If so, and I for one believe it could be possible, this stock will spike uppity up up.

http://www.9to5mac.com/iphone_nano

Quote

Mike in Helsinki wrote:
If so, and I for one believe it could be possible, this stock will spike uppity up up.

http://www.9to5mac.com/iphone_nano

These days, good news has unfortunately meant down, down, down.

I'm not sure that the stock is trading soft on good news. If anything, it could have acted as a buffer against what could have been a deeper down trend.

WS probably figures time is on their side for AAPL to meander until 1. the overall market clearly sets a bottom and/or 2. really strong news comes out re: new Apple products.

Once it starts to move, watch out, watch out.

To the perpetual naysayers, my answer on another subject:

-------
The numbers all of us have projected with healthy peer review are what they are. The basis for holding this stock is more sound than the majority of other stocks.

Lots of good perspectives here. Economic uncertainty, a high beta, some hedge fund interplay in a seasonally low volume time of year push the sentiment down to low levels.

I, for one, have a spotty record on day- and swing trading, noting I do better doing nothing. I am averaged in at about 135, and staying put.

I DO NOT buy into the assignment of blame of AAPL's stock price being a product of evil, unseen and conspiratorial hedge funds controlling it. When it was rising from 50 to 130, where were the conspiracy theorists then? While they do play and do affect th stock price over short periods, they are NOT clairvoyants who win every day.

Believe in the fundamentals and your arithmetic and wait for the economic surround sound to improve. It's hard to be patient, and hard to watch AAPL not realize a share value commensurate with its fundamentals.

Still, fellow grasshoppers, be patient.
-------

I am battle-hardened when it comes to AAPL. Those of us who had substantial postions 25 months ago remember when this stock fell to 50 bucks a share, and kept our nerve, our senses and our perspective.

Its going to 300+, period. The time frame depends on market sentiment, but the fundamentals that could support 300+ will be there. The math is the math.

If you want to believe that the hordes of gnomes congregating in secret passages are plotting to keep the stock low and will make a ton of money on every dip, downturn, periodic capitulation, etc, brother, all I have to say is fantasize on.

I can not see the consumer demand for an iphone Nano or iphone shuffle. The screen size of the iphone is the right size.

Quote

artman1033 wrote:
I can not see the consumer demand for an iphone Nano or iphone shuffle. The screen size of the iphone is the right size.

I cannot believe you can't see the potential for an iPhone nano.. think of the widgets - the games - the apps you could run on it. Sure you might not get best email or web experience but did not having a huge screen prevent the iPod nano becoming a best seller. Think harder.. don't be so PATHETIC

Quote

Tommo_UK wrote:

Quote

artman1033 wrote:
I can not see the consumer demand for an iphone Nano or iphone shuffle. The screen size of the iphone is the right size.

I cannot believe you can't see the potential for an iPhone nano.. think of the widgets - the games - the apps you could run on it. Sure you might not get best email or web experience but did not having a huge screen prevent the iPod nano becoming a best seller. Think harder.. don't be so PATHETIC

Spot on, Tommo.

In fact, Apple probably has 4 to 6 iPhones in the roadmap now. They will bracket most price points for consumers (but not the lowest rung yet), as does the iPod. They surely also have in the roadmap iPhones that do things particular well, like a 5-7 megapixel version with particularly good iPhoto/Aperture support and back services, probably video capability as well.

They will offer good enough screens for lower end versions, with the price being the big draw.

Its done already. Only a matter of time before we start to see the new products.

The ipod nano came out first, then the ipod touch. So the ipod touch was a major improvement for ipods.
The shuffle main attributes are the low price and the size.

A nano iphone would need the same size battery and chip set. Where would the savings be for Apple?

A nano iphone would cost the consumer the same monthly fee for service from the carrier. Where would the savings be for the consumer?

P.S. Today BBY is advertising a Palm centro FREE from AT&T and a Crackberry curve for $49.99 from Verizon, with a 2 year agreement.

artman, I'm lost for words.. you're a freak of nature

We speculated on the iPhone nano when the original iPhone was launched.. I wrote several lengthy pieces on it. Do a search on the forum (iPhone nano + Tommo_UK as author and see what pops up. Others were equally passionate for and against. This is as over-discussed as the idea of Apple buying ADBE except with the opposite conclusion: it would be insane of them no not to launch an iPhone nano, and in fact 3-4 variants of the phone.

Do a search; have a good read

It's important that this product doesn't compromise the iPhone standard platform.

Here's what I'd be thinking: make it be the ipod nano with sim slot. The carriers will basically pay a margin on the cost to include GSM, even though it's just a PAYG phone. Syncing with address book, reading emails etc is all good. Maybe almost no data entry at all. Make calls / consume media.

End result: competing music players cost more and do less.

Quote

Tommo_UK wrote:
artman, I'm lost for words.. you're a freak of nature

We speculated on the iPhone nano when the original iPhone was launched.. I wrote several lengthy pieces on it. Do a search on the forum (iPhone nano + Tommo_UK as author and see what pops up. Others were equally passionate for and against. This is as over-discussed as the idea of Apple buying ADBE except with the opposite conclusion: it would be insane of them no not to launch an iPhone nano, and in fact 3-4 variants of the phone.

Do a search; have a good read

I agree an entry-level iPhone will eventually be in the offing. But not until global consumer demand for the current 3G handset has been satisfied. I don't see a phone being released that doesn't support app sales so I discount from the start anything like an iPhone shuffle at least for the foreseeable future.

A reduction in phone size doesn't necessarily mean a proportional reduction in manufacturing costs. AT&T wants a $99 iPhone (as do a huge block of consumers and analysts who see the awesome potential of a subsidized phone at that consumer price point).

I'm not saying it's likely soon, but it's plausible. The question is the cost and the subsidy value to T.

IMHO Apple now needs to ramp 3G iPhone manufacturing to meet global demand before switching to manufacture of a smaller phone. The global demand for the iPhone is overwhelming even without a phone at a $99 price point which is where a model will eventually arrive. It's a matter of time.

This constant bickering over the iphone nano is getting so 2007, yeah I stole that last part from Tommo. The question I have for everyone to ponder is just how many people would be pissed off with Apple, again? With the price reduction fiasco last year, the new model which has had many people wait for unreasonable times and then throw in a bargain price nano, which would just aggravate the new consumers. The thought that a smaller iphone is the breakthrough new product is insulting to the tech engineers at Apple. An exciting new product does not mean reinventing the wheel.

Quote

mbeauch wrote:
This constant bickering over the iphone nano is getting so 2007, yeah I stole that last part from Tommo. The question I have for everyone to ponder is just how many people would be pissed off with Apple, again? With the price reduction fiasco last year, the new model which has had many people wait for unreasonable times and then throw in a bargain price nano, which would just aggravate the new consumers. The thought that a smaller iphone is the breakthrough new product is insulting to the tech engineers at Apple. An exciting new product does not mean reinventing the wheel.

MB,
I agree with DT that a nanophone would take away from what they're trying to accomplish with the new phone right now. But, it would be possible to come out with a smaller, cheaper phone that costs less - because it does less than the current phone. No email, no browser, smaller screen. I think they could strip enough out of it make current owners not be upset about it. My concern would be how they would integrate the touch UI into a smaller form factor. That's what separates the iPhone from all others.

There is some push-pull that would go on for an iPhone nano. Who/what's the demographic(s) (right off the bat, not the easiest question since there may well be considerable overlap with iPhone/3G owners)? What features will it NOT have compared to the iPhone 3G for product strata purposes (I think full-tilt App Store support is a MUST unless they want to make the nano a "mere" feature-phone-type device)? What data plans will it be tied to?

I can definitely see an iPhone nano doing well in the marketplace. A $99/179 (or even $129/199ish) price point for 4/8 GB would be a huge blow to Apple's competitors and Apple knows it. If you have a 2.8-ish" widescreen or so, hopefully most of Apple's and third parties' apps will translate well, though Apple could of course do some nano-specific optimizations to keep things readable. You could toss out GPS and maybe 3G if you add included texts back in and I doubt many would mind, especially since a cheaper phone would tend to come with cheaper service plans anyway. In the end, though, hardware engineering could be one of the biggest hurdles. How to provide a pretty-much-the-same iPhone experience with about the same battery life in an nano form factor? It's not like the iPhone can save space by swapping out a 1.8" hard drive for something smaller.

Maybe the best and smallest technology for the job is still a little ways off. And it was a little over two years until Apple was able to "shrink" the original 5GB iPod down to the mini (per a quick apple-history.com check). So maybe we should be expecting the iPhone nano sometime next year. An introduction near back-to-school or the holiday season would be BRUTAL.

EDIT: Got a quick chuckle out of iPhone shuffle. "Dialing is random."

Quote

ChasMac77 wrote:

Quote

mbeauch wrote:
This constant bickering over the iphone nano is getting so 2007, yeah I stole that last part from Tommo. The question I have for everyone to ponder is just how many people would be pissed off with Apple, again? With the price reduction fiasco last year, the new model which has had many people wait for unreasonable times and then throw in a bargain price nano, which would just aggravate the new consumers. The thought that a smaller iphone is the breakthrough new product is insulting to the tech engineers at Apple. An exciting new product does not mean reinventing the wheel.

MB,
I agree with DT that a nanophone would take away from what they're trying to accomplish with the new phone right now. But, it would be possible to come out with a smaller, cheaper phone that costs less - because it does less than the current phone. No email, no browser, smaller screen. I think they could strip enough out of it make current owners not be upset about it. My concern would be how they would integrate the touch UI into a smaller form factor. That's what separates the iPhone from all others.

To fit the overall product model the phone would need to run apps. It would be an extension of the iPhone/iPod touch platform to a new and vast consumer demographic where a higher price point meets high resistance. T wants a $99 phone. T also needs to sell data plans to make the subsidy work and maintain momentum in the data service market.

For these reasons I see a phone with perhaps 4 GBs of memory. It doesn't need 3G to start. The product would be positioned for teens and families and the $99 price point would prove virtually irresistible.

Again, a smaller form doesn't necessarily mean a proportional decrease in manufacturing costs. The give might be 3G to reduce manufacturing costs as well as less memory. It would be purely a consumer device, not a consumer/enterprise hybrid.

For now, an iPhone nano is a bad idea in terms of the future of Apple's Mobile platform. It is a short-term profit-boost with bad consequences in the long-term for the platform.

I think there was a discussion on this issue last year and SG had some good points and my points stand as they were.

Based on SG's pts and mine, my ideal hope (& advice) for Apple wrt iPhone was that they bring the price down to 250 ASAP, while keeping ALL the h/w features and size.

They did exactly that (and some more, as we saw) and much faster than expected. I for one was happy and very impressed.


An iPhone nano is a bad idea right Now, Imo. But, then, I am wrong plenty.

I ultimately envision a four-product grid that is simple and all touch-based, but with clear differentiation in features and size.

1. iPod (What we know as iPod touch. It's only a matter of time before flash memory hits rock bottom and the need for iPod classic disappears. When that happens the iPod touch will take the throne, and the standard "iPod" title. Note that today we have no single product that is simply called "iPod.")

2. iPod nano (Feature set similar to today's iPod nano but with touch interface so it can have a larger screen without making the product itself bigger. No app store, no WiFi. Maintains price point similar to current iPod nano.)

3. iPhone (Today's iPhone, or an evolution thereof.)

4. iPhone nano (See iPod nano above, but with phone service. No app store, no WiFi, no data plan. But extremely cheap, maybe even free, with your service contract. It could be the first cheap/free phone that's actually not a piece of crap. It could reshape the market for standard mobile phones in the same way the iPhone has challenged the smartphone market.)

5. iPod shuffle (I lied! I said it would be a four-product grid, but here we are! Oh well, Apple did it with the Mac mini and later with MacBook Air. It will probably hang around quite a while because it is so much cheaper to not have a screen, and there will always be demand for something affordable for kids on an allowance, stocking stuffers, etc.)

I know there will be comments that it's not fair to leave apps/data/WiFi off the nano units, and that it will cripple them. But my perspective is this: It just doesn't seem very feasible to have a usable QWERTY keyboard on a smaller display than what the iPhone / iPod Touch already offers. Plus, not everyone wants that stuff. Some people just want a cheap phone and iPod that work really well.

This rumour still doesn't make any sense to me for this year. Taking features out of the current iPhone loses $10 or more of revenue for every $1 saved in build costs. iPhone Nano would have to outsell iPhone by a large factor (5 -10 times the sales) to make sense.

I think this year sees iPod touch being put on to a single chip, and the same chip going into the nano.

I think this rumour is BS. It makes little sense to me, from a revenue perspective, and to claim it's UK only makes it even less likely.

Ditto Wheeles' comments. The iPhone available now will be the future nano. The newer models with chip and processor refinements will only push the function envelope.