Apple's profit margin on Mac minis slimmer than usual - Page 4

You have utterly no idea why Apple chose not to use a higher resolution camera earlier on, so why go on about it like you do? Have you ever actually designed a product? Been involved on the manufacture of one? There are all sorts of variables that go into decisions like this. "Can we get the part cheap enough to reach our price point?" "Can we get it small enough to fit into our form factor?" "Can we get it to draw power within our acceptable range?" "Can we get it to pass FCC?" "Does the market demand justify costs, etc." It is all a dance and building this kind of stuff is a heck of a lot more complicated, and involves many more compromises and difficult choices, than anyone who has never done it could possibly know. It bothers me when I see this kind of negative bias however, because it almost always implies an intention: "Apple didn't user a better camera because they intended to introduce the feature later" etc. It may be fair to say that later on Apple engineers intended to up the camera specifications, I do not know. But it is not fair to insinuate that the choice to use something lesser was done purely to disenfranchise the consumer. There are hundreds of factors that inform choices like this.

That is very funny Tit for tat? Have a life? You are the master of tit for tat. Endless threads where every other comment is yours. You so often come across as a person without a life. Or certainly without a job as you must spend and awful lot of time tit for tatting.

Well let's put it this way - it sounds highly unlikely that Apple weren't able to put a better camera in there given that all other manufacturers had found ways to do it. I doubt that Apple were able to do everything they did with the iPhone (as far as technology is concerned), but couldn't work out how to make a camera that was better than what they used. The market was already moving onto 5mp snappers in 2007, and Nokia's N95 was selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a demand, so it seems unlikely that Apple ignored it on the grounds that there wasn't demand for it either. And finally, the iPhone is an expensive device. Cost sounds like an unlikely factor too. Maybe in low end budget options, but not high end devices.

So we've knocked out 3 of those scenarios there, all of which are certainly very plausable. Beyond that, I can't think of any other reason as to why Apple left out a decent camera other than to gauge people later on when they introduced it as an amazing new feature.

Show us any evidence that the 2mpx camera components found in the iPhone is the same size and volume as the 5px camera components found in the N95 in 2007. That is the rub; you can’t just compare a phone to a phone, you have to compare equivalent sized components to each other. Even the 3G iPhone offers less volume than the original and tapered more at the edges so the use of a 2mpx camera the 2nd time around may have been all they could squeeze in. We really don’t know.

PS: I don’t you think you would but others may reply with the argument that Apple simply make a larger phones, but that goes against their DNA as a company. I can’t see Apple creating an extra bulky device or having an extended lens simply to add the camera components.


edit:

Nokia N95:
99 mm (h)
53 mm (w)
21 mm (d)
= 110187 mm^3

Original iPhone:
115 mm (h)
61 mm (w)
11.6 mm (d)
= 81374 mm^3

Overall this proves nothing as the Nokia has HW that the iPhone doesn’t and the iPhone has larger components, like display, battery than the N95, but it does show that you simply make your point based on what another device had at the time. Plus, those are cubed so they take in the actual volume for each device which favours the iPhone in this case, nor does it take into consideration the internal volume for components which would favour the N95.

No, 'we' didn't 'knock them out'. Rather, you dismissed them. The fact that you don't think they were concerns doesn't mean they were not. Neither you nor I were part of those decisions. What I take you to task over is your assumption that these sorts of factors did not come to bear when you cannot possibly know that. You would rather assume that it was done out of some crass effort to gouge the consumer, which puts you into the same camp as Teckstud in my oppinion: just a person who has a negative bias when it comes to assessing other people's motives.

By the way, your statement that "all other manufacturers had found ways to do it" is not only incredibly general, it is also not supportable by facts. Are you seriously insisting that all other cell phone makers had stopped using a 2mp camera at the time? That range is still the most common for cell phones, even today!

As I said, you are ignorant of the reasons the choice was made, as am I. And as a matter of fact, even if the choice was "there is not enough market demand to justify our additional cost for this part", that is a perfectly valid choice. Both you and teckstud need to get it through your heads that Steve Jobs did not get a team of engineers together and tell them "you have got to design this thing so that teckstud and mrochester love it. That is your number one priority! Forget everything else!" There was no board meeting, no secret 1 AM email flurry, no special study group. Just get over it: your own personal desires did not and should not drive Apple's product design process, nor should mine. Factors like market demand should. So, if Apple concluded there wasn't enough market demand for it, bravo. That's how you design products; it's a mix of 'what does the market want' and 'lets build something new and exciting'. Innovative is good, but being too far ahead of the game can kill you.

I understand being disappointed that a given product did not have some feature you wanted, but the way you guys both carry on about it makes it seem like SJ drove past your house and crapped on your lawn. Is it really that bad?

Yeah, I want to see that too. Judging by the BOM, its do-able. If Apple decided to make a larger Mac Mini (thinking the size of an aTV only a little taller) we could have desktop parts inside (3.5 in drives, desktop proc?) and make it even cheaper. Then at 499 they would still have their comfy margins.

But I don't see that happening anytime soon... they like their laptop parts too much.

But really the MacMini is the current xMac we all wish for that we'll never get. I just wish Apple (and heck, the rest of the Western Societies) would get off the whole "Skinnier/Smaller is Better" mentality. It really isn't, and Apple could still make some amazing looking machines with desktop parts! I urge their designers to strike up that challenge! Heck, keep prices (minus the MacMini) where they are and your price margins get bigger... sweet for them! (But I'd take it as a kindness if they lowered prices to be a little more competitive)

I think you will find that "Exchange Rate is an Apple Tax" when you use it to your advantage like Apple does. Apple was very slow to move prices when the Euro and Pound gained dramitically to the US$, but the second it dropped a little, Apple instantly raised their prices.

Most companies that trade products in US$ will try and do the same thing. But Apple also did the same thing with products in the UK, versus the rest of Europe. While people in the UK were complaining that their iTunes purchases were so more expensive than Europe, every other Apple product their was cheaper in the UK

I miss merry and pippin.

That is true, but it is an upgrade option for both the $599 Mini and the $799 mini, neither of which costs $799 with the 2.26GHz processor - thus completely invalidating the sentence.

You have no idea how to get a "decent" camera.

1. A camera with fixed focus lens won't benefit from more pixels. iPhone 2G/3G had crappy lens and fixed focus. To get better photos, it is not just about adding more pixels. They have to get auto-focus, which has a lot of other issues (size, battery etc).
2. Limited RAM. A 2MP camera uses 8MB for each photo. A 3.2MP camera uses 13MB. This has HUGE impact on third party developers (which I am one) with we have only about 24MB free RAM to work with. So, to get 3MP, while still give third party developers enough RAM to make interesting photo apps, Apple would have to double the RAM from 128 to 256 (which they did with 3GS).
3. Processor speed. It takes time for the CPU to encode and decoder JPG. Apple is rigid about the responsiveness of the device. They will not simply add more MP and double the loading or saving time.

What you like to see as a customer is completely different from what engineers can deliver at reasonable cost.

Feel free to say that you would like XXXX, but don't pretend that you know how to make a product, because you don't.

I would like 8MP camera with zoom focus, adjustable aperture from f2.8, with built-in filters for different modes. I can dream, but I will never pretend that I could do better than Apple.

And seriously, if you think you can do better than Apple, go ahead and do it. You will be worth billions.

Interesting and useful article (esp. for those of us interested in possible mini purchase... )

The original article data is not accurate re CPU though. (the iSuppli author has missed a non-trivial CPU specification mix-up).

If you visit the Apple Store, the CPU for the base Mac mini ($599 USD) and the high-end Mac mini ($799 USD) is the identical 2.00 GHz C2D.

The only thing that the extra $200 gets you in the high-end mini is an extra 1 GB RAM, and a larger (320 GB) HD.
(yes, their own comparison table shows more shared ram available to the GPU, but that is just because the machine RAM went from 1 GB to 2 GB - and it is shared/stolen from main RAM, not dedicated.)

You have to Build-to-Order and add $150 to either model in order to get the 2.26 GHz CPU upgrade.
(I wish it were true that the high end gave you the upgraded 2.26 GHz CPU -- then it might be worth the extra $200 (a 33% premium) -- but alas, it is not so. )

refs:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg4Mw
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=NDE4Mzg5OA

just sayin'
(and just trying to return this lengthy discussion back to a point in the original article... )

I think the problem is that many of the moderate, rational forum viewers don't comment, leaving much of the actual conversation to the idiotic fan-boys who the OP is referring to.. He is right in so far as there exist an extremely annoying subset of forum users who have the sheep behavior he describes..

This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.

Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.

And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.

You're also doing the "they" thing, for instance implying that the very same people who weren't troubled by the loss of firewire on MacBooks then immediately applauded the return of firewire as (presumably) indispensable. But is that in fact the case?

It seems equally likely to me that there were a lot of people who simply didn't give a shit about firewire because they didn't have firewire peripherals and were for whatever reasons unmoved by arguments involving technological superiority or legacy peripherals or pro-user edge cases-- indeed, found such arguments foolish and wrong because they weren't willing to think much past their own circumstance.

And that when Apple put firewire back such people were perfectly fine with that, and possibly glad that there was one less thing for people to bitch about.

But none of that requires any "creepy" levels of mindless fealty to Apple, just a simple self-interested evaluation of what is valuable to oneself, as opposed to someone else.

And so isn't entirely possible that the people who were unfazed by the SATA thing were people who for whom the issue was unimportant? And that those same people might be quick to complain if Apple did something that directly affected what they wanted to do with their computers? And that that also does not require assuming that such people are sheep?

That's why I object to the causal use of "people" without examples, because its easy to vaguely allude to these malleable sorts that stridently defend Apple's omissions and then immediately switch gears to applaud corrections of those very omissions. Are they really the same people? And even if they occasionally are, are they really that numerous?

What I see are a lot of posters that scream like stuck pigs if Apple does something that they feel hurts them, while of course berating or remaining indifferent to others who are equally horrified by a different issue which only affects that other person. So that if a person doesn't share your particular beef, it must be because they're a fanboy, whereas if someone else has a problem which you don't share it must be because they're an over-excitable idiot.

Which of course has nothing to do with being a fanboy, it's fairly average example of self interested people who perhaps are failing a bit at empathy and imagination and strategic thinking.

Sure, some people are more attuned to the big picture, and are bothered by things Apple does that strike them as sort of generally bad or short sighted or even malicious, even if such things don't impact them directly. But such folk are always going to be in the minority of most internet discussion forums, because most people on the planet don't think much past their personal likes and dislikes and their particular needs and wants.

And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.

I knocked them out because they sounded like the most likely scenarios. Arguments that the technology wasn't there, the demand wasn't there, or the cost was too high, don't sound very convincing to me in 2007. I am making a judement based on what sounds like the most plausible reason.


Yes he did, because I love my iPhone 3G. That doesn't mean I can't point out exactly where I think Apple are deliberately playing tricks to sell more devices at a later date.


No but but what high end smartphone of the time had a 2mp fixed-focus camera?


I'm not saying I know how to make a product. But I'm using the EVIDENCE to produce an ARGUMENT as to why Apple had a crappy 2mp camera in the original iPhone. Sony Ericsson had done a 2mp auto-focus snapper in a small device 2 years before the iPhone. I think that's more evidence to support the arguement that the technology was definitely already there, and Apple just chose to ignore it. I think Apple were accutely aware that making a device that was too well rounded would mean it would be difficult to get customers to buy another new iPhone later on, so they deliberately held back certain features so as to trickle them into the device at a later date.

Of course there is bias. This is an apple site. If you don't like any bias leave the internet because every site has bias.

By your definition everyone here is a "fanboy" because they don't think Apple sucks.


Except that few or no one has done that. Those are all nice to haves and everyone pretty much agree they are nice to haves. What folks have said is that the iPhone is GREAT despite not having those particular "nice to haves".

If a product is great without feature X then feature X wasn't absolutely required. Certainly the iPhone is better for having those features than without but also done as well as Apple has implemented 3.0.


Again, no one has said that about matte. Folks have only said that glossy is selling so Apple makes glossy screens. I had the matte vs glossy option on the 1st G MBP 17" and as far as I know you've always had that option. It's only on the consumer MB that you never had the option and they just chopped the 15" MBP down a peg (no express card is annoying too).

As for FW, the comment was it wasn't needed for consumers given that the consumer market has moved away from FW to USB2. It has except for tape based camcorders which are less and less popular every year.

Note that the 13" is now a MBP, not a MB and no more separate battery for more space.


Given that 15" MBP lost matte I'd say that Apple is continuing to reduce the availability of matte even for pro users.


7" netbooks suck. Which is why all the new ones are 10" and moving toward 12".

At 12" they're just compact notebooks. Which is what the MBA is. Gee, amazing.

Why do netbooks sell in large number? Because they are cheap and small. Apple doesn't mind small...but cheap not so much. The MBA is a more typical Apple product than the MB and MBPs have been: a niche product designed for the smallest, most elegant footprint at a premium price. Like the iMac.

Apple currently fills the netbook segment with the iPhone/iPod touch and later with a mid-sized tablet. I WISH they would make a tablet netbook but it's really not likely.

As the notebook market becomes more and more commoditized expect Apple to make their notebooks more and more niche to maintain the premium.


So is the term "asshat".

That is nonsense. First, many of the components in Macs are proprietary - the power supply, motherboard, case, for example, as well as (of course) the OS. Second, many of the components are NOT the same ones that cheap PC vendors use. Both may use a 100 mfd capacitor, but the specs and quality on one could be far different.

The proof is in the pudding. EVERY survey I've ever seen done by PC magazines, Mac magazines, general business magazines, and consumer magazines shows the Mac to have lower DOA rates, higher customer satisfaction rates, and lower problem rates than ANY PC brand. That pretty effectively disproves your argument.


While you are generally correct (I can buy a Seagate 120 GB drive for $37.50 including shipping (pricewatch.com), I don't think there's any way the figure is 1/2. Consumer prices from discount places aren't that far from high volume prices. In fact, when things are in oversupply, the contract prices are sometimes even higher than the consumer prices (since the consumer is buying overstocks while the OEM has to commit to a certain volume to ensure a supply). This happened with RAM a few years back.


Because Apple chose to make size a feature. Go start your own computer company and do it your way.


Exactly. The entire exercise is irrelevant. As a user, I look at a computer and decide if I want to pay the listed price. If the price is too high, I don't buy it. I don't really care what it costs the vendor to make it. If Apple can figure out a way to grow an orchard of trees and pick their computers off the tree when they're ripe with zero manufacturing cost but the price doesn't change, it's meaningless. Either the price they're asking is OK or it isn't.


You're making things up. No one said that video wouldn't be useful or that an autofocus camera wouldn't be useful. Just that it wasn't the end of the world that they weren't included in earlier versions. iPhone sales proved that to be the case.

You are obviously clueless about the design of a product. There are tradeoffs. Apple decided that they were going to make the iPhone 12 mm thick and sell at a certain price. That limits their options. At the time, there were no >2 MP autofocus cameras capable of doing video which fit into that form factor. (feel free to name one. Sure, those features were available in some fat phones, but they wouldn't work with Apple's design because of the thickness). As time goes on, technology improves and Apple is able to add more features within the scope of the compromises they have to make. That doesn't mean a 10 MP autofocus HD camera wouldn't have been nice in the original iPhone - it just wasn't possible.

That's not fanboyism, it's reality. The people you are labeling 'fanboys' are simply those who understand the reality of how design compromises work. You, OTOH, seem to think that "I want it and it's not available from Apple" means that Apple is intentionally crippling something.


That's misleading - VERY misleading. For example, people have been complaining about Apple's price for the 8 GB upgrades on MacBook Pros ($1000). Those are very expensive DIMMs. Arguing that RAM should cost $10 per GB is obviously wrong in that case. Similarly, 2 GB DIMMs are more expensive per GB than 1 GB DIMMS (usually).


Which is exactly why Apple wins every comparison on DOA rates, computer quality, need for repair, customer satisfaction, and so on. While they might use the same CPU as others (or, maybe they don't - we don't know what their internal specs are for reject rates, for example), they are clearly offering a superior product. The proof is in the pudding.


Fine. Show me a 3.2 mp autofocus camera available 2 years ago which would have fit into the iPhone's format. IT DIDN'T EXIST.

I don't buy "what is inside the device". I buy a product that meets my needs, is durable, has superb customer support, looks nice and has a killer os. I didn't bat an eye when I was spending >$2k for a laptop or >$7k for a tower and monitor. At today's price/performance ratio, its a steal.

I suggest you check your facts before you post.

LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*

Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.

I think you might want to retract your statement now.

'Game. Set. Match.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

but going from geforce video to shit intel will make stuff slower and apple needs to have better video cards in there systems with there own ram.

ATI has on board video with it's own ram.

the mini is the old cube

Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.

It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.

The worst part about this is, if you write to the author complaining of their use of cliches and banalities (I've tried) you only validate their viewpoint that Apple customers are indeed cultists. It also happens that much the same thinking goes on in places like this. You can't criticize the rhetorical approach used by people who naturally seem to think in terms of generalized insults without being branded as one of the people who deserves to be insulted. And round and round it goes.

Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.

All of that technical stuff just obscures the real issue, as far as I am concerned.

My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. That belief is not based on facts, its just a personal opinion based on nothing more than your own predilection. It reflects your personal bias. How do I know it is just a personal bias? I know because you insist that your position is the most logical one, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. Although you have attempted to claim that your argument is based on evidence, you haven't put forth even a rational argument to support it, much less provided any evidence. The fact that you think something does not make it evidence. And, the fact that 'it makes sense' to you also does not make something evidence.

I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on, I do. I wish the iPhone had a faster processor, I wish it cost half as mch, i wish it had more memory and twice as much battery life, and I wish it had a 7mp HD camera. But guess what? Just because I wish it doesn't make it feasible. When you build stuff like this, there is a balance between the competing demands and constraints of all of the technologies that you are bringing together. The art and science of design for these products is all about the balances that get struck. The fact that the balance wasn't to your liking doesn't mean 'the designers could have done better, but they wanted to take advantage of us as consumers.' That's just 'stinkin thinkin'.

Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.

It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!


As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.

You still havent proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldnt technically put a better camera in, but they couldnt put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.

The problem I have with your argument is the attribution of intent, first and foremost. The decision not to include a better camera does not imply that there was an intent to gouge the consumer. There is just no logical defense for that, because it isn't a rational argument.

Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.

Finally, even if it was possible to do, or even if the decision boiled down to maintaining a specific margin on the devices, so what? That still doesn't equal an intent to take advantage of the consumer. If there were such an intent, you still haven't provided any evidence for it, so why do you choose to believe it?

I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.

Blessings!

My problem with the people crying foul for both of those situations is that there were options and they affected for the ones that wanted it and it affected very few people. For starters, the problem was clearly a driver issue that would be resolved (at some point) and SSD was used by only a few people. If there is anything to get upset about its that Apple wouldnt even acknowledge when the problem will likely be resolved and their use of relatively slow SSDs. If that speed difference bothers you and you havent bought a new machine yet then dont buy that machine. I see the same people complaining with every release and I am pretty sure they arent buying the new merchandise each time.

The other complaint was FW400 being dropped from the MacBook. Even though the MBPs and desktop Macs also dropped FW400 while retaining FW800 there was a lot of screaming that Apple is dropping FireWire, when this simply wasnt the case. On top of that, it was a long time coming and well known what Apple was doing. They dropped it from the iPod line as an included cable, then they dropped the ability to sync using it, then the ability to charge from it, and then a case change on the Mac notebooks required the loss of the port and FW400 was the weakest link. Goodbye! It was a poorly designed port interface. They didnt make it future-forward like the USB and FW800 port interface so to expect Apple to keep it for ever is absurd. MBs never had FW800 and they still havent.

People had options for the MBPs or the other MB if they wanted FW. Or, as predicted after the 17 MBP demo, wait until Apple give the 13 a sealed battery, then youll get FW800. Short-sided or not, space constraints or not there are still other options for the consumer, including keep your current Mac with FW, if you dont like the result. It certainly doesnt require page after page about how Apple is doomed.

Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.



As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.


If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.


I have considered the evidence, and it seems to me that Apple deliberately holding back on the camera was more likely than them simply not being able to fit it into the device somehow. That's what I chose to believe because that's what the evidence I've looked at seems to suggest. Other than being told I have no idea how to make a device, there has been little evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you showed some evidence as to how Apple couldn't fit a better camera into the iPhone, then you'd have a stronger argument.

EDIT - Having measured both camera modules, they are both about 1cm x 1cm. The U600 is actually a slimmer device than the iPhone too. So it looks like it would have physically fitted.

Using a 2D image of unknown scale?

And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5 touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2 display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if its too large in one direction but okay in another that doesnt mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I dont deny that its not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just dont see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.

Come on, now you arent even trying to win. You are using a phone that uses a lot smaller and weaker HW than the iPhone does so the volume can be easily be less while allowing more room for a better camera. If that is the case, we cant tell because these two devices are so very different and you havent provided any scale. Then it seems you are showing just the lens component and not the other HW that make up the camera.

Without getting all the data, which seems pretty impossible, we simply cant make a determination. That is the issue at hand. You may be correct in everything youve stated, but it looks like it will have to remain a hypothesis unless you can provide some more conclusive evidence to make a deduction.

Here is your phone on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-u600

You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.

If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.

The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.


The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600. I am backing up my statements by providing measurements and figures. Please backup your statements with some figures and evidence rather than just saying 'you're wrong'. Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements before telling anyone else too...


Apple probably are holding back with the 3mp camera.

We already know that Apple's big move with their second run was 3G and GPS. I'm sure they had calculated that this was more than enough to get people buying again without them having to upgrade the camera unit. I guessed they figured they could milk the 2mp unit for another year before they'd finally have to do something about it.

Whilst Apple are giving the newest software updates to all of their iPhone lineup, they are quietly missing features out of the oldest model. We've seen some rather wooly explanations for this being because of the hardware that was used, but that simply sounds more like an excuse than being the actual explanation for it. Afterall, MMS is simply a photo sent via a data connection, which I know the iPhone is more than capable of. Jailbreaking proves that it is possible. Equally, A2DP is mysteriously missing from the 2G iPhone, even though it features the same bluetooth capabilities as the 3G.

If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then youd have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.

Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?

Isn't this a Mac Mini thread? Why all the iPhone traffic? Please move it to the iPhone thread.
Thanx.

Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for

Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.

Do you honestly think you can somehow prove that Apple intended to gouge consumers because you think they could have used a better camera?

If so, I just haven't got anything else to say to you. I am amazed that you think any of what you have said gives any credibility to your argument... and I think any rational person would feel much the same.

I am sure I could but I made no claims that rely on any measurements. In fact I made no claims at all. You did. So posting an image and saying "see, I told you" is not exactly rigorous. Nor is: "here is a number, work the rest out for yourself".

Assuming that you will prove the first part (an important aspect of technical feasibility), there remain additional technical aspects on which you have already been challenged (memory and battery requirements). Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.

1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I cant provide your proof for you.

2) The first two iPhones were not able to record adequate video while running OS X. There are plenty of YouTube videos to prove that video recording on a jailbroken iPhone was quite poor under OS X. You forget that OS X is desktop Operating System that has been shrunk down to fit in a phone, not a mobile OS that was designed from the ground up to originally run on much slower and older HW.

Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.