or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Prudential: Apple to release two iPhone models, one with WiFi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prudential: Apple to release two iPhone models, one with WiFi - Page 2

post #41 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong

I'd go for this if it had Palm or Windows compatibility built in. I have a treo and use numerous medical apps on it, and I am not willing to carry two devices. The likelihood of any company porting their Palm/Windows apps to the iPhone is pretty small (unless they just take over the market). Of course I have two devices to carry around now as it is, iPod and Treo, maybe I'll upgrade to an iPhone and get a cheap Palm for my med apps.

Ditto for me... at work I often have to wear two pagers, my mobile phone, my palm tx in a pocket and usually my iPod if I am on call. I would love to consolidate some of this stuff, but only in an Apple device. Lots of my colleagues have Treos, but they are just not well implemented solutions to the problems. With all the medical software out there for Palms, I would have to have something that can run Palm software.
post #42 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The analyst, who remained mum on his sources, said at least one of the models will include WiFi wireless capabilities

Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!

Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #43 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

If you're looking for lousy service and coverage, just get Sprint.

Not true in NYC anymore. I originally went with them a few years ago because they had the best phones, and the Samsung i300, later the i330. But the service was adequate.

But after the last blackout if got far better. I also like the plan for our three phones.

Now I have the Treo 700p, but other carriers have it as well. The EV-DO works very well and is fairly cheap.
post #44 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries 1B



Look at your Dashboard content. I am convinced that a 'hidden' reason for the development of Widgets was not only to feed Dashboard, but to have a readymade body of software to feed a Video iPod and/or the iPhone and/or the iTablet.

...I hope.

V/R,
Aries 1B


Interesting idea.
post #45 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!

Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?

The purpose would be to connect to the internet at high speed, and in addition, use it as a WiFi modem for a laptop.

But, you do qualify.
post #46 of 142
mel,

You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx
post #47 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

mel,

You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx

I don't know what you mean by "thin".

Here are some touch screens made by a well known company.

These are larger screens, starting at 12.2", and they are meant for vandal proof applications, as you will read. They are thicker therefore, but notice the thickness's offered. one mm equals about 1/25th".

http://www.touchinternational.com/li.../R-plusnew.pdf

The next series is for smaller items. The size we are talking about. PDA's, Mobile Apps, etc.

Look at the thicknesses here. They are very thin. The thickness of the LCD and backlight are far thicker. Again, remember that one mm is about 1/25th".

http://www.touchinternational.com/li...s/ti4touch.pdf

They have thinner models as well.

http://www.touchinternational.com/li...tremetouch.pdf
post #48 of 142
But those are not devices.

I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I don't know what you mean by "thin".

Here are some touch screens made by a well known company...
post #49 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

But those are not devices.

I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.

Provide an example of what *you* consider to be a thin device.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #50 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

But those are not devices.

I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.

I think that you are not very adept at understanding posts.

I said in my earlier post that it would require about one sixteenth of an inch extra thickness for the touchscreen. You can reread it if you like. I said that there would "not much" of a fdifference. I did not say that there would be "no" difference.

I then provided several links to a major manufacturer of those screens.

As you will have seen for yourself, those screens are as thin as one seventy fifth of an inch. As those touch screens are bonded to the LCD beneath, it's pretty obvious that they won't add much to the thickness of the device.

If you really expect me, or anyone, to actually do a search for you to find out what the thicknesses of all of the touch screen devices out there are, you are nuts!

I was being very polite in response to your aggressively worded post. The least you can do is to think it out for yourself with the information I provided.

Can you prove that any other manufacturers other than Apple really care about just how thin their products are, unless they are highly styled, but poorly functioning phones, such as the Razor?

You want me to prove a negative, which is impossible.
post #51 of 142
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.

Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.

You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
post #52 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.

Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.

You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.

sigh.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #53 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.

Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.

You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.

no, I'm annoyed with your posts. mine don't bother me at all.

I'm not referring to screen "coatings. I'm refering to touch screens. A screen coating is an antireflective layer, or an anti scratch surface, or even a screen protecter.

You stated that a touch screen would add thickness. I said that it would add a little.

You did not refer to anything other than a touch screen. The electronics are trivial. One small surface mounted driver chip. There is no light that must shine through it other than the one provided for the LCD. Brightness there is determined by voltage. These screens pass 80 to 90% of the light.

If you misinterpret what I say, then my statement stands.

Otherwise, I have no wish to have a fight. The information is straightforward.

What is put into a phone determines how it will look. the battery is an important factor. The Treo 600 was criticised for not having a replacable battery. The 650 added one, and added a small bit of thickness because of it. That's one reason why Apple doesn't have replacable batteries. If they have them in their phones, they will be thicker, or will possibly have less lifetime (smaller battery). Movable buttons add another 3 to7 mm.

By the time they are through, the phone is big and heavy. Then add a camera, a computer chip, plenty of RAM, a memory card slot, and you add more. then include the antenna, speaker mic and ear piece. The radio transmitter/receiver, Bluetooth, and possibly WiFi, and the battery just got bigger and heavier.

You can keep going.
post #54 of 142
Okay.

A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:

HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"

The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.

Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
post #55 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

Okay.

A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:

HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"

The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.

Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.

As far as I know most all, if not all of those models are complex. It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen.

It will be intersting to see, as you say. Just remember that devices without touchscreens are thick as well. Look at the Zune compared to the 5G. Materials matter as well.
post #56 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

Okay.

A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:

HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"

The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.

Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.

Buy yourself a Sony Ericsson M600i, then. It's 15mm (.59") thick ... with a touchscreen.

I've got one. It's barely bigger than my v3i.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #57 of 142
Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.



Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen...

The touch screen is the most complexity, which is the point of my original post that you refuted with screen thickness. The wireless radio, battery, input knobs are a given.
post #58 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.

36% thicker, to be pedantic, considering the Q is .43 inches thick.

I currently own 3 phones: Moto v3i, SE M600i and an HTC TyTN. Each, successively, provides me with a greater range of abilities with their increased size. Would I like a v3i sized phone with all the technology provided by the TyTN? Sure.

If it were currently possible to squeeze quad-band GSM, tri-band UMTS/HSDPA, b/g wi-fi, a decent sized qwerty keyboard, a 2 MP photo camera, a VGA video-call camera, and bluetooth into a form-factor that matched a closed v3i, don't you think it would be done?

You claim that the touchscreen is what is adding the complexity. Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #59 of 142
Quote:
"Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities."

Oh yeah, no problem to slap a film onto the screen. You'd think all smartphones would have 'em. But drawing on a screen, the processor having to listen for touch drawings, and increased luminance required to shine through the scuff marks make the device more complex. How's the battery life on the M600i? Maybe they could've added a few more battery millimeters.

And when you write that it "reduces complexity", we are posting on two opposite ideas. It's easier to use a smart phone with a touch screen, yes. But it makes the internal operation of it more complex, more power, and hence, thicker.

This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.
post #60 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwidspawn

Wow... that's an awesome idea. With the updated widget creation tools in the next release of OSX Leopard we can expect to see some pretty powerful widgets find their way into the Dashboard. If Apple went with this sort of idea for a phone we could expect some very cheap, extremely powerful application appear for the phone quickly. Writing a simple spreadsheet or text editing widgit that communicates with Office or Pages would be easy! Aries... you've gotten me all excited over here!

The technology behind Safari has already been ported to Symbian and runs on Nokia phones so you could at least run the simpler dashboard widgets easily. Some of the widgets however are full OSX Cocoa apps and those would be an awful lot harder to transfer across.

Apple already has written Symbian apps too. On Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ phones iSync copies across a Symbian app to handle syncing.

If these aren't clues enough as to what OS an Apple phone would run then I don't know what is.
post #61 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

The problem I have with the full video iPod is where you're expected to get the content from. Music CDs can be ripped easily because they have no DRM. DVDs do. Plus it takes a lifetime to transcode a DVD to ipod sized video unless you've got the latest top end kit.

That leaves buying videos from the iTunes store. Something you can only do in the USA currently and it's incredibly limited.

So, for all but the geeks who know how to illegally rip DVDs and Americans, there's no content AT ALL for a video iPod. Music is still where it's at.

DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.

Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours. If you have a slower machine, just pop in the disc before you go to bed. And you don't have to be a geek to figure it out, just grab an app like Instant Handbrake, you just select the DVD tracks you want and hit the button. Done. It's not illegal either as long as you are ripping content you own a copy of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables?

It's not a smart idea for big audio/video files, but wouldn't you want the option of wireless for playlists, synching contacts and calendars, email, things like that? Transferring stuff like that would take just seconds.
post #62 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"

The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.

The P910 is actually only 18mm thick at the screen. The bit that adds the thickness on the 910 is the optional keypad flip. It also bulges out at either end a few mm. Mostly though it's because of the huge battery that gives you about 2 days of use on average, or about 6 hours playing music IME. The card slot on the side must take up some space too.

The Moto Q is also about 1cm wider and 1cm taller. They just kind of squashed a P910 flat and put a battery in that doesn't last as long. 212 hours as opposed to 400.

Anyway, the 910 is old hat. The 990 is out and that adds 3G, two cameras, Wifi, accelerated graphics, 2megapixel camera, push email (inc blackberry support) and still is about the same size as the 910.
post #63 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.

Meep! DMCA violation.
post #64 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.

Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours. If you have a slower machine, just pop in the disc before you go to bed. And you don't have to be a geek to figure it out, just grab an app like Instant Handbrake, you just select the DVD tracks you want and hit the button. Done. It's not illegal either as long as you are ripping content you own a copy of.

I think the concern was that it's perfectly legal to rip CDs for fair use (in most jurisdictions) and transfer them onto your iPod because the CD's data is not encrypted in any way.

The same is true of copyrighted video content, as long as the original video is not encrypted. As soon as the video stream is encrypted in any way (even a simple XOR crypto) it falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.

Sure there's still fair use. But before fair use comes into play, you still need to get a version of the video stream that has been adequately massaged so that it can be played. And to do that you have to either convert the whole file into an unencrypted stream, and then send the unencumbered file to the iPod, or somehow modify the iPod's firmware so that it is capable of doing the decryption on-the-fly as you watch the video. The latter option could probably be permissible under the DMCA's reverse-engineering clauses. The former certainly isn't.

The DMCA (or several countries' local equivalents) is what's getting in the way.

Canada has no such equivalent law yet (thankfully) so I can legally circumvent the DVD's DRM. And I think the "fair use" copyright clause would still protect me if I transfer the decrypted movie onto my iPod as long as I take care not to allow the files to be redistributed.

[edit: spelling mistake in last paragraph]
post #65 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.

That doesn't change the legality of bypassing copy protection which is against the law usually, at least in the USA (DMCA) and Europe (EUCD).

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours. If you have a slower machine, just pop in the disc before you go to bed.

Sure, but it's not like CDs which take up 50-60MB an album. It's 4+GB of data to transcode and store somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

And you don't have to be a geek to figure it out, just grab an app like Instant Handbrake, you just select the DVD tracks you want and hit the button. Done. It's not illegal either as long as you are ripping content you own a copy of.

That's not usually true with copy protected works such as DVDs, the only exception being software where most countries allow a copy for archival purposes and fair use or fair trading which only allows excerpts, unless you're a library.
post #66 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

Oh yeah, no problem to slap a film onto the screen. You'd think all smartphones would have 'em. But drawing on a screen, the processor having to listen for touch drawings, and increased luminance required to shine through the scuff marks make the device more complex. How's the battery life on the M600i? Maybe they could've added a few more battery millimeters.

And when you write that it "reduces complexity", we are posting on two opposite ideas. It's easier to use a smart phone with a touch screen, yes. But it makes the internal operation of it more complex, more power, and hence, thicker.

This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.

The battery life on the M600i is 7.5 hours talk or 2 weeks standby. About twice that of the Q.

It's mostly because (IIRC) it's one of the first Symbian phones to use a single system-on-a-chip setup where the radio stack and the CPU is one chip. In older phones (and the 990 still even which is really an older design) and current Palm, Windows and Linux phones you have a CPU running the OS and a DSP handling the radio stack. Two chips and a hungry OS (Windows or Linux anyway) mean the power requirements are much higher. The Symbian phones use a much lighter OS, lower clocked CPU (~200Mhz) and the M600 and W950 cut out one of the chips. They also cut out a few other things the 990 has such as graphics acceleration and WiFi which the 990 has to make up for with a bigger battery. Swings and roundabouts.
post #67 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Meep! DMCA violation.

Fair use. Not to mention unenforcable to a ridiculous degree.

And like I care whether it is or not? The DMCA certainly hasn't stopped tons of apps from being distributed, all of which are perfectly clear that they are for ripping DVD's - why aren't they shut down if they are illegal? As an end user who rips dvd's I've bought, what does the DMCA matter to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Sure, but it's not like CDs which take up 50-60MB an album. It's 4+GB of data to transcode and store somewhere.

Which ends up as 1-1.5 gigs after the rip. Hard drives go up to 300/500/750 gigs these days, that's hundreds of movies. And I was responding to your comment about ripping speed, not sure why you're trying to change the subject.
post #68 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong

I'd go for this if it had Palm or Windows compatibility built in. I have a treo and use numerous medical apps on it, and I am not willing to carry two devices. The likelihood of any company porting their Palm/Windows apps to the iPhone is pretty small (unless they just take over the market). Of course I have two devices to carry around now as it is, iPod and Treo, maybe I'll upgrade to an iPhone and get a cheap Palm for my med apps.

Well, it will will launch with 2,500 Dashboard Widgets available.
I'm sure all the popular medical apps will follow in due time.
post #69 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Fair use. Not to mention unenforcable to a ridiculous degree.

Fair use doesn't cover copying a whole DVD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

And like I care whether it is or not? The DMCA certainly hasn't stopped tons of apps from being distributed, all of which are perfectly clear that they are for ripping DVD's - why aren't they shut down if they are illegal? As an end user who rips dvd's I've bought, what does the DMCA matter to me?

Not a lot. Not a lot to me either as it happens although it's more EUCD here. I rip them too.

However, the salient issue is what does it matter to Apple. They can't add DVD ripping code in to iTunes like they can with music CDs. That means there's only a tiny legal market for a video iPod - Digital Downloads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Which ends up as 1-1.5 gigs after the rip. Hard drives go up to 300/500/750 gigs these days, that's hundreds of movies. And I was responding to your comment about ripping speed, not sure why you're trying to change the subject.

So you're now also expecting people who want to illegally rip DVDs to go out and buy large hard drives and faster computers than the average most people have too?

Can you see yet why Apple is still saying video is some way off?
post #70 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Well, it will will launch with 2,500 Dashboard Widgets available.
I'm sure all the popular medical apps will follow in due time.

Not all of those can possibly run or be of any use. Many are larger than the usual QVGA screen available on most smartphones (and the iPod), require a live net connection and/or are written in Perl/Ruby/Python/Objective-C which any iPhone is unlikely to support.
post #71 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Fair use.

Irrelavent. Fair use only comes into play after you've obtained an unencrypted data stream to work with. And your options for doing that without breaking DCMA are quite limited. Consider the two general possibilities:

1) You have an unencrypted file which is ready for the iPod to look at. It's impossible to obtain such a file from a commercial DVD without breaking the DCMA because commercial DVDs all contain DRM encryption which the DVD rippers break. In this case, it's possible that your government's definition of fair use isn't being violated. But certainly the DCMA is.

2) You maintain the encrypted file, and your iPod is performing just-in-time decryption as it plays the movie. Possibly no DCMA violation here depending on how the courts choose to interpret the reverse-engineering clauses, since arguably no additional rights are being granted than were previously available in the original encrypted form. Also, it's possible that there's no fair use violation here (the same conditions for that test would apply as one would use in the previous example). However, no iPod is equipped with firmware to do this currently. It's debatable whether portable, battery-supplied iPods could have the computational power to do such a job in real time in the first place.
post #72 of 142
Of course we have no official facts, but I have to believe that the iPhone will be realeased by T-Mobile.

- T-Mobile's CEO recently talks favorably about Apple, "comparing visions."

- T-Mobile's release of 3G is scheduled for Q1 of '07, and Apple's iPhone release is Q1 of '07.

- 3G is suspected to have technology in which the phone can switch from cell towers, and transition to Wi-Fi signals to get better signals indoors. Apple's iPhone supposedly has Wi-Fi.

It's a shame because isn't CDMA suppose to be faster, and able to handle the computer side of a cell phone. And GSM was invented for voice quality, making it flourish only with voice? Someone correct me if I am wrong. (Don't correct me if you simply favor GSM)
post #73 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugwump

This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.

And this, children, is how you use a logical fallacy of the informal type "ignorantio elenchi". Peppered with a healthy dose of ignorance, generalization becomes a nice package-deal fallacy, or possibly a hasty generalization.

No, mugwump. Adding a touchscreen doesn't increase significantly the power drain on the battery, nor does it require a lot of extra chips and controllers.

No, the fact that there aren't thinner touchscreen devices doesn't demonstrate that they can't exist, it's just a statement of fact, not a cause-effect. And it's almost impossible you're seriously pretending to prove that all touch-screen devices must be at least 36% thicker than non-touch-screen by using two devices provided, almost at random, in a forum post.

Really. It's almost too much obvious bait to take it (I'm weak, I'll admit it).

The reason touchscreens haven't found their way into thinner phones has nothing to do with them making the devices much thicker (as has been repeated and is adequately documented if you care to search for it, touchscreen capabilities don't add more than a 1mm to thickness for the screen overlay itself and there's enough space for a touchscreen controller chip in most modern phones, even thinner ones).

Touchscreens haven't appeared in thinner phones yet because of several reasons, not all of them technical:

-The thinnest phones are still marketed as luxury items. Usually with a minimalistic look and preferrably with a gimmicky way of opening them. They are NOT PDAs, nor are they smartphones, as a general rule. PDAs are only used to brag among geeks, whereas thin phones are marketed as fashion statements. Marketing an ultra-thin phone right now as a PDA would stain (to the marketers' eyes) both markets.

-Touchscreen phones are, usually, smartphones and this, as a market, still has to take off. So far it's been a shoddy market, with shoddy offerings, that doesn't appeal to the masses (as PDAs really didn't). In the same way that ultrathin wristwatches originally were luxury items and weren't expected to have many features. Actually they revelled in their lack of features. Minimalism always goes well with fashion design.

-Ultra-thin and fully-featured are still two completely different market segments and until they start to merge thinness won't be a priority. There are even old Palms that are incredibly thin compared to current smartphones and they fell into disuse because they didn't feel sturdy. The thickest components are already there (speakers, microphones, backlight, BATTERY) but phone companies are (smartly) pacing their own releases. By keeping these as two different market segments they ensure lots of models until they are forced to make a first luxury smartphone that is ultrathin, followed some time after by more and more commoditized (cheaper) versions, initially uglier.

The reason there aren't ultrathin touchscreen phones is pure marketing. Nothing else. As is traditional until a single company decides to plunge forward the others will continue to market this as different segments. Thinking that there is even one really leading-edge product, technologically speaking, in the market is delluding yourself. Technologies are squeezed until the majority demands improvements and I don't really see the masses demanding ultrathin PDAs (call them smartphones if you want, they see PDAs, which most are already biased against). Relatedly, using older technology that is not focused on size but on features makes devices cheaper on the whole (touchscreens may not be thick, but they're not free either, and adding them adds to the price of the product)

And please, try to not make this gross generalizations. If you had a solid argument it was completely destroyed by it.
post #74 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

The technology behind Safari has already been ported to Symbian and runs on Nokia phones so you could at least run the simpler dashboard widgets easily. Some of the widgets however are full OSX Cocoa apps and those would be an awful lot harder to transfer across.

Apple already has written Symbian apps too. On Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ phones iSync copies across a Symbian app to handle syncing.

If these aren't clues enough as to what OS an Apple phone would run then I don't know what is.

Interesting

The Wikipedia entry for Symbian says that Symbian is the base OS on top of which various vendors create their user interface layer.
Symbian is owned by Ericsson, Nokia, Matsushita (Panasonic), Siemens, Sony Ericsson and Samsung.
I wonder if Apple will try to buy into Symbian?

These user interface platforms include Nokia's S60, which is also used by Lenovo, LG and Samsung.
UIQ Technology's UIQ user interface platform is used in more advanced pen based devices from Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola and BenQ.

I wonder if Apple will use one of these existing platforms or will roll their own interface layer on top of Symbian's OS?
Will we see QuickTime for Symbian OS? Quartz? Aqua?

Webkit has already been ported to Nokia's S60 platform.
However S60 also includes support for Real's Helix multimedia platform and Nokia has it's own plans for getting into the music business.
post #75 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution

36% thicker, to be pedantic, considering the Q is .43 inches thick.

I currently own 3 phones: Moto v3i, SE M600i and an HTC TyTN. Each, successively, provides me with a greater range of abilities with their increased size. Would I like a v3i sized phone with all the technology provided by the TyTN? Sure.

If it were currently possible to squeeze quad-band GSM, tri-band UMTS/HSDPA, b/g wi-fi, a decent sized qwerty keyboard, a 2 MP photo camera, a VGA video-call camera, and bluetooth into a form-factor that matched a closed v3i, don't you think it would be done?

You claim that the touchscreen is what is adding the complexity. Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities.

http://www.dynamism.com/n908/main.shtml

0.5" (12.8mm), MP3, touchscreen, 1.3MP cam., Bluetooth

I personally don't like it, and as I mentioned in another post, it belongs to a wholly different category and market segment and is thus more expensive by extension. Still, it's pretty thin by any standard.
post #76 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustBrady

Of course we have no official facts, but I have to believe that the iPhone will be realeased by T-Mobile.

- T-Mobile's CEO recently talks favorably about Apple, "comparing visions."

- T-Mobile's release of 3G is scheduled for Q1 of '07, and Apple's iPhone release is Q1 of '07.

- 3G is suspected to have technology in which the phone can switch from cell towers, and transition to Wi-Fi signals to get better signals indoors. Apple's iPhone supposedly has Wi-Fi.

I think you're thinking of UMA. Some phones already support handoff between 3G, GSM and 802.11 networks without interruption for data at least (Nokia's N series and SE's phones mentioned in this thread for instance have that ability) and it's being added for voice calls too. Nokia were trialling UMA earlier in the year in Finland which allows you to walk between networks and it'll pick the best solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustBrady

It's a shame because isn't CDMA suppose to be faster, and able to handle the computer side of a cell phone. And GSM was invented for voice quality, making it flourish only with voice? Someone correct me if I am wrong. (Don't correct me if you simply favor GSM)

The 3G version of GSM uses W-CDMA. W-CDMA is almost identical to CDMA, using the same technology. W-CDMA HSDPA is slightly faster than CDMA EVD0 although there's supposed to be room to grow HSDPA so it's about twice as fast as EVD0.

The idea was that W-CDMA was similar enough to CDMA that the US carriers could get on board with the rest of the world fairly easily and migrate their CDMA systems to W-CDMA, but that hasn't happened. I haven't followed exactly why but the US has a long history of not following what the rest of the world is doing.
post #77 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Fair use doesn't cover copying a whole DVD.

Fair use covers copying content in its entirety if it is for backup or media shifting (as long as I paid for the content).

If ripping DVD's is illegal, why don't the movie studios just shut down all the apps that rip DVD's and copy them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

However, the salient issue is what does it matter to Apple. They can't add DVD ripping code in to iTunes like they can with music CDs. That means there's only a tiny legal market for a video iPod - Digital Downloads.

Apple can't put in ripping software I assume because the movie studios wouldn't allow it in their iTunes store contracts. But there are plenty of third party ripping apps that work great, so it's not much of an issue. And people don't care about "legal" if it's unenforcable.

Also, people can put home movies on iPod, video podcasts, as well as content they've recorded from the airwaves. And I wouldn't call digital downloads "tiny".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

So you're now also expecting people who want to illegally rip DVDs to go out and buy large hard drives and faster computers than the average most people have too?

Faster computers? Where did that come from? You don't need faster computers.

And people will buy hard drives depending on what they need. Same as with mp3's. And same as before that with other files. Drives get cheaper and bigger all the time (and that includes internal drives that ship with computers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Can you see yet why Apple is still saying video is some way off?

Where are they still saying that? With iPod and iTunes, video is here now and iTV will be here early next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison

Fair use only comes into play after you've obtained an unencrypted data stream to work with.

Fair use is still being debated. I agree with those who feel that the DMCA violates consumers' fair use rights. And it's a moot point anyway since cracking down on consumers ripping their own media is completely unenforcable.

Tell me, has anyone ever been prosecuted for ripping DVDs they've purchased and transferring them to an ipod? And why doesn't the DMCA shut down all the ripping apps?

I think it's only a matter of time before the DMCA is revised if not thrown out. In the meantime, the law seems unenforcable to the point of being practically worthless.
post #78 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Interesting
[IMG]I wonder if Apple will use one of these existing platforms or will roll their own interface layer on top of Symbian's OS?
Will we see QuickTime for Symbian OS? Quartz? Aqua?

I think it's possible. Creating a phone OS from scratch or downsizing OSX to a phone is a mammoth task. Symbian on the other hand lets you run a user interface layer on top so Apple may use Symbian underneath and it's own interface library on top. OSX on a phone would be almost as lame an idea as Windows on a phone.

UIQ and S60 are reasonably similar that programmers have little trouble hopping between them. An Apple UI layer might not be though. S60 and UIQ aren't pretty and could certainly be improved upon by someone more fastidiously inclined to good UI and device design. I wonder if Apple did do this, that enough of the existing UIQ/S60 developers would be able to also pick up the Apple UI? All the developers tools are Windows based btw.

In the last iPod rev, they moved to Samsung sourced ARM chips instead of the Portal Player chips. I wonder if Apple couldn't be on the way to using Symbian on the iPod too and having one development platform?
post #79 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

I think it's possible. Creating a phone OS from scratch or downsizing OSX to a phone is a mammoth task. Symbian on the other hand lets you run a user interface layer on top so Apple may use Symbian underneath and it's own interface library on top. OSX on a phone would be almost as lame an idea as Windows on a phone.

Symbian is currently very popular in Europe.
Windows and Palm dominate the smartphone market in the US.
Microsoft doesn't get mobile design, they are stuck in a desktop metaphor.
Palm has one foot in the grave and it's of their own doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

UIQ and S60 are reasonably similar that programmers have little trouble hopping between them. An Apple UI layer might not be though. S60 and UIQ aren't pretty and could certainly be improved upon by someone more fastidiously inclined to good UI and device design. I wonder if Apple did do this, that enough of the existing UIQ/S60 developers would be able to also pick up the Apple UI? All the developers tools are Windows based btw.

It would be very nice if existing Symbian apps would run on Apple's iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

In the last iPod rev, they moved to Samsung sourced ARM chips instead of the Portal Player chips. I wonder if Apple couldn't be on the way to using Symbian on the iPod too and having one development platform?

Interesting idea!
Symbian would be a better platform for Apple to tie it's long-term ambitions to.
Apple could also achieve more consistency in it's user experience by using the same OS across the board for it's mobile devices.
post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Fair use covers copying content in its entirety if it is for backup or media shifting (as long as I paid for the content).

It does not.

Apart from that you are not copying it in it's entirety because you're also transcoding and stripping copy protection. Fair use aside, you're breaking DMCA or EUCD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

If ripping DVD's is illegal, why don't the movie studios just shut down all the apps that rip DVD's and copy them?

They regularly try it. See http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmed...studios_t.html for one example.

It's like whack-a-mole though. The industry knows it's an impossible battle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Apple can't put in ripping software I assume because the movie studios wouldn't allow it in their iTunes store contracts. But there are plenty of third party ripping apps that work great, so it's not much of an issue. And people don't care about "legal" if it's unenforcable.

As I said, it's irrelevant what you or I think, it's Apple that has to flaunt the law. Technically, in the UK at least even the current version of iTunes and the iPod were breaking the law up until recently. So was home taping though so nobody batted an eyelid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Also, people can put home movies on iPod, video podcasts, as well as content they've recorded from the airwaves. And I wouldn't call digital downloads "tiny".

Yes, that's tiny. Compare it to DVD sales or TV viewing figures. In the UK, recording from the airwaves is illegal too. IIRC recording TV onto VHS still is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Faster computers? Where did that come from? You don't need faster computers.

You said 'Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours'.

Most people don't have computers even as fast as that never mind a computer fast enough to also transcode it to 320x240 for an iPod or phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

And people will buy hard drives depending on what they need. Same as with mp3's. And same as before that with other files. Drives get cheaper and bigger all the time (and that includes internal drives that ship with computers).

They do. But it's still not quite there yet. Laptop drives are still much smaller and people aren't going to spend another couple of hundred on extra drives. Most people just aren't that tech savvy. They'll buy a new computer perhaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Where are they still saying that? With iPod and iTunes, video is here now and iTV will be here early next year.

To quote Steve Jobs a few days back...

"it's hard to imagine that music is not the epicenter of the iPod, for a long, long, long, long, long time."

And video isn't 'here' it's only 'there' in the USA and extremely limited. Early days yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

Fair use is still being debated. I agree with those who feel that the DMCA violates consumers' fair use rights. And it's a moot point anyway since cracking down on consumers ripping their own media is completely unenforcable.

Tell me, has anyone ever been prosecuted for ripping DVDs they've purchased and transferring them to an ipod? And why doesn't the DMCA shut down all the ripping apps?

I think it's only a matter of time before the DMCA is revised if not thrown out. In the meantime, the law seems unenforcable to the point of being practically worthless.

I agree. I'm sure Apple agrees too to a point though not to the point they'll state that publicly or introduce software that circumvents it. The former would piss off the studios and the latter would see them in court.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Prudential: Apple to release two iPhone models, one with WiFi