They DO, but the spectrum was so crowded nobody could get good signals. The WiFi standards weren't intended to deal with so many base stations. That many clients works (after a fashion), but it falls down with that many base stations.
It would seem as thought they would just pick the channels they wanted to use, and lock them from other use. That should solve the problem.
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
No offence but this sounds like "hooey" to me (... the mind interprets colours outside of the rgb colour gamut ...).
It's a fact that the average human eye can detect something quite a bit *less* than 16 million distinct colour values. You are right that it's impossible to accurately compare the eye to a camera or a display, but wrong to imply that the eye is the superlative of the two.
Eyes, (human eyes), don't actually discern that well at all and a display that can accurately portray 16 million+ colours with no pixillation is about as good as you will get.
I mean really, is everyone really so truly saddened by this stuff?
The professor you're replying to is truly saddened at SJ's comments, as if somehow the impending pop-culture explosion of his vision science field is thrown off track by the speech. And you are "honestly" saddened by this comments? Cmon people
I've been positively weeping though most of this thread. Oh, the anguish! The despair!
I'm sure that ALL marketing-speak is consistently going to use XYZ axis and XYZ rotation as 6-degrees of motion.
Now, engineers might want a gyro for every direction,.. but this thing should be pretty accurate as they've got the motion sensor, GPS, cell phone triangulation using the two antennas and a video camera to provide additional refinements.
So in practical terms -- a developer should be able to combine all that information and extrapolate something that a surveyor could use. If you were using this to direct a laser aimed at the moon - then it might be a bit of a reach.
What application is someone thinking of that the iPhone could NOT be used for with 3 gyros and everything else? You definitely could pilot the space shuttle.
Well, if William Shatner says it, it MUST be true.
Is it really all about the features? Are there others to consider?
CGC
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
When I read your comment I had to truly ask myself, "is that really the case?" and I honestly from the bottom of my heart don't think it is.
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
If it were even the slightest bit larger than the current 3GS, I wouldn't be able to fit it in the same jeans pocket as my wallet, which would force me to either a) come up with an entirely new pocket strategy or wardrobe, or b) start carrying a man bag.
Maybe some less nut-hugging jeans? I know the rest of us guys would be thankful
1) Only in apps, as that is what iAd is specifically targeted for. To allow app designers an easier way to incorporate ads in their apps
2) Depends on the app designer
3) Depends on the app designer
4) Depends on the app designer
5) Depends on the app designer
I think you get the point. If a designer goes crazy with Ads, their app will bomb, and they will go nowhere. These things have a tendency to take care of themselves. Chances are the ads will be unobtrusive IF your app of choice decides to use them. They can't afford something that drives users away.
Well, I tend to agree with your reasoning. Hope you're right about how this will develop. There is of course room for possible "trouble" when taking into account your answers for the questions from 2) to 5). But again: Hope the ads will not be obtrusive and that also this will find its proper and user friendly solutions, in line with what you wrote: "These things have a tendency to take care of themselves."
Not at all. Most 720 video for a 2 hour movie posted online is about 4 GB give or take, withy many using far less (1-2 GB) while retaining excellent quality. H.264 is actually quite efficient when it comes to quality at lower bitrates. I think you are FAR overestimating the space required if you think it will take a GB a minute. The iPhone already has hardware acceleration for h.264. It will have hardware encoding as well (it may already in the 3GS, although I haven't checked the specs).
I would imagine it will probably be in the area of 2500 - 5000 Kbps or so for 720P video. Standard DVD's top out at 9800 Kbps max rate (dual layer 8GB).
The quality you are talking about is fine for SD. Why are we even bothering to talk about HD video if you've compressed it in h.264 and your computation for space means one video file -- you've destroyed the source, the rendering and the final? You also need empty space to swap out files and memory. The 2 hour -online video is not even the quality of what you would see on a normal NTSC video stream.
There certainly is a lot of fudge room depending on codecs and if Apple has the ability to encode and edit in h.264 because of a chip on the iPhone -- I'd like that dang chip on my Final Cut Pro editing suite -- not because I'd every author in h.264, but just because I'd like to watch some TV while I'm editing.
Most Standard DVDs utilize hours of high quality compression. H.264 codec is a bit more efficient than MPEG of MPEG2, but its also more complex.
I think the STANDARD of Hi-resolution video editing, where people are trained on You-Tube quality, will work on the mass market... because they don't know any better. But it's not really HD quality editing on a 32G device for an 1 hour.
I expect this is more along the lines of a Novelty -- like those 12 Megapixel cameras with horrible optics and sensors. People will be making 2 and 5 minute masterpieces of their kids playing with a hose and chasing the cat and maybe superimpose a bouncing head of the dog.
I think there are a lot of video editors who might like it for quick "dailies" or whatnot. It's fine for playing back and tweaking compressed videos. But I'm not going to be able to use it as a real video camera on HD and then Edit my family video -- because I'm going to have at least 2 or 3 hours of the family on vacation. Plus, I think we'd all go slowly insane not having a 24" monitor and 50 or more tiny icons of the edit points.
The hype makes it sound like a serious HD experience and there is no way for a number of reasons, that it will provide that.
Curious how the iPhone now has a far superior display to the iPad. Why wasn't the iPad granted a 'retina' display?
Also why no 64gb option? The iPod Touch has had that for ages now. 32gb seems awfully small these days.
My iPad screen is approx. 6" x 7.75". That would be a screen with 1,950 x 2,525. Which would be about a 4,927,000 MP screen.
How much would you be willing to pay for such a screen, even if it exists?
The phone is always a generation behind the iPod Touch in memory capacity. It has to do with room and cost. The phone costs far more to produce, and there's less room inside. They can only put half of the Flash packages inside.
Well, if William Shatner says it, it MUST be true.
Well, if you REALLY want my opinion: I would never use merely 3 Gyros for teleportation -- mainly because 32 Gigs of RAM are not enough data buffer for moving a Pimple across the room, much less losing Scotty and coming back years later to re-materialize him.
You've got to think ahead when you are a star ship captain.
This thing is awesome. I will be ordering my first iPhone on June 15th. I am currently rocking and rolling on the 27" iMac and will undoubtedly add an iPad to the mix when the next gen comes out. Apple has turned my wife into a techo-geek and if you knew her, you'd be impressed with that accomplishment.
Seriously. Give me a break - you honestly think ANYONE at Apple HQ heard that and said "gee you know what, some people really are unhappy with ATT". Cmon!
It's probably true - since these people who are screaming "Burn the Verizon Witches!" are obviously the only ones shocked.
I'm thinking that there must be a "campus" where they don't let these people out at night, and they are SHOCKED -- SHOCKED! That anyone would make a joke about moving a phone onto more than one carrier.
This probably resulted in Apple losing 32 sales -- that's the number of people chained to the programming station right now.
I am liking this refresh. I wouldn't call it revolutionary. To me that was the first iPhone. But it's one hell of an evolutionary update. It's certainly a bigger leap than 3G to 3GS.
Most of the features to me are evolutionary. But I think the screen, the camera's video features and the gyroscope deserve some special mention. That's about the only hardware on this that I think really stands out.
I am bit skeptcial about the video calling. I've had it on several phones now. Never used it. Why? Because nobody else I knew had the feature. It'll largely be iPhone 4 to iPhone 4. But hopefully, Apple can help popularize the feature. And it'll be great for skype video chats. I am curious why they kept it wifi only though. That really, really limits usefulness of the feature.
On the software side, I find video editing to be huge. This might well take photo/video editing mainstream.
Unfortunately, the maximum storage staying at 32GB throws a wrench in my plans. I held off buying an iPod touch for several release cycles until its storage finally went up to 64GB. Now I don't want to do the same thing with the iPhone. But I also don't want to carry both an iPhone and an iPod touch around with me. Plus, I figured I could get a good price for the iPod to help pay for the new phone!
Argh...
You must go on LOOONG vacations to need that much storage. How much of a sacrifice is it to only have 5000 songs? Listen to the sounds of your destination instead of "Humpty Dance" for god's sake!
I'm still on page 2 so someone else may have answered this, but the 6 axis bit refers to up, down, left, right, forward, back I believe. Sixaxis was also the name of the PS3 controller.
Shouldn't "sitting right here not going anywhere" also be a 7th dimension then?
If you look closely in the photos shown by Jobs during the Keynote, vs. those on Apple.com in the iPhone 4 gallery, at the screws between speaker/mic and 30-pin connector port, we see standard Philips screws in the keynote, vs. 5-point screws on the website. What gives?
No offence but this sounds like "hooey" to me (... the mind interprets colours outside of the rgb colour gamut ...).
It's a fact that the average human eye can detect something quite a bit *less* than 16 million distinct colour values. You are right that it's impossible to accurately compare the eye to a camera or a display, but wrong to imply that the eye is the superlative of the two.
Eyes, (human eyes), don't actually discern that well at all and a display that can accurately portray 16 million+ colours with no pixillation is about as good as you will get.
I can easily tell the difference.
WE can't accurately discern 15-bit color, but you put anyone on a 32-bit monitor with Apple's latest hardware, and then have them look at the "alleged" 24-bit displays from 1998 (Intel's CPU architecture could ONLY use 15 bits for graphics).
You might not know THAT particular purple from something right next to it -- but you FEEL the difference. It's like the eye-strain you get from looking at a monitor at 60 hz -- higher MHz causes less eyestrain.
A lot of monitors actually dither neighboring pixels. If you have a true 32 bit display -- continuous tones are smooth. But if you had a textured image -- no, almost nobody could tell a 16-bit from a 32 bit. And MOST people think OLED is awesome because it's got like 16 over saturated colors and crushed blacks.
But there are people who have been trained as artists, and we don't pee yellow, it's more of a puce color. We care dammit!
Comments
Curious how the iPhone now has a far superior display to the iPad. Why wasn't the iPad granted a 'retina' display?
Also why no 64gb option? The iPod Touch has had that for ages now. 32gb seems awfully small these days.
I suspect it's for the bigger battery. It takes up the bulk of space in the phone. It was also one of the bigger complaints from previous models.
They DO, but the spectrum was so crowded nobody could get good signals. The WiFi standards weren't intended to deal with so many base stations. That many clients works (after a fashion), but it falls down with that many base stations.
It would seem as thought they would just pick the channels they wanted to use, and lock them from other use. That should solve the problem.
Another thing to consider is with a 960 by 640 pixel display, the entire screen has 614,400 pixels each with the ability to display only one of the 16 million rgb values. Since human vision does not use rgb it is difficult to compare it to a digital display. The mind interprets colors outside of the rgb color gamut. So in the regard to comparing the iPhone's display to human vision, aside from the resolution issue, the iPhone is also inferior, and to a measurable degree inaccurate, in its color representation.
No offence but this sounds like "hooey" to me (... the mind interprets colours outside of the rgb colour gamut ...).
It's a fact that the average human eye can detect something quite a bit *less* than 16 million distinct colour values. You are right that it's impossible to accurately compare the eye to a camera or a display, but wrong to imply that the eye is the superlative of the two.
Eyes, (human eyes), don't actually discern that well at all and a display that can accurately portray 16 million+ colours with no pixillation is about as good as you will get.
I mean really, is everyone really so truly saddened by this stuff?
The professor you're replying to is truly saddened at SJ's comments, as if somehow the impending pop-culture explosion of his vision science field is thrown off track by the speech. And you are "honestly" saddened by this comments? Cmon people
I've been positively weeping though most of this thread. Oh, the anguish! The despair!
I'm sure that ALL marketing-speak is consistently going to use XYZ axis and XYZ rotation as 6-degrees of motion.
Now, engineers might want a gyro for every direction,.. but this thing should be pretty accurate as they've got the motion sensor, GPS, cell phone triangulation using the two antennas and a video camera to provide additional refinements.
So in practical terms -- a developer should be able to combine all that information and extrapolate something that a surveyor could use. If you were using this to direct a laser aimed at the moon - then it might be a bit of a reach.
What application is someone thinking of that the iPhone could NOT be used for with 3 gyros and everything else? You definitely could pilot the space shuttle.
Well, if William Shatner says it, it MUST be true.
CGC
When I read your comment I had to truly ask myself, "is that really the case?" and I honestly from the bottom of my heart don't think it is.
I respect what I see here, and it's definitely a device I'm considering over the Evo, but I don't get sold on a lot of the buzz words Apple uses, and the only thing I'll rationalize is if I'm buying a device based on the fact that I want it, or if I'm being suckered by hype.
If it were even the slightest bit larger than the current 3GS, I wouldn't be able to fit it in the same jeans pocket as my wallet, which would force me to either a) come up with an entirely new pocket strategy or wardrobe, or b) start carrying a man bag.
Maybe some less nut-hugging jeans? I know the rest of us guys would be thankful
1) Only in apps, as that is what iAd is specifically targeted for. To allow app designers an easier way to incorporate ads in their apps
2) Depends on the app designer
3) Depends on the app designer
4) Depends on the app designer
5) Depends on the app designer
I think you get the point. If a designer goes crazy with Ads, their app will bomb, and they will go nowhere. These things have a tendency to take care of themselves. Chances are the ads will be unobtrusive IF your app of choice decides to use them. They can't afford something that drives users away.
Well, I tend to agree with your reasoning. Hope you're right about how this will develop. There is of course room for possible "trouble" when taking into account your answers for the questions from 2) to 5). But again: Hope the ads will not be obtrusive and that also this will find its proper and user friendly solutions, in line with what you wrote: "These things have a tendency to take care of themselves."
Maybe some less nut-hugging jeans? I know the rest of us guys would be thankful
The pockets are the same size in the relaxed and heroin thin cuts.
Not at all. Most 720 video for a 2 hour movie posted online is about 4 GB give or take, withy many using far less (1-2 GB) while retaining excellent quality. H.264 is actually quite efficient when it comes to quality at lower bitrates. I think you are FAR overestimating the space required if you think it will take a GB a minute. The iPhone already has hardware acceleration for h.264. It will have hardware encoding as well (it may already in the 3GS, although I haven't checked the specs).
I would imagine it will probably be in the area of 2500 - 5000 Kbps or so for 720P video. Standard DVD's top out at 9800 Kbps max rate (dual layer 8GB).
The quality you are talking about is fine for SD. Why are we even bothering to talk about HD video if you've compressed it in h.264 and your computation for space means one video file -- you've destroyed the source, the rendering and the final? You also need empty space to swap out files and memory. The 2 hour -online video is not even the quality of what you would see on a normal NTSC video stream.
There certainly is a lot of fudge room depending on codecs and if Apple has the ability to encode and edit in h.264 because of a chip on the iPhone -- I'd like that dang chip on my Final Cut Pro editing suite -- not because I'd every author in h.264, but just because I'd like to watch some TV while I'm editing.
Most Standard DVDs utilize hours of high quality compression. H.264 codec is a bit more efficient than MPEG of MPEG2, but its also more complex.
I think the STANDARD of Hi-resolution video editing, where people are trained on You-Tube quality, will work on the mass market... because they don't know any better. But it's not really HD quality editing on a 32G device for an 1 hour.
I expect this is more along the lines of a Novelty -- like those 12 Megapixel cameras with horrible optics and sensors. People will be making 2 and 5 minute masterpieces of their kids playing with a hose and chasing the cat and maybe superimpose a bouncing head of the dog.
I think there are a lot of video editors who might like it for quick "dailies" or whatnot. It's fine for playing back and tweaking compressed videos. But I'm not going to be able to use it as a real video camera on HD and then Edit my family video -- because I'm going to have at least 2 or 3 hours of the family on vacation. Plus, I think we'd all go slowly insane not having a 24" monitor and 50 or more tiny icons of the edit points.
The hype makes it sound like a serious HD experience and there is no way for a number of reasons, that it will provide that.
Curious how the iPhone now has a far superior display to the iPad. Why wasn't the iPad granted a 'retina' display?
Also why no 64gb option? The iPod Touch has had that for ages now. 32gb seems awfully small these days.
My iPad screen is approx. 6" x 7.75". That would be a screen with 1,950 x 2,525. Which would be about a 4,927,000 MP screen.
How much would you be willing to pay for such a screen, even if it exists?
The phone is always a generation behind the iPod Touch in memory capacity. It has to do with room and cost. The phone costs far more to produce, and there's less room inside. They can only put half of the Flash packages inside.
Well, if William Shatner says it, it MUST be true.
Well, if you REALLY want my opinion: I would never use merely 3 Gyros for teleportation -- mainly because 32 Gigs of RAM are not enough data buffer for moving a Pimple across the room, much less losing Scotty and coming back years later to re-materialize him.
You've got to think ahead when you are a star ship captain.
did they say anywhere what the 4 countries are that are getting it June 24?
Bosnia-Hertzegovina, Andorra, Fiume, and Tajikistan
.
Seriously. Give me a break - you honestly think ANYONE at Apple HQ heard that and said "gee you know what, some people really are unhappy with ATT". Cmon!
It's probably true - since these people who are screaming "Burn the Verizon Witches!" are obviously the only ones shocked.
I'm thinking that there must be a "campus" where they don't let these people out at night, and they are SHOCKED -- SHOCKED! That anyone would make a joke about moving a phone onto more than one carrier.
This probably resulted in Apple losing 32 sales -- that's the number of people chained to the programming station right now.
Most of the features to me are evolutionary. But I think the screen, the camera's video features and the gyroscope deserve some special mention. That's about the only hardware on this that I think really stands out.
I am bit skeptcial about the video calling. I've had it on several phones now. Never used it. Why? Because nobody else I knew had the feature. It'll largely be iPhone 4 to iPhone 4. But hopefully, Apple can help popularize the feature. And it'll be great for skype video chats. I am curious why they kept it wifi only though. That really, really limits usefulness of the feature.
On the software side, I find video editing to be huge. This might well take photo/video editing mainstream.
All in all, a good job.
Unfortunately, the maximum storage staying at 32GB throws a wrench in my plans. I held off buying an iPod touch for several release cycles until its storage finally went up to 64GB. Now I don't want to do the same thing with the iPhone. But I also don't want to carry both an iPhone and an iPod touch around with me. Plus, I figured I could get a good price for the iPod to help pay for the new phone!
Argh...
You must go on LOOONG vacations to need that much storage. How much of a sacrifice is it to only have 5000 songs?
I'm still on page 2 so someone else may have answered this, but the 6 axis bit refers to up, down, left, right, forward, back I believe. Sixaxis was also the name of the PS3 controller.
Shouldn't "sitting right here not going anywhere" also be a 7th dimension then?
No offence but this sounds like "hooey" to me (... the mind interprets colours outside of the rgb colour gamut ...).
It's a fact that the average human eye can detect something quite a bit *less* than 16 million distinct colour values. You are right that it's impossible to accurately compare the eye to a camera or a display, but wrong to imply that the eye is the superlative of the two.
Eyes, (human eyes), don't actually discern that well at all and a display that can accurately portray 16 million+ colours with no pixillation is about as good as you will get.
I can easily tell the difference.
WE can't accurately discern 15-bit color, but you put anyone on a 32-bit monitor with Apple's latest hardware, and then have them look at the "alleged" 24-bit displays from 1998 (Intel's CPU architecture could ONLY use 15 bits for graphics).
You might not know THAT particular purple from something right next to it -- but you FEEL the difference. It's like the eye-strain you get from looking at a monitor at 60 hz -- higher MHz causes less eyestrain.
A lot of monitors actually dither neighboring pixels. If you have a true 32 bit display -- continuous tones are smooth. But if you had a textured image -- no, almost nobody could tell a 16-bit from a 32 bit. And MOST people think OLED is awesome because it's got like 16 over saturated colors and crushed blacks.
But there are people who have been trained as artists, and we don't pee yellow, it's more of a puce color. We care dammit!