Apple rumors commonly take on a life of their own. The iPhone was this way, the multi-touch Mac is this way, and now the iPhone nano. However, unlike the original iPhone, and the excitement of a multi-touch Mac, an iPhone nano would overall just be a misplaced product.
Prior to Macworld 2007, where Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the first iPhone, heated rumors were swirling much in the same way about the device. Nearly every analyst, blog, website, news publication and magazine had an inside tip, or what they thought was “credible” information about the rumored iPhone. Much in the same way the industry regards an Apple netbook or multi-touch Mac, a rumored iPhone nano has gained some major notoriety lately.
Even though a smaller device may appeal directly to a different market, we can’t help but label such a device as a bad idea. Here are a few of our reasons:
Apple would never sell an iPhone without the app store installed, or without the possibility of gaining access to the app store. The same goes for the iPod touch. In its relatively short existence, the app store has already been proven a smash success. RIM and Google have been left scrambling trying to spring up “app market” clones, but none have had anywhere near the impact of Apple’s app store. To assume that Apple would scale down the app store, or limit applications that would run on an iPhone nano is preposterous. Developers and designers spend massive resources both programming and designing applications exclusively for the iPhone. We can’t image that Apple would suddenly scale down the graphics of these applications, or dramatically alter the hardware that is running them which could in turn harm performance.
Some people love the iPhone’s virtual keyboard, other people loathe it. The keyboard definitely takes some getting used to, however even the most experienced iPhone user will tell you it can be an incredible drag to use. Especially if you don’t whole heartedly trust the iPhone’s spell check. An iPhone nano would require an even smaller virtual keyboard than what the current iPhone has. We just can’t see this being within Apple’s realm of possibility. For a company as focused on the end user experience, a smaller virtual keyboard doesn’t make sense.
Unless Apple is specifically designing the iPhone nano for the tiny-obsessed masses in Japan, what is the point of such a small phone? We have absolutely no complaints when it comes to the iPhone’s size, aside from hoping we get one with a bigger screen. As far as a gaming device, Apple is pushing the iPod touch and iPhone platform hard. In all honesty, it’s still a ways behind the likes of the Sony PSP (if only because of the lack of a directional pad). An iPhone nano would make gaming on the device even harder. And what would happen to games that have been developed specifically for the current iPhone? Would the graphics be scaled down? Or would the developers have to design new ones? Either way, the rumored tiny size of such a device doesn’t make sense.
When we say Apple should diversify its iPhone line, we don’t mean for them to introduce a new model with less features. Instead, expanding the top line of the iPhone family while making the current models cheaper would make more sense. Taking away GPS, 3G or any of the core technologies users currently rely on would only backfire. The iPhone nano would be stripped down of a lot of the features current iPhones have, and we simply can’t see Apple making this move. As the partnership between AT&T and Apple progresses, the 3G network has become a staple in both of the company’s advertising campaigns. Making an EDGE only iPhone nano doesn’t seem very plausible.
Yes, less storage can fit into the “Stripped Features” category, but we’re talking about portable media devices here, storage should be increasing not decreasing. Apple dropped the 4GB iPhone models leaving 8GB at the low-end and introducing a 16GB iPhone. The iPod touch tops out at 32GB and we expect new iPhones to do the same. Storage is after all what makes downloading apps, playing music and videos, storing photos, and playing games possible.
The iPhone isn’t all that great when it comes to battery life. Its got an okay amount of standby time, but Apple claims nearly 300 hours. That’s completely different when you’re using the device though, and under normal circumstances a charge is needed daily. Apple claims 5 hours of talktime while using 3G, and 10 hours while using the EDGE network. Throw in web browsing, maps, and some music/video playback, and 5 hours would be a dream. An iPhone nano would have a more disappointing battery life than current iPhones, and Apple’s lack of including a user replaceable battery doesn’t help.
A cheaper, smaller iPhone is still a phone shackled to a cell contract. Making the device smaller and cheaper would not change AT&T’s coverage rates. An iPhone nano as a gift would still be like giving someone a puppy, with an immense amount of responsibility tied to the gift. Unlike a cute iPod nano, if Apple is hoping to appeal to a new market with a less expensive iPhone, AT&T’s plans better be altered accordingly as well.
The bottom line… An iPhone is not a keychain. Instead of focusing on such a niche device with limited features and storage, we expect Apple to leave this one for the cloners.
40 Comments to “7 Reasons Why the iPhone nano Is a Bad Idea”
Worse battery life would make me lose my cool. A smaller keyboard would make me throw it out the window.
Reply
The problem with most of the pundits is that they don’t seem to see that a major obstacle to Apple growing the iPhone market share is A.) the exclusivity with AT&T and B.) the requirement of a data plan with AT&T.
I can see a iPhone “Nano”working very well for Apple if it could be designed to forego both those features, even with the compromises that would have to be made. After all, an iPod Nano is full of compromises – storage, screen size, etc. – yet it still is a very successful product for Apple. Not everyone wants/needs everything from every device.
In the case for an iPhone “Nano”, give the user the iPod capabilities, the Address Book & Calendar functions, and maybe even a tethering to MobileMe for email via WiFi only (no data plan with the cell service provider, and Apple would still get a nice yearly cut). Forego the bulk of the App Store content *gasp*, which in turn gives Apple a chance for a nice up-sell to the 3G iPhone or a cross-sell to the iPod Touch.
Sell the iPhone “Nano” for ~$100 less than the 3G iPhone, which would be just enough of a break to encourage some people to jump in. Release a version for both CDMA and GSM (again, voice-only, no data) so that the user can choose their carrier.
The purpose of such a device would not be a replacement in any way for those who need perpetual access to the internet (iPhone 3G). However, many people live in a world where WiFi on a phone would just be enough for data, but yet the iPod Touch is not designed to be a good cell phone. And for those who don’t want a combo device, the iPod Touch still exists and uses the App Store, which fills in the product line nicely.
Reply
Dwight, I see your point about Apple’s market share. But an iPhone nano is not the way to go about it. Apple needs to take current models, make them cheaper and outfit new “top-line” iPhones with more features, increased storage and even more options. There is no way Apple should release a device without the App store (A dumbed down version would raise hell), and developers definitely don’t deserve to see the performance of their applications dwindle because Apple releases a less powerful device.
The exclusivity between AT&T and Apple is not all peachy, as we’ve explained before, but something tells me it’s going to last for longer than we thought.
Bringing the iPhone to Walmart was the first huge step in gaining massive market share, and introducing an iPhone nano is not needed. AT&T is currently selling refurbished iPhones for $99, so it would be a tough sell against an iPhone nano priced at $99, or even $149.
All in all, I just don’t see the upside to an iPhone nano. The cell phone industry is so incredibly fast paced, there is hardly any room for error. The app store had changed the game forever and it should be a core focus of Apple’s. More power, faster processors, increased storage, and making iPhone developers feel safe while developing applications.
Reply
Aviv, I truly do see your point re: more power, faster processors, increased storage, and the App store. If there is an iPhone “Nano” and if it were tethered to a carrier & data plan, it truly would make no sense.
But Apple has to be looking at the end of the iPod life cycle. If a “stripper” (read: Nano) iPhone were really just a base iPod + base cell phone, then I can see the case for one provided it were sold like the iPod. I.e., I could walk into the Apple store, plunk down my $200, and walk out with an iPhone “Nano” that I could use with a prepaid cell plan or get activated with the carrier or my choice.
I won’t speculate on whether Apple could truly make such a device economically feasible. Could they sell enough of them with the iPod Touch in the mix? Could they get enough buy-in among cell phone providers (namely Verizon) to support the device (perhaps the price would be $200 unlocked from Apple, or “free” with a 2 year contract among cell providers)? Could they convince developers politically that such a device would not cannibalize the App store?
These are all questions the bean counters and the corporate suits would have to work out. But looking at the forest, a long term commitment to AT&T’s business model will cap the market for Apple in short order. Remember, the iPod(s) thrived because of market penetration, and I still think Apple has a ways to go if they truly want the same type of success from the iPhone line as they got from the iPod line.
Reply
Dwight, in that case, it sounds like you’re saying they should take a lesson from RIM? Market share first, everything else second?
Reply
Aviv, I’m saying that if Apple hopes the iPhone product line becomes the next iPod product line (and I think in many ways they do), they will need more than one device to get there. Reference: iPod (now Classic), iPod Mini, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle.
To your very excellent point, I think that Apple believes the App store is to the iPhone what iTunes was to the iPod. In that case, if Apple were to release an iPhone “nano” sans App store, it would be a stopgap solution.
But would that really be so bad, especially given the frequency at which consumers replace their cell phones? After all, we don’t have an iPod Mini any longer, and no one seems to miss it. But the iPod Mini did bring a lot of people into the fold. Maybe, like I stated in my original post, some MobileMe functionality could be incorporated into an iPhone “Nano” now or in the near future.
Not to be too tangental, but one really need look no further than the Palm Centro to catch a glimpse at the potential for an iPhone “Nano” device, as the Centro has sold monstrously well for Palm across virtually every carrier. Is it an iPhone? No way – not even close. Does it make money for Palm? Not hardly. But, could Apple do the Centro one better and make money off it? Maybe.
I’m not claiming to know the mind of Apple, just hypothesizing ways in which an iPhone “Nano” could potentially grow market share and make money for Apple in the process. You have raised some good points on why it does not make sense for Apple given how they are currently conducting iPhone business, and I am just trying to provide a counterpoint on how it could fit strategically were they to change the business model somewhat.
For my part, I hope Apple doesn’t take a page straight from RIM, as the devices have suffered in exchange for market share. I hope Apple is smart enough to walk a better line.
Reply
Dwight. I 100% agree that Apple needs to diversify its iPhone line. For sure, without a doubt. But I personally think that introducing higher end models and making current models cheaper is the way to go. Stripping features would be a bad idea, I just can’t seem to find valid reasons why Apple would introduce ANYTHING at this point without seriously making an effort to get the app store involved. For that reason alone, anything with a smaller screen seems useless.
Reply
I have a first gen iPhone (unlocked and jailbroken whatever that means) and love it! I don’t need the app store or 3G or data plan (I have it turned off from carrier) or anything but the phone and things like contacts, camera (which could be better), notes, iPod, Photos and Wi-Fi. I think that this is exactly what the vast majority of people out there want from an iPhone. For the rest of you who need constant internet access and constant email, you’ve got the iPhone 3G already. An iPhone Nano like I described above would be a killer in today’s marketplace if it sold for $200 or even $300 but one could go with practically any carrier and not have to get a data plan or other stuff.
Reply
@ Alain Rostoker: There’s so much wrong with your statement… I’m not sure where to start.
Reply
I won’t officially declare it a horrible product until I hear its shitty specs
Reply
it seems cute in your pic and http://iphonenano.in
Reply
You hit the nail on the head. The iPhone nano is nothing more than a rumor, it makes no sense at all it would not cost any less to make and they would have to sell it for less. With the iPhone now selling for $197. How much cheaper could it be for them to make a profit. Apple is into innovation and the so called iPhone nano ; well there is just nothing innovative about that.
Dean
http://www.ireviewiphoneapps.com
Reply
Apple need to tap in to the “pay as you go” “contract free” market, and the iPhone Nano has to be the iPhone for this market.
Reply
Well, by looking at what Apple did to the iPod Nano 5G, it’s insanely small. Too small for someone to use with big hands. I think the current shape of the iPhone/iTouch is perfect. It fits comfortably in my hand and pocket. Why not keep something consistent for once Apple?
- Mason
Reply
You know…I enjoyed reading this, but I don’t agree with it at all (not to be THAT guy on the Internet, but you’re kinda wrong).
The app store COULD be irrelevant to the iPhone Nano, for many good reasons. 1. It can’t handle the apps/games and two, to conserve battery life. My iPhone 3G’s battery dies a lot faster when I’m mucking around in my apps.
The virtual keyboard is an easy fix. The keyboard would only be used in landscape mode (something that I hope they’d give regular iPhone users the option for). Problem solved.
The tininess again, solved by a lack of app store and a landscape only virtual keyboard. Small phones are not groundbreaking or unheard of.
Stripped features/less storage space — Again, another downfall of owning the Nano. Just like the regular iPod, if you buy the Nano, you’re sacrificing additional storage. The stripped features is another side effect of getting the Nano, although I’m not exactly sure what needs to be stripped beyond the app store. I also don’t see why a 3G antenna couldn’t be put in there, but again…this is for those who want an iPhone but can’t afford it. With the cheaper cost, you have to be willing to give up some of features. I have a 4 cylinder Honda Accord because I couldn’t afford the V6. I knew what I was losing when I made that choice, but I wanted an Accord.
Battery issues get resolved with the eliminations above.
Cell contract is irrelevant. You’re going to get locked into a contract no matter how large or small your cell phone is.
I like the idea of your post…but you’re reasons aren’t really good ones. They’re totally reasonable for what you’d be getting. Plus, they might make it a good sale’s technique to upgrade to the full-fledged iPhone.
I, personally, don’t give a hoot about a Nano iPhone. I’d rather them working on getting this one functioning perfectly…like implementing copy and Paste, MMS, and I’d really like the ability to send more than one photo per email. It’s kinda lame to have to send 4 emails to send someone 4 photos.
Just my $.02
Reply
um, you know nothing about the product and this is all just speculation… all we know is that *maybe* a case exists for it. so wait untill you see the specs before making judgement. thats what a good reporter would do. have you heard about the new battery technology that has just made production? maybe apple are going to use it and double the battery life. just becuase *you* dont see something as useful doesnt mean others will. the reason i dont have an iphone is that it is simple too big.
Reply
this post is so wrong
i dont like the iphone because it is to damn big!
i ended up buying the HTC touch Diamond CDMA which is the almost perfect size
the keyboard is smaller and much better made, the specs are more powerful than the iphone except storage memory but the could easily put more in.
slap the iphone interface on mine and it would be perfect.
i hope the Nano is real and Apple ditches att and their crappy 3G joke service, EVDO AND/OR WIMAX ALL THE WAY!
Reply
It just sounds like the writer is complaining because the features of a phone such as this would not appeal to him. You’ll like it or you won’t just like the iPhone 3G
Reply
Apple have sold millions of iPhone 2G before the App Store installed，how could you say “Apple would never sell an iPhone without the app store installed”？
Reply
A nano is a crazy idea, who keeps perpetuating this?
What makes more sense is a larger iphone to compete more with the netbooks.
Reply
interesting article, but ,as others have stated, it misses a few things. Steadily upgrading features in computers is based on the manufacturing principle of mass production bringing down costs, thereby making old features cheap. The iphone will get cheaper to make, but the data plans will not be subject to the same principle. The data plans will come down slowly in price, which means that there will be an ongoing difference in price between smart phones and regular phones. I’d say this will be significant for about the next ten years (pulled straight out of my ass that prediction was). As a result the plan of just convincing the whole world to upgrade to the full fledged iphone won’t work. I don’t know if Apple will come out with a basic, non-data 3g plan nano phone, but they should. They could make it app store compatible, but I’m not sure how that would affect the overall price/feature analysis. My gut says that a cheap ipod nano that could make phone calls and would be a huge, massively huge hit and if Apple doesn’t produce one someone else will.
Reply
Dan, I keep hearing over and over that as technology moves forward old technology gets cheaper. While this is true, where does it apply to an iPhone nano? Obviously things get cheaper, NAND flash prices will fluctuate and storage will go up. I just fail to see the logistical reasoning behind a stripped down device. The ongoing theme that some people are saying is that Apple needs to release a “cheaper” or “smaller” version of the iPhone that just makes calls. How does this make sense? AT&T is able to slash margins and sell refurbs for $99! And those are full-featured iPhone 3Gs!!! Unless people expect the iPhone nano to sell for $49 (which is insane), this will never happen.
The “iPhone nano” that everyone keeps clamoring about, or the “Stripped down iPhone” that people keep saying will be a huge hit, doesn’t need to be a new device. It can be the current iPhone while Apple adds to the top-line.
The iPod touch and iPhone are core staples of the development platform itself. Not only is the hardware known by developers, but anything that restricts anything that is in the app store will raise hell. Imagine Real Soccer ‘09 on a smaller iPhone? Exactly. And what would Apple’s response be to developers who have developed games with high frame rates that are incapable of running on a smaller, less-powerful device? Re-write them? I surely hope not.
Reply
I can’t say I have any inside knowledge on whether there is an Iphone nano in the works or not, but I think it makes sense. Apple had a banner freaking quarter with the release of the iPhone 3G, and it sold nearly 7 million units in 3 months. But, without the buzz of a new product, it’s going to be impossible to sustain that growth. Sure, new markets will present new opportunities, but it’s already in most major markets – except China I think.
If you look at their pattern of product releases, they like to refresh the iPod line every year to goose sales. The new iPod Nano isn’t really better or that much more appealing than the last generation, but it’s new, and people buy new Apple stuff. It’s harder in the cell phone world with the two year contracts to do that, but make no mistake: Apple has broad ambitions in the market, and not just with AT&T. An iPhone Nano could potentially be an avenue to other carriers, and a smaller screen wouldn’t necessarily rule out the app store. Sure, devs would have to adjust some programs, but they will do it. Besides, it would be simple to make sure legacy apps don’t work on iPHone nanos. If you strip out 3G, that would save on battery life, as would having a smaller screen. As for the data pricing plans, the EDGE iPHone plans were cheaper, and that could work for an iPhone Nano.
As I said, I don’t know if it will happen, but I don’t think you’ve laid out a compelling case for why it’s a bad idea.
Reply
your not thinking outside the box at all… maybe the rumors aren’t for a iphone nano just a smaller iphone…
if you havn’t noticed there is some dead space on the current iphone… imagine just a screen(same size), but no home button or ear speaker moved to the top (under the chrome like the itouch) … the home will be a screen click less like the bb storm and more like the new mac book mouse pad (making it better for games by +’ing 2-6 buttons)(+left and right click)(copy and paste)
for the stripped features there apple and they always make things smaller and better and they had about a year to do so….
making this whole article wrong as i see it…
Reply
Extreme meh!! I would not buy it. I nearly thought of buying the Ipod Nano and I’m just glad that I got the Itouch 16gb instead. Worth my money and time. I wouldn’t consider the phone purely cause I’m not use to having no buttons. Sorry apple.
Come on the Iphone nano would be way to small. Even if it was made lighter what’s the point? You don’t get the glory of having a big screen like the current iphone and itouch.
in terms of a phone i’d still rather go with something with a keypad. I’m looking forward to the new Nokia N97 that’s coming out soon,
Reply
It’s a bad idea beacause it would be hard to call someone on!
Reply
Keeping in mind I don’t actually own an iPhone, I still fail to see how most of these points make any sense whatsoever:
* Why couldn’t the App Store cater to both devices? If a nano iPhone would have a big enough market share you can expect developers to make new applications and version of current ones specifically for it. Also, making your program graphically “scalable” is just common sense – not to mention the possibility of a smaller phone with a similar resolution.
* Virtual Keyboard – I’ll have to give you that one, like I said I don’t own an iPhone but from my short experience typing is pretty diffacult on the damn thing. However, why wouldn’t apple change the text input altogether – maybe allowing a decent handwritting or even voice recognition? Who knows.
* The iPhone is too big. It may not seem like it to you, but other than decreasing the actual screen size the iPhone would only benefit from a “diet” making it fit in your pocket a lot easier.
* Why would apple strip down anything? Are you under the impression these technologies simply will never fit in a smaller package? Ever?
* And seriously – no room for a 16GB flash chip? A whole memory card along with a card reader could fit in the current version!
* Worse battery life – it may cost more, but there are plenty of multimedia devices out there (true, not usually phones) which are smaller with a much (*much*) longer battery life than an iPhone. I’m sure we could find some power scheme that will give a new device sufficient run time – espacially since smaller screens mean less power consumption (and the power consumption of flat screens and processors has been decreasing as well).
So this is basically a list of made up features of an un-announced phone and why they would each definetly be a technological show-stopper? Premature maybe?
Reply
I don’t know if it is really bad idea. If they would just put GSM chip on iPod touch that would be all I need. I don’t need 3G but WI-FI is nice. OK, GPS is really good to have as well…
Reply
Another reason would be that it definitely won’t make porn look as good as a full sized iphone so there would be less males buying the nano if they can’t look at sites like http://ipinkvisual.com
Reply
Here in AUckland we like to fuck any asshole that we see – if you see it, you like it, stretch it out.
Reply
An iphone nano is a great idea assuming it would resolve the issues of why I haven’t bought an iphone to date.
I love the idea of an iphone but I cannot see why I should have to suffer with a poor value O2 contract which forces me to pay for a wifi connection to a web of wifi hotspots which I would never use, plus I have to fork out money for the iphone in the first place.
For me, an iphone nano would (with 3G) be able to tackle the mainstream mobile market and offer the majority of phone users like me exactly what they want, reasonably priced mobile fun!
The normal user who would never frequent mac blogs would be perfectly happy with a iphone which didn’t have GPS or Wifi capabilities but still offered the Apple web browsing apps store experience.
Apple would just have to make sure that the battery which would fit a smaller iphone nano is up to the job. Perhaps that’s what’s been holding them back till now.
Personally I cannot see what the problem would be with the virtual keypad. The supposed iphone nano will be the same width as the current iphone so you’d end up loosing some space above the keyboard without the need for a smaller virtual keyboard. So the experience would be much the same, just less space above for the text.
An iphone nano with 3G, potentially no GPS or Wifi but with a decent battery and memory would be a true iphone killer. Finally Apple would have an iphone available free on the same contracts as other phones, an iphone available at a reasonable price on pay as you go.
Also the way I see it, that Apple failed in its attempt to get a percentage out of what we pay for a calls, Apple main income comes from the basic sale of the phone and then from the apps store. Wifi and GPS are not essential to this, so if Apple can produce a device which is cheaper to build and therefore cheaper to sell and still offers user the possibility to access the apps store and buy apps, they are on to a real winner.
Reply
The purpose of the nano is not to be a smaller iPhone. Its purpose is to replace the standard cell phone. Everyone wants an Apple phone but most people can’t afford an iPhone, or don’t want to pay for internet service that they’ll only use in the bathroom stall at work. There are a LOT of these people, and Apple is smart to expand their customer base with this device. Even if Apple can replace 20% of current cell phones with the nano, it would be a huge coup.
Reply
I think an iPhone nano would be cool but these pictures are obiously fake why would they just make it shorter they would be more likely to make it 2/3 porportional.
Reply
Aviv,
Great article! Can you clarify one area I didn’t follow – why would having a Nano iPhone “assume that Apple would scale down the app store, or limit applications”. Can they have the same successful app store on a rumored Nano? Currently, the iPod with video and the iPod Nano have the same resolution screens. Could the rumored Nano use the same screen resolution on a smaller screen resulting in no impact to the app store?
Reply
Hey Aaron… I’m primarily saying this would be a bad idea more so than it’s not technically possible. I’m sure it’s possible, but developers that I know and have spoken with would NOT want to see their detailed graphics scaled down because Apple thought it was a good idea. Unless they see direct sales impacted greatly by the new market share of “iPhone nano” owners, there will most likely be a lot of frustration. Not to mention that many applications requiring massive processor power won’t be able to run on this new iPhone, which in turn leads me to believe that Apple would then cut a certain section of the app store, which then leads me to believe that would just be INSANE! So, what is the point of an iPhone nano?
My stance: Make the current models the “nano” devices and let’s start moving up. More storage, faster speeds, more options and improved specs.
Reply
Agreed. That is an excelent way to grow the product – make current models the baseline and continue to add significant value upward. Great article.
Reply
I have another carrier, with great rates and do not want to lose this just for a phone.
So Give me an Ipod nano that is smaller like the HTC touch or pro. Let me use my old carrier, and not AT&T (It’s actually the only reason I haven’t switched). & Let me use it as a modem for my laptop, with my current minisd card and you got a new customer.
Period
Reply
Yes! it’s absolutely crazy to think that nokia could sell their 6230i phone on a 1.000 USD price tag with just a shell switch.
And the examples can go on! It can be a very nice phone! I, for one, would like my iPhone the size of a HTC Diamond…
Reply
Here in AUckland we like to fuck any asshole that we see – if you see it, you like it, stretch it out..
Reply
Honestly, I think it’s an incredibly idea. Every time I see an idiot with an iPhone I think, “there’s $1200 a year out the window!” I am a Mac nut (own 9 Macs, 3 iPods, and countless accessories), but I will NEVER pay the price of a decently-sized HDTV per year for internet/phone access! Now with the iPhone Nano, Apple could omit the internet (3G Network) and leave the WiFi (from the iPod Touch), it would stay the same size as the current iPod Touch and have most of the other functions of the fully-featured iPhone. I wouldn’t even care if it were only pennies less the the iPhone. I would buy one today if I knew I wasn’t FORCED to pay an extra $30 per month for internet access.
Reply