Slashdot Mirror
Here Comes iPhone Nano, But Not In the US
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."
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?
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?
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.
Can we just get rid of him?
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.
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.
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*
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
"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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
This space left intentionally blank.
Either that, or it's not on the way at all. :)
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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...
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
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.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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 a several hundred dollar phone is a bad idea. But if you are going to object to criticize the iPhone you can find far better arguments than to call it a "huge heavy brick" which it very clearly is not. The virtual keyboard, the so-so camera, the API, the lack of a removable battery, the lack of removable storage, etc are all perfectly valid criticisms depending on what you expect out of a phone. But a "brick"? Pul-eeeze.