This name change would also dovetail nicely with an emerging trend. We are witnessing a move away from “Swiss Army Knife” type devices toward products that perform specific functions extremely well.

– Take computers, for instance. They can do just about anything (music, video, gaming, voice, web surfing, e-reading). However, who really wants to carry to listen to music on a laptop, if they can do so on the smartphone?

– The same goes true for smartphones. Smartphones have become significantly bigger than their mobile phone ancestors of a decade ago. This was to accommodate larger screens for reading and input of non-voice applications such as watching video. Having said that, who wants to watch a video on a smartphone when they can do so on a tablet such as an iPAD?

In fact, the success of the iPAD demonstrates this trend. Consumers have embraced the iPAD, even in the presence of comparable products such as laptops, netbooks and smartphones. Put plainly, consumers are amenable to having multiple devices to ACCESS their music, content, applications and services.

The opportunity for Apple is to extend ACCESS to the iPod Nano. ACCESS would include both connectivity (WIFI and/OR 3G) and support for iOS. Consumers would be able to possess all 3 types of devices and use them as appropriate. For instance, I may decide to use my iPOD Nano when I am active (e.g. hiking, jogging, etc) in place of my iPhone. I would be able to receive calls and run my apps (e.g. fitness).

Although it requires assistance/cooperation from carriers, it would create an opportunity for them as well. Ideally, the carrier would allow consumer to utilize existing minutes/data, as well as “softphone-like” capability to transfer incoming calls when using the Nano. In turn, carrier could enjoy increased ARPU by charging a nominal consumer monthly fee for each connected device (e.g. iPhone, iPAD and iPod Nano).