Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based iPhone 343

Posted by Zonk 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based iPhone More

Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based iPhone

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wow, it's THAT small?

  • I'm waiting for the iPhone Shuffle (Score:4, Funny)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @08:56AM (#19812533)
    It's got only one button. Press it and it dials one of your contacts at random.

  • iPhone Shuffle (Score:3, Funny)

    by Deinhard ( 644412 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @08:57AM (#19812551)

    I just hope they don't make a phone based on the iPod Shuffle.
    Why not? Don't you want your phone to randomly call people in your Contact list? At least if you get someone you don't like you can "skip to next."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Cygfrydd ( 957180 )
      Thank you for making my drudge of a job a little bit more bearable. That made me literally laugh out loud. "Hello? Who did I just call? Mom? No, I don't want to talk to you. *click* Hello? Who..."

      @yg

    • Re:iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Funny)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:02AM (#19812609)

      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?!]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, gee. I was hoping they would release it in the shape of a Star Trek insignia and install some kind of magical "Me to Someone else" voice activation. :-)

    • Re:iPhone Shuffle (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:29AM (#19812945)
      With voice-dial and bluetooth, an "iPhone shuffle" would actually be pretty nice. I doubt they could get good battery life for a phone in such a small device though. I'd give up a screen for a cell phone that would fit on my keychain.

  • How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Droopy Drawers ( 215436 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:00AM (#19812575)
    I've been following the reviews for the iPhone. Once you get past the "GeeWhiz" features and dig into the reasons why you'd want a SmartPhone, there's lots of holes to find. Brian Lam [gizmodo.com] discussed this in a pretty level-headed way:

    The real elephant in the room is the fact that I just spent $600 on my friggin' iPhone and it can't do some crucial functions that even $50 handsets can. I'm talking about MMS. Video recording. Custom ringtones. Mass storage. Fully functioning Bluetooth with stereo audio streaming. Voice dialing when you're using a car kit. Sending contact info to other people. Instant friggin' messenging. Sending an SMS to more than one recipient at a time.

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MontyApollo ( 849862 )
      It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd, then they come out with version 2 and fill in the holes to appeal to the average user/business user. In addition, a lot of version 1 people, being the cool gadget crowd, will decide to buy version 2 also. They make more money in the long run by leaving enough holes in to have more models in the pipeline, but not enough holes that it deters a significant portion of their target audience.

      • Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Listen Up ( 107011 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @01:45PM (#19816477)
        It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd

        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.

    • Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by furball ( 2853 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:09AM (#19813519) Journal
      MMS support is dumb. MMS is what you need when phones were stupid and couldn't handle real email. Saying you need MMS is like saying you need to support rotary dial. MMS is a feature bullet that got out-classed by real email with real attachments.

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by darkmeridian ( 119044 )
      I got a Sprint Blackberry 8830 last week. It's about the same size as an iPhone, but it has high speed Internet access, Blackberry push mail, and off-the-shelf interoperability with my firm's servers. The phone works very well, I can text people, and webbrowsing through Opera Mini is great.

      And it only cost $225 after rebate.

      • Re:How more limited can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @11:22AM (#19814531) Homepage

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by PCM2 ( 4486 )

          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.

          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)

      by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:29AM (#19813793) Homepage Journal
      Yes. And the iPod still doesn't have an FM receiver or voice recording.

      And yet it still dominates the market.

      Someday the tech pundits will learn that ease of use trumps features.
    • He gets so upset about features like MMS that he feels compelled to use the word "friggin" in a serious review on a major tech site. Twice in one paragraph. I'm not sure that qualifies as "level headed".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Listen Up ( 107011 )
      The real elephant in the room is the fact that I just spent $600 on my friggin' iPhone and it can't do some crucial functions that even $50 handsets can. I'm talking about MMS. Video recording. Custom ringtones. Mass storage. Fully functioning Bluetooth with stereo audio streaming. Voice dialing when you're using a car kit. Sending contact info to other people. Instant friggin' messenging. Sending an SMS to more than one recipient at a time.

      Bullshit. Show me a $50 cellphone that can do almost any of that,

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gatzke ( 2977 )
      You post something discussing iPhone limitations and get modded interesting, I post what I thought was a level-headed list of pros and cons and I get "Flamebait".

      Maybe the iPhone hysteria is wearing off?

      From last week:

      played with an iphone on Wednesday. There are some issues that would make it a show stopper for me.

      -Keyboard stinks. Best way I could get anything typed accurately was hold it in one hand and point with the other.
      -No correction in web URLs and email addresses, so you have to be perfect.
      -No per

  • So now that the iPhone is out... (Score:3, Funny)

    by doombringerltx ( 1109389 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:03AM (#19812617)
    ...they need to have another iPhone that isn't out yet we can have at least one post a day about.

  • Nano Based? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:03AM (#19812619) Journal
    "Nano-based" is pretty much the dumbest way you could've put it. It's going to be based on the current iPhone, but it'll just be a cheaper, physically smaller, and more feature limited device; similar to the way an iPod nano compares to a full size iPod.

    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
    • 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.

      Oh, I see where they might be going with this. Imagine a scroll wheel that has little dimples with the numbers on them around the circumference like an old rotary dial. That would take care of dialing without a touchscreen, a mix of modern and retro.

      Still $300 for a phone is steep. I would hope and imagine that a nano based phon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )
      I was going to ask the question "how can you dumb the iPhone down further, and it still be usable as a phone". Making the screen smaller and adding buttons or a scroll wheel, and ditching the WiFi seem the only options. Its not like the iPhone is feature rich as it is, with no 3G, poor bluetooth support, PC connectivity tied to iTunes and no real developer support.

  • changing the normal pricing model (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smithcl8 ( 738234 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:03AM (#19812621)
    This is how Apple is going to change the pricing model used in the cell phone market. Before, when you drooled over a new phone, you knew that if you waited 1-2 years, you could pick it up for next to nothing. The RAZR, for instance, was about $300 when it came out...one year later, it was $99. I've heard several of my colleagues say that they will get their iPhones in two years when they are $50.

    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)

      by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:23AM (#19812867)
      used iPhone (2009) -- $300
      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by smithcl8 ( 738234 )
        smithcl8's Guesstimated New iPhone Price in 2009: $500
        Timster's Guesstimated Used Working iPhone Price in 2009: $300+$30+$60 = $390.

        Conclusion: If you feel like revamping a 2 year old piece of hardware to save 20%, go for it, but those who would not are certainly not idiots. I can't predict the features that will be available in 2009, but I must believe that they will be worth at least $110 more than a used first generation iPhone.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by timster ( 32400 )
          Oh, I'm sure that purchasing a new model will indeed make more sense than a used one in two years. However, I don't believe that the battery has much to do with it, or creates "lock-in". All devices will have some maintenance cost, and the built-in battery increases those maintenance costs slightly, but it's hard to see a scenario where that increase would dramatically alter the economics of the overall situation.
    • Nevermind will it work in the cell phone market (though I think the answer is no) - will it even work in the music player market? I have several friends whose iPods crapped out after less than two years. They're quite dissatisfied with that. They went ahead and bought another, but I just don't see how that can last more than a couple of cycles.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fnord666 ( 889225 )

      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.

      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)

      by NDPTAL85 ( 260093 )
      Yes you've nailed it for how it will go for regular consumers.

      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.

    • I've heard several of my colleagues say that they will get their iPhones in two years when they are $50. I've explained to these colleagues that there is no way this will happen.
      I guess you've never heard of eBay? Or you think that all he early adopters who bought a $600 phone the day it came out aren't going to be buying a newer phone sometime in the next few years?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 )
      I've heard several of my colleagues say that they will get their iPhones in two years when they are $50.

      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
  • You insensitive clod!

  • Circular touchpad? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@x m s n e t . nl> on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:07AM (#19812667)
    So it's a rotary-dial phone, then?
  • And they will sell like hotcakes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Phroggy ( 441 )

      And they will sell like hotcakes.
      Or what about this idea?

      Make it $600, and they will sell like hotcakes, except Apple makes 3x as much cash.

      Seems to be working so far! ;-)

  • Expanding (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wombatmobile ( 623057 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:09AM (#19812693)

    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)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@x m s n e t . nl> on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:11AM (#19812717)
    The Nano just doesn't have enough internal volume for phone electronics plus a battery that'll give decent battery life.

  • Slashdot sinks further into uselessness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:15AM (#19812777)
    Stop posting conjecture by "market analysts". No matter how you spin it, this is not news for nerds or stuff that matters. It's someone trying to rally interest in Apple stock.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mgblst ( 80109 )
      Stop posting conjecture by "market analysts". No matter how you spin it, this is not news for nerds or stuff that matters. It's someone trying to rally interest in Apple stock.
       
      Made you click though, didn't it. Maybe they will stop posting it, when everybody stops clicking on the link to comment. Maybe you will care less if you just scrolled past the iPhone story. You know if you ignore it, that it will go away.

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:24AM (#19812883) Homepage
    "..could pose a much bigger threat to long-established phone makers such as Nokia, Motorola Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Sony Ericsson.."

    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)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:27AM (#19812925) Homepage
    The distance between the human ear and the human mouth is pretty well fixed... how can they make a one-piece phone much smaller than the iPhone? I just don't see it. Maybe a miniature version of a candlestick phone, with two pieces connected by a cord. Or perhaps a tiny Shuffle-like mouthpiece and a separate, tiny bluetooth earpiece?

    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 .mp3 players). Instead, in both the older and newer Shuffles, Apple came out with a slick piece of industrial design that looks and feels like a quality product in a new category, not a cheap-and-cheesy version of an existing product, or a slightly-tarted-up version of a score of competitors' products.

    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)

      by FroBugg ( 24957 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:25AM (#19813723) Homepage
      You haven't seen bluetooth headsets? Mics no longer need to be anywhere near your mouth for decent pickups these days. The size of a cell phone these days has nothing to do the size of your face and everything to do with the size of the components, display, and interface.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mgblst ( 80109 )
      It is simple really. Anyone who wants this new phone will have to have severe plastic surgery to improve their face. After the 2 months it take to get over the plastic surgery, your face and the Apple iPhone will fit perfectly. Apple Market Research have found that this will dissuade only a tiny percentage of the current Apple User base.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by abes ( 82351 )
      Yes, this rumor doesn't pass the smell test very well. Someone, unnamed, claims that somewhere in the supply chain Apple is going to build a nano iPhone. If this person exists, and isn't just bulshitting, he/she would have to work for the actual company putting together the final product. Anyone else wouldn't be privy to the information. Besides which, I'm not sure the timing of these things, but it seems like it would be a bit soon for the mass production to start. The second expert is an analysts. I won'

  • Rumour fatigue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by simong ( 32944 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:31AM (#19812969) Homepage
    Can we please, please stop with this astroturf? Pundits don't know what's going to happen to the iPhone, you don't know what's going to happen to the iPhone, it's probably likely that Apple don't know what's going to happen to the iPhone beyond a couple of OS fixes. The two things that are interesting about the iPhone are the interface and the fact that it runs OS X. Period. It might get more interesting as it develops but at the moment it's a crippled phone on a crippled network that is probably going to prove to be the biggest tech disappointment of 2007. This time next week it will 'iPhone could add two inches to your manhood' or 'iPhone could enable owner to travel in time and space' at this rate.
  • After RTFA, it sounds to me like this guy has found info that suggests Apple will turn the iPod Nano into... an updated iPod Nano. So there is a new casing coming down the supply chain and a patent for a "multifunctional" device. To me that sounds like Apple is going to update the Nano to incorporate some of the gee-whiz iPhone UI features while leaving their high margin, incredibly popular iPhone unchallenged, but saying that doesn't get your name in the papers.
  • "This should bring Apple phone technology into the hands of more users..."

    Not very many. They're forgetting that people who are currently locked in with contracts with other providers won't just go and buy an iPhone right away. Couple that with people who don't live in AT&T's serviceable area and brand loyalty (I'm never leaving Sprint) and their sales will never truly explode like the iPod has. Only making a deal with AT&T will limit their market. So really, Apple should loosen up just a little
    • "Couple that with people who don't live in AT&T's serviceable area"

      This would be a relatively small percentage of people since AT+T covers most of the US including almost all of Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Anchorage Alaska.

      http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer?WT.svl= title [att.com]

      "I could, quite frankly, care less if I had an iPhone with a Sprint logo on it."

      No, but Apple does. There are no logos other than Apple's on an iPhone. From what I understand, Apple initially approached the other providers about ma

  • Isn't the iPhone already Nano-based? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theurge14 ( 820596 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:40AM (#19813083)
    iPod Nano: 4GB and 8GB models
    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?

  • though this cheaper phone could have more limited functionality.

    Wow. Ya think?

  • Why would Apple care about "cannibalizing?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @09:42AM (#19813119) Homepage
    "Another analyst Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray said he expects Apple to bring out iPods that resemble iPhone, which features such as a touch-sensitive screen, later this year. Such products would help stop iPhone eating into iPod sales. 'We believe the iPhone reveals much of what the iPod will soon be,' Munster said in a note to clients, 'iPods with some of the touchscreen features of the iPhone should lessen the impact of cannibalization.'"

    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!

  • The divide between the haves and have-nots will only become deeper, when this new iPhone is released. A struggling coffee-shop owner will not be able to afford the $600 gadget, and so will have to settle for the limited functionality of the cheaper one.

    All the while, the leaching MAFIAA shills prosper suing the single (grand-)mothers for copyright infringment, which is not even theft.

    Or something...

  • iPod: HD based, $249 for 30 GB.
    iPod Nano: Flash based, $249 for 8 GB.
    iPhone: Flash based, $499 for 4 GB, or $599 for 8 GB.
  • I don't see how you could make a smaller touchscreen phone without a stylus, and even if you could, what would be the point? You wouldn't be able to read email or surf the web on an iPhone Nano, even with intelligent zoom-in, so that kills nearly half of the perks of the regular iPhone right off.

    It has been interesting to watch the other shoe drop on the iPhone. At first I figured the catch would be that the cost of service would be insane. Then it came out that the pricing was very competitive (catch: i

  • RUMOURS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pliep ( 880962 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:06AM (#19813485) Homepage
    So, this guy, like in Taiwan, like, told me something like, that some company is making metal cases for Apple and stuff, and this is going to be like, some nano-based iPhone. You know, like it's TRUE!

    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?
  • I just hope they don't make a phone based on the iPod Shuffle.

    Jokes about calling random numbers aside, I've long wanted such a gizmo. Just give me a phone with voice dialing and audio prompts - no screen - and I'd be happy. It would be totally tiny, have minimal buttons for volume/mute/start/end, a built-in USB plug (per classic Shuffle) for no-cables charging and visual access from any computer. Include the iPod Shuffle guts as the MP3 player.

    I use the classic Shuffle all the time for select music (there'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sribe ( 304414 )

      ...surely a very usable audio-only phone could be built into the classic Shuffle design.

      Uhhhmmm, no! Cell phones require power for signal transmission, which requires a good-sized battery.

  • Astonishing News! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LKM ( 227954 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @10:15AM (#19813593)
    Apple will release a better, smaller version of a current product at some unspecified later date. In other news, tomorrow's sun will be a bright ball of fire, and the cars of the future will have four wheels.
    • Why the sarcasm? And where does TFA say anything about "better"?

      Apple did exactly this with the original iPod. They released two smaller, substantially less expensive versions of it. What makes you think they won't follow the same business plan with the iPhone?

      • Dude. (Score:2)

        by LKM ( 227954 )
        Did you read what I wrote? I did not say that Apple would not do this. In fact, Apple does this with every damn product they make. Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based (by which I assume they mean "smaller," because everything else makes no sense at all) iPhone? No shit? We knew that the day Apple announced the iPhone. It's not news.
  • They could save money by eliminating the screen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by saddino ( 183491 )
      That would be the iPhone Shuffle, which randomly calls someone in your address book when you press Call.

  • ...though this cheaper phone could have more limited functionality.
    What - like you can't make phone calls? iPhone is extremely limited as it is.
  • Check out this sneak peak [youtube.com] of the iPhone Nano.

  • In the UK, Vodafone.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @11:18AM (#19814433)
    The Guardian reported that in the UK, Vodafone had baulked at a couple of the demands. These were that a percentage of the revenues generated by the user should come back to Apple, and that there should be restrictions on what content could be accessed.

    "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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close