or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple patent filing for improved lenses shows forward facing camera
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple patent filing for improved lenses shows forward facing camera - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Concatenating the Mail accounts would be nice. Right now, i just forward my Gmail to MobileMe so I can get good Push and have all my mail in one place. Even going in and out of 2 accounts was a chore, I can't imagine business users who have more than that to deal with.

So do you do the forward in Gmail or via MobileMe? When you reply to an email using the iPhone does it use the Gmail or MM address?
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

So do you do the forward in Gmail or via MobileMe? When you reply to an email using the iPhone does it use the Gmail or MM address?

Forward from Gmail to MM which is pushed to my iPhone. It's so fast that my iPhone will almost always vibrate before Mail on my Mac, which checks every minute, gets the Mail directly from Gmail.

For outgoing I use the Gmail SMTP. Since that was setup in my Mail I just had to change the SMTP from MM to Gmail, no addresses, ports or passwords required for the change.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Forward from Gmail to MM which is pushed to my iPhone. It's so fast that my iPhone will almost always vibrate before Mail on my Mac, which checks every minute, gets the Mail directly from Gmail.

For outgoing I use the Gmail SMTP. Since that was setup in my Mail I just had to change the SMTP from MM to Gmail, no addresses, ports or passwords required for the change.

Thanks very much for that as I was wondering exactly how to set it up. Going to give it a try now.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerl View Post

i find the 'home button' more interesting.you think the iphone/pad will incorporate a more functional and yet small ipod type button control. ie w ff/rew/play/pause always available wo having to switch back to the player?

Naw. That is way too confusing. One button is best.
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugodinho View Post

I don't think so... Apple would do anything to avoid moving parts, and I totally agree with Apple on this... moving parts are so 1990's. And they break.

Not all image stabilization requires moving parts, but optical image stabilization usually delivers the best picture quality. Without moving parts, it can still under sample the video feed, and if the pad shakes, the camera readjusts the video feed framing to compensate. That's how electronic image stabilization works.
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

Well there were the pictures floating around of a iPad frame (so they say) that had the mount for the forward facing camera, I wouldn't count on it in the 1st version, most likely in the 2nd. This is the reason I will be buying a cheaper iPad to play with at first and when they come out with the 2nd version I will go for the heavy duty model.

In other words a beta tester?
Who buys first gen Apple products anymore? Hasn't the burn lesson of the 1st gen iPod Touch , iPhone etc been learned yet?
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

In other words a beta tester?
Who buys first gen Apple products anymore? Hasn't the burn lesson of the 1st gen iPod Touch , iPhone etc been learned yet?

I do. The only Apple product I've felt burned by is my 3rd gen iPhone. Averageing about 1 replacment per month since June '09
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

In other words a beta tester?
Who buys first gen Apple products anymore? Hasn't the burn lesson of the 1st gen iPod Touch , iPhone etc been learned yet?

What's wrong with the first gen iPod Touch? Mine still works great
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

If the camera doesn't move then handling the iPad, or iPhone for that matter, with a front facing camera would be difficult to get a steady picture.

Now I'm sure Apple is working on a solution in the software+hardware that will effectively stabilize an image to compensate for jittery hands when holding a 1.5lb device and make the output look good. Would also like to see some sort of on-screen multitouch controls to position the camera to compensate for off angle use. It's unlikely that the camera will always, if ever, be perfectly perpendicular to the user's face. Maybe even some face locking that moves with the person's movements provided they stay within a certain frame.

Logitech and possibly others have a web cam that follows your face and does a decent job. It would be ideal for the iPad.
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy View Post

What's wrong with the first gen iPod Touch? Mine still works great

Well it hasn't any speaker and no external volume controls and an inferior display.
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains View Post

I do. The only Apple product I've felt burned by is my 3rd gen iPhone. Averageing about 1 replacment per month since June '09

You're misunderstanding what I meant which was you inevitably get a much, much better product in the 2nd gen with more features , less bugs, more power, etc, etc.
post #52 of 67
You know...it is really rather funny. The tech and rumor blogs have been mis-reading Apple patents for half a decade and then, based on these misreadings, making up products that never were planned to exist in the form shown.

They *still* havent figured out that Apple had been showing them the iPad since 2005-ish, that the iPhone is derived from that tech and not the other way around (as every patent they have ever seen should make clearly evident) and that even the image shown is not meant to *literally* depict where a camera would go.

Think about this. Apple has already released a clickwheel device with a camera in it.

Please readers...do not let these half-assed attempts at insight lead you astray or get your panties in a twist

-K
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

Logitech and possibly others have a web cam that follows your face and does a decent job. It would be ideal for the iPad.

Why people want to engage in video chats where the camera would be pointing up the nose of one of the participants is still a mystery to me.

It is almost as if people do not actually think about these things. Oh wait. I think some people in California figured that out

-K
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

You're misunderstanding what I meant which was you inevitably get a much, much better product in the 2nd gen with more features , less bugs, more power, etc, etc.

Interesting. Newer things are better than older things. Very insightful.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains View Post

Interesting. Newer things are better than older things. Very insightful.

You forgot cheaper too.
post #56 of 67
I would say very little chance iPad gets a camera before shipment. Definitely a 2nd gen possibility, but who knows. I just don't see such a big feature held back, as it would likely mean an all new iChat AV app, which would be big news itself.
post #57 of 67
very excited about this one
Stay updated @ www.iphonechatterbox.com for all the latest news, reviews, and products!

Quit smoking by going electronic... Blu Cigs
Reply
Stay updated @ www.iphonechatterbox.com for all the latest news, reviews, and products!

Quit smoking by going electronic... Blu Cigs
Reply
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

Well it hasn't any speaker and no external volume controls and an inferior display.

Regular ipods don't have built-in speakers either. The external volume control on a regular ipod isn't that different, there aren't any separate buttons to adjust the volume, you have to use the touch dial to adjust volume.

I didn't think the display was terrible. The only difference I recall was that the first Touch had faint "scanline-like" flickering not present on the first iPhone, otherwise the screen looked fine. Most hand held devices at the time had that odd effect. Most people don't seem to notice it either.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Regular ipods don't have built-in speakers either. The external volume control on a regular ipod isn't that different, there aren't any separate buttons to adjust the volume, you have to use the touch dial to adjust volume.

I didn't think the display was terrible. The only difference I recall was that the first Touch had faint "scanline-like" flickering not present on the first iPhone, otherwise the screen looked fine. Most hand held devices at the time had that odd effect. Most people don't seem to notice it either.

The Touch which came out after the iPhone had a terrible screen compared to the iPhone's when there was no reason it couldn't have had the same one. Don't know about the flickering but definitely know it looked smeary had had lousy contrast. That was the reason I waited a year and glad I did.
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

The Touch which came out after the iPhone had a terrible screen compared to the iPhone's when there was no reason it couldn't have had the same one. Don't know about the flickering but definitely know it looked smeary had had lousy contrast. That was the reason I waited a year and glad I did.

You probably had a defective unit.

I own both the 1st and 3rd generation iPod touches and the display quality is very similar (the color temperature of the latter is slightly warmer). There is no flickering in either one of my units.

As mentioned by others, the 1st generation unit unfortunately lacked the external speakers and volume rocker. Those were really the main shortcomings of the original unit. I'm glad I have a unit with all of the newer features, but the missing features weren't enough to get me to upgrade from the 1st to 2nd generation.
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

You probably had a defective unit.

I own both the 1st and 3rd generation iPod touches and the display quality is very similar (the color temperature of the latter is slightly warmer). There is no flickering in either one of my units.

As mentioned by others, the 1st generation unit unfortunately lacked the external speakers and volume rocker. Those were really the main shortcomings of the original unit. I'm glad I have a unit with all of the newer features, but the missing features weren't enough to get me to upgrade from the 1st to 2nd generation.

Read the review at iLounge on the 1st gen iPod Touch - it was definitely inferior compared to the iPhone in its iPod functionality. I'm not going on with this any further. Many a consumer was very upset when the 2nd gen came out as it was leaps beyond the first gen.
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

Read the review at iLounge on the 1st gen iPod Touch - it was definitely inferior compared to the iPhone in its iPod functionality. I'm not going on with this any further. Many a consumer was very upset when the 2nd gen came out as it was leaps beyond the first gen.

I don't need to read the iLounge review. I have both 1st generation and 3rd generation units myself.

Do you? (The sample sizes would be similar anyhow.)

Frankly, your lack of follow through makes your comments suspect.

I'm an AAPL stockholder myself (purchased shares in Feb 2005) and I have seen steady overall improvement in shareholder value. If any significant product in the past five years had been a major debacle, I would have felt something, but I'm happy to report that you are completely wrong.

Do *YOU* own AAPL shares?
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

I don't need to read the iLounge review. I have both 1st generation and 3rd generation units myself.

Do you? (The sample sizes would be similar anyhow.)

Frankly, your lack of follow through makes your comments suspect.

I'm an AAPL stockholder myself (purchased shares in Feb 2005) and I have seen steady overall improvement in shareholder value. If any significant product in the past five years had been a major debacle, I would have felt something, but I'm happy to report that you are completely wrong.

Do *YOU* own AAPL shares?

I don't care if you're the biggest shareholder of them all, SJ himself- the 1st gen iPod Touch sucked - BIG TIME. It was a beta prototype of the real Touch which was the 2nd gen. ANybody who buys a 1st gen Apple product is in for a MAJOR disappointment in 6 months - guaranteed.
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think it can be mass produced right now, even lab production seems tenuous. I don't think it needs to autofocus though, but even removing that, it's not an easy task. The patent people are talking about is basically a compound eye, each camera is the size of a pixel, several of them in a grid at a 10pixel spacing. The fab process can't be easy, and there is a lot of processing, probably be a few years before a hand held device has the power to stitch together 16 video feeds in real time. Then you still have "dark" spots on the screen because you knocked out pixels for the cameras.

That's why I say it really wasn't economically feasible at this time.

Some/all of the actual technology might be available today, but it's the cost of getting it into the market.

We've already seen practically every single TV manufacturer bail out of OLED displays for the time being.

Yes, we will see OLED displays (or a similar technology) in the near future, but $2500 pricetags for 10-14" TVs isn't acceptable to the consumer marketplace.

If Apple manufactured a tablet that covered all of AppleInsider commenters' requests (power, screen size, battery life, memory, CPU speed, etc.), it would probably cost $3-5 thousand dollars per unit.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

So maybe Apple will release a front-facing camera after the Motorola Backflip ships?

Front-facing is a gimmick and unnecessary feature if Apple doesn't do it, but if Apple copies everyone else in this arena, they are the "most innovative company ever".

If Apple does it, it will work well, whereas it is a cheap gimmick for the 2nd tier 'competition.'
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

I don't care if you're the biggest shareholder of them all, SJ himself- the 1st gen iPod Touch sucked - BIG TIME. It was a beta prototype of the real Touch which was the 2nd gen. ANybody who buys a 1st gen Apple product is in for a MAJOR disappointment in 6 months - guaranteed.

How so? Just about every review I have read about the 1st gen. iPod Touch has been positive. They seem to have held their value well also.
post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

I don't care if you're the biggest shareholder of them all, SJ himself- the 1st gen iPod Touch sucked - BIG TIME. It was a beta prototype of the real Touch which was the 2nd gen. ANybody who buys a 1st gen Apple product is in for a MAJOR disappointment in 6 months - guaranteed.

No sorry it isn't. The only thing guaranteed is that you will wake up tomorrow and bash Apple some more.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple patent filing for improved lenses shows forward facing camera