A glimpse of iPhone 2.0?

The US is definitely behind in 3G coverage. But to be fair the US deployed mobile technology earlier and has a much larger area to cover with more people using mobile phones than Europe. So it will take time to update new technology.

As far as the Samsung Ultrasmart F700. All we have so far are renderings and a partial spec sheet. That says nothing about how well the phone will work. From the direction the iPhone is headed I don't see this really being a direct competitor.

EDIT: The Samsung has no WiFi that blows any comparison right there.

Plus the UI probably won't be as good...

How much do you want to bet that no matter how much it costs or how brief the battery life or how small on board memory, it will be met with ecstasy by the same people dismissing the iPhone for........ being too expensive and not having enough memory or battery life.

In fact, judging by the comments on the Engadget article, the Apple bashers are ready to declare it the iPhone killer just based on some still shots and no details.

Really, people love to go on about the unseemliness of "Apple fan boys" but if you read the comments they are high fiving each other specifically because they imagine that this phone "sticks it to Apple" and will crush the spirits of Apple fan boys and leave Steve Jogs a shattered husk.

That strikes me as way more fucked up than being an enthusiast of a given platform.

Have to agree with addabox overall.

Compared to the iPhone this would not interest me at all because....
1) It's got to be quite a bit thicker than the iPhone given the sliding function for the keypad

2) It's likely to be heavier if it is indeed thicker

3) while you can't really judge yet the pictures of the SW look somewhat childish and thrown together. simple silhouettes without labels. I still have kick myself to go to the stupid wrench image for the possible tool I'm looking for.

4) have to wait and see what the 'real browser' really does before comparing

Some of these are guesses as there is no real data on this phone. Also, a qualifier, I have NO interest in 3G as long as I have wifi. wifi is free at enough places that I wonder why should I pay the exhorbitant prices for high-speed data access. Maybe edge would be OK depending on pricing (haven't done a detailed comparison) for a few things.

One thing I'd like to know is what is the color depth of the iPhone. I know a lot of these screen are 64K or like this one 256K. I hope the iPhone is 16million. Also, if the report is correct that the iPhone has three processors, how does that compare to other smart phone?

Even thought the iPhone probably sits more between a smartphone and UMPC.




This is more of iPhones competition than most other smartphones. Because most smartphones are missing some fundamental functionality of the iPhone. While the iPhone has most of the fundamental functionality of a UMPC.

Actually, that picture is a great example of what the iPhone is all about, UI wise.

Sony does old school "serious" design as well or better than anyone. Their products are generally purposeful looking, with clean a "we mean business" layout and a kind of "pro" vibe.

However, that means that if you want to actually use something like the UMPC pictured, you are going to have to learn how. It's almost as if a deal were being made: we'll give you power, but you have to submit to the complexity that that entails, and that's how it should be. Something this mighty doesn't warrant a "friendly" interface because that would be beneath it. But once you figure it out, won't you feel like teh awesome fighter pilot?

I think we all agree that the iPhone UI is destined for a wider range of products, and that its UI is a completely different vibe from something like the Sony. Kind of a "come on in here and check it out!" kind of thing. Apple seems to be under the impression that anybody might want to be able to have a lot of computing power in the palm of their hand, not just the technorati.

Since that has never happened before, we have no idea how the target market--everybody else-- will respond, but meanwhile the same technorati that is so very pleased with being able to master really bad UI design are the ones doing all the talking.

So in that sense everything being said now means nothing. The composition of the punditry, in this case, is just 180º around in their thinking from where Apple is going with this. Of course they're not impressed, because they already have a phone that "does all that" or a phone is coming out will "do all that but even better". Of course they have opinions on "must have" features that the iPhone lacks, or are certain it will fail if it doesn't cater to their needs.

They are the narrow demographic that has already mastered the existing paradigm. That makes you smarter and more technically adept than most people, so why would you welcome a device that makes your hard won skills irrelevant?

It's very similar to the Mac vs. Windows debate of some time ago, when the Windows interface was truly grim: you heard all the time that it was that very grimness that made Windows a "real" computer, and that the Mac's ease of use was proof of its lack of seriousness. A toy. Toys are easy to use, real computers require cultivated skills.

Now Windows is Vista, so it's pretty clear how that debate sorted out in the end, isn't it?

So here we go again, as if that lesson had never been learned. The gnarly little interfaces already out there are perfectly serviceable ("I have no problem using it, so if you can't it must mean you just aren't smart enough") and the iPhone is just a lot of eye candy.

And guess which way the industry will go?

i played with that umpc at the sony store in the metreon when i was in san fran last month. at first glance it seems really cool, until you start using it and realize that it sucks. it's not a great small media device and it's not a great computer. it's basically a computer that's inconveniently small or a pda that's really huge and unportable. nice screen and generally nice build quality, but i can't really see a situation in which i'd enjoy using that. i'd prefer a tablet greatly over that machine. at least a tablet is large enough to be read easily.

Probably a dumb question, but I've never used EDGE before.

How much of a difference is 3G over EDGE. I'm thinking in terms of rendering time and just the overall browsing experience?

Is it like DSL is to dial-up?

BTW, well said addabox in the above post. I find it amusing a lot of those engadget posters are praising Samsung for making a phone that's sticking it to Apple when in fact it's Samsung that has a primary role in the iPhone itself.

3G radio doesn't much matter if you have no 3G signal. Even though Edge is much slower it has wider deployment.

Samsung's UI is based on Flash which is basically pretty animations with no real power underneath. iPhone is based on OS X API's, desktop level development platform.

People take megapixels too much at their face value. As in everything its more complicated than only 2MP vs 5MP. There is a reason they can have a 8MP point and shoot that costs $300 and a 8MP SLR that costs $900. The more expensive camera has a better lens and more sophisticated image processing than than cheaper camera. Which improves sharpness, color, contrast, low light ability.

The quality of the lens plays a paramount part into the quality of the image. I'm sure all camera phones are using the cheapest lens possible. There is a limiting factor of how sharp a picture such a small lens can resolve that more pixels won't help. Plus over time the lens will get scratches which degrades the quality.

That's disappointing since Cingular actually has a decent 3G network here in Sacramento.

Do they? I wonder what they look like here in the Bay Area-- I never checked.

I can understand why Apple wouldn't put a feature on the iPhone that the vast majority of its potential users couldn't use, but I hope that Cingular/ATT have some kind of fairly aggressive rollout of 3G coverage planned.

Speaking of which, anyone know what such a rollout would entail? Are we talking massively expensive, wholesale replacement of transponders and back-end hardware? Software upgrades?

Just curious.

adda,

http://www.cingular.com/coverageviewer/

Center in on the yay area and click Show 3G coverage. You have to be zoomed in a bit closer on the map.

Thanks for the link.

And....... we got nothin'. Huh. Oh well, at least I won't be bummed knowing that my iPhone could have been doing 3G if they had just put the radio in.

Still, if ATT can't manage 3G in the Bay Area, with its heavy concentration of smart phone wielding tech workers, it suggests the national picture ain't so good.

You've got pretty good coverage in Sacto, you say? Maybe they're doing test markets? Maybe Ahnold order them to?

Ummm...you got a little more than nothin'. All of San Francisco and Oakland is covered under 3G. A lot of the Bay Area has 3G, except for parts west of Martinez and all of Pittsburg. And they don't even deserve 3G anyways...

Continue to be bummed.

Ah yes, poor Ahnold. There's only two things he can't have in his life...

The Presidency and a 3G iPhone.

Have you people ever thought that Steve Jobs made an enormous error in announcing the iPhone so early before it is shipped.

As you can see, Samsung and now a whole raft of unsrcupulous chinese are going to basically copy the design as and where they want to. China doesn't give a shite about copyright violations and they will make it one quarter as good, but it will be there.

So while we are waiting patiently for this marvel to turn up, the real phone manufacturers will be slaving away, picking out what they perceive is wrong with the iPhone, improving on it, and they will probably still beat the iPhone to market.

Plus, the iPhone has some critical flaws. No 3G? come on guys, GSM is still flourishing, but its not the future. And putting wifi in, well, if you want Telco's to sell your phone, you want Telco's to be maximising their revenue return from the phone they are promoting, which the iPhone does not do. There are a few companies which ave been offered this thing before Cingular came along and all turned it down. I dont beleive this device has a viable future much more than a very cool curiosity. People want real tools that they can use, and this isn't one of them.

-I am a telecommunications consultant and have seen what is being said around the industry about it. I do wish them well, but they have to improve the design.

OK, I must be misreading the link you posted. It appears to be saying that 3G is marked by blue, and I'm not seeing any blue.

Plenty of orange, which it indicates best quality regular service, I guess. Or am I getting that wrong?

Oh, I get it, they want me to tick the box to see 3G. Duh!

And, grrrrrr...... all that 3G goodness going to waste! I demand iPhone 2.0 immediately!

They had to if they wanted to make a splash. Otherwise, the FCC would have leaked it. The release cycle they chose was the least damaging time anyways, and they chose the announcement and shipping time frames very carefully to avoid the iPod sales season.


This isn't a copy. You don't make hardware in 2 months. It takes 2 years.

This looks to be a pretty interesting phone. Looks to be a Symbian phone with a Flash based WIMP UI that supports drag and drop and a low-level vibrating feedback to touchscreen touches. The vibrating feedback will be interesting. The rest is who knows.

The 5 MP camera is just featuritis. 90% useless. My 5 MP Canon Powershot 2 IS is a decent digital camera. If has 12x optical zoom with image stabilization and a raft of other features to control F-stop, exposure timings, auto-focus, color, etc. It still doesn't do well in low light, or in fast situations. My wife even down converts to 1024x768 for all the pictures we print! The 5 MP camera on this phone is like using a lawnmower engine to power an SUV. It'll move, but not very fast. 2 MP on the iPhone is almost too much. I can't believe people get excited about cameras on phones.


Really doubtful that they'll be able to do any of that. The real response will only come if or when Apple proves that there is a large and very profitable $500 consumer phone market.


If there was a critical flaw with the iPhone, it's the 4/8 GB flash. They should have 30/80 GB instead. The 3G radio will come, probably within 6 months of initial launch. I have no doubt about it.

For the rest of your comments, Apple isn't really interested in selling a business tool. Their only real business machine is the Xserve RAID, maybe. The Mac and MB Pros service their content creation market which is really part of their legacy, and the rest are consumer devices. The iPhone will live or die in the consumer space, and whether it really is the best iPod to date, easy to use phone, and easy to use mobile internet communicator, all in one device.

As for making money for Cingular, if the phone is successful, the money will be in a new set of wealthy users willing to spend lots of money on data plans and other features that the telco will offer. You think people buying a $99 Moto Q or $200 Treo is going to spend $50/month on data plans?

Why do you believe the iPhone is not a real tool? The iPhone essentially has a blank screen that any application or UI can be placed, its about the most flexible tool in its market.

I've played around with a friends Blackberry. It does not show you full web pages. To navigate the web is not very easy. The BlackBerry does not show you full e-mail as it would appear on a desktop computer with picture or video attachments. In-spite of its short comings the Blackberry is considered a valuable tool. Considering the iPhone does both of these tasks better where does the iPhone fall short?


They have to strike a balance with size, weight, and battery life. None of the most popular smartphones have a HDD. Hopefully Apple will be able to update to 16GB by launch.

??? The bulk of cellular technology is developed by US companies, and it irks me to no end when people make foolish claims like this. Since 1995, the USA has lead the world in cellular network technology and implementation. Europe was the first to have digital cellular networks in the late 80's, but they've stagnated since then.

There's no system in the world that supports 7.2Mbps. The phone itself may support a planned future protocol, but the reality of the situation is that Japan's NTT HSDPA network is the fastest at 3.5Mbps or thereabouts, and the EVDO networks in the good 'ol USA (and elsewhere) aren't far behind at ~3Mbps. I'm pretty sure the EVDO-based US 3G networks from Sprint and Verizon combine to be the largest in the world. European cell networks are mostly minor-league, 2.5G networks.

Beside this, given the bandwidth of HSDPA (and its underlying W-CDMA), there's no magic way to deliver 7.2Mbps reliably to very many individuals in an urban or suburban region. The realistic optimum is around 1Mbps, the same as you'll get with Sprint in the USA.

For an iPhone product with only one model upon introduction, they had to make some tough decisions, I agree. Flash was used for more battery life and better reliability considering a phone would receive a lot more abuse than an iPod. From that perspective, it's the right decision.

However, this is supposed to be the most advanced iPod ever. One of the biggest selling points of the iPod is that one can carry all the music and video you have in your pocket. Not so with the iPhone. Even I with my modest collection of music and photographs would likely need the 8 GB model. When you add in video, the memory needs will explode.

Flash is inherently limited in price/GB and size/GB when compared to HDD. It won't break a comfortable usage barrier for video until 2009, maybe, when 8 Gbyte flash chips could be available, and 32+ GB of flash can be packaged in the iPhone.

In the meanwhile, our needs for memory, certainly for a subset of people, would really be in the 100+ GB range. I see no choice but for Apple to have an HDD option. In the current 2007 iPhone lineup, it really only has enough memory to dabble in video, not store video.

This post didn't go well...

[QUOTE=THT;1040462In the meanwhile, our needs for memory, certainly for a subset of people, would really be in the 100+ GB range. I see no choice but for Apple to have an HDD option. In the current 2007 iPhone lineup, it really only has enough memory to dabble in video, not store video.[/QUOTE]

If you've acess to your data and media via iDisk do you really need all that storage space? Certainly some will but the average user probabaly doesn't. Much like the xMac, only appeals to the uber geeks.

EDGE theoretical download bandwidth is 237 kbit/s, with actual bandwidth hovering around 100 kb/s. You'll be able to download a Mbyte of data in about 1.5 minutes. So, about 2 to 2.5x as fast as 56k dial-up (if you account for the fact that you never get a 56k connection).

DSL downstream at its cheapest is 256-750 kb/s, and one can get 1.5+ Mbit/s fairly easily.

3G UMTS and HSDPA is on the order of 2 Mbit/s. Some options for more.

As for your question about rendering time and overall browsing experience. I hazard a guess that the differences between EDGE and UMTS/HSDPA will be pretty minimal with a few exceptions. You're not browsing the Internet on a personal computer. You're are browsing it on a phone with a 3.5" screen at 480x320 resolution, powered by a ~500 MHz processor. That processor isn't going to be rendering very fast. I don't think the increased bandwidth will help much in that regard. It'll help if you have to download tens of MB of data everyday to your phone.

The browsing experience will suck compared to your desktop/laptop. No doubt about it. You can simulate the experience by resizing your web browser window to 480x320. Only the webpage and scroll bars need to be in the 480x320 pixel frame. Then surf the Internet. And you can't use your mouse or trackpad. Then imagine it 5 times slower. That'll be pretty close.

If you want to know what it'll be like for Treo Palm users, shrink the browser to 320x320. Windows Smartphone users, 320x240. Treo Windows users, 240x240.

It's too bad there isn't an easy way to downclock your CPU to 500 MHz. Oh, and take your RAM down to 256 MB, and maybe bring back an ISA VGA video card of yesteryear. If you had an iMac G3 with 500 MHz CPU, and use a screen resolution of 320x240, that could be close.

So the primary benifit of 3G is downloading big files and streaming video/music. Flash-based websites could benifit presuming the browser can handle it. Everything else, general browsing, there's probably a slight rendering improvement due to data data being there quicker, but you've got other problems bottlenecking the system with the CPU, input methods, and the screen res.


There's a lot of anti-Apple sentiment out there. The phone market is even more so, especially because it is caught in the midst of featuritis where if the number is bigger, it is better by default. Usability is pretty much an afterthought. It's going to be tough row to hoe for Apple.

iDisk is a workaround, not a feature. It in effect, makes the iPhone harder to use. In a way, it's like SD slots. Nice to have expandable storage, but it makes the device harder to use. It's just easier if all the storage needed is available.

As for the storage space. I don't see a problem with wasted space in today's bountiful video world. My argument is predicated on storing video afterall. If it was music, I don't see much of a problem for 90% of iPhone users using it as an iPod.

all samsung did was take an old phone and slap a touch screen on it. Correct me if im wrong but doesnt apple have a patent on the multi touch interface. This may be why this phone has a slide out keyboard This is a serious draw back for this phone. Also, samsung and all other phone companies are know for their ugly hard to use interfaces. Apple's interface looks easy to use and beautiful. It may have a 5mp camera, but who really uses their phone as a good camera. The main thing i do like about this phone is the 3g, but i dont think it has wifi so you are locked into higher rates. It looks nice and has a good camera, but will be crippled by lack of multi touch, wifi, and a bad interface

You da man, THT...

I think we may see this new Samsung phone offered by either Sprint or Verizon Wireless using EVDO wireless broadband, which widely available in most major metropolitan areas in the USA.

I do think the iPhone's multi-touch input will make for the best browsing experience among PDAs and phones, marginally usable as opposed to unusable, but your expectation shouldn't be as if it is like on your computer.

It never was. I still will enjoy it when I go to the bay area, am in class, or on the pot.

I think you've just come up with an idea for one incredibly hilarious iPhone commercial

If you send & receive email attachments on your smart phone, it makes a big difference. The EVDO services I've used blow away non-3G services for basic business usage of the smart phone, since it's not uncommon for PDFs and images to be sent. I've never tried a UTMS or HSDPA service.

All at the same time? I never thought about that!

Oh so you mean I can edit Office documents on the iPhone? Oh wait, I can't. The iPhone 1.0 is like the iPod 1.0...lacking so, so, so much. At least to begin with. Like a mic. And radio w/ recording. They both have infinite potential. Mostly because of their huge screens and processing power, and thus upgradeability via software. Here's to hoping 2.0 will be insanely great. It'll probably be good enough for me to not be able to resist it.

To edit Office documents only requires the software to do so. There is no technical need for a second generation iPhone to offer this simple functionality. At this point we don't know if this type of software will be offered.

Double post

Yes you will. SInce it has a really decent web browser - Safari- just go to docs.google.com. Support for safari has already been announced.