“Bloomberg claims Apple is working on a smaller, cheaper version of the iPhone for sale off-contract,” Jonny Evans writes for Computerworld. “The prototype is alleged to be around one-third smaller than the iPhone 4. It boasts a processor, display and other components similar to the current iPhone 4, and will be available off-contract. The kicker? It will cost around $200 and be available off-contract.”
“Of course, this is all speculation,” Evans writes. “However, TechCrunch cites a separate source who confirms Bloomberg’s claims.”
Evans writes, “I think Apple will sell millions of these things when it does eventually introduce them just in time for the Christmas 2011 market (maybe). It will be an utterly disruptive move.”
Read more in the full article here.
Unless it features a cheaper calling and data plan, or some other differentiating feature, it’ll be utterly nothing. The vast bulk of the contract value is not the $199 – $299 you plunk down for the device. You think carriers are going to knock $10/month off the device if you buy it?
Does this mean that we’ll get to watch the iPhone guy get it on with the T-Mobile chick?
He should definitely be able to penetrate that market.
But, will she enjoy it?
Well, it would only be a “mini” iPhone.
There is the “size isn’t everything” reply. But, whether or not “she” will enjoy it is always the eternal conundrum. We will never absolutely know, will we. This is all metaphor after all, isn’t it?
That’s a firewall worth sending packets through!
…proving once again that everything IS phallic!
Carriers SHOULD knock a few bucks off of the monthly cost since they wouldn’t have to subsidize the up front cost. But, regardless, this product would probably be targeted more toward third world markets, such as India, where most people buy unsubsidized phones with no contract.
This idea was made up out of nowhere, and it makes no sense to discuss it or deny it; it is self-obvious as nonsensical, taking into account whole concept of what Apple is and how it does things.
iFun for the whole family!
“It will be an utterly disruptive move” for WHO? Not Apple!
This would allow Apple to penetrate the “pay as you go” types.
The target market isn’t high end iPhone users in the US or EMEA. This phone would absolutely kill it in developing countries and people who can’t afford $2500 per year for AT&T or Verizon contracts. This would pull the rug out from under Nokia and the 100 million hand sets the sell each year. I have no idea who they sell to but there is clearly a market if they can sell 100 million.
I’ll surely get one if it’s available, just like having a smaller ipod touch with cellphone feature, so convenient to carry 1 device instead of 2, besides I’m fine to use wifi.
I agree with DeRS, this would be disruptive in the sense of cutting into Apple’s high-margin US market.
Who wants to sell into the low-end market, when they can sell into the high-end smart-phone market and make way more money in apps
This is a silly rumour started by someone with something to gain.
Whether Apple makes a small, unlocked iPhone or not, there is no question that carriers are ripping off their customers. Consumers should be able to buy cellphones the way they buy any other electronic device and use it on any compatible network. This is bound to happen someday.
It does happen everywhere – so long as your country isn’t called the US of A where telcos are stuck in the dark ages.
A really cheap iPhone will go a long way towards killing Android on the low end while making Apple and the US government another ton of money. With the high end Apple products and the revived Nokia/Windows 7 Mobile also attacking the high and mid range those manufacturers who try to duke it out with the heavily fragmented and insecure Android ecosystem are going to be smashed.
Wait, are android smart phones substantively cheaper? Can’t you get a 3gs (or is it a 3g?) for $49 on contract? Is price a real differentiator for Android?
I’m seriously asking. It seems to me it’s NOT.
Apple’s average profit per iPhone (including the carrier subsidy) is probably at least $400. Apple is NOT going to create a “cheap iPhone” that is a repackaging of “last year’s model” and price it under $200 (with NO carrier subsidy). Apple risks losing sales of its most profitable product to gain sales of a much lower-margin product that SELLS for less than half of the PROFIT on the current iPhone; Apple is not stupid.
However, I think Apple WILL go after customers who currently would not buy a subsidized iPhone with a two-year contract. Then, Apple is not risking a drop in sales of its big profit maker, because that’s a currently “untapped” market segment.
Therefore, this “iPhone nano” (if there is such a thing) should NOT be a cheap (old-tech) iPhone; it should an iPod nano that also just happens to be a phone. It would have all the features expected of a current “non-smart” mobile phone, such as camera and texting/messaging, without all the computer-like features, such as WiFi, Bluetooth, third-party apps, full web browser, multi-tasking, etc… a “regular” mobile phone done the Apple way.
It would also be an iPod, and like current iPod nano, it can mimic iOS (with a multi-touch screen) without running iOS. It would obviously have a different case (compared to the tiny iPod nano) to accommodate the phone-related components, larger screen, and bigger battery, and be shaped to function as a mobile phone (not a “clip-on” device). It would be possible for under $200, since it’s nowhere near as complex as a “real” iPhone, and it’s different enough to be in a separate market segment and not steal customers from the existing iPhone. It would, however, steal customers from Nokia and low-end Android. And THAT is what Apple wants in a “cheap iPhone.”
With iPod, Apple started out focused on the high-end and eventually took over the low end as well. It makes perfect sense that Apple would try the same thing with mobile phones at some point.
Apple doesn’t give a rats patootie whether Android lives or dies. It isn’t looking to capture the 5¢ per unit margin business. It is looking to make really cool and useful stuff at a good profit. And, it tends toward product line simplification, not Sony-style product proliferation. A smaller iPad or dumber iPhone is silly space for Apple. Everybody else is already there.
Looking forward to another slam dunk!
Better for stocks, go apple!
This is a rehash of the “Apple should sell a headless Mac and license MacOS to 3rd parties” debate. Selling cheap iPhones is not the market niche Apple has chosen to occupy and not one in which they could sufficiently differentiate themselves from the competition. Business Strategy 101 says build on your successful niches and not try to occupy a niche in which you have no foothold and nothing new to add. Who knows if they’ll release a cheaper iPhone, but if they do it will be to further consolidate their lead in the high-end smartphone market, not to try to take on the budget end.
Like many other above, I call BS on this. Apple already makes more profit than all the other players combined with its current strategy and that’s all that matters. Why would they go to the effort to crank out millions of 2nd-rate phones?
It would be inconsistent with everything else they do, which is to produce beautiful hardware supported by brilliant software that is simple and intuitive to use and for which consumers are willing to pay a premium for the enjoyment of owning a hassle-free device that quickly becomes an essential part of their life.
They will leave the low end of the market to be fought out by other vendors who will progressively weaken and be unable to challenge them at the high end as they can’t afford the high levels of R&D necessary to compete effectively on innovation. This has already happened with premium desktops and laptops (check out who makes a profit selling these and who doesn’t), started happening with netbooks vs iPads and is bound to happen with smartphones. Apple doesn’t go backwards….
This is perfect for me. I am on a system where if I pay £10 a month, I get unlimited text messages and 500mb internet.
I don’t make calls, I text a lot and don’t use the internet too much, so this is perfect for me.
If Apple release this rumoured phone, I’d buy it. This appeals to students & most people I know. Apple will be the leader in the mobile market if they release this phone.
If I were to accidentally swallow the mini iPhone, I would certainly be disrupted!
No point in a smaller one. It’s small enough.
I wouldn’t mind having an iPhone that is as thin as the iPod Touch 4G
The downsides on the iPhone Nano will be (compared to the iPhone 5):
– worse camera
– worse battery life
– no LTE
– worse speaker
– no physical buttons except sleep and maybe volume
– single core CPU
– less RAM
– less flash (4-16gb?)
What should be the same:
– same resolution
– same screen size
– facetime cam
– NFC chip
I think the iPhone Nano would be a great move, especially for women because the current iPhone design doesn’t really appeal to women.