“The iPhone has a ‘long runway,’ Oppenheimer & Co.’s Ittai Kidron suggests, and the iPad an even longer runway, with the prospect of a ‘mini’ iPhone, and competitors playing catch-up to the iPad, with no room under Apple’s ‘aggressive’ pricing umbrella,” Tiernan Ray reports for Barron’s. “The mini iPhone, in fact, is a question of ‘when, not if’ there will be a lower-cost version of the device, especially for emerging markets and into the ‘mid-tier’ of the phone market. It makes sense, he argues, for the iPhone to follow the iPod ‘found its way into lower price tiers.'”
MacDailyNews Take: In its most basic form, iPod simply plays sound. The iPhone, of course, does much more. It’s easier to shrink sizes, reduce or remove screens, and reduce prices with an iPod than it is with an iPhone. After all, make the iPhone’s screen any smaller and you lose most of what makes an iPhone an iPhone. You’ll be left with just a phone and there’s nothing much unique about that. Making something just to slap their logo on it isn’t Apple’s style. Now, we do see an opening for an iPhone with a larger-screen which could co-exist with current screen-size iPhones that’d be renamed “iPhone mini” or “nano” or whatever. Any “Mini iPhone” smaller than the current iPhone 4 would have to offer something unique (or at least worthwhile) to users or Apple won’t produce it.
Ray reports, “The iPad will probably retain a ‘commanding share in the space and leave it somehwat insulated from the wave of tablet competition,’ writes Kidron, given that Apple’s first-mover advantage could be a bulwark as in the iPod market, with ‘mindshare hard to break.’ …Kidron offers a prediction for 73 million iPhones to be shipped this fiscal year ending in September, and 28.5 million iPads, which is in line with to slightly below other estimates I’ve seen. For fiscal 2012, he’s modeling 97.6 million iPhones and 44 million.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
he will remodel. iPads sold this Q will be at least 13 million. Add to the 12million already sold in the fiscal year, 28 million for FY2011 is ridiculously low. They are still lowballing apple. They cannot accept a zero sum fir the iPad.
iPad demand is currently running at a 100 million per year rate. Apple is being careful and will not ramp up until more clarity develops. By next Q, the production run rate will be at least 20 million per Q. Still below demand. You can iCal this.
I think an iPhone could still be useful, and quite popular, at maybe 80% of its current size. If you shrank 80% in each dimension that’s just over 1/2 the volume, enough to really differentiate it but useful enough especially for small people with small fingers. So I disagree with MDN take here, I expect there will eventually be 3 sizes of iPhones, not two.
It may be smaller, but I doubt Apple would go below the original iPhone screen resolution. They will want to leverage the app ecosystem with any new iPhone versions.
Wrong. A “less expensive” iPhone is already on the market (3GS), but a smaller iPhone nano makes no sense. The screen is too small to make apps usable.
My daughter’s iPod nano is nice with its small size and touch screen, but beyond the controls it’s useless for much else.
I don’t think Apple should call a larger iPhone the iPhone Maxi, iPhone Largess, or the iPhone Lane Bryant. Just not good marketing.
I think there is room for an iPhone Pro . . . just a wee bit bigger screen and a few more extras . . . going below the GS is just silly . . . since the price point is already $49 (yes I know that’s without the contract . . . but all phones have contracts . . . so the real added cost is 12 x $15 for data or $180) Seems like if you can get the data cost lower you already have an iPhone nano.
Agreed
It’s not when, it’s why?
If $50 is too much for you (the cost of the 3GS), then smartphone ownership is too much for you.
The screen size will NOT go below 3.5″. Apple would be stupid in doing that.
What they may do is shrink the bezel to its limit and use 3GS hardware in it. They can sold it as a smaller, cheaper iPhone for $200 off-contract.
They can then maintain screen resolution on the iPhone 5 while expanding the size to 4″. PPI would lower, but would still classify as Retina. The iPhone 5, needless to say, would get all of the novelty stuff and be sold with contract.
Because, let’s face it, no one needs a smaller iPhone. The main barrier for Apple to sell more iPhones is contract price. And he 3GS, while obsolete, is still capable everything essential to the iOS experience. Cheap, outdated but capable hardware + equally cheap price – contract = No reason to settle for a pretend iPhone = Apple’s market share explodes = iPod all over again.
Wrong about one thing. The main longterm barrier to iPhone market share is lack of hardware differentiation. Phones are not just tools, they are fashion accessories, and the number of people who will carry the exact same model of phone that everyone else has is limited. It may be nowhere near saturation yet, but it’s well under 50%. Is there any other product everyone lets themselves be seen with every day, where everyone has even the same brand, much less same model? This is why Apple will eventually make a smaller (as well as larger) iPhone, even if nobody “needs” it. Because let’s face it, nobody “needs” an iPhone at all… It’s all about making people Want it.
if an iPod touch can be sold successfully for $200+, then a “basic” iPhone (even with only EDGE) for prepaid markets could sell like hell at $300+. This could replace the 3GS and use a similarly “cheap” casing (compared to iPhone 4).
” “The mini iPhone, in fact, is a question of ‘when, not if’ there will be a lower-cost version of the device, especially for emerging markets and into the ‘mid-tier’ of the phone market. It makes sense, he argues, for the iPhone to follow the iPod”
I do not agree with the reasoning. First, Apple and other companies are trying to pull consumers up to pay for “smartphones”. Making a smaller, and functionally compromised iPhone, would simply be chasing a market segment they want to get rid of. Second, the real cost and profit are not in the hardware, but the contract and apps (and, for profit, ads). For a device with a screen significantly smaller than the current iPhone, do the same apps work? Is the data contract justified if web browsing is not workable? Probably no to both.
I think Apple will stick with just lowering the prices on previous versions.
Are pockets on clothing getting smaller so that it would make a smaller iPhone necessary?
But an “i-Phod Touch” an i-pod touch with built in cell
phone might make a lot of “cents” say on Virgin Mobile’s
$25.00 a month prepaid plan. Anyone that didn’t need complete coverage of the US could get by if they live within Sprint’s coverage area. All high school and College kids could use an economical phone, and would all get hooked on Apple’s ecosystem.
iPhone Air, isnt it obvious?
Gene Munster had been talking about an “imminent” iPhone Nano for about three years. There’s still no iPhone Nano. If Apple were to sell such a thing, they should only sell them in China or similar countries where the overall standard of living is lower than in U.S. or Europe.
How about continue production of iPhone 3GS when iPhone 5 is out (but only if Apple had spare capacity), but sell it unlocked no-contract at $299 … that would be a major hit (and by then, the BOM of the 3GS would be so low that it’ll be less than $50)…
true it may cannibalize iP4 and iP5 sales, but better do it with your own product than let someone else do it for u.
The only way it make sense is if Apple wanted to really simplify the cell phone – No App Store, no Safari, very small display, just a well designed easy to use cell phone with incredibly long battery life and no data plan.
While I think Apple could build this, and it would be a very successful product, I just don’t think it is their style.
Stupid. There’s already a lower cost iPhone. The iPhone 3GS, which is $49 on contract from AT&T. Just keep producing the phone from one or two generations previous as the lower cost alternative.
It would be cool if the iPhone nano would be a no-contact phone, way cheaper then the regular iPhone and had just the main capabilities like phone/ text/ and music ( no apps) all on a smaller screen. I would get the iPhone nano if those were the specs. The only thing holding me back from Buying the present iPhone is the price point.
“It would be cool if the iPhone nano would be a no-contact phone”
Wouldn’t that be more like an iPhone Shuffle?
Sorry, couldn’t resist making fun of your typo.
Smaller? No. Thinner? Hell yeah! Steve loves saying
“It’s even thinner”. Just look at the iPod. Even version got thinner. I’d love an iPhone the thinness of my so called “fat Nano” but would not ever want a smaller screen or wider dimensions.
the iPhone Shuffle! an iPod Shuffle with phone built in and designed explicity to be worn as a wrist watch. with blutooth for audio buds/headphones. and voice to text for twitter, email, and all that.
that would be revoutionary, which is why Apple will probably do it – this year? it would blow away the market.
Dammit Alfie you beat me to it.
I’ll add one more thing. A camera on the iPhone shuffle so that you can video chat just like in the great SciFi tradition.
Minimal app use since the screen would be too small for most applications.
I don’t see the need for a smaller cheaper phone – Apple would just be entering a low cost market with small profit margins. Better to sell last years model at a discount.
If Apple do small it will have unique features.
I can’t believe how so many people still don’t get Apple. They don’t make cheap junk. The iMac screen sizes have been getting larger, the iPhone and iPod Touch screens are getting more dense pixels and the only things that get smaller are the products that don’t rely on screens: Mac Mini, Mac Pro, iPods. Apple does not try to saturate the market at every level. They make quality products that give delight to us.
11″ MBA is pretty freakin awesome. When I first got it I was a little worried about the screen size, but now it’s my favorite apple laptop of the half dozen or so I’ve had.
there WILL be an iPhone Mini…
– much smaller (much less $) screen
– only 4-8gb storage
– no expensive “game gizmos” (gyro, high-end graphics chip, etc)
– shrunken key built-in apps (phone, ipod, mail, text)
– no safari, steve wants to replace the web with apps anyway
– new ios “mini app” category in app store – light weight apps for very basic access to the twitter, facebook, etc. ie the stuff which is KEY to targeted teen and emerging markets.
– high-bandwidth apps (streaming) only permitted with wifi
– steve manipulates carriers into ridiculously cheap pre-paid / metered plans, kept low by limited data restrictions of device.
– VARIABLE DEVICE PRICING…
– <$250 "fully unlocked", for pre-paid tel / data ala-carte (like ipad)
– <$150 for low-end tel service plan (data ala-carte)
– <$50 for avg tel service plan and minimal data
– FREE device with standard 2yr type service plan (tel+data)
game over. every teenager on earth gets one, then soon after realizes they want the full-size iPhone.
How about an iPhone nano with a dock cable that attaches to an iPod Touch? Provides 3G/4G access for the iPod when the two are connected and “just a phone” when they’re not connected. Could be sold cheap with inexpensive contracts (or no contact at all) and give people a reason to buy an iPod Touch (at their leisure).
The iPhone is the thinnest, most powerful phone of it’s size. It is absolutely nonsensical for Apple to change the screen size for any reason, except for the next quadruple leap. And a “cheap” iPhone that was less powerful or couldn’t run apps in the same class as the 4 is simply a non starter. Analysts who routinely dredge up the iPhone “Nano” are simply fucking retarded. These analysts simply refuse to accept that Apple has absolutely no interest in market domination if it means razor thin margins. How is that working out for tfe rest of the industry?
Apple only cares about and caters to the market that wants bang for it’s buck. And you won’t get it from a smaller, less capable iPhone. Apple is not Nike. Apple has no interest in slapping an Apple logo on any old piece of shit just to push the brand into every conceivable niche.