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."

Comments

Why build an iPhone Nano?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Er... what?

[nine-times]

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?

Hmm...

[ivan256]

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.

ScuttleMonkey

[Kuj0317]

Can we just get rid of him?

Smaller?

[A. B3ttik]

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.

Re:Big Eyecatching Caption to attrract eyeballs

[whisper_jeff]

"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.

It's all about the API

[BRSloth]

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:It's all about the API

[GizmoToy]

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.

New Apple "nano" device

[John Bayko]

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.

Who says it'll have custom apps?

[javacowboy]

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.