Steve Jobs email reveals Apple was evaluating an 'iPhone nano' in 2010
An email sent by late Apple cofounder and CEO Steve Jobs in 2010 confirms that the company was working on -- or, at least, thinking about -- a so-called "iPhone nano."
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Back in 2011, Apple was rumored to be developing a smaller and cheaper iPhone that could carry the "nano" moniker used for iPod models at the time. Now, emails collected during the Epic Games v. Apple case and seen by The Verge confirm that those rumors were based on actual Apple plans.
One specific email sent by Jobs -- a meeting agenda -- outlines the company's broad 2011 strategy. One of the bullet points in the email lists the "iPhone nano plan," with two sub-bullets: "cost goal" and "show model (and/or renderings) - Jony." Jony, of course, refers to Apple's then-design chief Jony Ive.
Additionally, an earlier bullet point in the email indicates that Apple was planning on creating a "low cost iPhone model based on iPod touch to replace 3GS." It's not clear if that bullet point refers to the "iPhone nano," or a separate device.
Right around the time that Jobs sent the email agenda, Apple had just launched the sixth-generation iPod nano device. So, at the time, the nano branding was still at the forefront of consumers' minds.
It isn't entirely clear what the "iPhone nano" may have looked like, however -- the email is short on details. The current iPhone at the time, the iPhone 4, was already a fairly small device by today's standards with a tiny 3.5-inch display.
Apple, of course, eventually phased out the "nano" moniker with the iPod. These days, the company refers to its smaller form factor devices as "mini" models -- like the iPhone 12 mini and the HomePod mini.
Consumer tastes have seemingly changed since 2010, too. Reports suggest that the iPhone 12 mini isn't doing as well as Apple's larger devices, and the company may have plans to phase out the model in the coming years.
Read on AppleInsider
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Back in 2011, Apple was rumored to be developing a smaller and cheaper iPhone that could carry the "nano" moniker used for iPod models at the time. Now, emails collected during the Epic Games v. Apple case and seen by The Verge confirm that those rumors were based on actual Apple plans.
One specific email sent by Jobs -- a meeting agenda -- outlines the company's broad 2011 strategy. One of the bullet points in the email lists the "iPhone nano plan," with two sub-bullets: "cost goal" and "show model (and/or renderings) - Jony." Jony, of course, refers to Apple's then-design chief Jony Ive.
Additionally, an earlier bullet point in the email indicates that Apple was planning on creating a "low cost iPhone model based on iPod touch to replace 3GS." It's not clear if that bullet point refers to the "iPhone nano," or a separate device.
Right around the time that Jobs sent the email agenda, Apple had just launched the sixth-generation iPod nano device. So, at the time, the nano branding was still at the forefront of consumers' minds.
It isn't entirely clear what the "iPhone nano" may have looked like, however -- the email is short on details. The current iPhone at the time, the iPhone 4, was already a fairly small device by today's standards with a tiny 3.5-inch display.
Apple, of course, eventually phased out the "nano" moniker with the iPod. These days, the company refers to its smaller form factor devices as "mini" models -- like the iPhone 12 mini and the HomePod mini.
Consumer tastes have seemingly changed since 2010, too. Reports suggest that the iPhone 12 mini isn't doing as well as Apple's larger devices, and the company may have plans to phase out the model in the coming years.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Thus the 21st century success of Apple is as much the fruit of Tim Cook’s and Jonathan Ive’s labours as it is Steve Jobs’s.
Cook, Ive and the team have performed brilliantly. They're not Jobs and they smartly never tried to be.
Gates knew when to go. I wonder if Jobs would have known when it was time. If the hero worshippers are right about who he was, it doesn't seem so.
We and OutdoorAppDeveloper really don't have any idea what they are working on behind those walls.
Or maybe go at the mini a different way, gut all of the trinkets and trash components taking up space inside, scale down some features due to removal of T&T and stick a big ass battery in the thing and give it a lonnng battery life. iPhone mini XTXD.
I finally upgraded to the iPhone 12 mini from my iPhone X because of rumors of the mini's future. Nothing was wrong with my iPhone X, I just wanted to continue to have a smaller form factor for my phone and the accumulated features that have accrued since the release of the iPhone X finally made sense.
If Apple just releases a iPhone 13 mini with no additional features, they will unfortunately not obtain any improved sales numbers and another disappointment. Something about the definition of insanity comes to mind...
Hopefully Apple surprises with a iPhone 13 mini with some TLC...
-No notch
-Touch ID
I also have an iPhone X and it's nicer to type on the keyboard but too bulky overall. After using it a while, you get more accustomed to a larger size.
There's not much they can do to make the 12 mini smaller without reducing battery life. The components are packed tight and it also shows why they'd struggle with a better camera module in the mini:
The original SE has a 1624mAh battery, the 12 mini has 2227mAh. People already complain about the mini's battery life. 10 hours of web browsing would be 7 hours with an SE sized battery.
Maybe if there's an improvement in battery density they can get the same capacity from a smaller size but until that happens, the 12 mini is about the best compromise they can make without making it thicker.
Removing the sim module would help, if carriers would all switch to eSIMs, that metal tray can go.
Things were a lot different in 2010. It sounds like it was planned to be closer to an iPod style device. It would have been very hard to use the keyboard in portrait on a less than 3.5" display but the 2.5" iPod Nano was usable as a music player and for basic apps:
An iPhone Nano would have been an iPod with cellular network capability for music streaming, maps, synced app data, an App Store. It would have had some appeal at a lower price point, especially among kids if they got them as gifts. I think more than size, Apple saw that people didn't mind paying more for a good smartphone so there was little need to make a cheaper model like this. Kids get their parent's old phones so it's not so important for them either.
Totally agreed regarding the sim tray - it's ridiculous how much space it takes up, especially considering it's technically unnecessary. I'd love for Apple to call all carriers' bluffs and just release iPhones without sim trays. Second best option is to lobby hard for governments to mandate carrier support for eSims.
Personally for the iPhone mini, I would go with a single-lens camera, ditch the taptic engine and wireless charging (I really hate wireless charging and think it should be outlawed for devices that don't 100% require it, like electric toothbrushes. On phones and the like it's just a disgusting waste of energy and resources for extremely minimal benefit), and make the footprint exactly the same as the iPhone 4. Don't forget that a significant proportion of the battery energy goes on powering the screen, so a smaller screen will offset battery capacity issues, and in any case making the other changes I suggest would give more room for the battery.
But because people paid for smartphones along with the network bill, the price difference of these was never visible enough.
They can require physical sim cards go in an external case:
If Samsung did this too, carriers wouldn't have much option but to broaden support of eSims. I think the networks still have too much leverage over this though as they control the phone numbers. If it was just about data it would be easier. There would need to be a broader transition away from standard phone calls and numbering and it seems like a lot of companies, banks and governments want it to be harder for people to switch their unique communication identity.