More Detail On Apple’s iPhone Nano [Exclusive]

Leander Kahney (4:15 am PDT, Feb 14 2011)

More Detail On Apple’s iPhone Nano [Exclusive]

UPDATE: The big question about a streaming-only iPhone is apps: How will users download apps? My source compared it to the second-generation Apple TV, which is a streaming-only device but includes 8GB of onboard memory (for the OS and buffering media). “I’m not 100% sure on the amount of memory available for the user,” he said. “I know there is some memory but it acts more like the memory on the AppleTV. There is some there, I’m just not sure how much.”

We have more detail on Apple’s iPhone nano, which according to Sunday’s Wall Street Journal is real and may be headed to market this year.

But what we have will blow your mind.

This week, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch all published rumors that Apple plans to launch a smaller, more affordable iPhone, to be sold alongside the iPhone 4. (We predicted as much six weeks ago.)

The WSJ also reported that MobileMe is getting a major revamp in June, allowing users to store most of their data and media in the cloud. We’ve heard the same thing from several sources.

Firstly, according to our source (who asked to remain anonymous), Apple has been working on a smaller, mass-market iPhone for a long time.

But to do that, Apple had to figure out a way to strip away some of the components to reduce both its size and cost.

Apple decided to lose some of the memory, which is by far the most expensive component of the iPhone (up to one-quarter of the device’s cost, according to iSuppli estimates).

By “some” of the memory, we mean ALL of the memory. The iPhone nano will have no memory for onboard storage of media, our source says. It will have only enough memory to buffer media streamed from the cloud.

“I’m talking strictly storage memory here,” said our source.

The iPhone nano will pull ALL it’s content from MobileMe. When users buy a movie or TV show on iTunes, it’s available to stream to their iPhone or iPad. The service is based on technology from LaLa.com, a streaming service that Apple bought last spring and then shut down.

“It would be a mostly cloud-based iOS,” said our source.

The WSJ report reported many of the same details, and also hinted that the new iPhone nano will have limited storage: “MobileMe… would serve as a “locker” for personal memorabilia such as photos, music and videos, eliminating the need for devices to carry a lot of memory,” the Journal said.

The prospect of a memory-less iPhone is intriguing, and our source has a great track record, however, it does raise a few questions.

The device cannot surely come without any memory — what about the operating system and critical system data?

And what about pictures and movies taken by the iPhone, assuming it has a camera? No onboard memory means photos and video will have to be streamed UP to the cloud, and presumably in real-time.

The device will also have to stream a bunch of other data in real-time — from email attachments to documents and spreadsheets in users’ Home folders. Such a system must have some local storage, or could each and every piece of data be streamed to the iPhone’s RAM, and quickly swapped in and out depending on the task at hand? And what happens when the iPhone is inevitably offline?

And no more loading up movies for long-haul flights, I guess. Better hope more airlines start offering free WiFi by the summer.

DON'T MISS
NYT: Apple Working On Budget iPhone But It Won’t Be Smaller

Apps you might like

80 comments »

  • Tallest Skil

    So… no apps.

    It’s not happening, then. It’s complete nonsense.

    • Joshua

      To dispel the above comment, apps can be run on a server (SaaS) and you are connected to a mass infrastructure. This will be the first true test if SaaS is actually reasonably consumable good. I only need to point to Amazon Cloud.

      There are system memory and the SSD which is actually memory too. So, your Apple sources wish to obfuscate a little bit and a lot of system memory is not needed. The phone powered on will connect to an infrastructure that spawns a virtual machine process. The easiest way to describe this interaction in layman’s terms is remote desktop. This is a pretty neat idea because it will play nicely at thwart the hacking community because the virtual machine iOS is probably a custom iOS that is loaded into the iPhone Nano. The hacking community will have a fun time in trying to fool the iPhone Nano into another operating system. This plays more into the ‘Your base belongs to us.’

      Lastly, this will not be a service the wireless telephony industry will allow on their networks. Simply because it will cause too much traffic. With FaceTime, I am positive not that many people takes advantage of this feature on Verizon. So, if there is an iPhone Nano – the only thing stored on the device will be contact phone numbers. Then, in order to get to your entertainment, you need to be in a wireless location. iPod Touch Nano of course removes the phone part and you still need to be connected to a wireless network location.

      How likely is all of this is a huge question. In the end, the fact a customer cannot use the iPhone Nano with ease leaves a gaping hole in my analysis. I believe Apple is one of the few to find a way to reduce the amount of streaming data needed to operate such a device if I am correct.

      At the end of the day though, it is probably just the same thing as an iPod Touch but smaller with a new feature that allows you to connect to their new revamp cloud service.

      • Craig

        I for one, would jump at an iphone nano. Phone, txt, email, the odd app…and most importantly smaller. There’s bound to be loads of people who don’t want/need the full iphones capabilities and are put off by the increase in todays smartphone size, and would love an iphone nano. If there’s no discernible onboard storage, then why not just have a micro sd card slot to be able to store music, photos etc. Simples.

      • Joshua

        microSD slot will never happen on a portable device for as long as Steve Jobs is in charge. By having a microSD slot, piracy and hacking the device will be more trivial. I stand by my previous assessment. The more I think about it today, I can definitely see Apple using their new cloud computer to allow you to demo and store apps using a SaaS model.

    • Joe R,

      I disagree. I think a 3.5″ non-retina display. No 3rd party apps. Just Phone, Contacts, SMS, iPod and settings.

      This allows Apple to use much less RAM, a much cheaper display, and a cheaper, low-power/low-performance CPU, which means a smaller battery. The cost of manufacturing will be sub $50. Apple can sell it for $199 as an iPod Nano with built-in phone. It’s not a smart phone, but smarter than a dumb phone. No need for Safari/Email and thus NO need for a DATA plan.

      It’s perfect. Anyone interested in a phone that’s $200 unsubsidized (which is free with a 2 year contract) is probably not looking for a data plan. Almost everyone who buys it will upgrade to a full featured iPhone the next time around. It’s a gateway iOS device.

      • Bobby

        Without apps whats the point?

      • Alexis M

        The point is the interface.

      • Bobby

        @ Alexis M – I am a graphic designer so I understand the appeal of the Apple UI on iOS but, that being said the main draw is the apps AND integration with iTunes. In my opinion, the apps outweigh the iTunes integration because I can easily put my music and video on most smartphones. Without the apps the iPhone would be no better than any other smartphone. Plus, I still have issues with most of my stuff being on the cloud. Not because I don’t trust the cloud, but because I don’t trust the ways we get to the cloud.

      • Joe R,

        The point is money. It’ll be free for most consumers. It’s a gateway phone.

      • Dan

        I’ll happily bet $20 that Apple will never ship an App-less iPhone.

      • Greg

        Good point! Only 30% of mobile phone users have smartphones. I can pick up a nice Blackberry for free if I wanted to look like those dorks that stare into their phones all day. Strip out all but the most basic applications and you won’t need much memory or processing power.

        On another point, a phone that only works within a WiFi area is called an iPod touch. It doesn’t work outside the house or coffee shop…. and I don’t drink coffee.

      • Narg

        It would not be an ‘iPod’ because it’s got no memory at all. It’d be nothing like an iPod. It would be basically just like one of the not-so-smart smartphone wanna-be phones.

      • Hamranhansenhansen

        It’s not the data plan that is expensive, it’s the obsolete voice and text plans that have to go. For example, compare iPad 3G with $30/month unlimited data and $5/month Skype number and a free texts app to iPhone 3GS with $30/month unlimited data and $40/month 450 minutes and $20/month unlimited texts. I have both of these devices and I can tell you, it is not the data plans I want to throw overboard.

        I think there are a bunch of rumors all mixed up here. What I think is coming is Apple as a virtual carrier and 3G/FaceTime in everything: iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, the successor to the candy bar iPod nano (as opposed to the shuffle with a screen that now bears the nano name) with basic built-in apps only, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, maybe even iMac. Data plans only, FaceTime calls only, much cheaper monthly bill.

        Once you have a cheaper monthly bill, you want to let the customer choose sub or unsub. So you want a broader range of devices by far, from high-end iPhone to mid-range iPod touch to low-end candy bar nano phone in the handhelds, to a broader range of iPads with both 1 and 2 selling together, and 3G in your MacBook line There are cheaper phones, smaller phones, subsidized, unsubsidized, a feature phone, PC’s, and also cheaper monthly bills. No need to deal with carriers, you pay Apple and they pay carriers.

        The thing is, you look at iPad 3G with $30/month unlimited data and then add FaceTime and it makes iPhone look stupid expensive per month. And what is the point of FaceTime if not over 3G? No carrier is going to go FaceTime only data-only except Apple, because it is not a good way to milk users, it is a way to give users what they want and sell more devices and move the industry forward.

        Some people are still rocking a $200 iPod nano and a free feature phone with $30/month bill.
        If Apple can say to them, here is the $200 (candy bar) iPod nano you know and love, but now it has a full-face touchscreen and FaceTime phone and $30/month no contract bill, so you can ditch your feature phone. Basically “feature phone + iPod = iPod feature phone,” which is the feature phone version of the “smartphone + iPod = iPhone” pitch from 4 years ago.

        Anyway, a shrunken iPhone as in the photo is *not* what I think will happen unless, as Steve Jobs said, it comes with a file to sharpen your fingers. Smaller than 3.5 inches will have the nano screen and apps, not the iPhone screen and apps.

    • Tai

      The point is that it’ll be much smaller and less expensive and attract people who cannot afford, need, or want a full-blown, full-size iPhone.

      • Tai

        To follow up on myself, I know people, especially the older generation, who do not do anything with their iPhone except make and receive calls, let alone use all the apps that come with it, LET alone BUY any new apps. Not everyone who gets an iPhone is a power user. (Which leads to the question of why they have one if they are not going to use it to its full-potential? Good question.)

      • dxr

        Agree with Tai.

        Personally all I want from my phone is the ability to make calls, send texts (mms and sms) and access the web and email.

      • Thomas65807

        Since these are just rumors, why take them literally? A 2GB iPhone would save almost 90% of storage costs without eliminating all apps, music and photos … except when the phone’s in a wi-fi hotspot.

        I can’t imagine that Apple will sell a phone without any apps, since that would eliminate its special appeal as well as any revenue Apple generates from app sales. Perhaps more importantly, people who own numerous apps have a more difficult time leaving Apple when its time to buy the next phone. That’s worth far more to Apple than the cost of (say) 2GB of flash memory an SD card slot.

      • Sean

        But Apple doesn’t have a big history of chasing people who “can’t afford”. You’re going to do things Apple’s way or not at all.

      • Hamranhansenhansen

        > But Apple doesn’t have a big history of chasing people who
        > “can’t afford”. You’re going to do things Apple’s way or not at all.

        That’s why people said they would never do iPod shuffle.

        Truth is, Apple doesn’t care about making people do things their way, they care about making the very best solutions for every problem, and they care about not forcing the user to be an I-T person, even if that sacrifices the tinkering needs of actual I-T people. They never made a $500 Celeron PC because that is a low quality 18 month PC and a $999 MacBook with Core 2 Duo is a high quality 3 year PC. Same money, but a better solution. And now they have a high quality 24 month PC in iPad for $500. Better solution.

        Just forget about cheaper and consider that some users just need less. Some users want an iPod classic for $250 and some want an iPod shuffle for $50. Some want an iPhone with Retina Display and 3rd party apps for $600 and some want an iPhone mini with FaceTime, texts, Web, email, Facebook, Twitter, and iPod for $200. And iPod shuffle and iPhone mini suck the oxygen out of competitor’s lungs, keeping them from getting strong enough to threaten the bigger devices.

    • nick

      Yeah, NO memory is a silly notion. More likely it will have _less_ memory, and good cloud integration.

      Maybe, just maybe, moving to the cloud will finally do away with the tedious sync process via USB cable. If you think about it – I guess they first started to do away with sync – doing that means all the data resides on the cloud. Then they figured – hey all the data is in the cloud, how about we get rid of some on board memory and make the memory be a cache rather than a fixed-size thing.

      But they better make very sure the thing also works without network connection. Rare as it is, but the country I live in has no 3G. Cloud services won’t work very well over EDGE. Then again – this is Apple, they might well not care about that, and then in the end everyone bows to their will and introduces 3G services and reasonable data plans.

  • motionblurred

    This is a bit too far-fetched for me to believe. The article itself mentions some of it’s flaws but what about apps as well? Part of the reason the iPhone has become so popular are apps. I’d guess this device would come with 4GB.

    It will have a camera similar to the 3G or maybe even the the first-gen iPhone camera. I couldn’t imagine that there would be no camera where you can get one on any throwaway feature-phone.

    It’ll probably be free with a contract ($200 unlocked as has been rumored) and sell pretty well for people who don’t need the space and/or have an iPad already.

  • bwaro

    no memory..
    hmmmm..

  • David H

    I don’t think an iphone nano would have no memory, I think it could have something like 2 or 4gb with the main storage being taken up by the cloud.

    The Apple TV is classed as having no memory, but it has 8gb, lets hope that Mobileme gets even better and free!!

    • Wirehedd

      Thanks for raising that distinction. I was going to point out that the appleTV has “no memory” but does include an 8GB buffer for watching streamed media and I am going to assume this new iPhone Nano would be similarly equipped. Not equipped with a load of on board memory but enough to function as a buffer from the cloud and in a range of 1-4GB would be perfect. It would also allow for local storage of links and contact info without full blown storage. I know there would be a few avenues for hacking into this buffer for JBing and whatnot so the phone would have reasonable feature ability for a slightly smartened dumb phone and would still be capable of holding a ROM of the iOS version on board as well.

      It would only be an entry point phone for people with no use for apps but who prefer the iOS interface but, we’ll have to wait and see.

      Parenthetically, I’m thinking this is the same line they may take for the iPad as well as I know a large number of folks who won’t buy it due to it’s size and weight compared to a kindle or nook so I can honestly see a 7″ iPad 2.5 or 3 coming soon as well despite Steve’s assertion such a device would be DOA. 4, 8 and 16GB versions at a lower price point and Apple is again commanding the market across the spectrum of related devices.

  • Adam

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t relying completely on cloud storage render the phone entirely useless without a phone signal or internet connection?

    • Bobby

      Yes it would. I’m all for a better quality and free MobileMe, but without onbaord storage the phone is useless. And in it’s current form MoblieMe would have to be free because they don’t have enough features to charge what they do.

      • nick

        Network congestion issues alone dictate that the device must have some on board cache memory, so saying it has “no memory” is a bit silly. 4GB would probably be enough. I imagine then I’d have huge virtual libraries on my phone – my 10 GB of photos, and my 40GB of music, as well as some movies. But instead of being actually on the phone they’d be loaded on demand, cached, and uploaded (photos) seamlessly in the background.

        Frankly the amount of stuff I use day to day on my almost full 16GB iPhone is way less than 4GB so a solution like that would work very well.

  • Allan

    This new device, if it comes to fruition, will be a test platform for eventually moving everything to the cloud. I don’t need to store much of anything on my devices as long as I can get a fast, reliable internet connection.

  • ArmchairSkipper

    iPod Nano has a built-in radio buffer, which enables you to pause radio and continue 15 minutes later from the point you left. This article reminds me of that. The magic word is “buffer”.

    If iSky comes this year, it might be an epic fail because carriers can’t take the pressure of moving so much data around.

    iPhone 5 (or should we call it iPhone Pro?) should have solar backpanel.

    iPad caused lowered paper production and next iPad should have e-ink backpanel that enables us to take notes with a stylus in order to reduce paper consumption too.

  • http://ivanb.me Ivan

    Mobile networks are far from being fast and reliable yet. This concept could possibly work over WiFi, but I very much doubt that it would work over 3G. Imagine a phone that would be constantly buffering data and making you wait for minutes just to do simple things.

  • http://www.liamdaly.co.uk Liam

    Doubt it… O2 has 500MB data limits if everything is stored on the cloud you would eat through your allowance within a day listening to music…

  • http://www.liamdaly.co.uk Liam

    if anything they could bring out a new flash storage model similar to the iPod nano which would make it smaller but then the amount of storage would be less surely if they want to keep cost down

  • http://www.invest2donate.com Nile

    I dont know any one who would want a smaller iphone. Especially after using the iPad, the iPhone seems tiny enough.

  • Apple Turnover

    It doesn’t seem like such a great way to combat Android OS from taking over. I don’t know what group Apple is targeting this small phone to but if it’s for the cheapskates, I wouldn’t think it would go over all that well. If this rumor is true, then I’m sure Apple must have put a lot of thought into it. I don’t get it at all. It sounds like a mini-featurephone to me. I’ll wait until the actual device is announced and find out what it’s really about. If it’s able to run on all networks, that’s a good thing, but being completely stripped of ALL memory makes little sense to me at all.

    I don’t know what Apple has to be worried about from Android taking over to go to this sort of device. Maybe the design of this device is for some other reason that I don’t see at all. Maybe Apple is becoming like Tracfone with this device.

  • http://blog.fimsch.net/ Konrad

    I can’t believe that for a device like that, the user experience will be in /any/ way acceptable to Apple. or they’ll be waving dead chickens in ritualistic ways that we can’t yet imagine.

  • Brian

    I think there would have to be local memory – 4GB probably. I was looking at the iSuppli report (http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/New-iPhone-Carries-171-85-Bill-of-Materials-IHS-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx) and if you make a few modifications you can knock the price down considerable.

    Current iPhone 4 margin: ($600 – $171) / $600 ($200 + $400 [carrier]) = 71%

    Memory 4GB/limited RAM – $7 vs $40 = $33 in savings
    Screen 2.6″ – $25 vs $37 = $12 in savings
    Cheaper materials – $5 vs $20 = $15 in savings
    Cheaper cameras – $5 vs $14 = $9 in savings
    ———————————————————
    Total savings $69

    iPhone 5 Nano margin: ($400 – $102) / $400 (carrier) = 74.5%

    iPhone 4 off contract: $599
    iPhone 5 nano off contract: $399

  • ArmchairSkipper

    Steve Jobs is insisting on ditching the SIM card in order to
    1)… lay the foundation for replacing carrier dependency through something like iNet, that gives fixed-rate talk/SMS/data and maximum available signal bars for iPhones and iPads all over the world, regardless of time and place, of course using a dual standard GSM-CDMA iPhone (5 maybe?). It will be like a digital communications permit to all the world. Goodbye to roaming. Welcome iNet. Fits the hardware, fits the software, fits the ecosystem.

    2)… iPod Nano is becoming the ideal candidate for a baseline communications device (4×3 appscreen iPhone Nano rather than 2×2 appscreen iPod Nano?) but who knows when. We’ll use the 480×320 (220ppi) iPhone Nano with the headset. It will be water proof. It will include NFC which will transfer your phonebook/SMS/calendar/mail(only subjects)/photos/songs when in the vicinity of an already NFC-paired iPhone/iPad. It will only give talk time and data (maybe ~10-15 hours). Network based-GPS. Music. Radio. Bluetooth maybe. No virtual QWERTY keyboard, only numbers with triple-letters (old style) or advanced VoiceOver. No WIFI. No camera. Simple plain calling and calls/SMS/calendar/mail notifications. A world phone that needs an NFC-enabled iPhone/iPad as an information dock (will also sync with iTunes for PC/Macbook). Price 99$ (subsidized). So cute, you are gonna adore it. Once you use it, you’ll start to look for an iPhone/iPad/Macbook. If you already have one of the three, then you’ll start to think about buying an iPhone Nano for its simplicity and call duration. Fits the hardware, fits the software, fits the ecosystem.

    And then just watch Elop and Ballmer to shit to their pants.

    iPod Nano can play up to 24 hours of music with a 105mAH battery. Processor is sipping on the battery. Nice and efficient.

    iPhone 4 on the other hand, can play up to only 40 hours of music despite its huge 1500mAH battery. Linear thinking (from iPod Nano) would require iPhone 4 to play up to ~15×24=360 hours of music but CPU doesn’t seem to sip on the battery for this specific job.

    This is the same for calls. iPhone gives 7 hours of 3G time. Considering its inefficiency due to fast CPU during simple plain 3G calls, an iPod Nano that has the same battery as iPhone 4 would give ~360/40*7=63 hours of talk time. Of course, this is ideal thinking.

    Now with the facts: GSM/CDMA Module itself chops 10 hours. Larger screen than iPod Nano, uses another 10 hours of talk time. All the fiddling in the phonebook, SMS, calendar etc., takes another 15 hours. Data another 10 hours. Leaves with 18 hours of 3G talk time. So you can imagine the standby of this tiny device. It is like a 10-hour MacBook.

    iPhone Nano will definitely include iOS (considering Steve’s efforts in software democratization) and only free (and compatible) apps on the AppStore will be available for this iPhone Nano device (btw app downloads skyrocket). Just to give a taste of iPhone 4 (or should we call it iPhone Pro? :-) ). Only iTunes. No GameCenter. No iBooks.

    Does the iPad need a micro-SIM slot? No! So this was a move to the pull micro-SIM slot price down. Because this cost will affect all other Apple mobiles.

    If only Steve ditched the SIM card…

    iPhone Nano. Clip and go. (Maybe the micro-SIM slot will be in the clip?)

    Time will tell…

    • Narg

      Your calculations are incorrect. You are assuming the same process that’s in the nano would be used in the iPhone nano. That will not be the case. Plus you forget that cellular connectivity is not done with the processor, but with a different chip alltogether, so you’d probably have less talk time with a smaller battery.

      • ArmchairSkipper

        My calculations are incorrect till the point that says “Now with the facts:” but I wasn’t assuming a smaller battery, actually I was thinking about putting iPhone 4 battery into iPhone Nano. I’ve just realized iPod Touch gives 40 hours of music with 930 mAH battery whereas iPhone 4 gives 40 hours of music with a 1420 mAH battery. The difference of 490 mAH in battery capacity goes to cellular chip.

        Now iPod Touch seems a better candidate. iPhone Touch maybe?

    • nick

      Love your idea #1 – the iNet. Pure genius from an end user perspective.

      But, the carriers will never allow this. They’d rather not sell anything Apple than do that, and they’re the ones ultimately still controlling the networks, and also the vast majority of consumer sales.

      Apple can’t afford to fight the operators at the moment as it has its hands full with Android and the new unholy Nokia/WP7 alliance.

      • ArmchairSkipper

        Operators, at least some of them, are doing this already: Virgin Mobile is buying bulk minutes/SMS/data from Sprint and selling it under the name Virgin Mobile. It is called Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO).

        There are inefficiencies in operators network coverages. If three networks have an overlapping coverage on a rural area, the efficiency on that particular area starts from 33% and rises very slowly with the capacity utilization of that area.

        They have been researching about network shadowing (which looks at your past network locations and statictically guesstimates your possible future network location in order to switch off the cellular tower to preserve energy till you enter that area again) because selling minutes/SMS/data to end user is more profitable. But what about more revenue, capacity utilization, efficiency?

        Android and WP7 are not competitors to Apple because Apple doesn’t intend to dominate the market. Apple is trying to put a smile on every Apple users face. It might even fight the operators to put a smile on people’s faces (of course, if people continue to pay Apple enough).

        Imagine Microsoft making about ~50% profit from every PC’s hardware cost (other than the licensing fee it makes from Windows). Would the software/hardware/music/film/book industries be in a better shape? I don’t think so… That will be the same with WP7. :-)

        Google is after a world domination in mobile market. It wil dominate the market. For a long time.

  • Don Pope

    So, get a cheap phone and then pay through the nose for bandwidth? Makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless it comes with a cheap unlimited data plan it will be a complete failure.

  • rogerdodger

    if it costs 99$ its okay. If it costs 100$ or more, nope.

  • JTF

    You know what ? MY source says the iPhone Nano will be made of crystal and will have a tazer. There. My source’s word against yours.

    Leander Is your “anonymous source” a douchebag you have gay sex with on your offtime ? I think you’re making this shit up to get page hits. Cheap and lame.

    • Dean

      Invoking “gay sex” as a pejorative is homophobic and lame…

      • Jew

        You do realize you’re saying this to the internet community, right?

  • http://bayansell.com/ BayanSell

    I doubt this would happen. Content is a source of income for Apple, and removing storage would prevent content sales especially at a time when bandwidth charges are rising.

    If Apple is serious about saving costs through the removal of memory, a MicroSD slot should solve that problem nicely.

  • ArmchairSkipper

    And for the cloud, it is not about mobile devices accessing the cloud because as I mentioned, with this carrier infrastructure which doesn’t even support a healty FaceTime connection, it is currently impossible to run all from the cloud IMHO. Someday quantum communications will change that.

    Until that day, data center can currently serve only one purpose:
    You have an NFC-enabled iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch and an NFC-enabled Macbook/iMac/MacPro. When they’re paired, your personal files and folders are transmitted to your mobile and to your place at the cloud at the same moment. You leave home. When you want to access your files, you pair it with another completely stranger NFC-enabled Macbook/iMac//MacPro and there you have your files and settings on that particular computers screen, either recevied from mobile device or the cloud. Both your mobile and cloud will be updated when you make changes. Original files are still on your computer at home and might not be changed unless you return home and sync. When you unpair the NFC, all you data on the surrogate Mac will be wiped. Something like a virtual user.

    You loose internet connection while working on surrogate Mac, your mobile will kick in and complete the missing part of your data. You loose your mobile device, surrogate Mac will access the cloud and complete missing part, later you wipe the mobile remotely and your data is safe. “You loose your Macbook/iMac/MacPro and cloud will be alerted to wipe it at the first time it is connected to the internet”.

    Your iMac/MacPro might also become a part of the cloud. A photo, video, calendar event, phonebook entry you make on the go will be stored directly in the cloud and on your home computer. Something like “auto-save” for all your data.

    Maybe TimeMachine will also be integrated to the cloud. Who knows…

    Data has been the most important thing throughout the history. It still is and it will be so. Apple is aware of this. Thankfully.

    (A second purpose for that data center would be remote-computing for games. Something like “GameTime” that works only over wifi and brings every game at its maximum quality settings to your mobile.)

  • Steve

    Please let this be a sub-$200 cool iPod phone/mifi that works magically with the rest of the iOS/OSX family. Apple should keep ti simple to allow users to avoid carrier lock-in for 2 years.

    I want a mini iPhone that is designed only

    1. to allow voice, SMS and data connectivity everywhere
    2. to have an iOS-like touchscreen that gives me all the functionality
    of the iPod nano , eg iTunes
    3. to have a front-facing camera (rear-facing camera is not essential)
    4. iPhone-equivalent battery life

    Essential firmware features to make my day:

    1. 3G Hotspot to tether iPod Touch, AppleTV, iPad and MBP and only pay
    ONE 3G data subscription
    2. Facetime so that I can make video calls anywhere
    3. Airplay for streaming my iTunes music/video to my AppleTV, iPad etc
    4. Geo-location, navigation via GPS
    5. Apple Remote for my MacBook/iPad/AppleTV/TimeMachine

    If that’s what’s coming, especially the streaming elements then I’m sold already.

  • GC

    Two words.

    Microsoft KIN.

    We all know how that worked out and it is because of those two words I can say without a shadow of a doubt this is all BUNK!

    • Steve

      KIn was a mess, Apple has a whole family of iOS/OSX devices. The key niche that a nano phone would excel is as a simple phone/mifi with Apple’s firmware magic like Airplay and Facetime. MobileMe would make it even more compelling as a cheap SIM free substitute for the iPhone. It would also convince me to buy an iPad and AppleTV.

  • Bill & Ted

    @ GC

    If this iPhone Nano turns out to be true, it won’t be anything like KIN. The KIN was pretty much marketed as a social media phone targeting the 15-25 year old demo. Microsoft way overplayed their hand with that device as it was cheaply manufactured, overpriced and way overforcasted. Microsoft quickly found that demand for such a product was minimal at best. What a flop.

    Have faith in Apple. Whatever they deliver — whether it be a full-blown LTE iPhone 5 or some smaller type of entry-level iPhone — I’m positive it will be much better planned and implemented than anything Microsoft can bring to market.

    • Narg

      Remember, the Kin did make a comeback and is doing quite well now.

      GC is right in his thinking. If it is a “dumbed down iPhone” it’s very much like the Kin in comparison to the WP7 platform.

  • David

    Don’t you need a lot of processing power to transmit data to and from the cloud? Don’t think this will work out well.

  • HJ

    What we consumers really want is a slot for interchangeable SD cards for storeage, which would mean Apple could offer a phone and let the consumer choose to use one of the cards sitting around at home that is used mostly for cameras. Who says Apple has to have all the storage/memory on board?

    The 16 GB cards are really cheap and are sitting around most of the time doing nothing.

    As for all the storage being on the clouds, that sounds like disinformation to me.
    Who would be paying to transmit the data? Not cost effective.

  • frank

    this is just stupid so all ur songs and vids pics have to be streamed off 3g that means more network problems because every one of these damn thing will be using the 3g network for 90% of the things

  • http://www.pestaola.gr Titanas

    An iPhone nano/mini with no memory is like an Apple TV with batteries and a screen. The idea is great but baterry technology is so crappy which makes no sense for a phone to be connected via 3G/WiFi to access data. It’s beyond any rational point for someone to thing he can use a phone like this for more than an hour or maybe two.

  • http://none Thanga

    The question really is how much is the subsidy for a feature phone vs a smartphone? Is apple trying to tap the feature phone market without the dataplans? kind of a apps only like a ipod touch….. there will always be memory no memory no apps no songs!

    I am thinking a ipod touch that makes calls and comes with a none data plan for everyone on the planet!!! hoooray!!

  • http://none Thanga

    I think this is a gold mine…. while there are a whole lot of people out there who are getting smart phones… the feature phone market has been left un tapped! Come in apple, with a wifi and voice plan only phone for the masses. I think its a pretty solid idea… as all the android phones are fighting for smartphone dominance…. this market is for people who carry an ipod and phone as two devices….. will have retina display(might not be like the high end iphone 4 but comparable) a little smaller in size in terms of battery as there is only voice chip… and this will fly off the shelf in all the developing nations where in carrier subsidy is still not on the cards…
    Good Job Steve and gang!

  • Paul

    I take a different line of thought on the “iPhone Nano” subject. It is not the cost of the phone that is the friction point of the purchase, it is the cost of the data plan. In this regard, I would propose that the “Nano” solution is:

    * Screen Size = 480×320 3.5″ (same as iPhone 3GS – the tap targets get too small if the screen size is greatly reduced.)
    * No 3G/Edge connection WiFi only
    * 4-8GB of onboard flash for music and app storage
    * Phone does voice and SMS only. You have to be in WiFi for email and location based stuff (same as iPod touch)

    Price is equivalent to today’s iPod Nano with no contract or $0-$49 with two year contract.

    • http://none thanga

      8 GB of onboard flash for music and app storage would only work may be another model with 16 GB… the iPhone 5 will graduate to 32 and 64 GB models hopefully(Part of the huge deal with Samsung)… iPod touch type Cameras with facetime…….. may be no GPS… and reduced ram……. priced around 299 and 349… this a no brainer for many people that I know in India….priced at free to 49$. I would vote for this model…. Can they also add the ability to choose the network with programmable sim with no contract……this will really change the game!

  • Skygolf

    8GB iPod nano is $150, I believe 8GB iPhone nano for $250 to $300 is doable and still in plenty ppl price range. Data is $$$$ and without memory it will be a blow to itunes. Apple is smart enough to figure that mini the price on device and gain it back on itunes(aka Inkjet Printer or GameConsole).
    iPhone nano should target mostly girl who like iPhone but feel that is it too big and heavy, don’t have much need for Game, GPS and etc. As for older folks … won’t find too much success… I think they will stuck to they VCR. Most of the older folks I know are using they mono phone… they will be wowed by John’s phone and not iPhone.

  • Lucian Armasu

    I bet you won’t be able to export your media from MobileMe later if you want to switch to another cloud service.

  • stevemc

    Three little words: data plan cap.

    Zero storage with even a 5 gig data plan cap… not for me.

  • Scott Contreras-Koterbay

    This notion of everything in the cloud seems like a bad idea to me for one simple reason: currently there is a trend towards capping bandwith usage amongst the mobile phone services and, if I have to constantly download my photos every time just to see them, this should run up against the bandwith limit within a very short time. Or, is that what Apple and AT&T want?

  • COM_by_CRAIG

    Who thinks of these things? It’s like they rolled the iPhone rumor dice and it landed on iPhone, Nano, and Memory. No apps just means no money for Apple. They put themselves in the same league as Free Cheap Phones, it just not their way.

  • David

    A smaller phone with “limited” capability for apps, would be a great complement to an iPad—which would then be used to run the apps for a vacation. Remember this: “Why get an iPad when the iPhone already runs all the apps?” The iPad was such a hit, the problem is now reversed: “why run the apps on the iPhone when the iPad already has them?” Solution: remove the apps from the iPhone, reduce the price, more durable.

  • Warrick

    Why cant the nano or any other iphone have a SD card slot then you can choose what size on board memory you want. They are small and you can get pretty big cards these days. I don’t know if its possible but worth a thought??!!

  • Rico Suave

    You guys are wrong about everything give it up… I never forget

    http://www.cultofmac.com/iphone-is-coming-to-t-mobile-usa-in-q3-exclusive/39870

  • http://Yahoo.com Jonn G. Odd

    If you look real close, Apple all ready has the platform for an iPhone nano. It is called the iPod touch. Have you held a touch lately? It is about the right size and price. A tweak here and there and you all ready have the infrastructure.

  • johnehjh

    All of the stuff people are saying can’t happen already has over and over. In fact: it did many years ago. The T-Mobile Sidekick 3 was almost entirely server-side aside from whatever removable storage you had on it. You lost all of your contacts when you didn’t have reception and your phone reset. Think about that: you lost EVERYTHING important about your phone when you simply lost signal. Was the Sidekick a catastrophic failure?

    No. People loved that phone.

    I am almost positive Apple could get away with a cloud-based phone, and they’d market it as evolutionary. The flaws of a cloud-based iPhone would make the news (the real news, not the blogs). Then every one else would follow suit and there’d be a cloud based Android phone months after. And then the flaws of a cloud-based phone running Android phone wouldn’t make the news.

    Apple could not make enough of a cheap iPhone to keep it in stock. Especially one for multiple carriers. Look at the resale value of iPhones. You could still sell a first generation iPhone on craigslist if you had one. Could you do that with a G1? A free phone with specifications somewhere in between a 3G and 3Gs? It’d be game changing.

    It is risky. That’s why Apple would, not why they wouldn’t.

  • http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/ Philip Machanick

    I’m a bit skeptical that memory is such a big factor in cost. Look at the pricing of iPod Touch and nano vs. iPhone. They are much cheaper with similar memory than iPhone. To take the one size in common, 8GB, compare these, all Apple US prices: iPhone $499 (no contract price), iTouch $229, nano $149. If memory was a quarter of the cost, that would be $125 with markup for the iPhone, nearly as much as the entire cost of the nano. So either Apple has much lower margins on nano, or uses a different grade of flash that’s a lot cheaper. Either way, an iPhone nano could be a lot cheaper than the existing model.

  • Walt French

    Not to go all lawyerly parsing on a simple rumor, but “The iPhone nano will have no memory for onboard storage of media” does NOT mean it will have no memory for other functions — such as phone numbers, appointments, stuff that it HAS to have, even when not connected to the cloud.

    For that matter, I have 185 apps at last count, some with databases, etc, and the whole slew of ‘em only take 2.5 GB of storage. A phone with 4GB of flash memory loses 3/4 of its biggest-cost item, while retaining essentially everything except the ability to store a couple hundred tunes and more than a scrap of video.

    Amazing that an unsupported assertion drives cultists into a frenzy of trying to out-design Apple.

  • flakefrost

    iphone nano has been talked about for too long… will it ever be released?

  • Nicholas Caputa

    Does it bother anyone else that the picture is of an iPhone 3gs?

    • Gadgetmo

      no – it doesn’t bother anyone else.

      • GaryGlitter

        Well it bothers me, okay? Got a problem with that. Take it up with your Mum.

  • Makmoud98

    it bothers me

  • GaryGlitter

    I wish they’d do an iSanitaryTowel Nano version, oh what they did, it’s called the iPod Touch.

  • Anonymous

    Apple products are mind blowing and I’m this is one as such.Thanks for sharing information about Apple iPhone nano.Great job.
    Well,Interested about funny iPhone apps.? Check this one:http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rand-o-matic-the-easy-decision/id437908886?mt=8&ls=1

About the author

Leander Kahney

is the editor and publisher of Cult of Mac, and author of three books about technology culture: Inside Steve’s Brain, the New York Times bestseller about Steve Jobs; Cult of Mac; and Cult of iPod. Leander has written for Wired, MacWeek, Scientific American, and The Guardian in London. Follow Leander on Twitter @lkahney and Facebook.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in iOS, News, Top stories | Tagged: , , , , , , , |