We've all seen that photo. The only thing that photo does is BEG the question: "where are the real meat and potatoes photos". Do you not get that?
I mean; this is the reason why it is all so suspect. Why show an internal photo that doesn't show anything substantial, and then purposely not publish photos that actually DO show something substantial?
Possibly because further digging into the hardware would require damaging the device.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?
First of all, Apple's line of handhelds (iPods and iPhones) have never fully mimicked their computers' form.
Okay....
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob
Secondly, you can't argue the iPhone 3GS is out of place if both the iMac and the iPad currently have curved backs (which can be aluminium since they don't require a cellular signal); while this prototype is completely flat.
...does that not undermine your first point?
But a curved back is inappropriate on a phone. Man people use a phone by placing it on a flat surface and pressing down. Curved backs are bad for this.
The curved back allows a device to have a thick profile but have a thin edge. This is a thin device (period) it's 9mm. No need for curves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob
Fourthly, it may make sense for the volume buttons to be split if Apple decided to make them touch-sensitive like the old iPod buttons. But other than it being ergonomically clumsy
Please notice that some people use the phone as a camera. One major shortcoming is the absence of a shutter button. These buttons double up for that function. A rocker would not. Who would enjoy using a touch sensitive camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob
"In fact" I would say that sitting next to an iMac or iPad, this prototype looks far less appropriate than an iPhone 3GS.
The design language of the 3GS is tired. The heavy use of plastics, and the rather camp presence of a chrome trim belongs in a previous era. The new design looks more solid, more professional and more importantly is both more durable and more functional.
The only criticism is that it is a more masculine design. But I think the solution for that is in the case-friendliness of the shape. This phone was found in a rubberised case that completely encloses the screen. It's going to be very easy for users to customise their phone's appearance with all manner of slip-on cases.
That is one of the ugliest GD phones I have seen in awhile. And to think I just gave a speech tonight that I liked my 3G because it was so sleek. I was even holding out on buying an iPad to see what the 4G was like in case I'd rather have the phone. iPad it is, so disappointed.
The picture is showing you a prototype, not a production model. The real thing will have a curved back, like the iPad and the current iPhone. Hopefully they are using Aluminium with a black Apple (including all the antennas).
I really can't imagine Jonathan Ive going back to the flat aesthetic. It just doesn't feel right in the hand. This prototype phone just looks too geeky to me.
The whole story proves it's the first Apple product which's come in hands of Giz's linuxoids. Goodness, they've torn Apple's product down and now are happy to return it to Apple. They should have first tried that with any AASP around the corner...
Definitely a prototype. I expect that they design these things from the inside out so the overall look would probably be one of the last things they tweak. I can totally see why they would experiment with a glass back though. First of all, it fits with their current environmental strategy.
Apple has been systematically reducing the plastic parts in their products. The new iMacs are a great example of this. The problem however is that the metal interferes with wireless reception.
Typically Apple has used the black Apple logo to make a window for the antenna but I can see why that would be difficult to do on a phone which has more antennas (3G, WiFi, and GPS) where everything is so tight.
A glass back is the only logical material that can replace the plastic without interfering like aluminum would. Cell phone signals (microwaves) can pass through glass very easily. Also the glass would provide scratch resistance and would be easy to make since it matches the front glass in size and shape.
Clearly, the design could change drastically. They could still easily stick with the plastic. Its still just a prototype after all....
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearhunter
With reference to AppleInsider articles from months gone by, how does this grab you lot...
Apple's next-generation iPhone has been obtained by Gizmodo, confirming the forthcoming hardware's forward-facing camera, high-resolution 960x460 display
Wow! So odd a resolution.
BTW, how did they count?
P.S. Giz, while behaving absolutely wildly, should be given a certain credit for their much more reasonable account:
Quote:
What's new
? Front-facing video chat camera
? Improved regular back-camera (the lens is quite noticeably larger than the iPhone 3GS)
? Camera flash
? Micro-SIM instead of standard SIM (like the iPad)
? Improved display. It's unclear if it's the 960x640 display thrown around before?it certainly looks like it, with the "Connect to iTunes" screen displaying much higher resolution than on a 3GS.
? What looks to be a secondary mic for noise cancellation, at the top, next to the headphone jack
? Split buttons for volume
? Power, mute, and volume buttons are all metallic
No need, AI, to show once more how careless and unprofessional your editors are. We all know.
How so? It's exactly double the ppi. Even if the display was slightly smaller or larger than it currently is developers would have to change to little to nothing (if they followed the rules) to have their apps look good on the new device.
This is not like the iPad's scale system which does a 1-to-1 mapping and then allows for a 2-to-1 mapping, all on a display with considerably less ppi.
Possibly because further digging into the hardware would require damaging the device.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?
C.
At this point I'm operating under the idea that Giz's legal team told that showing or explaining aspects of the logic board would be a different issue than some photos of the casing and comparison shots.
WTF? Four links that don't have anything to do with a lack of cease and desist letters? That do not, in anyway explain the lack of photos showing it turned onbefore the subsequent letter (not a C&D) was sent?
Did you read the post you replied to before posting 4 links to the same letter, which was unrelated to either of the two questions asked?
Am I really the only one that thinks that the ONLY break in the frame edge could be for an IR transceiver? I'd at least like a rational answer as to why Apple would never include one in the iPhone.
Am I really the only one that thinks that the ONLY break in the frame edge could be for an IR transceiver? I'd at least like a rational answer as to why Apple would never include one in the iPhone.
haven't they really gotten away from them on all of their devices (other than to support the Apple Remote)? If they were to include one, would it require a break in the frame instead of just a hole?
haven't they really gotten away from them on all of their devices (other than to support the Apple Remote)? If they were to include one, would it require a break in the frame instead of just a hole?
The MBPs IR receiver is a thin slit. It could be a round hole, but that wouldn't look as slick as this. The picture has a clear break in the frame with support on either side for reinforcement. I think it has to be for something and that is the only thing I can think of that fits (actually it was NasserAE that first proposed the idea).
Programmable remote controls can be expensive devices yet limited in functionality. The only thing holding back the iPhone, Touch and iPad from being one is an IR sensor. Since all these devices are often used at a home I can see deciding to offer it if it doesn't interfere with their other design choices. IR may be old hat, but it's not going anyway. WiFi and BT consume way too much power to compete with it and this is placed in the right position for this to work.
WTF? Four links that don't have anything to do with a lack of cease and desist letters? That do not, in anyway explain the lack of photos showing it turned onbefore the subsequent letter (not a C&D) was sent?
Did you read the post you replied to before posting 4 links to the same letter, which was unrelated to either of the two questions asked?
Hey, Tulkas, how've you been?
mjohn68 thinks these aren't actual images of an actual iPhone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjohn68
If these are actual images of an actual iPhone, then why don't we see it turned on?
If they were real wouldn't Apple be issuing Cease and desist letters to these sites that posted the pics?
The four links showed him that the "actual images of an actual iPhone" are real enough that Apple Senior VP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell asked for the actual device back.
The C&D isn't going to happen because you basically can't get that genie back into the bottle.
FWIW, my guess is that Brian Lam, Jason Chen and Nick Denton are going to wish they got a C&D from Apple Legal. My guess is that what's going to go down is going to be a bit more serious than a C&D letter.
Comments
Are you serious?
We've all seen that photo. The only thing that photo does is BEG the question: "where are the real meat and potatoes photos". Do you not get that?
I mean; this is the reason why it is all so suspect. Why show an internal photo that doesn't show anything substantial, and then purposely not publish photos that actually DO show something substantial?
Possibly because further digging into the hardware would require damaging the device.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?
C.
First of all, Apple's line of handhelds (iPods and iPhones) have never fully mimicked their computers' form.
Okay....
Secondly, you can't argue the iPhone 3GS is out of place if both the iMac and the iPad currently have curved backs (which can be aluminium since they don't require a cellular signal); while this prototype is completely flat.
...does that not undermine your first point?
But a curved back is inappropriate on a phone. Man people use a phone by placing it on a flat surface and pressing down. Curved backs are bad for this.
The curved back allows a device to have a thick profile but have a thin edge. This is a thin device (period) it's 9mm. No need for curves!
Fourthly, it may make sense for the volume buttons to be split if Apple decided to make them touch-sensitive like the old iPod buttons. But other than it being ergonomically clumsy
Please notice that some people use the phone as a camera. One major shortcoming is the absence of a shutter button. These buttons double up for that function. A rocker would not. Who would enjoy using a touch sensitive camera?
"In fact" I would say that sitting next to an iMac or iPad, this prototype looks far less appropriate than an iPhone 3GS.
The design language of the 3GS is tired. The heavy use of plastics, and the rather camp presence of a chrome trim belongs in a previous era. The new design looks more solid, more professional and more importantly is both more durable and more functional.
The only criticism is that it is a more masculine design. But I think the solution for that is in the case-friendliness of the shape. This phone was found in a rubberised case that completely encloses the screen. It's going to be very easy for users to customise their phone's appearance with all manner of slip-on cases.
C.
That is one of the ugliest GD phones I have seen in awhile. And to think I just gave a speech tonight that I liked my 3G because it was so sleek. I was even holding out on buying an iPad to see what the 4G was like in case I'd rather have the phone. iPad it is, so disappointed.
The picture is showing you a prototype, not a production model. The real thing will have a curved back, like the iPad and the current iPhone. Hopefully they are using Aluminium with a black Apple (including all the antennas).
I really can't imagine Jonathan Ive going back to the flat aesthetic. It just doesn't feel right in the hand. This prototype phone just looks too geeky to me.
Apple has been systematically reducing the plastic parts in their products. The new iMacs are a great example of this. The problem however is that the metal interferes with wireless reception.
Typically Apple has used the black Apple logo to make a window for the antenna but I can see why that would be difficult to do on a phone which has more antennas (3G, WiFi, and GPS) where everything is so tight.
A glass back is the only logical material that can replace the plastic without interfering like aluminum would. Cell phone signals (microwaves) can pass through glass very easily. Also the glass would provide scratch resistance and would be easy to make since it matches the front glass in size and shape.
Clearly, the design could change drastically. They could still easily stick with the plastic. Its still just a prototype after all....
With reference to AppleInsider articles from months gone by, how does this grab you lot...
The back of the phone could be a solar panel.
If these are images of the 4G iPhone then the flat back could lend itself to being a dual-sided multi-touch device.
Further, it could be a combination of the above ideas...
...discuss...
.
Apple's next-generation iPhone has been obtained by Gizmodo, confirming the forthcoming hardware's forward-facing camera, high-resolution 960x460 display
Wow! So odd a resolution.
BTW, how did they count?
P.S. Giz, while behaving absolutely wildly, should be given a certain credit for their much more reasonable account:
What's new
? Front-facing video chat camera
? Improved regular back-camera (the lens is quite noticeably larger than the iPhone 3GS)
? Camera flash
? Micro-SIM instead of standard SIM (like the iPad)
? Improved display. It's unclear if it's the 960x640 display thrown around before?it certainly looks like it, with the "Connect to iTunes" screen displaying much higher resolution than on a 3GS.
? What looks to be a secondary mic for noise cancellation, at the top, next to the headphone jack
? Split buttons for volume
? Power, mute, and volume buttons are all metallic
No need, AI, to show once more how careless and unprofessional your editors are. We all know.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?
I think the guys at Giz already have their hands full in that department.
Wow! So odd a resolution.
BTW, how did they count?
How so? It's exactly double the ppi. Even if the display was slightly smaller or larger than it currently is developers would have to change to little to nothing (if they followed the rules) to have their apps look good on the new device.
This is not like the iPad's scale system which does a 1-to-1 mapping and then allows for a 2-to-1 mapping, all on a display with considerably less ppi.
Possibly because further digging into the hardware would require damaging the device.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?
C.
At this point I'm operating under the idea that Giz's legal team told that showing or explaining aspects of the logic board would be a different issue than some photos of the casing and comparison shots.
But a curved back is inappropriate on a phone.
.
You are, of course, saying that every phone that Apple has ever released has an "inappropriate" back.
Likely you didn't realize.
It looks like a LG or Samsung from 2006. Don't like it.
It is boxy and ugly.
You are, of course, saying that every phone that Apple has ever released has an "inappropriate" back.
Likely you didn't realize.
I for one have never liked the curved back (not to mention the plastic, ugh).
If they were real wouldn't Apple be issuing Cease and desist letters to these sites that posted the pics?
If these are actual images of an actual iPhone, then why don't we see it turned on?
If they were real wouldn't Apple be issuing Cease and desist letters to these sites that posted the pics?
Here on AI:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...a_lawsuit.html
MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/20/...e-iphone-back/
TUAW:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/20/apple...t-device-back/
Even Giz themselves:
http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back
Here on AI:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...a_lawsuit.html
MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/20/...e-iphone-back/
TUAW:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/20/apple...t-device-back/
Even Giz themselves:
http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back
WTF? Four links that don't have anything to do with a lack of cease and desist letters? That do not, in anyway explain the lack of photos showing it turned onbefore the subsequent letter (not a C&D) was sent?
Did you read the post you replied to before posting 4 links to the same letter, which was unrelated to either of the two questions asked?
Am I really the only one that thinks that the ONLY break in the frame edge could be for an IR transceiver? I'd at least like a rational answer as to why Apple would never include one in the iPhone.
haven't they really gotten away from them on all of their devices (other than to support the Apple Remote)? If they were to include one, would it require a break in the frame instead of just a hole?
haven't they really gotten away from them on all of their devices (other than to support the Apple Remote)? If they were to include one, would it require a break in the frame instead of just a hole?
The MBPs IR receiver is a thin slit. It could be a round hole, but that wouldn't look as slick as this. The picture has a clear break in the frame with support on either side for reinforcement. I think it has to be for something and that is the only thing I can think of that fits (actually it was NasserAE that first proposed the idea).
Programmable remote controls can be expensive devices yet limited in functionality. The only thing holding back the iPhone, Touch and iPad from being one is an IR sensor. Since all these devices are often used at a home I can see deciding to offer it if it doesn't interfere with their other design choices. IR may be old hat, but it's not going anyway. WiFi and BT consume way too much power to compete with it and this is placed in the right position for this to work.
WTF? Four links that don't have anything to do with a lack of cease and desist letters? That do not, in anyway explain the lack of photos showing it turned onbefore the subsequent letter (not a C&D) was sent?
Did you read the post you replied to before posting 4 links to the same letter, which was unrelated to either of the two questions asked?
Hey, Tulkas, how've you been?
mjohn68 thinks these aren't actual images of an actual iPhone:
If these are actual images of an actual iPhone, then why don't we see it turned on?
If they were real wouldn't Apple be issuing Cease and desist letters to these sites that posted the pics?
The four links showed him that the "actual images of an actual iPhone" are real enough that Apple Senior VP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell asked for the actual device back.
The C&D isn't going to happen because you basically can't get that genie back into the bottle.
FWIW, my guess is that Brian Lam, Jason Chen and Nick Denton are going to wish they got a C&D from Apple Legal. My guess is that what's going to go down is going to be a bit more serious than a C&D letter.