or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › New Palm Pre apps underscore Apple's iPhone limitations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Palm Pre apps underscore Apple's iPhone limitations - Page 5

post #161 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Even though you don't think video recording is important, it's still something the iphone is capable of, and something Apple should give their customers (even if it's just the kids demanding it.) It's an artificial limitation.

It's not an artificial limitation.
And yes I am well aware there are some crappy shareware recorders for the iPhone which can grab a few seconds of wobbly motion.

1) The iPhone (1st gen and Second gen (3G) hardware has a pretty crappy camera chip which takes about a 1/10s to pull the data off it.

Not only does this mean you struggle to get more than 8 or 9 frames per second. But the top of the frame is a whole tenth of a second in front of the bottom. For capturing motion this "rolling shutter" is extremely sucky. Any action is reduced to jello like motion.

In short, any captured video footage looks doubly shitty. And Apple has an allergy to shitty features. Better leave the feature out.

2) There's no hardware to compress the video to a small size. The shareware apps ignore this and simply fill the iPhone with data - till it runs out. To compress a movie down to a nice H264 would take the iPhone's processor about 3 minutes and the CPU would start to melt the case by the time it had finished.

3) If people had the option of video recording, suddenly they'd want to mail the movie to their buddies as an email attachment. And while Apple might be cool with this - the carriers would whine bitterly about people UPLOADING 10MB attachments.

The decision to leave out video was not mean-spirited, or crooked. It was just smart. Let's leave out this feature until some point in the future when we can do it properly. The market didn't seem to mind the omission too much.

The next iPhone rev will probably have a decent imaging chip, a hardware encoder and .., who knows ... the phone network might be able to cope with video attachments.

C.
post #162 of 213
has anyone noticed how horribly cramped and unreadable the Pre apps are starting to look? They do not look well-designed or easy to navigate. The more 3rd-party apps I see for the Pre the more it reminds me of a stylus-reliant Palm Treo. If they keep this up, I may need to dump my stock much sooner than I thought.
post #163 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

It's not an artificial limitation.
And yes I am well aware there are some crappy shareware recorders for the iPhone which can grab a few seconds of wobbly motion.

1) The iPhone (1st gen and Second gen (3G) hardware has a pretty crappy camera chip which takes about a 1/10s to pull the data off it.

Not only does this mean you struggle to get more than 8 or 9 frames per second. But the top of the frame is a whole tenth of a second in front of the bottom. For capturing motion this "rolling shutter" is extremely sucky. Any action is reduced to jello like motion.

In short, any captured video footage looks doubly shitty. And Apple has an allergy to shitty features. Better leave the feature out.

2) There's no hardware to compress the video to a small size. The shareware apps ignore this and simply fill the iPhone with data - till it runs out. To compress a movie down to a nice H264 would take the iPhone's processor about 3 minutes and the CPU would start to melt the case by the time it had finished.

3) If people had the option of video recording, suddenly they'd want to mail the movie to their buddies as an email attachment. And while Apple might be cool with this - the carriers would whine bitterly about people UPLOADING 10MB attachments.

The decision to leave out video was not mean-spirited, or crooked. It was just smart. Let's leave out this feature until some point in the future when we can do it properly. The market didn't seem to mind the omission too much.

The next iPhone rev will probably have a decent imaging chip, a hardware encoder and .., who knows ... the phone network might be able to cope with video attachments.

C.


+++ and thank you.

I've seen the video from a jail break app, it looks awful.

The idea that Apple "could" have enabled video at any time and didn't just to be assholes, or that the fact that video will most likely be limited to the new hardware is an artificial limitation to drive sales, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The imaging chip in the current iPhone can't make decent video. Therefore, Apple won't use it for video. When they put a chip in the phone that can, then they might.

Could they have put a chip that did decent video in the iPhone in the first place? Sure. But hardware design, especially power and space constrained hardware design, is all about tradeoffs. Size, heat, power consumption, complexity, price, getting something to market, and doing something well as opposes to just ticking off a box on a features list. They concentrated on what they considered primary functionality, done very well, in the smallest possible package with the best possible battery life for that size and weight.

Did they imagine that the might put a better imaging chip in the iPhone at some point (or better anything else)? Of course. Did they plan on hardware improving overtime as a mechanism to drive sales? Duh. That's the nature of the hardware business.

Remember when everyone was sure that Apple didn't make a 3G phone in the first place because they were stupid or conniving? And Apple said they were waiting for more power efficient radios? And then such radios became available, and Apple used them, and the 3G iPhone still has to trade some battery life for that functionality? Yeah, it's like that.

And it doesn't matter what other phones do, because each of those phones themselves have made design decisions based on tradeoffs. They may be bigger, heavier, have shorter battery life, a worse screen, leave off some other functionality such as WiFi, etc.

Comparing any individual feature across phones tells me nothing, without talking about the entire package and knowing what tradeoffs were made.

You can always disagree with the choices made on a particular phone, but imagining that because one phone has one feature that another lacks, the latter phone must be intentionally crippled is just plain ignorant.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #164 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by carloblackmore View Post

has anyone noticed how horribly cramped and unreadable the Pre apps are starting to look? They do not look well-designed or easy to navigate. The more 3rd-party apps I see for the Pre the more it reminds me of a stylus-reliant Palm Treo. If they keep this up, I may need to dump my stock much sooner than I thought.

Maybe that's why there isn't an onscreen keyboard, just the physical one. No room.
post #165 of 213
BTW, anyone arguing that Apple withholds features artificially to drive new hardware sales might want to take a look at this massive list of software enhancements that iPhone owners have gotten, for free, since the initial release.

Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?

And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.

The iPhone is a platform. It will improve over time. A lot of that improvement will come as software enhancements, which, owing to the iPhone's subscription pricing structure, will be free. Some of it will come as hardware enhancements, which, owing to the nature of hardware, will come about as a result of improving tech and require purchasing same.

That's the inevitable process of consumer electronics.

Here's a game: what bell and whistles, after the coming new hardware release, is Apple "artificially" withholding? There must be something, because otherwise how will they get you to buy the new new phone, when it becomes available in a year or two?

If you can't say now, then you have no argument to make. Of course, that won't keep folks from waiting a year, seeing what else hits the market, and then claiming that Apple "should have" included whatever in the upcoming release, and they chose not to to fleece their fan boys.

Because some folks are fucking idiots.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #166 of 213
pre is based on well structured exposure when we can hold touch play with and review sites have an impartial review then we can tell how it will impact the market
as fast as sprint AND palm has burned through $$$$$ its a game of chicken who falters first
also putting their eggs in this basket means why buy any palm anything till it comes out

also....a bird in the hand (iphone, rim) is worth two pre in the bush
go with a known then an unknown, also who will be here 1-2-3 years from now
hate to have your phone where the carrier crashes before your contract is up
OR
your contract is longer than the life of the phone maker company

i wouldn't buy a pre for the above reasons, perhaps iphone or rim, maybe nokia, but the rest of the smart phone vendors may have to merge, refocus to stay in business

i predict much consolidation over the next 6-18 months

why, who has strong OS, apple, rim, who else??? pre? will sprint even be here.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #167 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

BTW, anyone arguing that Apple withholds features artificially to drive new hardware sales might want to take a look at this massive list of software enhancements that iPhone owners have gotten, for free, since the initial release.

Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?

And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.

So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?

You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.

Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.

So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #168 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?

You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.

Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.

So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.

The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.

So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.

Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.

You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.
post #169 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.

So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.

Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.

You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.

Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.

I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.

I would call that a fact.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #170 of 213
Seeing as there are several MMS apps in the iPhone App Store again you are throwing around unsupported speculation. Swirly MMS is using some service other than AT&T's service. There are some MMS apps that create a short cut to downloading MMS using the web code that AT&T provides when the iPhone receives an MMS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
post #171 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Seeing as there are several MMS apps in the iPhone App Store again you are throwing around unsupported speculation. Swirly MMS is using some service other than AT&T's service. There are some MMS apps that create a short cut to downloading MMS using the web code that AT&T provides when the iPhone receives an MMS.

The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.

Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.

Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #172 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.

I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.

I would call that a fact.

That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.

The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.
post #173 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.

Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.

Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)

But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.

As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.

Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.

If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.

You have to allow for that.
post #174 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.

The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.

His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.

So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.

If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #175 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.

So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.

If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.

I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.

If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.

But you know something, even if Apple simply didn't want to deliver MMS in favor of e-mail, I could understand that. It could be a combination of the two. They didn't think the phone was capable of doing it properly, and they weren't in a hurry to deliver the service.

That wouldn't surprise me.

But as for other features I would disagree strongly to people that Apple deliberately held back.
post #176 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.

If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.

They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.

The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...


"An unfortunate scenario when you consider that MMS -- touted as a natural successor to SMS -- was a mobile data application that was originally intended for 3G only."

"MMS over GPRS doesn't overshadow MMS over 3G because the former is a bit clumsy and MMS is a lot richer in a UMTS environment." He also highlights that the additional capacity that 3G will provide permits operators to deal with lots of traffic more effectively. "After all, we have already, seen delays in the reception of SMS due to the volume of traffic,"

"GPRS works fine for MMS but as the technology grows and becomes richer -- the need to go to 3G for additional bandwidth will definitely be there."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_87509339/ I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #177 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.

As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.

Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.

If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.

You have to allow for that.

This is dust as well. No one is claiming that there would be trade-offs that would make the experience "un-Apple-like" and thus Apple simply choose to do what they wanted to do with regard to this. People put this argument forward with regard to multitasking and it is plausible given the state of technology and the memory of the phone.

However much less capable and much older phones than this do MMS and Apple didn't say experience or too bad, they claimed the radio couldn't transmit the data.

If it were a contract matter then Apple should explain it as such. People easily understand this is why the iPod Touch gets charged for updates while the iPhone does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.

So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.

If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.

So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #178 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?

I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.

Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.

The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.

We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.

This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.

So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.

C.
post #179 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?

I thought I clearly stated that the lack of MMS from the original iPhone and it being only a 3G tech is fishy as much lesser phones have MMS. I said there are legitimate technical reasons why other things weren't added to the original v1.0 iPhone software and that any proof that MMS is artificially being held back from original iPhones does not invalidate those other technical limitations.

However, as I stated in a later post, I speculated that the technical limitation may not be with the iPhone but with AT&T's ability to handle excessive EDGE uploads. To say that because the iPhone can handle it that every other part can handle it is shortsided, at best. For all we know AT&T is the one that kept MMS out of the original iPhone. It just a scenario, not a declaration of fact, but as I stated something is fishy which means we are not getting the full picture.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #180 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.

The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...


"An unfortunate scenario when you consider that MMS -- touted as a natural successor to SMS -- was a mobile data application that was originally intended for 3G only."

"MMS over GPRS doesn't overshadow MMS over 3G because the former is a bit clumsy and MMS is a lot richer in a UMTS environment." He also highlights that the additional capacity that 3G will provide permits operators to deal with lots of traffic more effectively. "After all, we have already, seen delays in the reception of SMS due to the volume of traffic,"

"GPRS works fine for MMS but as the technology grows and becomes richer -- the need to go to 3G for additional bandwidth will definitely be there."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_87509339/ I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).

I'm happy you found that, as it points out what I just said. What I read was from late 2007, so I don't remember how to find that article. But every carrier will be affected in the same way.

Two years ago, I didn't see much SMS or MMS use here in the US. I didn't think it would be important. No one I knew or spoke to really used it, including the many teenagers I spoke to at my daughters school, which is one with a very large base of technologically knowledgeable kids.

But, over that time, things changed, and last year, a trillion SMS and MMS's were sent in the US.

Apple wants to give the best experience, and no doubt, the most advanced. It's not surprising they feel as though the older phone wasn't capable of doing that.
post #181 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.

Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.

The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.

We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.

This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.

So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.

C.

My first thoughts are,

• "Then wouldn't the original iPhones be unable to get the v3.0 software altogether?"
• "If it's under 24 months from the first launch of the iPhone or under 24 months from the time you bought your original iPhone wouldn't you be eligible?"
• "If the iPod Touch gets v3.0 for pay because of SOx, and if this was the case for the original iPhone, why not just charge them a fee for the MMS upgrade?"

There is something deeper here. I doubt it is actually sinister as many are claiming, but we are certainly not seeing a full picture.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #182 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is dust as well. No one is claiming that there would be trade-offs that would make the experience "un-Apple-like" and thus Apple simply choose to do what they wanted to do with regard to this. People put this argument forward with regard to multitasking and it is plausible given the state of technology and the memory of the phone.

However much less capable and much older phones than this do MMS and Apple didn't say experience or too bad, they claimed the radio couldn't transmit the data.

I don't remember exactly what Apple said. But it's possible that for what they were thinking of doing with it, they were right, whatever they said.

My feeling though, is not that they held MMS back as a sales ploy as is being stated here, but that they didn't WANT to offer it at all.

We've had discussons about this for two years now.

So, one, the radio may not have been capable of doing what Apple WANTED it to do. Not that it couldn't do it at all.

So, two, maybe because of that, partly, at least, they concentrated on doing it with e-mail instead, coming up with a far better e-mail experience than anyone else had, and had no intention of offering it. E-mail would do it for free here in the US as part of the data package, which could also have figured into that decision.

Then, three, once they saw that SMS and MMS usage here in their home market was rising quickly, and they were going to radios that would handle what they wanted to do, they decided to offer it after all.

I strongly believe that that's the scenario.

Quote:
If it were a contract matter then Apple should explain it as such. People easily understand this is why the iPod Touch gets charged for updates while the iPhone does not.

One thing I have not liked about Apple is this insistence that they keep quiet about what, and why. There are some things that we can only speculate about because of that.

Actually, many people here still don't understand why the iPhone gets free updates, and the iTouch does not. Or, at least they don't accept it. We've had some pretty heated arguments about that!

Quote:
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?

You're not stating the argument I made.

I said, several times now, that Apple may have felt that the radio couldn't handle MMS the WAY the wanted it to be done.
post #183 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't remember exactly what Apple said. But it's possible that for what they were thinking of doing with it, they were right, whatever they said.

My feeling though, is not that they held MMS back as a sales ploy as is being stated here, but that they didn't WANT to offer it at all.

We've had discussons about this for two years now.

So, one, the radio may not have been capable of doing what Apple WANTED it to do. Not that it couldn't do it at all.

So, two, maybe because of that, partly, at least, they concentrated on doing it with e-mail instead, coming up with a far better e-mail experience than anyone else had, and had no intention of offering it. E-mail would do it for free here in the US as part of the data package, which could also have figured into that decision.

Then, three, once they saw that SMS and MMS usage here in their home market was rising quickly, and they were going to radios that would handle what they wanted to do, they decided to offer it after all.

I strongly believe that that's the scenario.



One thing I have not liked about Apple is this insistence that they keep quiet about what, and why. There are some things that we can only speculate about because of that.

Actually, many people here still don't understand why the iPhone gets free updates, and the iTouch does not. Or, at least they don't accept it. We've had some pretty heated arguments about that!



You're not stating the argument I made.

I said, several times now, that Apple may have felt that the radio couldn't handle MMS the WAY the wanted it to be done.

I agree with the "Apple didn't really want to do MMS" scenario.

We all know Apple can be weird, like that-- Jobs or whoever (OK, Jobs) gets fixated on the "elegant" solution, even if it flies in the face of what the market appears to be clamoring for. Something like this appears to be in play in their refusal to do a netbook-- it's not that they can't, it's just that the whole enterprise doesn't strike them as the kind of thing they want to be doing, and we can be pretty sure that they have "something else" in mind that they think is a better solution.

I think it's pretty clear that Apple regarded MMS as kind of a hack, which it kind of is, and intended to make everyone understand that by building a phone that did "proper" email. Skating to where the puck is going to be, you know. And they still may be right: as more and more people get phones that can do real email, we may see a shift in messaging habits.

At any rate, it certainly isn't necessary to imagine that Apple intended to include MMS all along, and held it back in order to drive sales of a future handset model.

Obviously, no one can "prove" anything about this, one way or another, but given what we know about Apple, and what we know about how they set out to shake up the entire mobile handset model, it makes intuitive sense that they figured that they would be instrumental in killing MMS outright, and are now obliged to tack towards reality. Wouldn't be the first time.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #184 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I agree with the "Apple didn't really want to do MMS" scenario.

We all know Apple can be weird, like that-- Jobs or whoever (OK, Jobs) gets fixated on the "elegant" solution, even if it flies in the face of what the market appears to be clamoring for. Something like this appears to be in play in their refusal to do a netbook-- it's not that they can't, it's just that the whole enterprise doesn't strike them as the kind of thing they want to be doing, and we can be pretty sure that they have "something else" in mind that they think is a better solution.

I think it's pretty clear that Apple regarded MMS as kind of a hack, which it kind of is, and intended to make everyone understand that by building a phone that did "proper" email. Skating to where the puck is going to be, you know. And they still may be right: as more and more people get phones that can do real email, we may see a shift in messaging habits.

At any rate, it certainly isn't necessary to imagine that Apple intended to include MMS all along, and held it back in order to drive sales of a future handset model.

Obviously, no one can "prove" anything about this, one way or another, but given what we know about Apple, and what we know about how they set out to shake up the entire mobile handset model, it makes intuitive sense that they figured that they would be instrumental in killing MMS outright, and are now obliged to tack towards reality. Wouldn't be the first time.

Exactly!

Unlike some people, I don't think Apple lies. I do believe they tell us only part of their thinking.

So, the radio would a real reason for them. They couldn't do things the way they wanted to, so the radio is a reason. But they wouldn't tell us that it meant that they didn't want to offer the service in favor of what they thought was better for various reasons.

I think we're seeing that in the refusal to add Blu-Ray.

The licensing mess Jobs was talking about was certainly true. So true in fact, that the various companies involved just recently fixed that problem, and simplified the licensing scheme considerably.

But does Apple WANT to offer Blu-Ray? The reason for not offering it was given as licensing issues. But is there another reason, such as downloads?

We could see Blu-Ray shortly, in 10.6, if Apple intends to offer it. It's very easy to add the support in the OS, as needs to happen. Apple's hardware from more recent times already supports it.

I suppose we'll get some people saying that Apple "held back" that feature as well, in order to build up sales later on.

But that really makes no sense from a business perspective in either case.

If so many people really care that much about MMS that they didn't buy the phone over the past 1.75 years, then Apple could have lost a lot of sales. They would have lost a lot of app store sales the past 8 months as well.

So Apple would have shot themselves in the foot for not including it, if waiting to add it later for some nebulous reason of increasing sales down the road was concerned.

It makes no sense at all.

If few people didn't buy the phone because of its lack, then it makes no difference.

I can't see the logic to these arguments.
post #185 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.

Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.

The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.

We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.

This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.

So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.

C.

Good point but I think that would apply for the entire 3.0 software and not just specific features within it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I thought I clearly stated that the lack of MMS from the original iPhone and it being only a 3G tech is fishy as much lesser phones have MMS. I said there are legitimate technical reasons why other things weren't added to the original v1.0 iPhone software and that any proof that MMS is artificially being held back from original iPhones does not invalidate those other technical limitations.

However, as I stated in a later post, I speculated that the technical limitation may not be with the iPhone but with AT&T's ability to handle excessive EDGE uploads. To say that because the iPhone can handle it that every other part can handle it is shortsided, at best. For all we know AT&T is the one that kept MMS out of the original iPhone. It just a scenario, not a declaration of fact, but as I stated something is fishy which means we are not getting the full picture.

You know having watched a few of these answers pop out I think I see the disconnect. Especially with the bit Addabox added on the end. I'm not of the persuasion that Apple withheld MMS from 1.0 and added it later to drive sales and obsolete the original iPhone. I'm of the view that the adding of MMS is an outright response to the market and that if Jobs and Apple had their way MMS would be banished to never, neverland.

So my point is a bit different, they could add it to the first iPhone and won't in part because it will drive sales, but that was never was originally in the cards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm happy you found that, as it points out what I just said. What I read was from late 2007, so I don't remember how to find that article. But every carrier will be affected in the same way.

Two years ago, I didn't see much SMS or MMS use here in the US. I didn't think it would be important. No one I knew or spoke to really used it, including the many teenagers I spoke to at my daughters school, which is one with a very large base of technologically knowledgeable kids.

But, over that time, things changed, and last year, a trillion SMS and MMS's were sent in the US.

Apple wants to give the best experience, and no doubt, the most advanced. It's not surprising they feel as though the older phone wasn't capable of doing that.

We've all seen this from Apple before. Small hacks get around their claims, which are clearly market driven, almost all the time. A small change in an installer makes something obsoleted by decree very workable again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

My first thoughts are,

"Then wouldn't the original iPhones be unable to get the v3.0 software altogether?"
"If it's under 24 months from the first launch of the iPhone or under 24 months from the time you bought your original iPhone wouldn't you be eligible?"
"If the iPod Touch gets v3.0 for pay because of SOx, and if this was the case for the original iPhone, why not just charge them a fee for the MMS upgrade?"

There is something deeper here. I doubt it is actually sinister as many are claiming, but we are certainly not seeing a full picture.

I didn't see you made the same point when quoting it above. Good observation. As I said, I dont think of it as initially sinister, but more like sinister after the fact in that they could easily take this market adaptation and place it through out all iPhones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't remember exactly what Apple said. But it's possible that for what they were thinking of doing with it, they were right, whatever they said.

My feeling though, is not that they held MMS back as a sales ploy as is being stated here, but that they didn't WANT to offer it at all.

We've had discussons about this for two years now.

So, one, the radio may not have been capable of doing what Apple WANTED it to do. Not that it couldn't do it at all.

So, two, maybe because of that, partly, at least, they concentrated on doing it with e-mail instead, coming up with a far better e-mail experience than anyone else had, and had no intention of offering it. E-mail would do it for free here in the US as part of the data package, which could also have figured into that decision.

Then, three, once they saw that SMS and MMS usage here in their home market was rising quickly, and they were going to radios that would handle what they wanted to do, they decided to offer it after all.

I strongly believe that that's the scenario.

One thing I have not liked about Apple is this insistence that they keep quiet about what, and why. There are some things that we can only speculate about because of that.

Actually, many people here still don't understand why the iPhone gets free updates, and the iTouch does not. Or, at least they don't accept it. We've had some pretty heated arguments about that!

You're not stating the argument I made.

I said, several times now, that Apple may have felt that the radio couldn't handle MMS the WAY the wanted it to be done.

I understand the radio not handling it and to be honest, it is a crap argument from Apple. MMS transmissions will be much smaller than anything with regard to email and browsing. It is a nice claim, but doesn't mesh with reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Exactly!

Unlike some people, I don't think Apple lies. I do believe they tell us only part of their thinking.

So, the radio would a real reason for them. They couldn't do things the way they wanted to, so the radio is a reason. But they wouldn't tell us that it meant that they didn't want to offer the service in favor of what they thought was better for various reasons.

I think we're seeing that in the refusal to add Blu-Ray.

The licensing mess Jobs was talking about was certainly true. So true in fact, that the various companies involved just recently fixed that problem, and simplified the licensing scheme considerably.

But does Apple WANT to offer Blu-Ray? The reason for not offering it was given as licensing issues. But is there another reason, such as downloads?

We could see Blu-Ray shortly, in 10.6, if Apple intends to offer it. It's very easy to add the support in the OS, as needs to happen. Apple's hardware from more recent times already supports it.

I suppose we'll get some people saying that Apple "held back" that feature as well, in order to build up sales later on.

But that really makes no sense from a business perspective in either case.

If so many people really care that much about MMS that they didn't buy the phone over the past 1.75 years, then Apple could have lost a lot of sales. They would have lost a lot of app store sales the past 8 months as well.

So Apple would have shot themselves in the foot for not including it, if waiting to add it later for some nebulous reason of increasing sales down the road was concerned.

It makes no sense at all.

If few people didn't buy the phone because of its lack, then it makes no difference.

I can't see the logic to these arguments.

The difference (and thanks to Adda for chiming in with about 3/4 of what I wanted to say) is that some folks believe Apple had this up their sleeve from the beginning and are rolling it out now just to make iPhone users upgrade again. That isn't what I believe. I think that Apple isn't getting what they wanted which was nothing but email all along and is having to cave to the MMS frenzy that exists out there. As you note correctly, no one is being deprived of their initial expectation or capabilities. However now Apple is 'correcting' the iPhone software to meet some market realities. They could easily do that across the line but if they choose not to and possibly drive some sales as well, why not?

I can understand it. I can't defend it, but I can understand.

Again we see this all the time from Apple. I have no doubt someone will probably find a hack to make MMS workon the original iPhone. It certainly isn't a hardware issue.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #186 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It certainly isn't a hardware issue.

I think we can say that basic MMS is definitely an iPhone HW issue. But could it be something with the complexity in which Apple wanted to utilize MMS or something with AT&T not wanting MMS uploading being a very big piece of straw on their already stretched EDGE network and MMS servers? I'm leaning toward AT&T being the reason at this point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #187 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I understand the radio not handling it and to be honest, it is a crap argument from Apple. MMS transmissions will be much smaller than anything with regard to email and browsing. It is a nice claim, but doesn't mesh with reality.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You understand the radio NOT handling it, but it's a crap argument anyway? You'll have to explain that to me.

E-mails are also small. SMS is small. But add graphics, photo's and video to MMS or e-mail, and they aren't small any more. Depending on how people use it them, MMS's could, on average, turn out to be much bigger than e-mails.

Quote:
The difference (and thanks to Adda for chiming in with about 3/4 of what I wanted to say) is that some folks believe Apple had this up their sleeve from the beginning and are rolling it out now just to make iPhone users upgrade again. That isn't what I believe. I think that Apple isn't getting what they wanted which was nothing but email all along and is having to cave to the MMS frenzy that exists out there. As you note correctly, no one is being deprived of their initial expectation or capabilities. However now Apple is 'correcting' the iPhone software to meet some market realities. They could easily do that across the line but if they choose not to and possibly drive some sales as well, why not?

I've been arguing the point against those here thinking that this is just an Apple conspiracy. Some people just love to make them up. You know, Apple to some, being the MAN.

Quote:
Again we see this all the time from Apple. I have no doubt someone will probably find a hack to make MMS workon the original iPhone. It certainly isn't a hardware issue.

The one thing we don't seem to agree on is how the radio affects this.

You don't think it's a problem at all, though you indicated that it was, so i'm stuck there.

But I think it's an issue only in that Apple knew MMS should be moving to 3G, and decided that as their original radio didn't do that, they would do in in another way, which was e-mail, also avoiding MMS charges for sending photo's and such.

In that sense, the radio was an issue.

We'll see what happens when 3.0 is officially released. Then we can understand better.
post #188 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm leaning toward AT&T being the reason at this point.

I think carrier resistance to MMS is unlikely.

Email data is free - MMS data is vastly overpriced.
I am sure AT&T would much prefer photos to be sent via MMS to Email.

C.
post #189 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Good point but I think that would apply for the entire 3.0 software and not just specific features within it.

Perhaps. Although the 3.0 software contains features (push notification) promised a year ago.

Not sure if that means that Apple can deliver that outside the subscription upgrade Window.

C.
post #190 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think we can say that basic MMS is definitely an iPhone HW issue. But could it be something with the complexity in which Apple wanted to utilize MMS or something with AT&T not wanting MMS uploading being a very big piece of straw on their already stretched EDGE network and MMS servers? I'm leaning toward AT&T being the reason at this point.

I'm leaning toward Apple wanting to push some product in a recessionary market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You understand the radio NOT handling it, but it's a crap argument anyway? You'll have to explain that to me.

I'm saying the radio is different, not that it can't handle it. Clearly plenty of non-3g phones handle MMS just fine and the original iPhone handles MMS just fine as well when using a non-Apple solution.

Quote:
E-mails are also small. SMS is small. But add graphics, photo's and video to MMS or e-mail, and they aren't small any more. Depending on how people use it them, MMS's could, on average, turn out to be much bigger than e-mails.

I agree but the difference really is just seconds. Your phone having to transmit for 10 seconds versus one or two.

Quote:
I've been arguing the point against those here thinking that this is just an Apple conspiracy. Some people just love to make them up. You know, Apple to some, being the MAN.

It's pretty clear that Apple is doing this to drive sales. My difference in view is that didn't plan it this way back when. It is clear they hated MMS and wanted to create an alternative that was not what they considered to be a technological kludge. They have had to yield on this and have chosen to do so selectively. So it isn't a grand conspiracy, more like a very late term and selective conspiracy from my perspective.

Quote:

The one thing we don't seem to agree on is how the radio affects this.

You don't think it's a problem at all, though you indicated that it was, so i'm stuck there.

But I think it's an issue only in that Apple knew MMS should be moving to 3G, and decided that as their original radio didn't do that, they would do in in another way, which was e-mail, also avoiding MMS charges for sending photo's and such.

In that sense, the radio was an issue.

We'll see what happens when 3.0 is officially released. Then we can understand better.

I was reading about Cydia allowing use of the iTunes music store through 2g connections. Apple clearly imposed that limit either due to contractual issues or due to wanting to drive sales. Current MMS apps are already proof of concept and finally, we all can pretty much declare now that the iPhone 3g isn't going to stop sending and receiving MMS messages when it is in an area that only has 2G coverage.

Finally I did a bit more reading on SwirlyMMS and apparently you were confusing it with Flutter


Flutter does as you noted, it sends MMS through an alternative route. However as the article notes SwirlyMMS uses the actual network of your provider.

So again, proof that the iPhone 2G uses a client that provides MMS using AT&T as the network just fine and also now an additional consideration, I have no doubt that the iPhone 3g will send and receive MMS just fine in areas where they do not have 3G reception. It is NOT a 3G radio or service issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I think carrier resistance to MMS is unlikely.

Email data is free - MMS data is vastly overpriced.
I am sure AT&T would much prefer photos to be sent via MMS to Email.

C.

Good point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #191 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm saying the radio is different, not that it can't handle it. Clearly plenty of non-3g phones handle MMS just fine and the original iPhone handles MMS just fine as well when using a non-Apple solution.

Still doesn't add up. You're totally ignoring what I've been saying about this. You're argument only covers a small part of the possibilities.

Quote:
I agree but the difference really is just seconds. Your phone having to transmit for 10 seconds versus one or two.

It isn't really true. Edge is much slower than 3G. If 3G took 10 seconds for a decent MMS, then EDGE could take 30, or more.

Also, with millions of people sending these every day, that adds up to network congestion. 3G simplifies that because it passes messages along much faster.

Quote:
It's pretty clear that Apple is doing this to drive sales. My difference in view is that didn't plan it this way back when. It is clear they hated MMS and wanted to create an alternative that was not what they considered to be a technological kludge. They have had to yield on this and have chosen to do so selectively. So it isn't a grand conspiracy, more like a very late term and selective conspiracy from my perspective.

I don't know how that can be used as an argument. The sole purpose of a company is to increase sales and profits. Everything must, in the end, do that.

It's not a conspiracy at all. It's an intelligent response to a changing situation. Why do people seem to have the need to impugn motives all the time?

Quote:
I was reading about Cydia allowing use of the iTunes music store through 2g connections. Apple clearly imposed that limit either due to contractual issues or due to wanting to drive sales. Current MMS apps are already proof of concept and finally, we all can pretty much declare now that the iPhone 3g isn't going to stop sending and receiving MMS messages when it is in an area that only has 2G coverage.

Finally I did a bit more reading on SwirlyMMS and apparently you were confusing it with Flutter


Flutter does as you noted, it sends MMS through an alternative route. However as the article notes SwirlyMMS uses the actual network of your provider.

So again, proof that the iPhone 2G uses a client that provides MMS using AT&T as the network just fine and also now an additional consideration, I have no doubt that the iPhone 3g will send and receive MMS just fine in areas where they do not have 3G reception. It is NOT a 3G radio or service issue.

I don't particularly care about Cydia, or any other third party. I'm only interested in seeing on what Apple intends to do.
post #192 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Still doesn't add up. You're totally ignoring what I've been saying about this. You're argument only covers a small part of the possibilities.

I'm addressing the reason given by Apple. It isn't my job to prove all possibilities right or wrong. If you don't think I've hit what you said then restate it. I'm not going to ponder in some conspiratorial manner. Apple claimed radio, it clearly isn't that. Apple could easily elaborate. They haven't. Plenty of people use SwirlyMMS and have no reservations about it that I have read. (ie it will work but carry the charger because your phone will die twice as fast, etc.)

Quote:
It isn't really true. Edge is much slower than 3G. If 3G took 10 seconds for a decent MMS, then EDGE could take 30, or more.

Also, with millions of people sending these every day, that adds up to network congestion. 3G simplifies that because it passes messages along much faster.

I've never had a 3g picture message take 10 seconds. Is this one of those AT&T network is my worldview things again? I seriously don't get from where you are coming. My messages take about two seconds to transmit and those are for much larger images. 2G might quintuple the amount of time and that would still be reasonable. Finally if Apple endorsed a proper solution, they could choose to resize and shrink the photo being sent to that it was an appropriate size for the network. I've seen plenty of "lesser" phones accomplish this with no performance penalty. If my old Razr can resize a photo to quickly send it, the iPhone should be capable as well.

Quote:
I don't know how that can be used as an argument. The sole purpose of a company is to increase sales and profits. Everything must, in the end, do that.

It's not a conspiracy at all. It's an intelligent response to a changing situation. Why do people seem to have the need to impugn motives all the time?

They wouldn't if Apple were honest about it. If Apple even said "Listen, you've had two years and so the 3.0 update isn't supported, isn't free" or whatever that would be honest. Apple instead choose to make a dishonest claim and it is completely appropriate to treat it with skepticism.

Quote:
I don't particularly care about Cydia, or any other third party. I'm only interested in seeing on what Apple intends to do.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. Third parties can't make Apple great until we choose to ignore them. Let us not forget the very first sentence of the very first post in this thread...

While third-party apps are being trumpeted as the iPhone's strength, key Palm Pre demos this week were designed to highlight their restrictions by taking advantage of those precise things that Apple won't allow.

Playing to restrictions that relate not to the hardware and its limitations but which Apple simply will not allow is absolutely something Apple competitors are going to exploit. As proper fans of Apple we need to be critical and call them on the carpet when they engage in behavior that weakens the case for their solutions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #193 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Depending on how people use it them, MMS's could, on average, turn out to be much bigger than e-mails.

Actually MMS are size restricted, some handsets (usually cheaper low end) are limited to 100kb, others to 300 or 400kb, this requires processing of images, videos etc to ensure they fit within these boundaries.

The processing really lowers the quality, there are issues with MMS disappearing, especially when sending to other networks particularly those in other countries.

It also creates problems when someone sends a 400kb MMS to a handset which only supports 100 or 300kb, then they'll whine to someone (usually the network provider) about it not working.

I have an application called SendPhoto (Soon to be made obsolete by OS 3.0) which allows me to attach as many full size photo's to an email as I want, I can even send emails larger than Blackberry's 3Mb limit (Sorry, Blackberry owners you'll have to go find a PC to get my email).

To say MMS is overrated is an understatement, most of the debate about MMS comes from iPhone detractors looking to score points in some imaginary game.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #194 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Actually MMS are size restricted, some handsets (usually cheaper low end) are limited to 100kb, others to 300 or 400kb, this requires processing of images, videos etc to ensure they fit within these boundaries.

This wonky per country, per carrier, per handset loose restriction may be a reason why Apple didn't want to support it. Is Apple looking to revolutionize the way MMS are actually sent between phone by starting with the iPhone? You'll be able to send vCards, how about iWork and other file types to iPhones in sizes up to 10MB (the limit for the App Store) over the carrier's 3G network?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #195 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm addressing the reason given by Apple. It isn't my job to prove all possibilities right or wrong. If you don't think I've hit what you said then restate it. I'm not going to ponder in some conspiratorial manner. Apple claimed radio, it clearly isn't that. Apple could easily elaborate. They haven't. Plenty of people use SwirlyMMS and have no reservations about it that I have read. (ie it will work but carry the charger because your phone will die twice as fast, etc.)

Well, it's just polite to respond to someone's remarks when you're talking to them. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Quote:
I've never had a 3g picture message take 10 seconds. Is this one of those AT&T network is my worldview things again? I seriously don't get from where you are coming. My messages take about two seconds to transmit and those are for much larger images. 2G might quintuple the amount of time and that would still be reasonable. Finally if Apple endorsed a proper solution, they could choose to resize and shrink the photo being sent to that it was an appropriate size for the network. I've seen plenty of "lesser" phones accomplish this with no performance penalty. If my old Razr can resize a photo to quickly send it, the iPhone should be capable as well.

I was just picking a number . It doesn't really matter what it is. It's the difference between the two that matters.

It's nice that you can decide what's reasonable, but you don't have to deal with it.

Quote:
They wouldn't if Apple were honest about it. If Apple even said "Listen, you've had two years and so the 3.0 update isn't supported, isn't free" or whatever that would be honest. Apple instead choose to make a dishonest claim and it is completely appropriate to treat it with skepticism.

That makes no sense. The 3.0 upgrade is supported. If one or two features that require new hardware aren't, where is that so different from any other computer?

And it's free.

Quote:
Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. Third parties can't make Apple great until we choose to ignore them. Let us not forget the very first sentence of the very first post in this thread...

While third-party apps are being trumpeted as the iPhone's strength, key Palm Pre demos this week were designed to highlight their restrictions by taking advantage of those precise things that Apple won't allow.

Playing to restrictions that relate not to the hardware and its limitations but which Apple simply will not allow is absolutely something Apple competitors are going to exploit. As proper fans of Apple we need to be critical and call them on the carpet when they engage in behavior that weakens the case for their solutions.

I'm not terribly impressed by that. We have no idea as to how good the Pre will be. It mught be great, and it might suck.

We don't know how well those apps will be either. The method they are using for them has some serious limitations.

Besides, we really don't even know how open this will all be. Everone was talking about how Google, Andriod, and TMobile were being hailed as the saviors.

Of course, Google put that "kill" button in just as Apple did. Then they started limiting apps that would do what T-Mobile didn't want with ththering. We'll see where else they go with this.

I'm willing to bet that Palm and Sprint wont be any better.

I'm not so upset about one of two features. I don't know why you are.
post #196 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Actually MMS are size restricted, some handsets (usually cheaper low end) are limited to 100kb, others to 300 or 400kb, this requires processing of images, videos etc to ensure they fit within these boundaries.

The processing really lowers the quality, there are issues with MMS disappearing, especially when sending to other networks particularly those in other countries.

It also creates problems when someone sends a 400kb MMS to a handset which only supports 100 or 300kb, then they'll whine to someone (usually the network provider) about it not working.

I have an application called SendPhoto (Soon to be made obsolete by OS 3.0) which allows me to attach as many full size photo's to an email as I want, I can even send emails larger than Blackberry's 3Mb limit (Sorry, Blackberry owners you'll have to go find a PC to get my email).

To say MMS is overrated is an understatement, most of the debate about MMS comes from iPhone detractors looking to score points in some imaginary game.

I'm not one of MMS's supporters. I was glad that Apple didn't support it.

But, as you say, different sizes can be sent, depending on the phone.

Personally, I think that MMS sucks, and that we'd be better off without it.

Trumptman is getting all squishy about it.
post #197 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Actually MMS are size restricted, some handsets (usually cheaper low end) are limited to 100kb, others to 300 or 400kb, this requires processing of images, videos etc to ensure they fit within these boundaries.

The processing really lowers the quality, there are issues with MMS disappearing, especially when sending to other networks particularly those in other countries.

It also creates problems when someone sends a 400kb MMS to a handset which only supports 100 or 300kb, then they'll whine to someone (usually the network provider) about it not working.

I have an application called SendPhoto (Soon to be made obsolete by OS 3.0) which allows me to attach as many full size photo's to an email as I want, I can even send emails larger than Blackberry's 3Mb limit (Sorry, Blackberry owners you'll have to go find a PC to get my email).

To say MMS is overrated is an understatement, most of the debate about MMS comes from iPhone detractors looking to score points in some imaginary game.

MMS is completely overrated. However the reality that a good chunk of the world uses it. Apple now runs on Intel. They allow Windows to run on Macs with various solutions. They make sure iWork reads and writes Microsoft formats.

You can be better but still have products that realize you've got to play in the sandbox with all the other kids.

This reminds me very much of the discussions I had with folks about which current generation video consoles would do well and I picked the Wii. Everyone else was clearly picking Xbox360 or PS3 and I simply made this observation about the availability of HD content. I said even if I have a 50 inch HDTV in my house, I'm not buying it to let the kids monopolize with their console. Their games are going on the older television in the other room.

That is pretty much the case for MMS. Even if I were to own an iPhone, I'm not going to give my nine year old one. Most are not going to give their 13-15 year old kids one. Some will sure, but most get some sort of cheap flip or similar phones. When they send you a MMS, you want to be able to get it. Your phone and solution can be better but you want to play nice with the lesser phones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This wonky per country, per carrier, per handset loose restriction may be a reason why Apple didn't want to support it. Is Apple looking to revolutionize the way MMS are actually sent between phone by starting with the iPhone? You'll be able to send vCards, how about iWork and other file types to iPhones in sizes up to 10MB (the limit for the App Store) over the carrier's 3G network?

It's pretty clear Apple hates MMS and would prefer it dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, it's just polite to respond to someone's remarks when you're talking to them. It has nothing to do with anything else.

If it addresses the topic rather than diverting attention away from it, then you'll have my full attention.

Quote:
I was just picking a number . It doesn't really matter what it is. It's the difference between the two that matters.

It's nice that you can decide what's reasonable, but you don't have to deal with it.

I don't watch my phone send off messages. I hit send, hit the lock key and put it in my pocket. It could take five minutes and I wouldn't notice. The point that others have noted is that this network issue can be handled in software. Your iPhone can easily be smart enough to note it is on a 2G network, and resize the photo to an appropriate size. (I'm not going to claim that all other phones are smart enough to do this)

Quote:
That makes no sense. The 3.0 upgrade is supported. If one or two features that require new hardware aren't, where is that so different from any other computer?

And it's free.

Well you are right, except for the new hardware part. It also could harm Apple. When someone has to mentally commit to spending another $199, that opens the door to competitors as well. They aren't guaranteed to go buy another iPhone. They might decide to go look at all sorts of solutions and decide different. If they know that Apple is falsely forcing the issue, it might guarantee they flee to a competitor. I'm sure you and everyone here have a story where a company lying to them forced them into the arms of a competitor.

Quote:
I'm not terribly impressed by that. We have no idea as to how good the Pre will be. It mught be great, and it might suck.

We don't know how well those apps will be either. The method they are using for them has some serious limitations.

Besides, we really don't even know how open this will all be. Everone was talking about how Google, Andriod, and TMobile were being hailed as the saviors.

Of course, Google put that "kill" button in just as Apple did. Then they started limiting apps that would do what T-Mobile didn't want with ththering. We'll see where else they go with this.

I'm willing to bet that Palm and Sprint wont be any better.

You make it sound like we are all speculating with our opinions on a rumor forum or something like that.

You are right. No one knows. The only reason I would say Palm is different is that all the geeks like us I have talked to that have seen it have given it very good buzz. One of the reasons we all like Apple products is because we love gadgets and even specs, but we want our technology to make sense and have reasoning behind the use of it. You look at the Pre and it make sense. People get it quickly. Palm has a lot of experience in this area and many of the other iClones have none. Many Mac users were/are Palm users as well and likened the two as being very similar in design philosophy.

I don't think we are just talking about any other competitor here. We are watching Palm make their classic to modern mobile OS break and good things could come from it.

Quote:
I'm not so upset about one of two features. I don't know why you are.

I'm not one of MMS's supporters. I was glad that Apple didn't support it.

But, as you say, different sizes can be sent, depending on the phone.

Personally, I think that MMS sucks, and that we'd be better off without it.

Trumptman is getting all squishy about it.

Let's pretend you have a first generation iPhone with the slower radio. MMS is likely better suited to what your phone can do than email ever was. iPhone 3G and whatever they will call the next generation are actually better suited to push email as the solution like Apple intended. However instead of being helped as an early adopter, you're being punished unless you are willing to jailbreak and apply the non-Apple solution. Apple won't sell SwirlyMMS through their app store. You are 100% right that it isn't rational for people to believe Apple should add this feature to their two year old phone, but people don't have to be rational. They can be whatever they want.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #198 of 213
I don't want to be offensive, and I have absolutely no clue why Apple did not support MMS with the first iPhone release, but to claim that Apple holds off MMS support for the iPhone 2G just to force you to buy new hardware, you need to be complete and utter idiot.
post #199 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If it addresses the topic rather than diverting attention away from it, then you'll have my full attention.

My remarks are pertinent. You just chose to respond to the ones you mistankenly think you have an answer for.

At any rate. I'm done with this. You're just going round and round with your replies, and haven't said useful in days.
post #200 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

My remarks are pertinent. You just chose to respond to the ones you mistankenly think you have an answer for.

At any rate. I'm done with this. You're just going round and round with your replies, and haven't said useful in days.

Speaking of not addressing, Melgross, have you ever addressed how SwirlyMMS provides this solution using the AT&T network with no ill effects on the first generation iPhone using the supposedly incompatible radio?

You have not.

Have you addressed the fact that Cydia allows the first generation iPhone to make iTunes music store purchases over the 2g network by removing the SOFTWARE restriction?

You have not.

Finally have you addressed the fact that the iPhone 3G will clearly be able to use MMS in areas where there is not 3G coverage since MMS does not require that technology and in fact the iPhone will be using the same 2G radio frequencies to send said MMS messages that it is claimed the iPhone 2G cannot use?

You have not.

You can claim I've ignored your points, but the reality is that there is no way to address "Well Trumptman is squishy about MMS" or "I'm going to ignore Consumer Reports and go with what I saw on the subway on the way home."

How does one address such lack of reasoning? There isn't a way. That stuff is DUST meant to distract.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › New Palm Pre apps underscore Apple's iPhone limitations