the iPhone...and Verizon has the drizzle. Oh, I mean the Storm*

Re:Hmm... (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423517)

Except Verizon sucks and probably would *never* agree to the kind of unlimited bandwidth you get through the iPhone. Especially not for $30/mo (which incidentally existed for their smartphones for years)

And even *if* they did all that, they'd be a lot more restrictive about the functionality allowed because it's Verizon.

I think the iPhone is plenty popular enough for AT&T. Literally more than half the people I know with an iPhone switched off Verizon to get one.

Kids will buy anything. (1)

darkjohnson (640563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422443)

Not sure why they need a smaller one but if it's cheaper and market with the right angle, the kids will have to have it. I can't imagine it will have the touch screen UI so maybe it will fail. It's happened before.

Economic Downturn (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422455)

The article speculates that an iPhone nano may be in the works due to economic downturn (although I fail to see where the great savings lie, and how such a device would be in the works just scant months after the big crash...) but if Apple comes out with it, it still doesn't address the reason I won't buy an iPhone: lock-in.

It's been said millions of times already, but I would like to point out the prepaid market is currently booming. I'd rather spend $500 on the iPhone upfront, get an unlimited monthly data plan cheap ($30 or less) and not have a monthly talk plan - just prepay that part as I need it.

I don't see how a slight change in hardware will change AT&T's rates which is what hurts long term more than the cost of the phone itself. I believe Apple wants to address the lowend of the market (which is does with it's iPods, although imo the shuffle is a poor attempt without any lcd/oled at all), I just don't see it being effective.

Right now, I can go out and buy a prepaid phone for $10. It has a decent color lcd screen, actually, and probably is better/as good as a Razr in many respects (which is piss poor at anything but being a phone out of the box). Coupled with an iPod Touch - it can do about 75% of the iPhone. I won't pretend it is as good as the iPhone unless you're near wifi access at the moment.

But still, when I look at the iPod Touch vs iPhone, I feel like I'm paying through the nose for a gps and phone chipsets added on because of ATT and adding models won't change that component.

*(Everyone is different. ATT's plans are decent for already heavy callers, but I'm not one and there are many other people who just want mobile internet+ipod and don't care about the phone component to the point of thinning the wallet).

Re:Economic Downturn (1)

castorvx (1424163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422869)

The lock-in on the iPhone is a huge problem for many people, including myself. I've become so attached to having the iPhone web browser in my pocket everywhere I go that they have me roped.

I think the best solution would be to have a phone that has a cheap data plan and can run as a Wifi access point simultaneously. Associate an iPod Touch with the AP and voila, and have that sweet browsing everywhere without that bullshit AT&T.

Re:Economic Downturn (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422981)

I don't see how a slight change in hardware will change AT&T's rates which is what hurts long term more than the cost of the phone itself.

Yup. If Apple wants to grow their market, they need to put pressure on ATT to lower their rates.

Re:Economic Downturn (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423109)

You're preaching to the choir here. I actually develop applications for the iPhone but inside I want Android to take off. It's more open, it's easier to code for (just my opinion, but a popular one), and even has some better features like wake an app at a specific location, iPhone does not have this. Then toss AT&T wireless into the mix and you got a nice NO THANK YOU stew.

The real bugger is trying to make a cross platform mobile applications that reside on the client. iPhone, Android, Crackberry, Symbian, and now webOS.. Please send help!

could make sense (1)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422497)

China is a huge market, but several of the iPhones features are a no no there. (GPS etc) Could it be that rather then sell an iPhone with half its functionality disabled for the chinese market, Apple has decided to make a new phone without those features just for the chinese market.

Re:could make sense (2, Interesting)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422757)

Yeah, China, don't make me laugh! Why would they launch there? The market for them isn't that big!

  • There's already big market for iPhone clones, that are much cheaper. You see them everywhere
  • There's a big market for MyPhone. Runs an illegal copy of Windows, and is more popular with my work colleagues because it's cheaper than the iPhone, runs Windows applications, and has applications that they actually like
  • Does Apple sell hardware cheaper in China? My Airport Express at Best Buy in Shanghai was 20% more expensive than in the US! Even in Shanghai where salaries are much higher than the rest of the country, our engineers didn't like spending more than RMB25 (<USD$4), just to give perspective about disposable income levels

Re:could make sense (1)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423853)

wow you almost seemed intelligent till you said you shopped at best buy.

but seriously Apple doesn't make iPhones to sell hardware...its to get subsidies from the phone co...something it cant get now.

Re:could make sense (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26424055)

You haven't shopped in China have you? I went there because it has a better returns policy than most places, and at least a few people on staff who speak English (some of the staff I spoke to had been over to Vanvcouver for training).

Even then when I had an obviously broken Airport that needed to be rebooted every 15 minutes when it lost connectivity, I spent days arguing with them that it was faulty and that they should at least exchange it for another. They insisted that I either have somebody come to my house (at my expensive) to demonstrate it doesn't work, or they'd send it off for testing for a week (which surprisingly turned up no problems). None of which was convenient for somebody who had to work from home due to early morning meetings with colleagues in California before the local office was open.

Really, one is stupid not to shop at Best Buy under the circumstances

iPhones in the West are relatively expensive, especially considering the plan lock-ins. iPhones in China are hideously expensive (relatively), and lock-in to the China Telecom plan makes it even worse. Many Chinese like the status symbol, but the cost is ridiculous - hence my comment that China is not a good market (or at least mass market)

Re:could make sense (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423801)

No, it doesn't make any sense. Because it would be much cheaper to make the original iPhone with a few features disabled or components not included than do an entire new design, testing, RF certification, ect of a new model for a single market.

It's all about the API (4, Insightful)

BRSloth (578824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422547)

As someone who worked with the iPhone SDK, I can say that iPhone Nano is not going to happen anytime soon. Reason: There is no layout managers in the SDK so, if you want your button to be in the right side, you have to provide a position in pixels from the left side. If Apple build a smaller version of the screen, about 90% of all AppStore applications would not work properly. Either that or you'd have very small buttons all over the place and it'd be really hard to read anything in the screen ('cause you need to keep same aspect ratio of the "normal" iPhone.)

Re:It's all about the API (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422779)

I can say that iPhone Nano is not going to happen anytime soon. Reason: There is no layout managers in the SDK so, if you want your button to be in the right side, you have to provide a position in pixels from the left side.

Unless the number of pixels in the screen stay the same.

Re:It's all about the API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423195)

I can say that iPhone Nano is not going to happen anytime soon. Reason: There is no layout managers in the SDK so, if you want your button to be in the right side, you have to provide a position in pixels from the left side.

Unless the number of pixels in the screen stay the same.

"Then you'd have very small buttons ... and it'd be really hard to read anything in the screen."

Unless the screen size stayed the same.

Re:It's all about the API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423337)

Reduce screen size, increase density, same pixel count.
Remove GPS, camera. Reduce backlight, battery size, remove speakerphone.
Have the case just a little bit smaller (like 25%).

Sell to kids with small fingers or countries with smaller fingers.
Sell at discount to full iPhone, say $129 or $149. Still a bargain for a 4GB video iPod with WiFi web browsing + AppStore. Oh - and a basic phone.

Doesn't like a bad rumour to me. It would put severe pricing pressure on competitors and broaden the platform. By removing some geek-lust features (heck, even Bluetooth) and not marking it down too far, they wouldn't cannibalize much from the full iPhone.

Re:It's all about the API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423227)

Yup, the number of screen pixels may stay the same, and even it it doesn't it'd be trivial to have a translator that recalculates the number of pixels for the Nano screen. What does become a problem is resolution falls (ie icon design), so it'd make a lot more sense to design a Nano with the same number of screen pixels.

Not that I'm saying I think there's a Nano in the works. The title of this submission should have been "Groundless iPhone Nano Rumour".

If we're going to discuss that hypothetical device, then yeah, releasing in Asia would make more sense because they've got a much bigger market of people with smaller fingers. That's no joke. The normalization of computer devices across gender and racial lines has made for a lot of viable modern products that are too cramped for my big euro-male fingers. It's not a bad thing, just a fact.

Re:It's all about the API (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423261)

Yes existing apps would have to be rebuilt but so what. One could simply store a configuration that's has layout information out for each device, determine which display view to use for that device, and then do so.

Hypothetically the application developers should've thought of this. Will the current iPhone display resolution always be standard? Probably not.

I'm not stating anything about this vapor phone, only that developing for multiple resolutions is not new in mobile development.

Re:It's all about the API (4, Insightful)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423655)

I think the most compelling argument for the iPhone Nano is "Who said it would provide App Store support?" A cheap iPhone Nano that is merely a cellphone + iPod would make a killing. Then there's a clear upgrade path: Get hooked on the iPod and phone integration, then step up to the full iPhone with application support when your contract's up. I don't think it would be unusual to have a basic phone (iPhone Nano) and a smartphone (iPhone) in the Apple lineup.

Also, the official SDK specifically warns against using hard-coded pixel values to place items on the screen. They are supposed to be in relation to the actual pixel edges, for which an easy access method is provided. I doubt many people design this way, which will undoubtedly create a nightmare when the resolution is inevitably changed, but Apple did warn everyone.

Re:It's all about the API (3, Interesting)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423883)

Interface Builder lets you choose to specify offsets from either side for both axes (top/bottom for Y and left/right for X). Further it lets you defined resize behaviors. The only apps that will be bitten by a change in screen dimensions are those from developers who didn't bother to learn what those controls do and assumed that the screen size will just never change.

New Apple "nano" device (4, Insightful)

John Bayko (632961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422823)

Isn't it more likely that the manufacturing drawings, supplier rumours, etc. are for a "iPod Touch Nano" rather than a nano iPhone? That would explain the lack of reported phone testing.

M0D PAR3NT UP!!1! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423137)

Please.

Re:New Apple "nano" device (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423869)

Same problem, a smaller screen means none of the old apps will work.

Maybe it's good marketing, just maybe. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26422915)

It seems a little counter-intuitive to launch any new product that is painfully bound to be popular in any country other than the one that goes through consumer goods like it's toilet paper. Forced obsolescence is just magical in how much it wastes, like, everything in the name of fashion.

China is likely to reverse engineer the product and sell knock-offs to the US before they're even knock-offs. People tend to believe in what they know first, at least they do in the US.

Re:Maybe it's good marketing, just maybe. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26422925)

Oh, damn thing posting anonymously when I don't tell it to. I'm having that problem a lot lately.

Who says it'll have custom apps? (5, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423219)

The reasoning that the iPhone Nano can't exist is that iPhone apps rely on a certain screen size and resolution.

Well, who says the iPhone Nano won't be a device that lacks the functionality to run custom apps?

There's a great demand by people like me who carry an iPod and cell phone who would rather carry a single device. This device would have simple requirements:

1) Music player
2) View and Edit Contacts
3) View and Edit Calendars
4) No contract
5) No data plan/ voice plan only
6) Sync with iTunes/Addressbook/iCal
7) Calculator and other simple apps

Essentially, it would be an iPod Nano would a phone attached, and it would sell like hotcakes. Apple could charge a premium over other "dumbphones" because it would be an Apple phone. It wouldn't need anymore than simple first party apps. Later on, the iPhone SDK would be updated so that third party developers could port their existing apps to it.

The only reason Apple wouldn't do this is if, despite the flood of volume, it simply wouldn't be profitable enough.

Re:Who says it'll have custom apps? (1)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423993)

I think you're probably right on. Apple likes clearly-defined product groups with certain features.

I wouldn't be surprised to see:
iPhone Nano = iPod + Phone (Data plan not required)
iPhone 3G (or whatever is next) = iPod + Phone + Apps (Data plan required)

Then there's a nice upgrade path for Apple from one to the other.

A lot of speculation from a peck of fact... (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423269)

Despite limited information in the supplier channels and typical secrecy with new Apple products, insiders have confirmed that the iPhone nano is not yet in the testing labs at AT&T, Marshal says, leading him to believe that the launch will most likely be with a non-US carrier.

Either that, or it's not on the way at all. :)

And? (2, Insightful)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26423855)

I don't know if it's just me, but who gives a fuck? It's a phone, people. Get a life. Not trolling, just saying...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?