Comments on: The Unavoidable iPhone Nano

By: exclusive property

exclusive property — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:00:17 +0000

Remarkable! Its really remarkable article, I have got much clear idea regarding from this post.

By: web ressource

web ressource — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:19:06 +0000

Wonderful site. Lots of helpful information here. I’m sending it to some friends ans additionally sharing in delicious. And obviously, thank you to your effort!

By: 10 Googling Iphone Sites | About the Iphone

10 Googling Iphone Sites | About the Iphone — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:17 +0000

[...] The Unavoidable iPhone Nano | Monday NoteApr 10, 2011 Try googling iPhone Nano, you'll get 43.9 million hits. It seems a lot. A closer look at Google's results [...]

By: Boot up: Apple iPhone 5 ‘to ship in September’, and more | Software BF1

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:17:15 +0000

[...] The Unavoidable iPhone Nano >> Monday Note [...]

By: yasmeen

yasmeen — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 03:21:49 +0000

good insight. Too bad round here an iPhone cost around 700-800 $ (in Indonesia). So I will gladly accept if any of you want to sell some opened iPhone for the lesser price

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:56:41 +0000

A different screen size would certainly complicate matters, but they could simply offer the same dimensions but with the smaller non–Retina Display pixel density. Although the iPod touch does already have a Retina Display.

Worth mentioning that the iPhone is sold unlocked in the UK (and other countries, as others mentioned): http://store.apple.com/uk/ The 3GS is barely cheaper than the 4, and more
expensive than the most basic iPad.

By: subhasree

subhasree — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:39:26 +0000

Website is very comprehensive and informative. I have enjoyed the visit. From http://www.flowerschennaitoday.com/mothers_day_gifts.asp

By: iPhone nano? No. | Warston

iPhone nano? No. | Warston — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:38:57 +0000

[...] Jean-Louis Gassée argues, and rightly so, the main issue is product [...]

By: Hamranhansenhansen

Hamranhansenhansen — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:43:32 +0000

The real cost of iPhone is the monthly bill. Plenty of people would buy a $49 or $199 iPhone if the bill was similar to the iPad bill: $25 to $50 per month for pure data. So driving the price down would be going data-only, with FaceTime (VoIP) calls only. The $60 per month you pay for “voice minutes” and “texts” are the killer. That is why I give creedence to the “Apple virtual carrier” rumors.

But in form factors, I think an iPhone nano that was just an iPod nano with a phone would be very popular. No App Store. Instead, Apple could ship it with built-in apps and do 3rd party apps like they do Nike.

By: Jacques Demaël

Jacques Demaël — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:55:16 +0000

I have a bet with Jean Louis that there will be one ! However, we must balance a few other dimensions

AGAINST YOUR HONOR

1) It’s the battery stupid !

Apparently, the current implementation of the radio interface is eating between 50%-60% of power, and display around 30-35%. Better chips, smaller display can help but we need a solution for less power-hungry transmission.

. Wifi could be a way.. Why not back to 2G for Voice after all (with radio efficiencies à la old Nokia).. and download of apps via ITunes on PC/Mac..

2G spectrum is still there for a while, especially in developing countries with quite some potential for growth..

2) Cooperation with Wireless providers/SIM card activation, etc..

If one wants to offer a simple activation process to the customer, it has to be done in one shop-one click-one form.

I would bet that network providers shops and their controlled distribution are still more legitimate today to perform these tasks. Lack of push of IPad 3G in Apple’s stores is so far not a sign that they want to be burdened by SIM logistics..

FOR YOUR HONOR

1) Intimacy.

How many people have seen in subways, buses, planes, train,cars putting away their Iphone and listening to music on an Ipod !! Size does matter in one’s bag, the back pocket of my dilapidated jeans. A well designed Nano could be an object that I truly carry all the time with me, including outdoors, on foreign travels.

2) Worldwide Volume Forecasts

So far, even the wildest predictions about share of smart-phones in total share of phones do not go about 60% worldwide. There are segments in the market for more ruggedized/less costly versions (in business, in countries with no subsidies or low level of subsidies, for prepay).

I doubt that Apple can leave all these growth targets to Android (together with its asian hardware manufacturers, ready to eat them alive from above (HTC for example) or below.

3) Synergy with Ipad and subsequent tablets

I would not recommend to look at an Iphone Nano as a stand alone product. It could work Hand in hand with a tablet..

I surf, play, download, watch TV on my Ipad.

. while I talk, use the “simpler” apps on my Nano (let’s picture our children playing angry birds on it)..

By: Kas

Kas — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:39:49 +0000

At first I was going to say: Apple won’t release a low-cost iPhone Nano because, as JLG surmises, they are in the mobile computing business, not the phone business, and they already offer a low-cost mobile computing option – iPod Touch.

But the idea above of an iPod Touch with pre-paid voice-only (internet access only through wifi) ticks three big boxes for Apple.
1. Can be offered cheaper than an iPhone without reducing margins, as it removes the largest total cost of ownership element of an iPhone – the 3G contract – which Apple don’t make money from.
2. It would expand the iOS platform by making the iPod Touch relevant to a much broader market.
3. The lack of constant internet access is an ideal differentiator, minimal iPhone cannibalisation, yet it does not reduce compatibility with the iOS platform.

It would be the phone equivalent of the iPad and iPad with 3G.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:14:52 +0000

There is no inexpensive iPhone until Apple decides to accept lower margins.
Consider, a base iPhone 4 has a bill of materials around $200, and sells for $600+ sans-subsidy. Margin approx.=$400.
(I know the bill-of-materials leaves out all kinds of costs, but at the volumes Apple pushes it is likely a very good proxy for their marginal cost).
A $50 3GS is practically free—the real barrier is the cost of the contracts. But the contracts are expensive because of the subsidy…
…so, how cheaply could Apple sell an iPhone without a subsidy?
Well, if Apple could conjure up a cheap iPhone out of thin air, they still couldn’t sell it for less than $400 without taking a hit on their margins. And a $400 lesser iPhone ain’t gonna sell. $200 no contract on a MVNO? Sure, but you’d be killing your cash cow.
There may be a day when Apple has to accept lower margins, but—Tim Cook’s comment’s to the contrary notwithstanding—that day isn’t soon.

By: mbaDad

mbaDad — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:13:36 +0000

Simple, iPod touch with voice only calling hardware, no 3g hardware (if thats possible).

By: Iphoned

Iphoned — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:43:10 +0000

Well, Apple offers the low end white plastic MaBook and it runs all the same Mac applications.

Why can’t Apple do same with the iPhone? Less expensive materials, slower processor, less memory, lower-end camera etc, but otherwise thesame app phone.

The problem with 3G playing this role is it’s positioning as as obsolete product, a problem easily fixed.

By: Martin Langeveld

Martin Langeveld — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:55:33 +0000

“Try googling “iPhone Nano”, you’ll get 43.9 million hits.” — Come on. You know how to Google. That search includes hits for both “iPhone” and “Nano”. If you search the right way, for “iPhone Nano” in quotes — which returns hits for just that exact phrase — you get 2,060,000 results, which is still a lot, but not 43.9 million. Besides that, Google’s search result count is a notoriously inaccurate and useless number. See Danny Sullivan’s take on this: http://searchengineland.com/why-google-cant-count-results-properly-53559. Really, any blog post that starts of with “Try Googling X and you get Y million hits” should automatically be discounted as suspect.

By: Jarek Piórkowski

Jarek Piórkowski — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:08:23 +0000

Regarding the unlocked smartphones, I expect they’re much more popular outside the U.S. where there is physical competition between the carriers. In the U.S., a call to AT&T threatening to switch to Verizon after five months of contract-free service will get you laughter and to T-Mobile a knowing chuckle. In Canada – far from the haven of mobile innovation and service in the first place – we now have three carriers on compatible networks, and that call gets me transferred over to retentions real quick.

By: Brian S Hall

Brian S Hall — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:17:19 +0000

I think this article is spot on. I’m angry at myself for not having written it. Not surprising, I agree with your conclusions.

There is an interesting scenario this suggests, however, and not one that requires a race to the bottom.

Open up the great and magical iPod Touch to make it a super powerful WiFi only phone. (Current app developer limitations on iOS imposed by Apple continue to make this more difficult than it should be).

Would Apple do this? Offer one or more developers unfettered access? Would it disrupt the very fundamental notions of what an app phone is? Would carriers respond by boycotting the iPhone or refusing to offer lucrative subsidies? Which is more important to Apple — those subsidies or the destruction of Big Phone? And is that magical North Carolina facility just one giant telco switch waiting to be turned on?

By: Jean-Louis Gassée

Jean-Louis Gassée — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:29:44 +0000

@ pk de cville: Thanks, interesting question. In a way, Apple is already an OTT (http://bit.ly/MN177OTT) player. In a broad sense, OTT, Over The Top, means using a carrier’s infrastructure as a dumb pipe and providing content or services that compete with said carrier’s offerings. For example, using your phone company’s DSL pipe for VOIP. iTunes content services can be viewed as OTT services. Carrier-savy readers may differ.
Now, Apple as an MVNO? It sounds like a lot of work for slim margins. And World iPhones would require carrier by carrier agreements.
Yes, you could jail-break an iPhone, get it unlocked. But this doesn’t mean inserting a Carrier X micro-SIM would get it to work on Carrier X’s network: some services, including Apple iTunes and updates may or may not work. I have no position for or against jail-breaking, it’s a personal decision for a technically adept user.
I don’t know if the rumor is true, but we heard Apple tried to get more carrier independence, a multi-carrier SIM or equivalent. The rumor says it was rebuffed. I think I’ll get back to the topic on a future MN currently rattling around my jet-lagged brains. JLG

By: JP, Denmark

JP, Denmark — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:28:14 +0000

There is a long way from the price of a iPod Touch to an unlocked iPhone 4. In the Danish Apple Store the iPhone 4 unlocked cost 2.6 times as much as the iPod Touch. Apple should be able to add a 3G chip to the iPod Touch call it iPhone Nano and sell it unlocked cheaply.
The challenge would be how to easily differentiate it from the iPhone – as I don’t think they will change the screen size (to preserve access to 300K+ apps). But again there is also a difference between a Mac Book and a Mac Book Pro.

By: pk de cville

pk de cville — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:35:15 +0000

Jean-Louis,

Can you analyze the benefits of Apple becoming a prepaid MVN like Virgin Mobile offering ‘world’ iPhones capable of connecting to any telecom on the planet?

In that situation, Apple could sell unlocked iPhones which could be used on any network and also, as an MVN, resell broadband access at massive volumes. Along with offsetting revenues from ads and digital content sales would that be a method to deliver the best phones at very low price points?