or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple stuns Macworld crowd with multi-function iPhone device
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple stuns Macworld crowd with multi-function iPhone device - Page 7

post #241 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

All actual GPS receivers use AGPS, which, by the way, can have 3 meter accuracy.

Which technology phones have, depends on the phone. I can't speak to each one.

Jobs mentioned GPS, that's all we can know now.

Maybe it isn't implimented as yet, so no more is being said right now.

As far as links go, just tap AGPS into Google.



I'm no expert, it's been almost 10 years since I've done any DGPS surveys (1cm accuracy), but I do know that at that time realtime kinematic GPS existed (10cm accuracy). All that is processed within the receiver itself, so those do not use an assistance server as required for AGPS. Plus I have Misrosoft's Streets and Trips 2007 with a GPS receiver, it needs line-of-sight, and it doesn't need AGPS.

Do you really know what all you are talking about? Really!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #242 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



I'm no expert, it's been almost 10 years since I've done any DGPS surveys (1cm accuracy), but I do know that at that time realtime kinematic GPS existed (10cm accuracy). All that is processed within the receiver itself, so those do not use an assistance server as required for AGPS. Plus I have Misrosoft's Streets and Trips 2007 with a GPS receiver, it needs line-of-sight, and it doesn't need AGPS.

Do you really know what all you are talking about? Really!


Yes, I do, do you?

you could find out very easily what cellphones have, if you really wanted to.

But, if you don't, that's not my concern.
post #243 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero View Post

That is incorrect. Cell phone companies are NOT required at all to provide any unlocking codes at all. however any individual or company can provide/sell the locks and the cell phone companies cannot sue to prevent it.


Very sweet indeed! I can't wait to get my hands on an unlocked iPhone on eBay or elsewhere from the States so I'm the first one amongst my friends over here in Europe to own one AND continue using my prepaid service! I'd even pay up to 200 bucks more for that. I hate, no, I absolutely abhor being locked into anything by any one of those f**king greedy providers.
post #244 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by axc51 View Post

The iPhone cannot change the world if it's priced at ~$1k unlocked, or if you have to join crappy Cingular service to own it.

Sounds like you are waiting for the world to change.
Well it isn't going to happen tomorrow but it will happen.

The iPhone is just the tip of the iceberg.
The iPhone will get more powerful over the years.
The iPhone will get cheaper.
More form factors will be available.
It won't be exclusive to Cingular forever.

The Mac and the iPod didn't change the world the day they were introduced but nobody could have imagined the impact they have since had. People will be doing things with 4th generation iPhones we can't even imagine.
post #245 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, I do, do you?

you could find out very easily what cellphones have, if you really wanted to.

But, if you don't, that's not my concern.



You said "All actual GPS receivers use AGPS" and I gave you 3 specific examples where AGPS wasn't used. So clearly you made an incorrect statement.

Now if you had said "All cell phones use AGPS" in that case you would be correct AFAIK.

And IMHO the FCC Phase II requirement of 50m-300m for E-911 accuracy is not very useful for personal navigation purposes (but would be sufficient for rescue purposes).

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #246 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



You said "All actual GPS receivers use AGPS" and I gave you 3 specific examples where AGPS wasn't used. So clearly you made an incorrect statement.

Now if you had said "All cell phones use AGPS" in that case you would be correct AFAIK.

And IMHO the FCC Phase II requirement of 50m-300m for E-911 accuracy is not very useful for navigation purposes.


First of all, I'm assuming that by discussing the iPhone, we are discussing consumer devices. There have been others, mostly military that have had greater accuracy. But AGPS was invented primarily for boating use, but has since spread.

For non phone use it seems as though AGPS is being replaced by L2C.
post #247 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

First of all, I'm assuming that by discussing the iPhone, we are discussing consumer devices. There have been others, mostly military that have had greater accuracy. But AGPS was invented primarily for boating use, but has since spread.

For non phone use it seems as though AGPS is being replaced by L2C.



L2C? Clueless on that one also, what does it stand for (so that I can google/wiki it)?

And yes we were talking past each other, I sort of caught on towards the end (you were thinking consumer, I was thinking all + perhaps accuracy). Sorry for the confusion.

EDIT - L2C OK got it, it's GPS III coming online in 2011-3 timeframe.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #248 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm sure he said it, and I'm sure that All USA cellphones have it.

I reviewed the section where Steve demos Google maps and there was no mention of GPS.
If you are so sure give us the time stamp at which he mentions it in the keynote.

Also if it was a feature of the phone, you would definitely see it listed on the slides during the presentation or on the website. It is neither place.

I believe the phone may be able to tell the local zipcode by the phone tower it is using but does not have true GPS. I stand by my earlier prediction that it will be able to use bluetooth GPS receivers or one plugged into the dock connector.
post #249 of 437
While the iPhone runs OS X, its not Mac OS X.
We should probably start referring to it as iPhone OS X.
The next generation of iPod will be running iPod OS X.

Also it occurs to me that if there is a GoogleMaps app on iPhone then we might see Apple doing a full scale GoogleMaps.app or GoogleEarth.app for Leopard. This is a market segment that the Mac has seriously lagged behind in forever. Maybe Apple will finally pick up the slack.

I can also envision where Apple could take this with in car navigation/entertainment.
I hope my next car stereo runs iDash OS X.
post #250 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

I reviewed the section where Steve demos Google maps and there was no mention of GPS.
If you are so sure give us the time stamp at which he mentions it in the keynote.

Also if it was a feature of the phone, you would definitely see it listed on the slides during the presentation or on the website. It is neither place.

I believe the phone may be able to tell the local zipcode by the phone tower it is using but does not have true GPS. I stand by my earlier prediction that it will be able to use bluetooth GPS receivers or one plugged into the dock connector.



I haven't seen the keynote video, but I looked at both Ars Technica and Macworld livefeeds, both mentioned GPS. BTW do you know where I can download the keynote video (for later viewing), the Apple website has only the VoIP feed and a link to iTunes for downloading, however the iTunes store states "The item you've requested is currently not available in the US store."

But I do believe you are correct, in that if the iPhone needs a GPS sensor for navigation purposes (and I believe it does for accuracy reasons), and the iPhone itself doesn't have an embedded GPS sensor with line-of-sight access to said GPS satellites (which I don't think it does from my casual viewing of the iPhone photos), then yes it will need an external device (GPS sensor). I would think the sensor would be fairly obvious, the one I have is ~0.75" square (for the sensor itself, not the housing).

But than again after looking at the sensor housing I have, it is encased in a pretty thick piece of plastic, so who knows it could be inside the iPhone. I would also add that with AGPS assistance, most of the EE stuff is offloaded to the cell network for processing, so in those cases, perhaps with line-of-sight GPS data, within cell phone range, you may get fairly accurate positioning for navigation purposes.

But basically it's TBD!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #251 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateRegistering View Post

This is what Apple initially wanted to Newton to be.

How long before we see a Newton emulator running on it?
Seriously though, the Newton was exactly what Apple wanted it to be.
The Newton wasn't what Steve wanted it to be.(Thats why he killed it)
The iPhone is what Steve wanted the Newton to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateRegistering View Post

I'm suprised they did not show the Calendar and To Do functions. This is the Killer-app on my Treo. I'd be lost without it.

I too was looking for To Do and memo recording.
Two essential features of a smartphone.
They did show stills of the Calendar client but no action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHateRegistering View Post

Someone brought up lack of IR, so it cannot be used as a remote. At first I thought that was a pretty gay suggestion, but now I think if anyone could solve the problem of TOO MANY REMOTES, it's Apple.

Yeah, that was my gay suggestion.
I'm also disappointed that they left out GAYDAR.
Probably useless in San Fran but still sounds like an opportunity for a 3rd party developer.
post #252 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



I haven't seen the keynote video, but I looked at both Ars Technics and Macworld livefeeds, both mentioned GPS. BTW do you know where I can download the keynote video (for later viewing), the Apple website has only the VoIP feed and a link to iTunes for downloading, however the iTunes store states "The item you've requested is currently not available in the US store."

But I do believe you are correct, in that if the iPhone needs a GPS sensor for navigation purposes (and I believe it does for accuracy reasons), and the iPhone itself doesn't have an embedded GPS sensor with line-of-sight access to said GPS satellites (which I don't think it does from my casual viewing of the iPhone photos), then yes it will need an external device (GPS sensor). I would think the sensor would be fairly obvious, the one I have is ~0.75" square (for the sensor itself, not the housing).

But than again after looking at the sensor housing I have, it is encased in a pretty thick piece of plastic, so who knows it could be inside the iPhone. I would also add that with AGPS assistance, most of the EE stuff is offloaded to the cell network for processing, so in those cases, perhaps with line-of-sight GPS data, within cell phone range, you may get fairly accurate positioning for navigation purposes.

But basically it's TBD!


The keynote is only available for streaming.

The reference to Google Maps and Directions were misunderstood as GPS functionality.
You can get directions but you have to tell it where you are.
One thing I was surprised about was there was no speech functions demoed.
I hope it does text to speech for things like verbalizing directions.
I have a TomTom bluetooth GPS receiver that is the size of a very small cellphone and I hope I will be able to use it with the iPhone.
post #253 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

The keynote is only available for streaming.

The reference to Google Maps and Directions were misunderstood as GPS functionality.
You can get directions but you have to tell it where you are.
One thing I was surprised about was there was no speech functions demoed.
I hope it does text to speech for things like verbalizing directions.
I have a TomTom bluetooth GPS receiver that is the size of a very small cellphone and I hope I will be able to use it with the iPhone.



Yes, that would be my best guess, wireless GPS connectivity to the iPhone, it will have to have the SW though from either Apple or 3rd party.

It does make me wonder though what the CPU is considering all that it does, any ideas, or has it already been mentioned in this LONG thread?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #254 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Megapixels don't make a good camera. I've never seen a case where more megapixels on a camera phone beyond that yielded better picture quality, except maybe for the cameras that happen to have an integrated phone.

Whereas I partly agree there, you won't see a decent phone from Nokia, SE and even Samsung dip that low this year and they also have good lenses and flashes. eg. SE K800i - 3.2mp, Xenon flash and great lens. Nokia N95 - 5mp autofocus, flash. I think Samsung were even showing phones with popout zoom lenses.

Apple's 2mp camera without flash is kind of tame by comparison, especially if like most people, you look at the specs in a comparison chart.

It certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker for me - the software is the important thing - but people don't actual look at that often as the success of Motorola and LG Chocolate phones shows.
post #255 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

The keynote is only available for streaming.

The reference to Google Maps and Directions were misunderstood as GPS functionality.
You can get directions but you have to tell it where you are.
One thing I was surprised about was there was no speech functions demoed.
I hope it does text to speech for things like verbalizing directions.
I have a TomTom bluetooth GPS receiver that is the size of a very small cellphone and I hope I will be able to use it with the iPhone.

Not strictly true. On GSM at least the phone knows where it is by triangulating itself against a number of radio masts. It's not as accurate as GPS but it's enough to provide you with a rough start point and it's used to provide local info. Application developers can query the position easily enough.

So, if you wanted to find all the Starbucks local to you, it'd be capable of doing that easily but not quite capable to enough to provide street level directions turn for turn as you're walking.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't let you link to a bluetooth GPS at some point though if it really doesn't have true GPS built in.
post #256 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Also it occurs to me that if there is a GoogleMaps app on iPhone then we might see Apple doing a full scale GoogleMaps.app or GoogleEarth.app for Leopard.

Huh? http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html
post #257 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's preferences. The Nokia certainly isn't worth more in my eyes.

I agree. The 8800 is sold a s premium fashion item though rather than on features. It's jewel like in construction. I'd not be surprised if Apple tries to push the iPhone at the same customers, not just the business people/geeks that have so far been happy with ugly things like current smartphones, none of which are vaguely fashionable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

2 MP in a phone camera is plenty. I've seen higher rez pics from them, and they are bad.

Phones don't make good cameras.

The lens on a phone is really terrible. Thast limits the worth of the sensor right there. The processing is very poor as well.

It's good for a snapshot, or an emergency, but no more.

I believe Samsung announced an 8 MP phone. what a waste!

Here's Cabel Sasser's review of the SE K790a (it's the K800i in Europe with a couple more features) as counter evidence.

http://www.cabel.name/2006/11/review...son-k790a.html

Sure, it's no SLR but from Cabel's pictures it's clear it's perfectly fine for most people's snaps and damned handy to have on you all the time. The p990i I had also had a camera good enough that I'd have used it most of the time instead of my trusty Olympus. I hope Apple's 2mp camera is a good 2mp camera. It doesn't have to be SLR great, but good enough for web use would do me.

Samsung generally just throws megapixel specs at people hoping they're dumb enough to miss out that it's the glass that generally makes a good camera.
post #258 of 437
People who want a bigger HD, that's fine. We all do.

People whining about it are another matter. Think about it. This is a *PHONE* with iPod functionality. You want an 80GB iPod, buy an 80gb iPod. If you're lucky Apple will allow the two to be connected together.

If you throw a hard disk in there you could wave goodbye to the nice size and the good battery life. I know people want it all but sometimes there have to be compromises.

If you want to go forward 10 years I'm sure the compromises will have slowly been vanquished.

This is still a major step forward. It's not 2 major steps forward, but then neither was the iPod. Creative (and others) had been doing HD MP3 players for ages. It took Apple to do them right. Others had been doing flash based players for ages. Again, it took Apple to do them right.

Well done Apple. Just don't lose your focus on everything else.

Oh, and Wi-Fi VOIP calling please. This would be a ridiculous ommision just to please Cingular.

Alex
post #259 of 437
Bah! Forget this.
post #260 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

I reviewed the section where Steve demos Google maps and there was no mention of GPS.
If you are so sure give us the time stamp at which he mentions it in the keynote.

Also if it was a feature of the phone, you would definitely see it listed on the slides during the presentation or on the website. It is neither place.

I believe the phone may be able to tell the local zipcode by the phone tower it is using but does not have true GPS. I stand by my earlier prediction that it will be able to use bluetooth GPS receivers or one plugged into the dock connector.

I don't remember when he said it, because I didn't see it myself.

But all of the sites that had live coverage said that he mentioned it. Again, when? Maybe before that part.

In fact, those who were following the live coverage here in the chat room should remember that it was mentioned.
post #261 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



I'm no expert, it's been almost 10 years since I've done any DGPS surveys (1cm accuracy), but I do know that at that time realtime kinematic GPS existed (10cm accuracy). All that is processed within the receiver itself, so those do not use an assistance server as required for AGPS. Plus I have Misrosoft's Streets and Trips 2007 with a GPS receiver, it needs line-of-sight, and it doesn't need AGPS.

Do you really know what all you are talking about? Really!


DGPS ("Differential GPS") requires a fixed base station with exact knowledge of its true position, listening for the GPS signal.

It processes the signal, computes the "difference" between the GPS position and the true position, and emits a second radio signal (MSK modulation, if you must know) telling all supported equipment in the vicinity the correction factor to apply to the GPS signal to improve precision.

[edit]
regarding line-of-sight:
Every AGPS receiver needs to have a true GPS receiver somewhere inside it... It may be embedded inside the body of the device, potentially limiting the available gain. It doesn't eliminate the requirement of line-of-sight. But most phone casings are not opaque to RF radiation.

AGPS provides a means for either computationally-challenged or low-signal receivers to get some help from an outside source. Receivers might get additional information about the GPS time synchronization, the satellites' current positions and pre-computed Doppler shifts so that they don't require as much gain to lock in on the signals or as much processing power to interpret them.

It's entirely possible that the iPhone uses AGPS too. So what?
[/edit]
post #262 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

I agree. The 8800 is sold a s premium fashion item though rather than on features. It's jewel like in construction. I'd not be surprised if Apple tries to push the iPhone at the same customers, not just the business people/geeks that have so far been happy with ugly things like current smartphones, none of which are vaguely fashionable.



Here's Cabel Sasser's review of the SE K790a (it's the K800i in Europe with a couple more features) as counter evidence.

http://www.cabel.name/2006/11/review...son-k790a.html

Sure, it's no SLR but from Cabel's pictures it's clear it's perfectly fine for most people's snaps and damned handy to have on you all the time. The p990i I had also had a camera good enough that I'd have used it most of the time instead of my trusty Olympus. I hope Apple's 2mp camera is a good 2mp camera. It doesn't have to be SLR great, but good enough for web use would do me.

Samsung generally just throws megapixel specs at people hoping they're dumb enough to miss out that it's the glass that generally makes a good camera.

The photo's aren't bad, but I can see problems. But, then, I come from decades of professional background. I have very high standards here.

But, I've said that they are good enough for snaps. The best phone cameras will take very good snaps, but that's about it. Higher rez won't be acceptable. None of these cameras can be very good. The large lens in that one model takes too much room from the phone as it is. Complex models such as the iPhone are so packed with parts, that a good camera is out of the question for now. Maybe in later years.
post #263 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

DGPS ("Differential GPS") requires a fixed base station with exact knowledge of its true position, listening for the GPS signal.

It processes the signal, computes the "difference" between the GPS position and the true position, and emits a second radio signal (MSK modulation, if you must know) telling all supported equipment in the vicinity the correction factor to apply to the GPS signal to improve precision.



Yes of course, been there done that, about 40 times in fact, but that was 10 years ago. Don't know how it's done now, but back then it required alot of post-processing and quality control. Especially if you were tracking something over 20-30 miles, say large ships in channels, say in the Panama Canal, say during the 1997 el Nino, and needed 6-DOF motions (minimum of 3 receivers on the moving body), and needed cm level accuracy (X, Y, and especially Z) from all three receivers.

But the point was that these are direct line-of-sight GPS techniques, they don't use AGPS (i. e. a combination of known cell tower coordinates (GPS coordinates) and RF triangulation + an assistant server to do the heavy lifting (calculate the cell phones position to 50m-300m (+/-))). So if the iPhone only uses AGPS don't expect it to save your ass if your lost in the woods somewhere without access to a cell phone network.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #264 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

7) It;s on the back and it just screams Apple. I wonder how much Cingluar fought (and failed) at getting their name/logo on the phone?

Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.

The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system based on the cell towers and not satellites. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.
post #265 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.

The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.

Let's not rush to judgement on this.

Why would he have bothered to mention it at all if that's all it is?

ALL cellphones come with GPS for that purpose.

Remember that this hasn't yet been through the FCC wringer, which is tough. Possibly he didn't want to mention a use that might not get approved.

They also have to finalize the software. When he had a meeting with Pogue for an hour yesterday, and Pogue was using the phone, he had a few rough spots. Jobs said it wasn't finished, and that there were "placement" icons on the screen that hadn't yet been assigned. More secrets?

Jobs doesn't mention things if there isn't a good reason.
post #266 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexapple View Post

People here seem to think that an iPod is coming with all the funcionality of the iPhone iPod. They are (almost certainly) wrong. The reason for this is simple - this phone packs a *lot* of processing/graphical punch to pack all these features in with full multitasking. Even Cover Flow needs a lot of power (try it out on an old G4). An iPod that could do all the non-phone stuff would still need to be really expensive, pretty much as expensive as the iPhone - hence we just get the iPhone.

Furthermore, it is the logical extension of the iPod growth. It started off simple but they have slowly been adding functionality to it. Why have a telephone, and an iPod, and a PDA (as I do at the moment)? It makes no sense because once you get the hardware meaty enough it might as well as do all the things together...

I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.

But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.

I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.

A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.

Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
post #267 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.

But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.

I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.

A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.

Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.

I can pretty much agree with this. It's a good assessment of the situation.

Congrats on your first post.

It's self serving for me to say so, as I just agreed with it, but I think it's a good one.
post #268 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



Yes of course, been there done that, about 40 times in fact, but that was 10 years ago. Don't know how it's done now, but back then it required alot of post-processing and quality control. Especially if you were tracking something over 20-30 miles, say large ships in channels, say in the Panama Canal, say during the 1997 el Nino, and needed 6-DOF motions (minimum of 3 receivers on the moving body), and needed cm level accuracy (X, Y, and especially Z) from all three receivers.

But the point was that these are direct line-of-sight GPS techniques, they don't use AGPS (i. e. a combination of known cell tower coordinates (GPS coordinates) and RF triangulation + an assistant server to do the heavy lifting (calculate the cell phones position to 50m-300m (+/-))). So if the iPhone only uses AGPS don't expect it to save your ass if your lost in the woods somewhere without access to a cell phone network.


Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.

In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.

The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.

The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.

A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.
post #269 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.

In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.

The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.

The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.

A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help to decode that information.

Yes. That's what it does.
post #270 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.

In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.

The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.

The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.

A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.



By help, I ment help yourself if you were lost in the woods, or lost on the road but outside cell phone service, cell is the transmitter and GPS is the receiver. I thought it was obvious, oh well.

AGPS is no better than RF triangulation (except for the fact that now the static GPS cell tower locations have been surveyed and submitted and EE HW has been added) in the cases where the cell phone doesn't have direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites, the cell tower ground based RF triangulation is the weak link here.

Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.

And that's how I entered this discussion, when someone asked if SJ was using actual GPS telemetry, I suggested perhaps not because he was inside (which would have blocked the iPhone GPS receiver because there was no direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites).

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #271 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.


I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.

My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.
post #272 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.

But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.

I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.

A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.

Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.

I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis. 250 gb flash storage memory isn't just around the corner so if you want to have your entire music library and video library with you it may be a while. Apple is clearly choosing mobility and form factor over storage and rightly so. Look at the best selling iPods. The 'work around' is the ability to access your library via .Mac (google and Yahoo in the future?) and download your other media when you desire.

I thinl flash memory will improve but I don't think it will catch up to people's demands for storage soon. By the time that that occurs I think users will have adapted to accessing their library with the device.
post #273 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis.

Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.

It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.

Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #274 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.

My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.



OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.

But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #275 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.

I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device. One telling statement from yesterday's keynote was along the lines of 'internet and phone in your pocket'. I really think the emphasis is going to be on portability going forward, not storage capacity. Often in life there are tradeoffs. I think Apple will sacrifice storage capacity for small form factor, less power consumption and better reliability when subjected to movement. To me that means flash. IMO.

PS i just looked at my thread and your response and I want to add that I think future iphones will have flash memory and not HDDs. In my previous post I said iPods. My bad.
post #276 of 437
I love this quote from TIME:
"Apple's new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. "

- Jasen.
post #277 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.

It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.

Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.

It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.

Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.
post #278 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device.

So you think Apple are going to drop the HDD iPod before they can replace it with a flash one of at least equal storage capacity for the same or lower price? Didn't think so.

It is clear that with the phone, an HDD is a dumb option as it would make the phone too heavy and too expensive, not enough people would want it.

But we're talking about a "pure" iPod. An HDD iPod with widescreen instead of 4:3 screen. Plenty of people seem to want that. Apple could do as they do with the current iPod line-up - offer one widescreen version with fash and another with HDD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.

Definitely.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #279 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.

Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.

The biggest drawback to HDDs is they don't withstand movement well in my experience. A cell phone has to be able to withstand a fair amount of abuse (such as accidental drops) and flash is much better suited to this.
post #280 of 437
In the US all new cell phones are required to receive GPS. Currently they send the raw data to the providers servers when they figure out the location.

There is nothing that would keep Apple from also decoding the raw data within the phone so you would not need the providers server. That way any application could use the GPS data. I'm guessing that what is happening with the maps. Apple is sending real GPS location data and the map data is then returned.

When Apple lets the developers gain access I would assume we'll see navagation applications that will run on the iPhone.

One last note, for me only having EDGE is a show stopper, $500 to $600 for a device that can only do 80 to 110 kbps is just plain nuts. I really hope that Apple will add faster data rates before the release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.

But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple stuns Macworld crowd with multi-function iPhone device