Citigroup: Checks point to 3G iPhone within four months - Page 2

Do you know that for certain, and if so, how? Have you researched the iPhone teardowns in great detail or something?

And, MUCH more importantly, how do you know that a 3G iPhone won't have room for a better camera, considering that we don't know what the dimensions for it will be yet, or how much room the new (and allegedly quite compact) chipset will be taking up?

Speculation is all n' good Teno, but, c'mon.


.

I agree, but it just doesn't matter. Because your average buyer peruses a spec sheet, and decides from there.

I know its the 'Megahertz Myth' all over again, but there it is, for good or ill. \


.

I dunno... simply changing the storage capacity and nothing else doesn't feel like a whole new model.

I mean, geez, you're kinda doing the same thing by sticking a microSD card in your phone. Though yes, I know, having more INTERNAL storage means that the possible total storage (internal + external) is higher. Still... meh. 'iPhone 2.0' is the 3G iPhone, period.



No. Not if their '10 million sold in 2008' goal means anything to them, and all indications are that it does. The US alone won't get them 10 million sales in '08 (plus we're entering a recession), though I guess one can pretend so if they drink enough of the Apple Kool-Aid and follow it with a whiskey chaser (or three).



I'd agree that camera and MMS matter more in Europe, but to say that it doesn't matter in the US would be inaccurate. But, if you want better sales in Europe, and I'm sure Apple does, you address the MMS and camera issues, along with 3G.



That's likely true, up to a point. But it doesn't matter. People buy on perceived quality, for good or ill, and the main way the average person determines that is specs.

It may be that the iPhone camera is not all that much worse than the camera on most competing high-end phones for most ppl in most situations-- but if it looks much worse on paper, yah, that's not good, particularly in Europe.



I've heard that too, and have no reason to doubt it. Lots of talented filmmakers/directors have yet to make the switch to digital, and quality is the #1 thing they bring up in citing why.


.

iPhone tear downs aren't difficult to find. Its easy to compare Viewty and N95 specs and dimensions. They aren't anything the same as the iPhone.

Teno, the point was the 6500 is 9.5mm thin, has a 2mp camera, flash and 3G and it's as big as a 2G nano. It's a middle of the road phone here. The fact it doesn't have a big screen is an ADVANTAGE. It's supposed to be small, in the same way nanos are and I guess you'd be one of the guys complaining they can't fit 160gb of video on it.

If Nokia can do those specs in something that small, why can't Apple in something whose volume is probably 4x that of the 6500? Answer is 'they can' but as THT pointed out, they were too US centric to look at what people outside the USA want from a phone. We get a stock ticker here for instance still. Does anyone in the UK outside of the city of london care?

(on a side note, wtf do I need an ESPN widget for and why no hash key on the keyboard?)

The Viewty is also smaller than the iPhone. It's slightly thicker by 2mm around the lens but that's the only place. It does have a ridiculous lens for a phone but it's supposed to be also a cracking camera too. They're selling it to people who do indeed go on holiday and just take the phone. Any wedding I've been to in the last few years has been pretty bereft of cameras and apart from the wedding photographer and me, there's rarely even a PAS never mind a (D)SLR.

Hi, I just got an iPhone on Monday and am really happy with the device. What do you think will happen in terms of an ugrade to the 3G iPhone? Is that a possibility? Otherwise it would be kind of annoying having to wait 18 months to get the new iphone...

So what do you call a revision that simply changes the data band support to work in a specific country? Is that a new model? Is the N96 really the N95 2.0 in your parlance then? It doesn't matter to me. My contention is the perception that cell phone companies release new models every few months. Within 1 model, that really doesn't happen, and Apple just have 1 model.


Sure it can. It's called reducing the price of the iPhone. Reducing the price of monthly service. Introducing a new and more models. Selling the iPhone in more countries.


I didn't say it didn't matter. I said it wasn't that big of a driver. It matters less in the USA than it does in Europe. Heck, I've assumed that it matters in Europe, but I wonder if that is really true. The fact that Nokia, SE, et al are selling nice camera phones doesn't mean that camera functions are really driving sales. (Correlation does not equal Causation).

Lastly, if Apple wants better sales in Europe, it's not necessarily features. It's the cost of the phone itself, and the cost of the monthly service. By making those two costs in Europe comparable to what it is in the USA ($399 and $60 respectively, before tax), it can certainly generate more sales. These two are the biggest drivers for the saleability of the iPhone.


I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales. However, I don't agree that it is necessary for the iPhone to become a camera phone or a point-n-shoot replacement. The iPhone's reason for existance is usability/fun to use in terms of calling functions, music/video functions, and Internet functions. It doesn't have to have the best camera function. Just merely adequate.

You're contending that's a mistake. Well, I really don't think so. It's the cost of iPhone ownership that drive its sales in Europe. I really don't think the camera is that big of a deal.

No, but you said they "could" wait 2 years to go 3G, which obviously would be a very poor decision.

I am glad to see, however, that you're capable of changing your mind when presented with new information. If you were in politics you'd be labeled a 'flip-flopper', but I'd say that being able to modify your point of view in light of new evidence is one of the signs of a sound intellect.



And... it just doesn't matter. Sure, you and I may not look at megapixels or other features (such as video capture) and being 'end-all, be-alls', but your typical phone buyer does. For good or ill, Apple does have to worry about how bad the iPhone looks on a spec sheet. '2.0 megapixel camera and no vid capture' simply looks bad against '5.0 megapixel camera WITH video capture.' You may know that it's not that cut-and-dried, but a great many propsective iPhone buyers do not. We can complain about that, but it doesn't change the fact.



It's more like I'm confused because the point made wasn't a very good one... namely that only products that are a high percentage of a company's revenue affect the stock price.

But that's not how investors think. They look at NEW products that have the potential to GROW a company's revenues. The iPhone is such a product, and was much of the reason why Apple's stock got bid up to $200 not long ago. The iPod? Great product, but year-over-year revenues for it have been flat or nearly so recently. Not much of a perceived growth story there, though you could argue that the iPod Touch will eventually change all that. Still, that's not the popular investor perception right now... they're like, "Okay, SHOW me."

Investors are still stuck on the iPhone growth story though, and are rewarding/punishing Apple's stock in large part based on that. And why wouldn't they be? Jobs himself announced it as one of Apple's three major businesses. For example, if a 3G iPhone were to be announced as coming out next week, would the stock jump, A LOT? You bet it would. Conversely, if Jobs came out and said, "No 3G iPhone 'til 2009", would the stock dive? Yep, it would. And all that would be happening with a product that last quarter was "only" about 10% of Apple's revenues.

So, its not just a product's absolute share of the current revenue pie. It's also what the product is seen as doing for a company going forward. I think the iPhone has the potential to eventually be as huge for Apple as the iPod has been... IF Apple executes correctly.




Well, either that, or "some" are just very bad at math.

2.3 million iPhone sold in calendar Q4 at $400 a pop (more in Europe) is close to $1 billion, even WITHOUT revenue sharing. Apple's revenue in Q4 was $9.6 billion. If close to $1 billion out of $9.6 billion in revenue sounds like 3% to YOU, then you are smoking something powerful that you should've offered to share with me. Shame on you, Teno.



Again, it just doesn't matter. The real question is not whether the iPhone's camera is as good as a dedicated camera, but whether or not it's perceived as being competitive with the cameras offered in competing products... which for the iPhone are OTHER HIGH-END PHONES, *not* dedicated digital cameras.

.

Well, it looks like they did a bit more to the N96 than simply up the storage. I'd still call it only a minor revision though:

What's new to [the N96] is the 16GB internal memory, 950 mAh battery, ability to use flash while video recording, microUSB, and Flash Lite 3 enabled web browser.

In any case, what ppl were pointing out is that the cellphone world moves rapidly, with frequent model revisions. Perhaps not every '3 to 6 months' as someone stated, but every year for sure, and often faster than that? Yes, I'd say that's accurate. I'd peg model revs at every 6 to 12 months for most models most of the time. Aegis may have some added perspective here, regarding the Euro market.



How does "selling the iPhone in more countries" equal Apple selling 10 million iPhones in the US in '08, which is what we were discussing??

Sure, a price cut would help US sales, as would the intro of a 3G model, and I expect both. But Apple choosing to sell through only one carrier in the US, plus the fact that we're entering a recession makes 10 million sales in the US in 2008 quite the pie-in-the-sky goal. Heck, many analysts believe that its going to be a major challenge for Apple to sell 10 million iPhones worldwide in '08, and I tend to agree. They can do it, but they're going to have to execute.



I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.



Price certainly matters, though I don't think Apple can make the Euro iPhone the same price as the US model, due to the taxes over there. But Apple has already taken steps to make the plans more competitive, as they did with O2 already.

But price is only half the battle. Some features obviously DO matter... I think you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to hear the repeated cries for 3G from the Euros over the past few months. Ditto MMS, really.



Good to hear. There are some that deny even that.



Yep, and I'd define "adequate" as being comparable on a specs sheet to the phones the iPhone is competing with. As you yourself say, "I'll agree with the perception that more is better and its effect on sales."



2.0 MP and no video recording just looks bad on a phone as expensive and hyped as the iPhone. Not as bad as no 3G does to the Euros, but it does matter some. If the next iPhone is similarly spec'd, I think it'll be pretty disappointing to anyone who cares even moderately about the camera and/or video functionality of their high-end phone.

.

'specs-poor' is the right word. While the iPhone's specs don't look very impressive, I've gotten usable pictures from my iPhone - something I could never say about my Nokia which had equivalent specs.

It should be about the result, not the specs.



My question is whether 3G will be expected to improve the sound quality and reduce the number of dropped calls. That's my biggest gripe about the iPhone.

Oh that's so, so wrong.

The problem with the iPhone pricing is that it very much IS comparable with the USA, give or take the usual Apple markup for Europe and our taxes. Even the tariffs looked like piss poor US copies when they first launched here.

The problem is it has to be comparitively priced to European competitors. The O2 tariffs are almost reasonable now. The up front cost however is frankly rediculous when there's not a phone you can't get for free with a similar tariff. It's way, way out of line. Still, I'd probably still pay that and the O2 tariff is passable, Apple geek that I am.

Then there's the feature comparison, which in Europe is starkly off what we're used to and what the networks provide. Remember we didn't have EDGE here before the iPhone. The nice UI doesn't make up for the missing software and hardware for me.

And that's why many people I know are waiting for their second attempt.

I agree. But, sadly, it isn't.




That's a really good question. ATT's GSM network is widely regarded as being mediocre, which is what you're encountering. However, ATT's 3G (HSDPA), unlike Verizon and Sprint's 3G (EVDO), handles not only data but voice as well. And 3G has a higher voice capacity than GSM (in part because it uses a better technology [CDMA] for the air interface).

So, if you are within ATT's 3G coverage area, it's possible that you'll see better voice performance and fewer dropped calls with a 3G iPhone... that's my understanding, anyway. But I think someone like Electric Monk or Aegis might be able to talk about this from a position of greater experience, since they actually use 3G for voice, I believe (I don't, currently).

.

Well, TenoBell did qualify that statement with "in the Viewty or Nokia N95." And the 6500 Classic does not have a camera like in the Viewty or the N95. Also, the Nokia 6500 Classic isn't the size of the 2G iPod nano. Dimensions:

iPod nano 2G: 90 x 40 x 6.5 mm, 23.4 cm^3
6500 classic: 109.8 x 45 x 9.5 mm, 47 cm^3
iPhone: 115 x 61 mm x 11.6 mm, 81.4 cm^3

So, the iPod nano 2G is 2x as small as the 6500 classic. That aint trivial. The 6500 classic is also almost as long as the iPhone. They also left off a microSD slot, but included 1 GB of flash, which is not a 1 for 1 trade in volume.


Almost twice the volume. Not 4x. The iPhone has a 3.5 inch screen with tremendous brightness. The battery and the screen basically take up all of the room in the middle while the phone PCBs are at the top (2 boards stacked) and the bottom are the antennas, mic and speakers, iPod connector, etc.

Adding an LED flash is probably possible in the current factor, but they chose not to.


The quoted thickness (14.8mm) for the Viewty is for the body and does not include the protrusion for the camera lens. The Viewty actually has more volume than the iPhone.

THT basically said what i would have said.

The 8 GB iPhone costs 269 lb no? That's $540! I'm pretty sure we don't have 30% sales tax here. We're mostly 6 to 9% sales tax. The UK 16 GB is $660. The 35 lb monthly service is reasonable. It seems short on SMS messages though.


I'm fairly ok with the iPhone at "full" price sales strategy. But I definitely think the vector for sales is the monthly service costs. Unlimited EDGE plus whatever minutes/SMS for say 25 to 30 lb would be interesting to see. Obviously, when the HSPA version comes out, unlimited HSPA has to be on the low side as well.


I can certainly understand the lack of EDGE in Europe as a driving factor for low iPhone sales. Then again, I can help but think Apple expected it.

I don't agree that Apple should plan its products around consumer ignorance.



The iPhone was part of the reason. Selling higher revenue 2 million Mac's in a quarter is more what did it.



That is not true year over year profits grew 17%


Show us a quote from a major investor or analyst who says iPhone sales are the reason stock went down.


Show me any major tech website that takes the iPhone to task for having a 2MP camera. Or anyone who seriously cares about photo quality from from phones.

So, would you call the "N96" a N95 2.0? Or is it really just the N95-5? What would constitute a revised iPhone, the iPhone 2.0? And do other phone lines have the same revision cycle?


So, what's the contention? If the iPhone gets an HSPA revision in the Summer, that makes essentially 3 minor revisions within a year in your parlance. We can argue that it isn't the case if Apple doesn't come out with a revised iPhone by Summer, but the odds are pretty good they will.


Just ignore that part of the sentence.


I do agree they have to execute. I don't think anyone is arguing that.


It's the features that one values most. There's always tradeoffs in what a product will have. You want a camera phone. I don't think Apple intends the iPhone to be a camera phone. Maybe they will, but obviously not today.


I'm fairly confident that price or cost of ownership is more than half the battle, otherwise cheap cell phones and basic service wouldn't constitute the vast majority of what people have. Aegis himself said one big barrier to iPhone sales in the UK is the fact that other high end phones can be had for cheaper or free. (And obviously, cheap or free aint Apple).

The features just need to be good for what the iPhone is designed to do. Other features such as the camera are thrown in to provide basic functionality. I mean, if Apple was really serious about the iPhone being a good "phone", I'd like to have 3 or 4 speakers, 2 or 3 microphones, and better amp, filtering, shielding on the audio circuitry; but that's probably out of the scope of a cell phone. They seem really serious about the iPhone being a really good Internet thingy though.


So, if I'm looking for multimedia phone and I see the iPhone's 3.5" screen and compared to the N95-3/4's 2.8" screen or the Viewty's 3" screen, I'm calling the latter 2 losers. If I'm looking for a camera phone, well, it's obvious one should choose one of the latter 2. Does Apple have to compete and try to get camera phone customers? No.


I'm perfectly fine with it. I want it for the basic phone use, Internet, music and video. I'm waiting for HSPA, 16+ GB myself; not to mention my other barrier of entry, but the spouse is beside the point. Having a camera around isn't that important to me. Certainly having a better camera isn't a better tradeoff than the Internet browsing capability or a larger screen for video viewing.

The key is what does the majority of consumers want; or what does the target market want and can they sell enough. The cellphone market is big enough to support gigantic submarkets, so I don't think it is a huge issue for Apple not to have a featuritis phone.

They already do, and have for many years. For example, megahertz has mattered to Apple a lot through the years, even though we all know that how much work actually gets done per clock cycle matters more.

And what you'd call "consumer ignorance", the Apple marketing team would likely term "consumer reality".



Change that to "the iPhone was a big part of the reason", and you'll just about have it.




We were talking about revenues, Teno. You do understand the difference between revenues and profits, correct?



I could, and you know I'm very good at digging up such quotes, but... why bother? Nearly everyone I've talked to understands this but you. iPhone sales were not the sole reason why the stock took a dump (the economy sure hurt too) but they were a big part of it. The 'iPhone growth story' was overhyped, at least in the near term, and now we're paying for it. That's really a "Duh" as far as the investor picture goes.



I don't think it much matters, considering more ppl look at specs than read specific reviews on even the biggest tech sites, like CNET or Engadget.

Still, if it makes you feel better, I Google'd around for about 60 seconds and saw that Ars Technica called the iPhone out for missing camera and video features, though to be fair they found the camera to be "acceptable" (a ringing endorsement for any cutting-edge phone, to be sure):

Some major downsides to the iPhone's camera abilities are that it doesn't have support for digital zoom like most cameras do, and it has no setting for night photos (even the RAZR has both of these capabilities). Therefore, the iPhone can only take very limited photos in dim lighting and almost no photos whatsoever when it gets downright "dark."

Another glaring omission is the lack of video capabilities in the iPhone's camera: something that many very basic (and much cheaper) handsets can do. If Apple wants this to be a full-fledged multimedia device, adding video capabilities almost seems crucial.


Oh, and the Tech section of the London Times Online did notice the lack of megapixels:

The camera is only 2 megapixels, far fewer than the best 'camera-centric' phones, but the image is perfectly clear, if a little troubled by low light.


But of course, what really matters is word-of-mouth. This YouTube video (with nearly 200,000 views) made me wince, but it's largely true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Q5Q...eature=related


Anyways, why so defensive about the camera, Teno? Odds are Apple probably will fix it on the 3G iPhone, unless Jobs had too many three-martini lunches during the planning meetings.


.

Well, considering that you somehow forgot to include the part of my quote where I said the N96 was a minor revision to the N95, I think you got the answer to the first of your questions already.

And in an earlier post I already stated that the iPhone 2.0 = the 3G iPhone, period. So you've already been answered there as well.

Do other phone lines have the same revision cycle? If by that you mean that all phones should be held to the same standard as far as what constitutes a minor or major revision, I would agree with that.



There's no contention, I was simply agreeing with other folks who stated that model revisions occur frequently in the cell phone market. They do. But I wouldn't call an HSDPA (3G) revision to the iPhone "minor" by any means, as you do above.

The iPhone storage revisions? They're certainly minor, as nothing else was changed.



Ah, okay.




Yup. But no amount of execution gets them 10 million iPhone sales in the US alone in '08, however. To meet their goal, they're going to have to get significant sales in Europe and Asia. And I think they can, unless they are very slow on getting a 3G iPhone out and/or are incredibly inflexible on pricing.



Actually, the iPhone is already a camera phone, since it has a camera. I guess you mean a phone with a good camera... for a phone. And yes, I think that would help, considering that at the iPhone's high price point, ppl might reasonably expect something like a good camera, plus video capture, a flash, autofocus, etc.

Far as Apple's intentions go, perhaps you are right, and Apple thought it could skate by with the current camera specs. But, what does that prove? Apple also thought it could skate by in Europe with 2.5G and high pricing and do fine. But that hasn't really worked out too well.



Cost of ownership is important, but only if your feature set isn't a deal-breaker to begin with. Apple could lower the price of the iPhone considerably, but if they keep it at 2.5G, it still won't sell well in Europe. Not to mention Japan and Korea, where they're launching later this year.



I think there are a lot of ppl whose buying decision was influenced by the iPhone having a very large screen. And frankly, I'm surprised Apple hasn't made more hay about it in its ads... they seem to think that simply showing the screen is enough, even though showing it side by side with its competitors screens would be quite a coup.

But I guess Apple feels that showing its competitors at all in the commercials would be doing its competition a favor.



Apple doesn't have to do anything, but if they want to sell more iPhones, and I think they do, they do have to worry about how the iPhone looks versus its competition.



I'm happy to hear that. But I'm not worried about you, as you are not the market.



I don't think the iPhone needs to have every single possible cellphone feature under the sun... if I did, I'd be saying, "Where's the FM radio? Where's the flashlight?". But I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that it's logical to be at least on par (or close) with your competition in the features that a significant chunk of the high-end cellphone market actually cares about. 3G would be one of those features. MMS? Yes, ppl expect it. A camera with good specs, video recording, flash, autofocus? At this (high) pricepoint... yep.

You may not see it that way, and I respect your opinion. But frankly, I think Apple was a bit surprised at the iPhone's fairly poor reception in Europe, and is now realizing what it really takes to compete there (not to mention Asia). Thus, I think we will see some significant spec bumps and feature adds to the iPhone's camera/video capabilities in the 3G iPhone... not to mention elsewhere.

And if they do that, it will simply be a wise competitive move, not 'featuritis'. But if you see FM radio capability or a flashlight on the 3G iPhone, then you can call featuritis. And I will join you.

.

It's £269 (not lb, lb is a pound in weight, not currency) which is £228.94 before sales tax, or roughly $455. The 16GB is £280+tax or roughly $557. That's about normal for Apple. They never give us quite the US price. It's possible the difference is import tax being higher in the UK too, not just sales tax. Still, it's no great issue. Remember, our prices are always quoted including all taxes.

The monthly tariffs are reasonable now. They weren't when they launched here. They're about 5 times better than they were. The only problem really being that the base tariff is £35 and you can't get £15 or £25 tariffs which suit many more people than the higher tariffs.



The upfront cost is unsual. Usually if you pay that much upfront, you expect a short contract or cheaper tariff. If you got the current £35 contract for £25 and paid £269 for the handset it'd be almost competitively priced. Apple are charging a premium for it's logo.


Maybe. Maybe they just didn't have a 3G phone ready but thought they could at least sell a few hundred thousand 2G phones in the meantime to people who aren't as tech savvy. Coupling it to very expensive contracts though seems like a mistake they should have expected would fail. Still, at least O2 UK seem to have narrowed that problem. I can't help but think they've screwed up in Ireland though. That's even worse than we had in the UK at launch.

ok, it just felt about the same size as my nano in the shop, my mistake. My point was more that there are small, thin phones with 3G, with a reasonable camera, with a flash and decent battery life. There's no technical reason why Apple couldn't put that all in an iPhone which is quite a large phone. The Nokia 6500 in fact would make a pretty hot template for an 'iPhone Nano' except replace the keypad with a touch screen and allow it to be used in landscape mode to type. It's a nice size whereas I find the iPhone a little too big.

Anyone who bases their phone purchase on the megapixel count of the camera is an idiot.

They should buy MS products.

Apple doesn't simply use megahertz to measure performance. Over the past 10 years they've always used system benchmarks. Which measures the same task that takes the entire system to perform.


Actually I meant revenue and put profits by accident. I do know the difference and revenue generally has to grow for profit to grown. Revenue can grow and profit may not grow.



Well I haven't seen any major analyst directly make this correlation. Right now it is only your opinion without any supportive evidence.


Most people don't look at specs at all. The cool factor and "will it impress all my friends" are more important.


That's pretty much the worst that can be said. There are phones with better cameras. But the iPhones camera is acceptable because the cameras on other phones aren't that much better.


That was pathetic. But it goes along with what you do Baggins. A lot of unsupported opinion and conjecture. What would have been more helpful is actually showing blown up pictures taken with the two cameras. So we can see the difference and not just watch them talk about it.


I would much rather Apple improve the more useful features. I actually don't care about the camera. My point to you is that very few people do.

Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.

There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.


.

I think the "up to a point" in terms of playing the specs game is an important point. Maybe the iPhone camera probably should use some improvement, but more is not always better, especially when it comes to megapixels. What more megapixels does is divide the already meager available light among more sensor areas, making them effectively less sensitive and more noisy.

Do you know anything about photography?

I guess I'm coming off like a dick, but honestly don't you know about lenses, image sensors, flash(lighting) ect... things that make up PICTURE QUALITY?

Do you really think that adding a 5 megapixel camera to the iPhone will instantly make the pictures better?

Frankly I'm impressed with the quality of the images I've seen already with the iPhone. If you're really serious about photography, which I'm assuming since you claim the need for a higher megapixel camera, then get a decent point and shoot or a DSLR.

I think Apple will hold an event in June to introduce the 3g iphone and show off the different applications for it.

Do you know anything about this thread? Because you're repeating some very basic points that were covered many posts ago, ad nauseum. \



Well, yeah. But at least you're aware of it.



Read the thread. What you're saying isn't new.



Frankly, I don't care all that much if it does... though I certainly know ppl who would. I'm more concerned about improving the iPhone's position vs its competition, and improving iPhone sales.



That point was addressed many posts ago. Again, read the thread. Thanks.


.

After today, the only people who will care about the camera on the iPhone will be geeks at Ars and Anand.

And they were NEVER going to buy one in the first place. Now they have their excuse.

I apologize myself for my neuroticism with specs. Especially the correctness of specs. Technical specifications are part of the marketing these days. LG will gladly have people believe the Viewty is 14.8 mm thick at its thickest point, but it is not. I'm the sort of person that would force LG to put an asterisk next to the number with the small print saying it is the thickness of the body not including the lens protrusion. Same way with say, Lenovo x300 battery claims, thinness claims and weight claims (virtually every ultraportable laptop manufacturer have small print legalese stating their claims may "vary"). Apple probably breaks the battery claim too much, but at least they are somewhat close, Lenovo and others are really approaching lying on battery claims.

You're still missing a technical reason on why Apple would be add a disadvantage in terms of number of features versus the size of the phone. Twice the screen may be a 50% battery hit if the power consumption equation for "normal" cell phone devices is something like

total power consumption = 1/3rd is CPU, I/O, storage + 1/3rd are radios + 1/3rd is screen

On top of that the iPhone has one of the brightest screens on the market, if not the brightest. If wirelessinfo.com is right, the iPhone screen is 4x brighter than the LG Prada, a phone of similar aspirations; 2.8x brighter than a Palm Treo 750, 2.3x brighter than a Nokia N95-1, and 1.87x brighter than a Blackberry 8800. Only the HTC Kaiser/TyTn2/Tilt comes close to iPhone screen brightness. Twice the screen area at twice the levels of brightness of comparative phones means larger battery. On top of that, Apple's got a very thin form factor. This will all result in less volume for other goodies.

For a prospective iPhone "nano" with say a 3" screen and say a 102 x 52 x 12 mm form factor, I'd hazard a guess that 3G may not be possible if Apple wants decent 5+ hr battery life. Something may have to be reduced: screen brightness, battery life, WiFi chip, 3G; any number of things. Of course I'd prefer if they just made it 14 mm thick and maintain as many features of the current iPhone as possible.

Really? You honestly think because Apple announced that they're going to go for the corporate space with the iPhone, alluva sudden other features don't matter any more? Nah.

It's great that they're taking on RIM. But that doesn't make the competition automagically vanish.

In any case, it's a silly thing to get aggro about. The 3G iPhone will likely see a bump in camera resolution and features, and should be adding video capture. All that, on top of 3G, and the software update in June? Sweet.


.

I dunno Jeff... you seem to be saying that the N95's camera should be worse than the iPhone's, because it just has "too darn many megapixels". Okay, I'm sure there's instances where that's true, and perhaps I just have lousy taste, but I kinda like how the N95's shots look compared to the iPhone's, despite the excess megapixels:




Shot taken with N95



Shot taken with iPhone



Shot taken with N95



Shot taken with iPhone



Shot taken with N95



Shot taken with iPhone


The funny thing is that the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone anymore, if ever it was. The N82 is supposed to be quite a bit better (nice xenon flash too), and Samsung apparently has a new 10-megapixel cameraphone out in South Korea.

I'm sure good dedicated cameras are considerably better still, but again, it's not about being better than dedicated cameras, its about being competitive with the high-end cellphone competition that's out there.

Ah well. Looking forward to seeing how good the camera/video capabilities are on the 3G iPhone.


.

Ok. Doesn't change the fact that Apple has had to worry about megahertz as a selling factor for its products. You'd call it "designing around consumer ignorance", others would call it acknowledging the reality of the market.



Great. Regardless, the investment community sees mp3 players as a mature or maturing market. Add to that that Apple already has a very high marketshare in that market, and you can see why growth prospects there are not seen as high. The iPhone, by contrast, is a newcomer that potentially has a lot of room to grow, if Apple executes well. That's how they see it. You may not agree, but that is the reality.



"Teno doesn't get it." Noted. Used to it. At least you finally "got" 3G.



Meh. I'd say you need to appeal to both the status hounds and the tech spec geeks. It's not an "either/or" proposition.



From what I've seen, shots with the N95 do seem to look significantly better, and the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone out there.



To quote Teno: "Waaaah."

Actually T, I did post some N95 and iPhone comparo shots, feel free to check 'em out.

Oh, and why hate on the YouTube video? Sure, it's no-budget, and it's corny, but most of what they say is true. And they did get around 200,000 views... have you put up anything on there that's been remotely that successful? Heck, they got nearly as many views as the CNET N95 vs iPhone YouTube video (219,000 views).



And my point to you is that perhaps you assume that others don't care about the camera because you yourself do not. But, you are not the market.

I myself am not a big photography freak. But, despite that, I can still see how a phone at the iPhone's price point and with the iPhone's hype might create consumer expectations that the iPhone be feature- and spec-competitive with other high-end phones.

In any case, we will likely know by June or so which way Apple chose to go here. If the 3G iPhone comes out with a 2.0 MP camera and still no video recording, I will say, "Guess you were right Teno... Apple seems to agree with you that camera/video functionality is no big deal in the iPhone." But for myself, I expect either a 3.2 or 5.0 MP camera on the 3G iPhone, plus video recording. Perhaps a flash and autofocus as well.

If that happens (and I think it likely, since the chipset they'll likely use supports those things), will you then complain that Apple shouldn't have improved those things? That would be funny, in a curiously negative sort of way.



.

I think that enterprise features that now equal RIM, trump any perceived shortcomings of the built in camera.

The only people who care about the features of the iPhones camera are those that were never going to buy the thing.

Bullshit. I've absolutely no use for ActiveSync support since I'm entirely Mac and Linux based - no Exchange here. On the other hand, a decent enough camera *is* quite useful and the iPhone camera whilst passable, could be better. Is it a deal breaker? No, unlike ActiveSync support for some.

I do hope they've added IMAP IDLE support to the regular iPhone Mail app though, since my mail servers all support IMAP IDLE. Currently it only does IMAP push mail with Yahoo! mail.

What's bullshit? The enterprise features Apple just announced for the iPhone? I hope your kidding because its huge. Maybe not for you but for most corporate users this was a deal breaker. Now it isn't.

Add the enterprise features to the robust platform to write apps for and the 'weakness' of the camera looks pretty insignificant.

I understand it's huge for some. I was calling bullshit on your suggestion that ActiveSync support trumps a decent camera. Many people have absolutely no need for Exchange support (I don't know anyone actually but that's because I mostly don't deal with companies that run Microsoft solutions - my job is to provide the alternative) whereas they do have a need for a decent camera (most people I know). Since when was Apple's solution supposed to just be passable?

I'm actually kind of sad that Apple caved on the enterprise front. They've a decent platform themselves with IMAP IDLE, CalDav, Open Directory and their wiki collab server. None of that featured yesterday though. I hope their 'enterprise' features will include their own enterprise server standards at some point, not just Microsoft's.


You can't totally fix weak hardware with software.

Sorry, I should have been clear, I meant within the constraint of a particular size. The N95 has a much thicker case to allows a larger camera and a bigger lens, the case is about twice as thick as the iPhone's as I recall, its camera system is about half way to that of a point and shoot in terms of size. I think it's fine that the N95 exists to serve certain needs, but I don't think it serves mine because I don't want a brick in my pocket.

A 10MP camera phone seems like even more buffoonery though. Competing to get the biggest number doesn't make the best product. Megapixels certainly won't do anyone any good if they're going to be radically scaled down for the web anyway. 3MP was about right for my pocket camera, I think. My dad bought an 8MP pocket camera and it's never made as nice of a picture, but people get surprised at how well the 3MP camera images print out.

The enterprise features do trump the phone features.

Time will tell.

It serves different markets.

I really don't think the iPhone is yet enough to push any company to switch away from Exchange. It would seem like a switch to something Apple supports would mean a complete replacement of all computers, software and conversion of all data used in an organization, and that's not cheap.