iPhoneStuff.org

For those who were taken aback by a $499 minimum price point for the new Apple iPhone, and are still recovering from sticker shock, some analysts may have what you need to hear to perk you back up.

To date, Apple’s most successful iPod was not their flagship original model (originally priced at $399 for a 5GB model, and $499 for a 10GB model,) nor any of its’ 4 generations afterwards. Rather, it was the little brother, the iPod Nano, who stole the hearts of gadget-goers and music-lovers the world over. Was it his itty-bitty size and potableness, or his less daunting price point? More importantly, what does this have to do with the upcoming iPhone?

Reuters had this to say about the possibility of a cheaper “low-end” iPhone in the future:

Apple could… follow a similar model with the iPhone that it did with the iPod: Start off with what may seem a steep price, but drop prices as component costs fall and volume production economics kick in, all the while adding more functions and services.

While the idea of waiting a little longer for an iPhone may seem incorrigible to some, it may be the wise thing to do, not only for your wallet, but for any new features you’ll look back and sigh that you didn’t get. Only time will tell.

Before yesterday, ideas flew wildly about what Apple’s rumored iPhone would, could, and might look like. Here is a compilation of side-by-side comparisons, concept, to official.

This concept had the same idea as many concepts - that being that the iPhone would have a slide-out keypad, and an iPod-like face. This concept of course is far from reality because the iPhone is closer in size to a 5th generation iPod than a 1st generation Nano.

Here’s an interesting concept, but it looks like they only got 1 thing right. The product name.

Modeled after an earlier generation iPod, this iPhone concept is not bad, but Steve Jobs would hate using those tiny keys to type with. He’d rather have a lush touch-screen.

Here’s a concept that didn’t fare too badly again the real deal. The artist correctly assumed that the screen would be large, touch-sensitive, and in the shape of the unit would be iPod-like. Other than that, not so great.

I thought this one was funny, because it was actually not that far off from Jobs’ gag unveiling at Macworld 2007. This phony rotary dail iPhone was shown on screen before he went into further detail about it and showed the real thing.

So, is the touchpad thing projecting the screen like an LCD projector, or are they attached? The thinness factor looks unbelievable, probably as fragile as a wheat thin.

This concept design was actually fairly accurate. The ear piece at the top of the unit is about the same size and shape, and it does have a bigger screen, the wheel in the middle of which indicates it is touch sensitive. One of the few concepts that was black based in colour like the official Apple iPhone design. Too bad it had keys.

This concept is obviously not a serious attempt at guessing what Apple’s new iPhone would look like, but who with a vintage style and good taste in their right mind wouldn’t love one of these? It’s sleek, shiny, and looks like the old iMac’s base with a phone on top instead of a monitor. Very cool. Maybe something like this in the future for the corded market from Apple?

Another concept design which attempts to copy the Nano layout. Apple hasn’t ruled out that a future Nano-like iPhone release is possible. With buttons and a smaller screen though, less than likely.

A Nano concept design with a slide out for keys and a conferencing camera. The idea of the self-facing video-conferencing camera is good, but using it to talk to Phil Schiller, not so good.

Steve Jobs said in his January 9th keynote at Macworld that nobody likes a stylus. In his mind, Steve Jobs was also wanting to say that nobody likes Steve Balmer.

The iEgg. The concept was actually more acurate than a lot of the other concepts for how the iPhone would be marketed. Notice the hand that’s holding it? That brings in both the concept of size comparison, as well and adding a human element. As far as the rest of the concept, iEgg does not make a good crack at it.

This concludes the iPhone Stuff comparison of pre-Macworld 2007 fan iPhone concepts, to the real iPhone. Which one is your favourite?

Yesterday Apple met the expectations of all the rumor-mongers in the blog sphere when CEO Steve Jobs announced that Apple was reinventing the phone.
The iPhone by the newly renamed Apple Inc. (throwing away ‘Computers’) is to be released in June of 2007. Apple enthusiasts everywhere set their alias on instant-messaging services to a variation of “150 days to iPhone!”

The idea of the iPhone is, not to reinvent, but rather to completely redesign the wheel. Phone, PDA, iPod, all in one, but not with a clumsy keyboard with hard to depress buttons, rather, a touch screen with intuitive controls. The idea is incredible, and Steve Jobs made sure to announce that Apple patented the heck out of it.

As good as the iPhone sounds, it was not without some drawbacks in the minds of many. Cingular, a US cell phone service provider, is to be the sole provider of service with an agreement with Apple. The problem being that Cingular, despite being on of the larger networks, also has many critics. Many say that Cingular’s service is sketchy at best and reception is not too great as soon as one leaves heavily towered areas.

Those of us living outside the United States are left wondering who Apple might make a deal with in our country, or if the iPhone will be service provider independent? Will it cost more if the service provider hasn’t already been decided?

The iPhone will run at a cost of $499 US for a 4GB capacity model, and $599 for an 8GB.