or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple considered physical keyboard for first iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple considered physical keyboard for first iPhone

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 
Ex-Apple executive Tony Fadell revealed that the company toyed with the idea of equipping the first iPhone with a physical keyboard, but ultimately settled on the intuitive multitouch design that changed the face of the game.

In a Friday interview with The Verge, the former iPod guru said that Apple narrowed down the original design to three prototypes before introducing the handset in January 2007.

Fadell, who officially left Apple in 2008 but was kept on the payroll as a special advisor to the late Steve Jobs until 2010, worked on 18 versions of the iPod as well as the iPhone up to the 3GS before leaving to start "smart thermostat" company Nest.

He notes that when Apple was readying its first handset, the final three designs were an iPod-phone hybrid, an undisclosed version also called "iPhone" and the final model that reached customers' hands.

When asked about his personal opinion, Fadell said that he recognized the potential of a virtual keyboard and would have waited for the technology instead of going with a hardware option. Jobs, who had the final say over what was released, apparently sided with Fadell and pointed out the lack of physical keys as being inherent to the now iconic design.

iPhone


Before the iPhone's monolithic construction and screen-dominated face hit the market, the general trend was skewed toward QWERTY keyboards. At the time, Research in Motion dominated the sector, implementing physical keyboards in all of its designs including the lauded BlackBerry Pearl.

The overarching resistive touchscreen technology used in early smartphones was a major drawback for virtual keyboards which were far from intuitive and in many applications required a stylus. The iPhone brought capacitive touchscreens to the consumer, which allowed Apple to create a device that was not only sleek, but more user-friendly than its smartphone contemporaries. In addition, the extra real estate allowed larger displays to be used, which opened the door to totally new areas of device functionality like video and complex games.

After the iPhone debuted, the overall market began to pick up on multitouch screen tech and slowly moved away from physical keyboards. Some users still prefer the tactile feedback that a hardware solution provides, but the configurability, ease-of-use and eye-pleasing design of the virtual keyboard has won a strong following.
post #2 of 80

The world thanks them that this was simply a consideration.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #3 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The world thanks them that this was simply a consideration.

 

Very true... And of course now wait for the "Apple just copied this from others like they have stolen everything else..." crap to follow.

post #4 of 80

I think they made the best choice...

post #5 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

 

 

Very true... And of course now wait for the "Apple just copied this from others like they have stolen everything else..." crap to follow.

 

Apple didn't steal this.  But it would also be wrong to say that Apple invented it.  The credit Apple deserves is their bold decision to go with nothing but multitouch and to implement it as effectively as they did.  Many people/companies foresaw that the smartphone was going to be more than a messaging device, but Apple saw that day arriving earlier than others did.  Because of this, the keyboard, despite being superior for text input, was no longer indispensable.

post #6 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The world thanks them that this was simply a consideration.

 

Very true... And of course now wait for the "Apple just copied this from others like they have stolen everything else..." crap to follow.

No LG Prada reference yet?

Just curious, were there any multi-touch handsets before the iPhone?
post #7 of 80
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The world thanks them that this was simply a consideration.

Yes indeed. And after reading Ken Segall's new book thank god for Chiat/Day or we would've had Phil Schiller's MacMan instead of the iMac. *facepalm*
post #8 of 80

Sounds like Apple didn't get the memo from Android development team

FlipboardCover.jpg

post #9 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

 

Apple didn't steal this.  But it would also be wrong to say that Apple invented it.  The credit Apple deserves is their bold decision to go with nothing but multitouch and to implement it as effectively as they did.  Many people/companies foresaw that the smartphone was going to be more than a messaging device, but Apple saw that day arriving earlier than others did.  Because of this, the keyboard, despite being superior for text input, was no longer indispensable.

 

Yes, like everybody and their moms know touchscreen is the future but know shit all how to implement it.

post #10 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A major drawback to early virtual keyboards was ease of use
Since when is ease of use a drawback?
Perhaps you meant "lack of ease of use"?
post #11 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
Since when is ease of use a drawback?
Perhaps you meant "lack of ease of use"?

 

Ah, you'd think so, but that's not the case. Turns out that early virtual keyboards were too easy to use. They were too easy to type on, so people were typing faster than the keyboard could handle. Bits and bytes were getting jammed up, and don't get me started on the eInk stains. Virtual keyboards had to be made harder to type on so that people would slow down and catch their bits.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #12 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post



Apple didn't steal this.  But it would also be wrong to say that Apple invented it.  The credit Apple deserves is their bold decision to go with nothing but multitouch and to implement it as effectively as they did.  Many people/companies foresaw that the smartphone was going to be more than a messaging device, but Apple saw that day arriving earlier than others did.  Because of this, the keyboard, despite being superior for text input, was no longer indispensable.

UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
288

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #13 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
 

 

Sharp makes Super Hi-Vision TVs, I think. 


Well, a Super Hi-Vision TV. Don't ask the price. I don't remember it and it's probably six figures.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #14 of 80

The look and feel are all so obvious now, consider Samesung.  Back then however, not so...

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #15 of 80
I just realized that I haven't that early complaint, " It doesn't have a real keyboard," in a long long time. I hadn't actually realized until now, that the detractors gave up on this point of attack.

On a different note, I have one of those Nest thermostats, and I love it. I didn't know there was a direct Apple connection. That explains a lot.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #16 of 80

This isn't surprising at all.  Heck, it isn't even noteworthy, really.  Most of us can't even imagine how many prototypes Apple went through while creating the original iPhone, though it sure would be fun to know.  And I doubt that any of us, including anyone at Apple, could have imagined what the iPhone would become in such a short time.  I strongly suspect the iPhone exceeded everyone's expectations.  The best innovations tend to do that.

 

The real revolution wasn't the iPhone.  The real revolution came when Apple opened up the iPhone to developer apps.

post #17 of 80

So Apple looked at many different designs before they settled on one?

That's news how?

post #18 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Ah, you'd think so, but that's not the case. Turns out that early virtual keyboards were too easy to use. They were too easy to type on, so people were typing faster than the keyboard could handle. Bits and bytes were getting jammed up, and don't get me started on the eInk stains. Virtual keyboards had to be made harder to type on so that people would slow down and catch their bits.

 

lol.gif

post #19 of 80

If Apple would have brought out the iPhone with a keyboard the iPhone would have been "just another phone." However, without the keyboard, it was so unique! Imagine the balls it took to eliminate the keypad alone. No one else thought to eliminate what had always been there! My hat's off to genius backed up by strong conviction!

 

2007, the last time Steve Ballmer had a good laugh. 
 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #20 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.

I'm sorry, but this isn't even close to true.

 

Smartphones were trending in 2 directions:

 

1) QWERTY style phones, with trackpads to control a cursor (kinda like how laptops work, like how BBs were designed, and how all Android prototypes till mid 2007 were designed)

2) Touchscreens which implanted a desktop style interface on the phone, and were operated with a stylus (like Windows Mobile, O2 and Nokia phones)

 

There was absolutely no movement towards a touchscreen phone solely designed to be used with your fingers, with a desktop class OS, with the interface, however, redesigned for a smaller, mobile device.

 

You only need to see the dismissive comments by existing manufacturers like RIM (who thought the iPhone demo was a sleight of hand, and that the phone was not actually possible), Palm ("PC guys are not gonna just come in"), and MS (Ballmer's many comments dismissing the iPhone). The only people who realized what a breakthrough iPhone was Google, probably because (1) they are smarter than most and (2) their CEO was on Apple's board and had advance and inside knowledge and demos of the iPhone.

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that smartphones would have trended towards the iPhone design if Apple hadn't released the iPhone.

post #21 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

 

 

Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.

 

I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.

 

If you don't need the apps - a Nokia E7. I use Swype for day to day quick input and the KB for business mail. Good camera, superb construction, two/three days out of the battery, built in maps etc. Great phone, and cheap to pick up. Just my opinion. I have an iPad for apps, so don't need them on my phone too.

post #22 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
 

 

Let me know when you figure out what your point is, aside from taking up space with an irrelevant image.

post #23 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

 

 

Yes, like everybody and their moms know touchscreen is the future but know shit all how to implement it.

 


What's your point? Oh right, there wasn't any as usual.

post #24 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
288

 

A quick Google search has unsurprisingly revealed that Canon was working on UHD prototype cameras way back in 2010.

 

http://photocinenews.com/2010/09/01/dvinfo-has-first-look-at-canon-uhd-camera/

 

For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).

 

The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.

post #25 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.

 

I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.


You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.

J.
post #26 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
288

 

A quick Google search has unsurprisingly revealed that Canon was working on UHD prototype cameras way back in 2010.

 

http://photocinenews.com/2010/09/01/dvinfo-has-first-look-at-canon-uhd-camera/

 

For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).

 

The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.

 

 

 

 

How much better is UHD compared to IMAX?  Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?

 

 

post #27 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.

 

 

 

More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.

 

Some digital sources sound better than others.  Same with analog.

post #28 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

 

 

Yes, like everybody and their moms know touchscreen is the future but know shit all how to implement it.

 


What's your point? Oh right, there wasn't any as usual.


I might word it badly buy you're being too sensitive as usual because I just agreed with you (most of it anyway). 1smile.gif
post #29 of 80
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:

Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
post #30 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

How much better is UHD compared to IMAX?  Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?

 

No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.

 

UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens). 

 

Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.

 

What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.

 

There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.

 

Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.


Edited by cvaldes1831 - 4/28/12 at 8:58am
post #31 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.

 

He is not someone to believe or even listen to

post #32 of 80

Hey, I heard Abe Vigoda is dead!

post #33 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
J.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.

 

Some digital sources sound better than others.  Same with analog.

 

"Audiophiles" who have more money than brains claim that. Unfortunately, no one has ever shown it to be true in a properly conducted double blind study. 

But feel free to continue writing on your CDs with green magic marker if it makes you happy.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 80

They would be a bad company if they didn't consider every option, now wouldn't they?

post #35 of 80

Yeah, the popping and craclling of Records is fantastic too. smh.


Edited by marcusj0015 - 8/1/12 at 2:30pm
post #36 of 80

Hey, I heard David Keppelmeyer is dead!

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #37 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Sounds like Apple didn't get the memo from Android development team

FlipboardCover.jpg

Without Apple it may have been a more gradual transition. Samsung had started testing and implementing touch screens, but they hadn't yet removed physical keyboards. Anyway this article isn't even news. Did anyone on here really believe this option hadn't been considered by Apple? They

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.

Bleh.. don't pay attention to tweets like this.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

 

 

No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.

 

UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens). 

 

Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.

 

What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.

 

There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.

 

Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.

That was a pretty fun post to read, but I don't think people inherently expect the look of film any longer. They're more conditioned to the properties of digital media. Given the direction we've seen with sensors, there's still an ability to benefit from further resolution. They just don't necessarily have to interpolate the data in the same way. Bayer arrays are arranged in an RGBG format, so quite a lot of information is interpolated to achieve output resolution. We could start going away from that, and it would give you cleaner detail especially in reds and blues. If you look at a really really red or blue object shot digitally, the detail can be pretty poor.

post #38 of 80

Face of the game? Interesting mixed metaphor there!

post #39 of 80

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

 

 

No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.

 

UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens). 

 

Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.

 

What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.

 

There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.

 

Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.

 

In addition to your good post: The new movie, The Hobbit, is being shot at 48 frames per second. According to Peter Jackson the sharpness of each frame makes the overall viewing experience much better as each frame has less blur due to capturing less motion. The viewer is getting much more of the available sharpness of the lens and film with only a change in the frames per second.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.

 

 

 

More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.

 

Some digital sources sound better than others.  Same with analog.


Do you like virtual keyboards?

J.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple considered physical keyboard for first iPhone