Is this the year of the iPhone nano (or mini)?

[Small White Car]

- Cheaper costs
- Less cannibalization of full iPhones
- Less features for people who are overwhelmed by everything an iPhone can do
- A clearer line between the functionality of the devices
- Less fragmentation of the app store
- Smaller, for those that want that

I think that it has to hit ALL of those points to make sense.


And I think the only way to do that is to ditch the touch screen. You're not talking about an iPhone Nano...You're talking about an iPhone Shuffle.

Now, clearly, it will have more screen space and more buttons than an iPod Shuffle does. It would be a useable phone, after all. But I think it would have to be something that drastic to really hit all these goals.

And once you do that, what's 'Apple' about it? Why should they make it? You can't charge enough to make any money on it. The iPhone 3G is currently $99. So this tiny phone has to be free to not seem like a rip off. And, actually, I strongly suspect there will soon be a "real" iPhone that you can get for free. Why not keep the 3G for the rest of 2010 but make it free with contract after the new phone comes out? They just might. Yeah, this small phone would be cheaper because of the data plan, but that's a tough sell...putting a non-touchscreen phone next to the iPhone 3G and saying they're both 'free.'

I'm not saying people wouldn't buy this phone, I'm just saying I see no good business reason for Apple to WANT to make it in the first place. The profit would be small AND it would make the company look bad.

Actulaly, now that I think about it, this is EXACTLY the same as wishing for a $299 Mac Mini. Yeah, Apple COULD make it. Yeah, people would buy it. But is Apple GOING to? Not a chance.

So that's it, really. Apple will make an iPhone Nano the same day they make a $299 Mac Mini. I just don't think that day will come.

 

[ViViDboarder]

I doubt it... but they did release the iPhone Maxi (iPad)...

Read bolded portion as one...

 

[BaldiMac]

I think that it has to hit ALL of those points to make sense.

And I think the only way to do that is to ditch the touch screen. You're not talking about an iPhone Nano...You're talking about an iPhone Shuffle.

Why would you have to ditch the touchscreen?

Now, clearly, it will have more screen space and more buttons than an iPod Shuffle does. It would be a useable phone, after all. But I think it would have to be something that drastic to really hit all these goals.

As someone pointed out earlier, Apple isn't going use a standard 12 digit keypad for text entry. What other options are there to a touchscreen? Slide out keypad doesn't seem very Apple-like either.

And once you do that, what's 'Apple' about it? Why should they make it? You can't charge enough to make any money on it. The iPhone 3G is currently $99. So this tiny phone has to be free to not seem like a rip off. And, actually, I strongly suspect there will soon be a "real" iPhone that you can get for free. Why not keep the 3G for the rest of 2010 but make it free with contract after the new phone comes out? They just might. Yeah, this small phone would be cheaper because of the data plan, but that's a tough sell...putting a non-touchscreen phone next to the iPhone 3G and saying they're both 'free.'

As I pointed out, it would be reasonable for Apple to get the costs down to around $100 per phone. A $150 subsidy on a free phone would get them in the 30-40% range for their gross margins.

People choose free non-smartphones over free smartphones all the time. The data plan is significant. And, again, some people just don't want the extra features. 85% of people choose non-smartphones. It's a huge market that Apple could address with a nano/mini.

I'm not saying people wouldn't buy this phone, I'm just saying I see no good business reason for Apple to WANT to make it in the first place. The profit would be small AND it would make the company look bad.

I don't see how it would make Apple look bad. All they have to do to impress people is be better than than an LG or Samsung or whatever.

Actulaly, now that I think about it, this is EXACTLY the same as wishing for a $299 Mac Mini. Yeah, Apple COULD make it. Yeah, people would buy it. But is Apple GOING to? Not a chance.

So that's it, really. Apple will make an iPhone Nano the same day they make a $299 Mac Mini. I just don't think that day will come.

I think it's closer to the iPod nano. In price range and scale of the market that it addresses.

 

[Surely]

Why would the keyboard have to be any smaller? You could simply shrink the space above the keyboard. Right it takes up half the screen in either orientation. All you would need is 2 or 3 lines above the keyboard for the limited usage that I described.

Do you have a current iPhone? Have you seen how little space there already is above a landscape keyboard:

With a smaller screen, and not being able to shrink the keyboard too much (otherwise, only 8 year olds with small hands would be able to use it), there would be practically no space to see what you're typing or what you're replying to.

 

[BaldiMac]

Do you have a current iPhone? Have you seen how little space there already is above a landscape keyboard:

With a smaller screen, and not being able to shrink the keyboard too much (otherwise, only 8 year olds with small hands would be able to use it), there would be practically no space to see what you're typing or what you're replying to.

The landscape keyboard is about 1" tall with 1" of space above it. You could easily cut off 1/4" to 1/2" of space at the top and leave room for two to four lines for what you are typing and the last line or two of what you are replying to. Slight interface tweaks could optimize the amount of lines displayed above the keyboard. And of course, dismissing the keyboard would show you more of the conversation.

 

[karlwig]

mhmm... and how do you plan on typing on this smaller display, or even better... marketing such a device?

there will be no iPhone nano, EVER.

You guys are forgetting that the iPhone in its current state has a lot of space on the top and botton that is not the screen. It also has some black on the sides of the screen. Its also a pretty old design, which hasnt really changed much since the first gen intro in 2007.

Most people seem to think the new iPhone will have a larger, higher res display, probably with the same casing dimentions as before (get rid of some of those black areas).

That creates the possibility of making an iPhone mini with the same 3.5 inch screen as the current one, but with a casing that is a LOT shorter if you leave out the black space over and under it (perhaps the home button is moved to the side). They could make it thinner as well, especially if the specs are not top of the line (Im thinking same performance as 3Gs, which in time would be possible to make with smaller chips?)

Maybe Im crazy but I can definately see this. I always felt my iPhone was slightly too big to have comfortably in my pocket, and its quite heavy as well.

Since Im probably buying an iPad, if given the choice I would buy the smallest and lightest iPhone available.

I guess I am one of the few that actually thinks Apple could do this. This kind of size/feature segregation of products happened with the iPod line, to the point where we today has lots too choose from -- and considering people wear their phones all the time, it definately makes sense to give them the option of getting the iPhone experience in a smaller package.

 

[androiphone]

here you are iphone nano but with the same gorgeous screen (as apple would say), you can tell that it woul be a massive success, like that they would be able to keep all functions the same with the new OS4 (and if they extended the screen up)

 

[Surely]

Have you guys seen the inside of an iPhone?

That thing is packed solid with no room to spare. In order for this nano to happen, smaller components that are as good or better than the current components would have to exist.

 

[BaldiMac]

Have you guys seen the inside of an iPhone?

That thing is packed solid with no room to spare. In order for this nano to happen, smaller components that are as good or better than the current components would have to exist.

Or they could leave stuff out.

 

[Knowlege Bomb]

Or they could leave stuff out.

I'd buy an iPhone without a camera.

 

[Surely]

Or they could leave stuff out.

Sure they can, but that would depend on what they could possibly leave out while still maintaining functionality. If it's in there, chances are it's needed for it to work.

I'm not saying we'll never see a smaller iPhone, I'm just saying more time needs to go by for the tech to get smaller.

However, I just don't see Apple doing this anytime soon and canabolizing regular iPhone sales.

I'd buy an iPhone without a camera.

The camera is very small.... They'd have to leave much more out than that.

And I wouldn't.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure they can, but that would depend on what they could possibly leave out while still maintaining functionality. If it's in there, chances are it's needed for it to work.

But that's my point. They would not maintain the functionality of a full iPhone. That's just asking for cannibalization. What you are describing is a smaller iPhone, not an iPhone nano/mini/whatever.

 

[ViViDboarder]

I just don't see the point.

I think the iPhone is selling well enough. You can get the 3G for $99. What would be the incentive? At $99 it's already in the entry level smartphone market.

 

[Surely]

But that's my point. They would not maintain the functionality of a full iPhone. That's just asking for cannibalization. What you are describing is a smaller iPhone, not an iPhone nano/mini/whatever.

Then it wouldn't be an iPhone and Apple wouldn't do it.

It wouldn't be a smart business move. Apple makes a lot of money from their App Store. A dumbed down iPhone would take that revenue stream away from them.

A phone labelled "iPhone" with less features would still cannibalize the premium iPhone sales.

Apple tends to make existing products better, not worse.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then it wouldn't be an iPhone and Apple wouldn't do it.

It wouldn't be a smart business move. Apple makes a lot of money from their App Store. A dumbed down iPhone would take that revenue stream away from them.

A phone labelled "iPhone" with less features would still cannibalize the premium iPhone sales.

Apple tends to make existing products better, not worse.

I'm assuming you didn't read the rest of the thread. Why would a non-smartphone cannibalize sales of a smartphone? Just like an iPod and an iPod nano, they address different portions of the market. 85% of the mobile phone market is a big space that Apple could expand into.

I just don't see the point.

I think the iPhone is selling well enough.

Well enough?

You can get the 3G for $99. What would be the incentive? At $99 it's already in the entry level smartphone market.

The incentive would be that you would not need a data plan because it's not a smartphone.

Apple's profits from the App Store are not a significant percentage of their overall profits.

 

[Surely]

I'm assuming you didn't read the rest of the thread. Why would a non-smartphone cannibalize sales of a smartphone? Just like an iPod and an iPod nano, they address different portions of the market. 85% of the mobile phone market is a big space that Apple could expand into.

I did read the rest of the thread...... a month ago. Doesn't mean what you're saying is right.

A non-smartphone called "iPhone" would cannibalize a smartphone called "iPhone" because it's called "iPhone". A lot of people buy the iPhone just because it's an iPhone- they aren't power users or Mac geeks like us.... they just want the latest and coolest tech toy. I know plenty of people that own an iPhone because it's an iPhone- if there was a cheaper one available, they would buy that and still be able to say they own an iPhone. Cannibalization.

As ViViDboarder has already stated, if someone doesn't want to spend $199 or $299 on a 3GS, they can get a 3G for $99 (or less for a refurb). The profit margins on an even cheaper iPhone would be so low that it would be pointless for Apple to spend their cash on the R&D and manufacturing needed to create one.

The only companies that a basic, cheap iPhone would help would be the wireless companies..... they would be the only ones to reap the benefits from a cheaper iPhone.

You can believe what you want.... but you aren't going to change anyone else's opinion on this.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Do you see motorola pouring money into the Razr still? Even PHONE companies are moving into making mobilecomputer type smart phones.

Why would a computer company move into the dumb phone market?

If anything a nano iPhone would be something like the Pink project by Microsoft that was announced today. A media centric phone that doesn't do apps. Even so, I doubt it's really a viable market for Apple.

Also, just because the App Store isn't where their cashflow comes from it's a major reason why the iPhone is in people's pockets in the first place. Compare iPhone sales pre and post App Store. All devices are now moving to an App Centric model. It's what people want and what will sell devices. I can't think of a single one of my friends now that would buy an Apple dumb phone. Everyone I know already has a smart phone or wants a smart phone.

 

[BaldiMac]

I did read the rest of the thread...... a month ago. Doesn't mean what you're saying is right.

A non-smartphone called "iPhone" would cannibalize a smartphone called "iPhone" because it's called "iPhone". A lot of people buy the iPhone just because it's an iPhone- they aren't power users or Mac geeks like us.... they just want the latest and coolest tech toy. I know plenty of people that own an iPhone because it's an iPhone- if there was a cheaper one available, they would buy that and still be able to say they own an iPhone. Cannibalization.

How would you resolve that logic with Apple's decision to produce an iPod mini and then and iPod nano and then an iPod shuffle?

As ViViDboarder has already stated, if someone doesn't want to spend $199 or $299 on a 3GS, they can get a 3G for $99 (or less for a refurb). The profit margins on an even cheaper iPhone would be so low that it would be pointless for Apple to spend their cash on the R&D and manufacturing needed to create one.

The sale price of the device is not really that relevant, it is the lack of a data plan that is the important financial differentiator for a consumer. I've already pointed out how Apple could possibly achieve their normal margins on the device I described.

The only companies that a basic, cheap iPhone would help would be the wireless companies..... they would be the only ones to reap the benefits from a cheaper iPhone.

Apple would also benefit through hardware sales and the iTunes ecosystem. Some people have no use for a $30 data plan, but would still like to combine there phone and iPod into one device.

You can believe what you want.... but you aren't going to change anyone else's opinion on this.

Speak for yourself. The point of these boards is discussion. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

All devices are now moving to an App Centric model. It's what people want and what will sell devices. I can't think of a single one of my friends now that would buy an Apple dumb phone. Everyone I know already has a smart phone or wants a smart phone.

Your circle of friends is not representative of the entire mobile phone market. 85% of mobile phones sold are not smartphones. Nearly a billion "dumb" phones. That's not an insignificant market.

 

[ViViDboarder]

How would you resolve that logic with Apple's decision to produce an iPod mini and then and iPod nano and then an iPod shuffle?



The sale price of the device is not really that relevant, it is the lack of a data plan that is the important financial differentiator for a consumer. I've already pointed out how Apple could possibly achieve their normal margins on the device I described.



Apple would also benefit through hardware sales and the iTunes ecosystem. Some people have no use for a $30 data plan, but would still like to combine there phone and iPod into one device.



Speak for yourself. The point of these boards is discussion. I'm not trying to convert anyone.



Your circle of friends is not representative of the entire mobile phone market. 85% of mobile phones sold are not smartphones. Nearly a billion "dumb" phones. That's not an insignificant market.

And they are mostly users who don't care what phone they have. The people at are selective and care about the actual device in their pocket are generally looking for smart phones. Many dumb phone users just take whatever their carrier is offering for free.

 

[BaldiMac]

And they are mostly users who don't care what phone they have. The people at are selective and care about the actual device in their pocket are generally looking for smart phones.

I question your market research. And what do you mean by "mostly"? 60%? That's still 400,000,000 phones per year. 90%? That's still 100,000,000 phones per year. And that's about the size of the entire mp3 player market.

Many dumb phone users just take whatever their carrier is offering for free.

Because all of the current free dumb phones are pretty much the same thing. A free or nearly free iPhone nano with a touch screen and the ability to replace their iPod nano would stand out pretty easily.

 

[Surely]

I really don't see the point in your iPhone nano idea or in me continuing to participate in this discussion.

iPods ≠ iPhones.

A dataplan-less iPhone is a regression, not a progression.


I don't feel like repeating myself over and over.......

And I just don't care anymore. This conversation is so last month.

 

[ViViDboarder]

I question your market research. And what do you mean by "mostly"? 60%? That's still 400,000,000 phones per year. 90%? That's still 100,000,000 phones per year. And that's about the size of the entire mp3 player market.



Because all of the current free dumb phones are pretty much the same thing. A free or nearly free iPhone nano with a touch screen and the ability to replace their iPod nano would stand out pretty easily.

I see. While that may seem like it'd make a lot of money, it should be recognized that Apple is not a phone company. They make the iPhone, but the iPhone is more of a computer. There's not much to "revolutionize" in the dumb phone market, in my opinion. It doesn't quite fit Apple's MO. Also, they tend to place a lot of control over the manufacturing of devices. The reason companies like Apple continue to do well is because they keep a small product line of "premium" products.

I think that the same reason Apple won't make a netbook is going to be the same reason they won't make a dumb phone. There once was a dumb phone with iTunes on it and it didn't do too well.

 

[BaldiMac]

I really don't see the point in your iPhone nano idea or in me continuing to participate in this discussion.

Okay.

iPods ≠ iPhones.

Duh. But how would the differences impact similar market strategies?

A dataplan-less iPhone is a regression, not a progression.

You mean, just like the move from an iPod to an iPod mini?

I don't feel like repeating myself over and over.......

Don't repeat. Add new information.

This conversation is so last month.

Unless new iPhone nanos are released this summer! Or the next summer.

 

[BaldiMac]

I see. While that may seem like it'd make a lot of money, it should be recognized that Apple is not a phone company. They make the iPhone, but the iPhone is more of a computer. There's not much to "revolutionize" in the dumb phone market, in my opinion. It doesn't quite fit Apple's MO. Also, they tend to place a lot of control over the manufacturing of devices. The reason companies like Apple continue to do well is because they keep a small product line of "premium" products.

I think that the same reason Apple won't make a netbook is going to be the same reason they won't make a dumb phone. There once was a dumb phone with iTunes on it and it didn't do too well.

Think of it as a touch screen iPod nano that can make phone calls. Similar unsubsidized price. Similar margins. Much larger market.

Your argument doesn't really work when you consider that they still produced the iPod shuffle and the iPod nano, both on which are less advanced than the proposed iPhone nano.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Think of it as a touch screen iPod nano that can make phone calls. Similar unsubsidized price. Similar margins. Much larger market.

Your argument doesn't really work when you consider that they still produced the iPod shuffle and the iPod nano, both on which are less advanced than the proposed iPhone nano.

Except that they were stand out products in how small they were. Tech was getting smaller and smaller at that time. The average size of handsets has been increasing in recent years. Going smaller doesn't seem to be what people care about as much as getting features.

I see the reason to have an iPod shuffle and an iPod. One big one to hold all your data and one smaller portable one.

As far as an iPhone nano would go... I feel like I'd rather have a free dumb phone and an iPod touch.