Slashdot Mirror
Apple Plans Cheaper Nano-Based iPhone
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."
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.
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
So... that's kinda like when I'm drunk then?
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
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?!]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
"Got burned on my MacBook, so I think I'll be waiting."
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.
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.
No sig for you!!
No, the iPhone Shuffle is no more likely to call your ex-girlfriend than it is to call any other contact.
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.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
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.
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.
That's what she said.