Slashdot Log In
Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based iPhone
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jul 10, 2007 08:53 AM
from the they-can-make-it-smaller-they-have-the-technology dept.
from the they-can-make-it-smaller-they-have-the-technology dept.
bigkahunafish writes "It seems Apple is planning a cheaper version of the iPhone possibly based on the iPod Nano. This phone would be priced below $300 making it more affordable than the $500-600 iPhone. This should bring Apple phone technology into the hands of more users, though this cheaper phone could have more limited functionality. From the article: 'Sales of the [original] iPhone are expected to be limited to a small percentage of the market due to its high price tag, particularly in the United States where 85 percent of consumers tend to spend $100 or less on cell phones. But analysts forecast that a cheaper phone from Apple, which leads the digital music player market, could pose a much bigger threat to long-established phone makers such as Nokia, Motorola Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Sony Ericsson, owned by Sony Corp and Ericsson.' I just hope they don't make a phone based on the iPod Shuffle."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm waiting for the iPhone Shuffle (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm waiting for the iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'm waiting for the iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Funny)
No, the iPhone Shuffle is no more likely to call your ex-girlfriend than it is to call any other contact.
Parent
Re:I'm waiting for the iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Here it is. iPhone Shuffle... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
iPhone Shuffle (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
@yg
Re:iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Funny)
At least it will encourage people to clean up their contact list.
Fellow Senator, take a look at my new iPhone Shuffle. Watch me dial someone:
Mom [skip]
Brian Smith[skip]
DC Madam [skip! skip! Where the hell is the delete button?!]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect Apple to fill those holes pretty quickly. But, it's going to take V2 HW to fix some things I'd want like external storage and bigger internal storage.
Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't need MMS. I have a phone that can send an email with an attached photo. My phone is not the problem. Your phone that's incapable of receiving emails with MIME attachments.
The other comments about videos, ringtones, etc. are valid.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it only cost $225 after rebate.
Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
Off-the-shelf interoperability with your firm's servers AND push mail? Hmmmm.... could that be because your firm has a Blackberry server?
I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed with "off-the-shelf" interoperability with expensive server software from the same company. Give me plain old IMAP and POP3 support, which will give you off-the-shelf support with pretty much every e-mail server on the planet.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhhh... OK, done. You do know you don't need a BlackBerry server to use a BlackBerry, right? When you sign up for a BlackBerry service plan you pick one or the other -- "enterprise connectivity" through BlackBerry's server package, or an Internet service that will poll POP or IMAP accounts (open or SSL) and deliver the mail to your handheld. The BlackBerry Enterprise Ser
Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet it still dominates the market.
Someday the tech pundits will learn that ease of use trumps features.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. Show me a $50 cellphone that can do almost any of that,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the iPhone hysteria is wearing off?
From last week:
Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. That is nothing more than Slashdot kool-aid drank by people who have never even seen the phone in person, much less used one. I was skeptical of the iPhone too, reading idiot after idiot review in newspapers and magazines and on Slashdot from people who either never really used an iPhone or didn't like it to begin with after reading nothing more than paper-specs. I have been stuck with a Blackberry and a Treo at work, at different times, on an everyday basis and I have been waiting for something better ever since. So, I actually went to an Apple store and tried an iPhone out, for about an hour. I browsed the web, called some people, listened to the iTunes app, checked out the email app, checked out the built-in VPN, checked out how it automatically switches from EDGE to WIFI and back to EDGE whenever you come within range of a WIFI access point, tried seeing how fast and accurate I could type on the screen and much more. I was absolutely impressed. The iPhone is incredible. Then I went home and did some more research, looked up competing phone plans in my area with equivalent phones and plans (e.g. Verizon was $20-$40 a month more on equivalent plans with a Blackberry at $339 and Treo at $429 after mail-in rebate) and went back to the store to check out the iPhone, in person, again. After spending another hour using the phone, I was completely sold. So, I bought the 8GB version, which has so far been the best phone and ipod I have ever used. The included earbuds with the iPhone microphone and iPod control built-in are very nice. Features such as voice dialing and instant messaging I am sure will included in future software updates to the iPhone. And even if not, I am not missing them at all. I don't use my phone in the car, so voice dialing is a moot point to me.
One of the best things about the iPhone is its seamless integration with Outlook 2003+ and Entourage 2004 11.2.3+ as well as the excellent support for IMAP. I am currently beta testing the iPhone within our corporation for a bunch of other people who are looking to buy the iPhone for both personal and work use as well.
The point is that iPhone 1.0 is a solid product, what 1.0 releases should be. Plus all but one or two of the so-called missing features are software features. Something Apple can easily add to the iPhone, at any time, with only a software update and without having to create a new phone. Which is very nice.
Also, a point which everyone seems to miss, is that I now have the best iPod I have ever used. Ever. And honestly I do not listen to more than 4-5GB of music, podcasts or videos at any one time, which iTunes 7.3 lets me sync with the iPhone fairly granularly. So, I sold my 80GB iPod on eBay for $300. Which made my iPhone only a $300 purchase to me, which nothing else could beat.
Parent
So now that the iPhone is out... (Score:3, Funny)
Nano Based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooooh, I see, Apple has filed phone related patents that utilize a scroll wheel, just like the iPod nano. Never mind that every other iPod(minus the shuffle) also has a scroll wheel.
Any
changing the normal pricing model (Score:5, Insightful)
I've explained to these colleagues that there is no way this will happen. Apple's products never become cheaper, they just release new "generations" and keep the price about the same. They fill the gap with less functional products. This method is true for their desktops (Mac Pro, iMac, Mac Mini), notebooks (MacBook Pro, Macbook) and their iPods (iPod, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle); it only stands to reason that it will be true for iPhones, too.
And since the batteries aren't replacable in the iPhones, after two years, you won't want to get a used one. This locks their customers into the current $500-$600 units forever, as you wouldn't want to buy a used one in 1 1/2 years.
Will this work in the cell phone market? I'm not sure, but I'm certain that there will never be a "free iPhone with 2 year activation" type promotion.
Re:changing the normal pricing model (Score:5, Insightful)
cell service for two years -- $1500
Battery (physical part, typical retail) -- $30
Battery (Apple replacement service cost, minus typical part cost) -- $60
Conclusion: the extra costs of the battery replacement service represent about 3.2% of TCO for someone who wishes to buy a used iPhone. Anyone who decides not to purchase a used iPhone based on the built-in battery is an idiot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly will buy one used in a couple of years. It's a solder joint for pete's sake. Unsolder the old battery and solder in a new one with twice the storage capacity. Maybe I should see this as less of a comment and more of a business model.
Total time: 15 minutes
Total cost: Probably about $20 including the case tool to open the iPhone
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind however that services like www.iresq.com are popping up that WILL replace your iPhone batteries for you. So in the future it may be cheaper to buy a used iPhone and then send it off to get its battery replaced. I also fully expect that a company like NewerTech will at some point offer increased capacity batteries that surpass the performance of the original OEM batteries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've explained to these colleagues that there is no way this will happen.
You are correct. I don't see the iPhone ever selling for less than $300 - not a new one anyway. I'm not sure Apple should even go for the under $100 market nor do I think they plan to do so. I took a look just to see what is out there for under $100. The only phones you can get for $100 are giant sized piece of crap phones or
Circular touchpad? (Score:5, Funny)
Expanding (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes sense for Apple to expand its phone product range, since it is now a phone manufacturer.
What if they succeed and sell tens of millions of units?
Then a computer company would be one of the world's largest phone manufacturers.
That would make the telecommunications industry a lot more interesting. Currently, it is dominated by phone type companies.
Won't be Nano-sized, though (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot sinks further into uselessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it will steal some market share from the phone makers, but we should all assume that they aren't idiots. What they all have in common is great income and plenty of money to spend on development. Why would they just watch Apple steal everything from them? It's one thing to conquer the mp3 player market, but significantly harder to conquer the mobile phone market.
I am one hundred percent certain that at least a couple of these companies will bring out very competitive products very soon, possibly this year. I also have no doubt that Apple will continue to develop great products, but I just don't see the same iPod era in the cell phone market like so many people think.
Two pieces connected by a cord? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm not sure I see how they can make the thing more than incrementally cheaper.
They can't make the screen smaller without turning the iPhone into something like an ordinary cell phone. And then you don't get any of the breakthrough advantages of the iPhone user interface. It would just be a Motorola ROKR with an Apple logo and, possibly, better iPod functionality.
So far, Apple has been consistently good in avoiding the temptation to put the Apple brand on something that Apple fans like me would perceive to be a cheap piece of crap.
The iPod Shuffle is a good case in point. Before it came out, everyone was speculating that it would have a tiny, i.e. unusable screen (like some of the competitive
I'm darned if I see how they can make a much smaller, cheaper iPhone without falling into that trap.
Re:Two pieces connected by a cord? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Rumour fatigue (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the iPhone already Nano-based? (Score:5, Insightful)
iPhone: 4GB and 8GB models
Both use flash memory for storage.
From my perspective as a 80GB hard-drive based iPod owner, which iPod exactly is the iPhone based on if it isn't already the Nano?
Why would Apple care about "cannibalizing?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on a minute. In the first place, why would Apple we worried about a $500 or $600 iPhone "eating into iPod sales?"
That sounds like the sort of poisonous big-corporation bozo thinking. People that care more about their division than about either a) the customer, or b) the company as a whole. Like old-time GM, where Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac worried more about each other than about, say, high-quality foreign cars. It's the sort of thinking that leads to artificially holding back new products in order to "milk the cash cow" and extract the last dollar from the older product. To rationalized product lines with exactly seven price points.
That's not the way every company works (remember Digital introducing the MicroVAX II, knowing perfectly well that it wasn't going to "cannibalize" higher-end VAX sales, it was going to vaporize them?) And there's good evidence that it's not the way Apple works. A case in point would be the replacement of the iPod Mini, which was a popular, successful, and well-liked product, with the Nano. There's no evidence at all that Apple was worried about the Nano "cannibalizing" sales of the Mini!
RUMOURS (Score:5, Insightful)
STOP POSTING RUBBISH RUMOURS!
Oh and by the way, if the iPhone is successful, YES there will be follow-up and other models. Look at the iPod. What's new here?
Astonishing News! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the UK, Vodafone.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple is understood to be demanding that its European mobile phone partners hand over a significant proportion of revenues generated by the iPhone and restrict the content that users can access."
So, the really interesting point about the device now becomes apparent. The business model has been so far, that you took service from whoever you wanted, using whatever phone you wanted, and you accessed whatever content you wanted. We are now seeing an attempt to get to a totally different model. To use a phone, you are obliged to sign up to a music download store, whether you are interested in music, or music from that store, or not. Then you are obliged to sign up to one and only one network. Finally, you can't access the content you want unless the phone supplier approves of it. And for all of this, you pay not only for the usage of the network, but you also end up paying a fee to the phone maker for the privilege of undergoing all these restrictions.
Now, people will write back and say, you don't have to buy it. No. And that is not the point at all. The point is not primarily about Apple or the iPhone. The point we should be paying attention to is, what happens and how will it feel, if this becomes the standard business model in the mobile internet and service arena?
I suggest not at all. As little, in fact, as if we were to be controlled in our use of our PCs by Microsoft. Buy only the hardware brands that Redmond tells you are permitted. Access only the sites that Redmond approves of. Load only the software that Redmond permits. Or Cupertino.
We must devoutly hope that this model turns into a huge business flop, not because we like or hate Apple, but because the model in itself is inimical to intellectual freedom. The present one, use what you like to do what you like, is infinitely preferable from the point of view of freedom of information and expression. Just as the present CD/DVD model is infinitely preferable to the iTunes model: buy what you want, by whatever browser or at whatever walkin store you want, pay by whatever credit card you want, take it home and play it on the player of your choice, made by whoever you choose to buy players from. This too will turn out to be about intellectual freedom, when it comes to buying ebooks and enews.
It is related to Apple and its values and strategy, in the sense that this has always been what Apple was about. But the important thing is not to be critical of Apple in itself. It is the model that is wrong. Of course, the company is very wrong too. But long as it stays below 5% of everything, who cares? Its when its model starts to dominate that we should become disturbed and enraged, or when it tries to extend its controlled and restrictive model to areas of intellectual life that are presently free.
Then we need to educate, and to resist.
Re:Buy now... (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly did you get burned? It sounds like you bought the product you wanted, at a price you found acceptable, and Apple brought out a new product sometime afterward.
You can wait all you want, and either the product will be incrementally improved or discontinued. There really is only two choices. If you buy the upgraded model, that too will be upgraded at some point. Would you complain that you were burned again?
I buy probably a dozen or more Dells a year. If I wait a year, they will have better graphic cards, more ram and probably a better processor. They don't send me emails telling me that there is going to be a new product coming out in a few months. I buy what I need when I need to. And I know that something better will be coming out soon after I buy it.
Parent
Re:Buy now... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I bought Apples, they'd all be out of a job! But even with these, I get a little more use out of them than the normal user...I just found out the main line of computers I have is considered to be completely out of date for my university...even if someone sends them to central surplus, I can't requisition them even for parts for my department because the university wants me to upgrade. Why? I'll be damned if I have Vista installed on any of our computers.
But job
Re:Buy now...Unless (Score:5, Informative)
Then the iPhone "pays" for itself.
I've had mine for just over a week, and I don't regret the money to get these features in a phone I can read in the bright sunlight.
Parent
The article is wild speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
Those kinds of details could help reduce the screen area needed to support a full-featured phone and perhaps get it dow to a nano-sized thing. Too small to be a real internet broswer device but large enough to pan through a contact list.
anyhow those design patents have been out there for a long time. SO some ones discovering them does not make it news or mean there's a new product.
On the other hand apple needs a response to the two sided phone/music players from samsung. those are ipod-nano killers since even though they are larger than a nano, you could argue that the music player is actually smaller as long as you planned to have a cell phone in your pocket anyhow. A nano sized phone would kill that.
Parent
Re:The article is wild speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of these "Apple is buying parts/Apple filed an application" articles have there been? So many that it's a joke. [misterbg.org] (That page is several years old--it came out around the time of the first- or second-gen iPod.) Now that multitouch is "out there," Apple can start filing patents on all multitouch-related things without everyone wondering what they're up to.
Everything else is OBVIOUS. OF COURSE Apple will make a better/faster/smaller/cheaper iPhone with more features at some point in the future. Next from JP Morgan: the sky is blue, water is wet. Film at 11.
I stand by my prediction [slashdot.org] that there will NOT be ANY revs to the iPhone before Jan 2008; more likely late Spring or Summer. (Note that this doesn't count improvements to the current iPhone, like a software update that enables the camera to shoot video, for example.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So for my most recent car purchase I bought a new Chevy. They're updated like once every 20 years, and the updates usually make them a bit lousier. Now I know I made a good decision!
Re:It's not the price tag, or the carrier... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent