1. Apple saw that the company leaked the information before, and is providing them with the same information, knowing that they'll leak it again to gain interest.
2. The company is talking bollox and is just releasing this information to increase the amount of traffic and sales to their website.
I'm voting for 1... as it seems more viable, given the fact they could have done this at any time since the iPhone 3G's release and the fact that the macromour's guide says that a release is iminant based on average releases and latest "rumours" (source: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPhone) (Occam's razor)
Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
Comparing the iPhone/iPod touch and their MultiTouch screens with the iPod classic/nano and their Click Wheels is a blatantly false comparison.
And just how is my statement a false comparison? You either misread my post, or don't understand Apple's family of products. The last I checked, Apple markets the touch as an iPod, not as a watered-down iPhone, regardless of how you interpret it as such (its interface being irrelevant). Apple's family of iPods have not cannibalized each other to a great extent, as the classic/nano/touch cater to different crowds. iPods are music players, primarily, and the iPhone is a phone, primarily and should be distinguished as such, not by their interfaces. To compare them by interface is categorically incorrect, and not what Apple does (at least for the time being). What you suggested in your original post was that a rumored "iPhone nano" would cannibalize iPhone sales, which I just don't think is true, given that the various incarnations of Apple's iPod have not cannibalized each other. IMO, there is room for a separate (the term you used) iteration (the "iPhone nano") that won't cannibalize sales of a related product (the iPhone).
Also wobegon, you need to edit your 3rd post. Your quote is wrong, it was not me who said that...
Yeah, this is what I don't get either. If I was Steve Jobs I would have had them arrested or something for the last debacle. I sure wouldn't let them in on the next big thing like they seem to have been.
What if Apple does this on purpose? Have you though of that? Its always few weeks before the release that all of the sudden such images appear .... funny hah?
I could MAYBE see a scalled down iPhone to replace the current iPhone, but a separate device that would cause cannibalization between the two? NO.
I wouldn't be so sure. A smaller phone would be just dandy for a number of people. At first my daughter didn't want an iPhone because it was much bigger than the clamshell phone she was using. I think a smaller phone might work for people who prefer those clamshell phones, because of the size.
Depending on the feature set, would it have GPS, 3G, amount of flash, etc, it could cost as little s $149. That could be enough difference for many in countries where the present pricing is too high, such as in India, where resistance to the pricing is holding up sales.
Isn't it ironic how this company has twice now, (if this pans out) been the main conduit through which Apple's latest and greatest device is revealed, when it's one of the most tasteless ugly sites ever created?
Not only that, the product itself is hideous, and the few colour choices one can order that make the product barely tolerable to the eyes are never even shown. Just like with the 3G last year, the "artist" picks black and electric-eye-ripping-raw blue as the colour combination they want to highlight? And to fill in the screen shot they choose a screen with bright red and yellow buttons and then over-saturate the image to boot???? Arghhhh!!!!
/me feels like ripping my eyes out just looking at the thing. People with such a poor idea of colour and what constitutes good design should simply be put to sleep IMO.
I agree that to most Western eyes, this doesn't look so good. But in Asia, they don't look at things the same way. They like brighter colors. they like primary colors. Perhaps this site is more for that market.
Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible. Any cheaper iPhone will be based on the same screen shape and I'd say size since higher dpi screen (smaller) or the chips to somehow scale everything in real time would make this "nano" more expensive. The only way out is if the whole OS and dev environment goes vector graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin
No because there are no applications for (regular, non-Touch) iPods. It's just data (music) and Apple controls the user interface.
With the iPhone/iPodTouch, programmers have to write to the screen, so it's very important that the screen's number of pixels stay the same.
So like the OP implied, if this is a physically smaller screen but with the same number of pixels, then it would be fine. Apps should run fine on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appler0x
Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.
Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?
These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.
I have a Solitaire app for my old Treo 700p. with a 320 x 320 screen. Before that I had two generations of Samsung Palmphones, the i300, and the i330.
Both the Samsung's had a usable resolution of the old 160 x160 sort. The app was released several years before the 320 x 320 screens became available.
But when it transferred over to my new Treo, I was surprised to find that it had resized itself properly, with more detail, rather than just a poor upscale, or playing on a smaller part of the larger screen.
As for the different screen size, yes, but only for typing. The icons are more than large enough now, and the screen size doesn't look that much smaller. Many programs take advantage of the GPU to allow for magnification, if the app needs it at times. I don't see a major problem.
Maybe we would finally get the horizontal keyboard for all apps that so many of us want.
Don't forget that idea this doesn't work, they we couldn't get a larger, higher resolution screen, for some future device based on this platform either.
If this new phone is for different carriers, it wouldn't cannibalize anything, it will just increase sales. Plenty of people can't (or wouldn't) use AT&T or Rogers, but would still love an iPhone.
Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?
These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.
I am a iPhone developer. I make some assumptions as to the width, but the top and bottom are variable (status bar, call bar) and the orientation can flip if you allow. So while not static pages, there are layout considerations based on the fixed screen size.
Maybe a smaller screen could be made to be more dense, so same DPI?
Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.
That's an interesting thought process, but I think it's not a reason to dismiss the idea of a smaller product. It's not as if those apps can't be updated. I don't know if you have downloaded programs from the App store, but updates to those programs appear to flow like water. Add another model to the touch screen product line and I imagine that a lot of apps will be quickly rewired, tested and pushed out to allow another screen size. I wouldn't be surprised of most apps are either already compatible or would be updated within a month of a hypothetical iPhone nano launch. Given that a new phone product is probably going to be shipped some time after its announcement, maybe it's fair to say that most apps will be checked and if necessary, updated before the launch.
I don't think it's necessary to match pixel counts for apps to still work. Did you see the WWDC08 keynote presentation? I think they demonstrated how certain controls can auto-center or auto fill the available width or available height of a screen, or fill the remaining width or height. This was offered so that the screen can be rotated and the layout still remain the same. The same principle can work with different resolutions too. Those controls appear to operate the exact same way the UI auto-spacing controls for regular Mac OS X, whose apps can be adapted to work on screens from VGA res to 30" computer displays without issue.
Comments
1. Apple saw that the company leaked the information before, and is providing them with the same information, knowing that they'll leak it again to gain interest.
2. The company is talking bollox and is just releasing this information to increase the amount of traffic and sales to their website.
I'm voting for 1... as it seems more viable, given the fact they could have done this at any time since the iPhone 3G's release and the fact that the macromour's guide says that a release is iminant based on average releases and latest "rumours" (source: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPhone) (Occam's razor)
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
Apple will more than likely not make a product announcement at macworld, but do it on their own terms. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_reports.html
I've been printing on printers through infrared on my old Nokia 8210 since 1999, it's nothing new.
This is the phone that they will start selling in China.
That explains everything.
Comparing the iPhone/iPod touch and their MultiTouch screens with the iPod classic/nano and their Click Wheels is a blatantly false comparison.
And just how is my statement a false comparison? You either misread my post, or don't understand Apple's family of products. The last I checked, Apple markets the touch as an iPod, not as a watered-down iPhone, regardless of how you interpret it as such (its interface being irrelevant). Apple's family of iPods have not cannibalized each other to a great extent, as the classic/nano/touch cater to different crowds. iPods are music players, primarily, and the iPhone is a phone, primarily and should be distinguished as such, not by their interfaces. To compare them by interface is categorically incorrect, and not what Apple does (at least for the time being). What you suggested in your original post was that a rumored "iPhone nano" would cannibalize iPhone sales, which I just don't think is true, given that the various incarnations of Apple's iPod have not cannibalized each other. IMO, there is room for a separate (the term you used) iteration (the "iPhone nano") that won't cannibalize sales of a related product (the iPhone).
Also wobegon, you need to edit your 3rd post. Your quote is wrong, it was not me who said that...
Make it not be AT&T. Make it not be AT&T.
Amen to that.
Yeah, this is what I don't get either. If I was Steve Jobs I would have had them arrested or something for the last debacle. I sure wouldn't let them in on the next big thing like they seem to have been.
What if Apple does this on purpose? Have you though of that? Its always few weeks before the release that all of the sudden such images appear .... funny hah?
IT'S CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR!!!
This is the phone that they will start selling in China.
That explains everything.
But why not regular iPhone?
I could MAYBE see a scalled down iPhone to replace the current iPhone, but a separate device that would cause cannibalization between the two? NO.
I wouldn't be so sure. A smaller phone would be just dandy for a number of people. At first my daughter didn't want an iPhone because it was much bigger than the clamshell phone she was using. I think a smaller phone might work for people who prefer those clamshell phones, because of the size.
Depending on the feature set, would it have GPS, 3G, amount of flash, etc, it could cost as little s $149. That could be enough difference for many in countries where the present pricing is too high, such as in India, where resistance to the pricing is holding up sales.
Isn't it ironic how this company has twice now, (if this pans out) been the main conduit through which Apple's latest and greatest device is revealed, when it's one of the most tasteless ugly sites ever created?
Not only that, the product itself is hideous, and the few colour choices one can order that make the product barely tolerable to the eyes are never even shown. Just like with the 3G last year, the "artist" picks black and electric-eye-ripping-raw blue as the colour combination they want to highlight? And to fill in the screen shot they choose a screen with bright red and yellow buttons and then over-saturate the image to boot???? Arghhhh!!!!
/me feels like ripping my eyes out just looking at the thing. People with such a poor idea of colour and what constitutes good design should simply be put to sleep IMO.
I agree that to most Western eyes, this doesn't look so good. But in Asia, they don't look at things the same way. They like brighter colors. they like primary colors. Perhaps this site is more for that market.
Has anyone considered that the main problem with this "leak" and the iPhone nano idea is that if the screen is a different resolution or aspect ratio then all the apps will be incompatible. Any cheaper iPhone will be based on the same screen shape and I'd say size since higher dpi screen (smaller) or the chips to somehow scale everything in real time would make this "nano" more expensive. The only way out is if the whole OS and dev environment goes vector graphics.
No because there are no applications for (regular, non-Touch) iPods. It's just data (music) and Apple controls the user interface.
With the iPhone/iPodTouch, programmers have to write to the screen, so it's very important that the screen's number of pixels stay the same.
So like the OP implied, if this is a physically smaller screen but with the same number of pixels, then it would be fine. Apps should run fine on it.
Except everything would appear smaller - onscreen buttons, text, everything. That could impact usability greatly, which is another knock on this rumor. If targets onscreen become too small, third party developers would likely want to put out two separate versions of their apps to compensate for the smaller screen.
Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.
If they do anything with the iPhone at Macworld SF '09 (sadly its last), they'll modify the existing one, not add a new one. My guess for the next iPhone: 32-64GB capacity, HD-out (dock-to-HDMI possibly), better camera, tv/movie rentals right from the phone, 802.11n. (Does anyone else want printing on a networked printer?)
The site making these claims is probably just looking for publicity. But don't bet on anything big for Macworld; it'll probably just be Mac mini and iMac updates, in addition to iWork and iLife updates. Possibly a Snow Leopard preview, but since it's mainly only stability/security/tech improvements and not necessarily noticeable new features, it might wait for another time.
Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?
These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.
I have a Solitaire app for my old Treo 700p. with a 320 x 320 screen. Before that I had two generations of Samsung Palmphones, the i300, and the i330.
Both the Samsung's had a usable resolution of the old 160 x160 sort. The app was released several years before the 320 x 320 screens became available.
But when it transferred over to my new Treo, I was surprised to find that it had resized itself properly, with more detail, rather than just a poor upscale, or playing on a smaller part of the larger screen.
As for the different screen size, yes, but only for typing. The icons are more than large enough now, and the screen size doesn't look that much smaller. Many programs take advantage of the GPU to allow for magnification, if the app needs it at times. I don't see a major problem.
Maybe we would finally get the horizontal keyboard for all apps that so many of us want.
Don't forget that idea this doesn't work, they we couldn't get a larger, higher resolution screen, for some future device based on this platform either.
Not being a developer, I don't know if this is true or not. Is anyone here an iPhone developer?
These apps don't HAVE to be written for a particular resolution, unless the SDK doesn't allow for future resolution changes, which would be shortsighted.
I am a iPhone developer. I make some assumptions as to the width, but the top and bottom are variable (status bar, call bar) and the orientation can flip if you allow. So while not static pages, there are layout considerations based on the fixed screen size.
Maybe a smaller screen could be made to be more dense, so same DPI?
Merry X-mas,
Daniel
Apple won't release a new iPhone with a different sized screen anytime soon; every single app in the App Store is written to accommodate a screen with those dimensions. Yeah, you can have the same pixel count, but with a smaller screen, it'll probably be too dense and cause eye strain. The iPhone is different from the iPod when it comes to revisions: iPods don't have thousands of apps to run. Apple won't force developers to create separate versions of their iPhone/iPod touch apps just to run on a smaller screen size. And don't think for a second that they'd create another phone without access to the App Store.
That's an interesting thought process, but I think it's not a reason to dismiss the idea of a smaller product. It's not as if those apps can't be updated. I don't know if you have downloaded programs from the App store, but updates to those programs appear to flow like water. Add another model to the touch screen product line and I imagine that a lot of apps will be quickly rewired, tested and pushed out to allow another screen size. I wouldn't be surprised of most apps are either already compatible or would be updated within a month of a hypothetical iPhone nano launch. Given that a new phone product is probably going to be shipped some time after its announcement, maybe it's fair to say that most apps will be checked and if necessary, updated before the launch.
I don't think it's necessary to match pixel counts for apps to still work. Did you see the WWDC08 keynote presentation? I think they demonstrated how certain controls can auto-center or auto fill the available width or available height of a screen, or fill the remaining width or height. This was offered so that the screen can be rotated and the layout still remain the same. The same principle can work with different resolutions too. Those controls appear to operate the exact same way the UI auto-spacing controls for regular Mac OS X, whose apps can be adapted to work on screens from VGA res to 30" computer displays without issue.
Apple lets folks know about an up-coming product, so they can ready for production of "Extras" for said item.
Apple has them sign a DNA agreement ?
They say sure, but announce products "Extras" anyway ?
Apple say's "now that was not nice", "now look what you've done", you've gone and stole our thunder, bad boys!
Apple announces said product a short time later ? but no surprise to anyone, and everyone lives happily ever after ?
Oh, this happens again, and again, but Apple is ok with it because??
Yeah right!
Skip
IT'S CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR!!!
The only thing that's clear is there are a whole lot of people on Appleinsider that are really gullable.
This continues to be the dumbest idea going, and people just keep falling for it.
It's a fake.
THAT's Clear Clear Clear.
People.... come on...... get a clue.