Slashdot Log In
Here Comes iPhone Nano, But Not In the US
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jan 12, 2009 03:11 PM
from the rampant-speculation dept.
from the rampant-speculation dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
It makes them happier to be one step closer to the iPhone shuffle?
Parent
Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Parent
Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:5, Funny)
"a quick port to alternate dimensions"
Strange...Jobs told me that Apple wouldn't have that working until 2013.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
"Huge, heavy brick?" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I kind of stunned by this. What is the standard size for phones nowadays? My iPhone is a heck of a lot slimmer than the Nokia candy bar phone I was using up until now, and it's not much bigger than the RAZRs my family uses. I don't think I could actually reliably hit the buttons on a phone smaller than the iPhone, especially if a smaller phone were a touch screen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize we live in a 3 dimensional world, don't you? There are two other dimensions to consider in addition to width. And here is a hint - the other two dimensions are larger than the average cell phone size.
Re: (Score:3)
"My iPhone is a heck of a lot slimmer than the Nokia candy bar phone I was using up until now"
You do realize we live in a 3 dimensional world, don't you? There are two other dimensions to consider in addition to width. And here is a hint - the other two dimensions are larger than the average cell phone size.
In a 3 dimensional world, the most important measure of size is volume:
iPhone: [apple.com] 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.48" = 5.184 cu in
On the other hand,
Nokia 6030: [wirelessinfo.com] 4.40" x 1.90" x 0.90" = 7.524 cu in (or 45% more than the iPhone)
Nokia N73: [wirelessinfo.com] 4.33" x 1.93" x 0.75" = 6.268 cu in (or 21% more)
Nokia N78: [wirelessinfo.com] 4.45" x 1.93" x 0.59" = 5.067 cu in (or 2.3% less)
Nokia N82: [wirelessinfo.com] 4.41" x 1.98" x 0.68" = 5.938 cu in (or 15% more)
So, the iPhone is pretty much as big as the smallest candy bar Nokia that I found in a fast query. [wirelessinfo.com]
iPhone = Brick? Pul-eeze... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the classic iPhone is huge heavy brick that many potential customers would be embarresed lugging around.
Yes there are smaller phones available but I've yet to meet ANYONE who objected to the iPhone by calling it a "huge heavy brick" or that they would be embarrassed by it. Quite the opposite actually - it's something of a status symbol if anything. ANY form factor will have tradeoffs. If you don't like the ones Apple chose then shut up and buy a different phone.
The iPhone isn't for everyone and it is ok if you don't want one. I carry a different phone myself because I travel places for work where flashing
You breaking apps will stop Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ma
Re:Why build an iPhone Nano? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's iphone platform (unlike their professional computer line) serves no use, but they made a market for it anyway as a fashion accessory.
My iPhone lets me edit online shared documents through Evernote, access shared google calendars, send / recieve e-mail in a halfway descent interface, check my balances, log work times and bill clients directly from my phone, find myself when lost driving to said clients, and plays a mean game of Sim City.
And as far as I can tell the iPhone has become a symbol of uncoolness, an anti-fashion accessory, simply by being too popular.
I had a Treo for years, and it didn't have half of the functionality of the iPhone. On the flip side, I've used Linux phones with ostensibly as much functionality as the iPhone, but I never got the damned applications to work right without spending hours online.
It is powerful and usable. Don't let your chosen phone cloud the fact that the iPhone is being purchased en masse because it actually is pretty good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the users who are only Apple users AFTER they got their iPod and iPhone and loved them. There are lots of those.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll agree here. While the iPhone interface is better than anything out there by a million miles, I can see that if it has incomplete Exchange integration it would be a problem for "business users". I'm an IT guy at a university -- the iPhone is just about my perfect sidekick:
- IMAP Email (I don't use Exchange)
- Wifi for web access (look up stuff from the server room)
- SSH client (I paid $5 for it)
- Phone in place of a pager
I honestly didn't care what it looked like, but the large screen sort of limits it
Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Er... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Alternate explaination: A US carrier other than AT&T. Perhaps T-Mobile.
Parent
They have a new app at the iPhone store (Score:3, Funny)
You shake up your iPhone and it tells you where the next iPhone rollout will be and where to get good sushi.
ScuttleMonkey (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we just get rid of him?
Re:ScuttleMonkey (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Smaller? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
uh, MMS?
Re:Smaller? (Score:4, Interesting)
Email can do everything MMS can. Clearly it is the phones that do MMS but not email that are broken.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Could be a legal shuffle, yes? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Economic Downturn (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
It's all about the API (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the number of pixels in the screen stay the same.
Re:It's all about the API (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:It's all about the API (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
New Apple "nano" device (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the new iPhone? (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.metropolismag.com/pov/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/zoolander.jpg [metropolismag.com]
"Hansel? This call is for you."
Who says it'll have custom apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A lot of speculation from a peck of fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
Either that, or it's not on the way at all. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, China, don't make me laugh! Why would they launch there? The market for them isn't that big!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:iPhone Shito (Score:5, Funny)
Parent