I was kind of thinking that too, but now I'm a little more skeptical. Why is the A in august not capitalized there on the lock screen? Is there a region format that changes the capitalization on the month? The "day date month" format is used by the UK region setting, but on my iPhone 4, the month is still capitalized.
My guess is that it's on a danish region setting. It says "Fredag" too.
This isn't the first time that you've said this so I'm guessing you don't really grok that a technology well suited to providing a small number of users bandwidth across a large area probably isn't well suited to providing a large number of users bandwidth across a small area.
Any explanation WHY it's not 'well-suited' for that?
I say screw 3G and 4G altogether. Have Apple push for 802.22 inclusion in consumer devices and make a new generation of AirPort base stations based on 802.22.
The telecoms had their chance. They failed miserably. Let consumers own their own "towers" now.
Mostly off-topic but I'll post this "what if?" scenario from Jean-Louis Gassée about Apple buying T-Mobile USA.
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. You can compare the border, but really, maybe it's just a photo put on a China copy... Weird with the old notificationsystem on the screen though. But I hope you're happy with me sharing it anyways.
Can you post using a different image provider? Thanks.
Imageshack always shows as a blocked image after a few hours.
May I request all posters stop using Imageshack? It always shows as "Domain Unregistered".
Weird, cuz I can see it.. And you're right, now it's larger.
Seriously, it's 2011. Mr. Blurrycam should have retired back in aught three. He should be sipping mimoSLRas on his deck chair in Camcun by now, for crying out loud.
Weird, cuz I can see it.. And you're right, now it's larger. ...
This is the same fake image from that French site last month. The photos of the other side look the same (i.e. - there are no volume buttons or silent switch), which is your first clue that it's likely a fake. Also, as has been pointed out the reflection shows a regular old iPhone 4. Also, no sim tray visible. Also, the screen image on the top of the phone is not centred. Also, if it was a world phone as predicted, it would also have a second black band on the side we see in this picture, close to the top of the phone, and a lot of the reflections on the chrome rim seem to make no sense.
I'd be really, really surprised if this is the real deal. The more you look at it the more you see what a total fake it is.
This is the same fake image from that French site last month. The photos of the other side look the same (i.e. - there are no volume buttons or silent switch), which is your first clue that it's likely a fake. Also, as has been pointed out the reflection shows a regular old iPhone 4. Also, no sim tray visible. Also, the screen image on the top of the phone is not centred. Also, if it was a world phone as predicted, it would also have a second black band on the side we see in this picture, close to the top of the phone, and a lot of the reflections on the chrome rim seem to make no sense.
I'd be really, really surprised if this is the real deal.
I didn't know photoshopping could be done so well, and still they forgot the glassreflection.. I'm sorry! Damn it.
That antenna solution isn't particularly attractive. And it looks easy to break off.
Maybe it got "Steved." That's actually the term used at Apple for "cancelled at the last moment by Steve Jobs because he didn't like it for whatever reason."
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. ...
I do have a kind of an idea. Look at the very deep, long shadow cast by the thinner "iPhone" directly toward our point of view. Compare it with the shorter shadows cast by the real iPhone 4, the keyboard in the upper right, and both the coiled and straight cables. No way that extra-long shadow can happen in real life.
That antenna solution isn't particularly attractive. And it looks easy to break off.
Maybe it got "Steved." That's actually the term used at Apple for "cancelled at the last moment by Steve Jobs because he didn't like it for whatever reason."
99.9% of these prototypes get this treatment.
This prototype probably got two seconds of Steve's attention.
Also why not fix the computer himself if he is an apple engineer ( or find a buddy with hrardware skills if he was more of a software guy.
Maybe he sees prototypes all the time, realized that this was a four year old machine, and simply didn't care enough to be bothered?
Quote:
Also they description on ebay says that he noticed he mac was "different" because of the red logic board, i would have noticed it by a giant antenna!
It's just reaffirming that it's a genuine prototype.
Quote:
In other words he did not know how to fire it up without the right hardware skills. Which is once again suspect because whoever gave it to him could have helped out with that if the seller was indeed part of the engineering team.
Any explanation WHY it's not 'well-suited' for that?
Ok, my RF physics is very very rusty (I'm a field theory guy), but essentially available bandwidth increases with frequency of carrier and decreases with cell size.
Imagine a very simple analogy, think of a building made entirely of glass which is an array of square rooms representing cells, and in which we use an optical frequency to carry data. Two devices in the same room communicating with the base station have to multiplex across the available bandwidth, say by using different time windows. Adjacent rooms use different frequencies, and anything further than adjacent the signals are below the noise floor so can be ignored.
Now an actual cellular system is more complicated because base stations use multiple antenna and have a degree of directionality, so can support more bandwidth than this approximation alone would indicate, but the factors still apply - bigger cells means less system-wide bandwidth.
Zooming into covent garden (a popular retail area) you see much denser cells than out in Holborn or Clerkenwell. Head out to the suburbs and it's less again. Finally in rural areas cells are huge. Generally in rural areas you end up falling back on a 2G network because they support larger cells.
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. You can compare the border, but really, maybe it's just a photo put on a China copy... Weird with the old notificationsystem on the screen though. But I hope you're happy with me sharing it anyways.
That's fake. The black line that supposed to indicate an antenna break is not perpendicular to the screen.
I wonder if the metal shell was a big problem, because that could make the device extremely sensitive to orientation with respect to the tower. Cellular data is one thing that is pretty absent on computers (especially on the MacBook Air, given its model name), and it's something that I don't think a USB stick is a desirable compromise.
Mostly off-topic but I'll post this "what if?" scenario from Jean-Louis Gassée about Apple buying T-Mobile USA.[/INDENT]
I don't think buying a carrier is the best thing to do. There's a lot of baggage that comes with it and would be seen as anti-competitive. Apple can enforce their quality control on their own tight-knit group. Trying to do that with a carrier would be very difficult and would tarnish their brand. Apple wouldn't want to end up like the brand you see being openly laughed at in the following video, no prizes for guessing. Skip to 1:40:
I would like to see them help bring some real innovation to the field though and one that seemed very interesting was another development from Steve Perlman concerning antenna capacity and getting around the limits imposed by Shannon's Law:
Some of the technology features sub-millisecond latency and he had mentioned about even being able to run RAM remotely over a network. Not that the example of RAM is practical but having such low latency is advantageous for wireless communication. I find his presentations fascinating and to me he seems like the perfect embodiment of a true inventor:
As far as Apple is concerned, getting access to such unique antenna designs and protocols could open up the possibility of not even requiring a carrier. P2P signal boosting is an option and another might be sending mini base stations to homes for routing signals. Carriers do this sort of thing with cars.
Ultimately, there has to be a better way to get a wireless signal to a device than simply firing waves out in all directions at as high a power as you can send out. You'd really want the equivalent of a wire without using a wire e.g like a sonic 'LASER' or SASER:
Tracking devices can figure out where you are roughly and then know where to concentrate a signal to connect your device in a stable manner.
I think the first step that needs to be taken is to stop the separation of computers and phones. They should be on the same network. 3G in laptops is one thing but I should be able to take calls from anyone on my computer or make a call from my computer without using specialised applications. Gradually we are moving this way with FaceTime, iMessage, Skype etc but it seems like where we are now should have been reached 5-10 years ago.
Ultimately, there has to be a better way to get a wireless signal to a device than simply firing waves out in all directions at as high a power as you can send out.
On the tower end, there is. Cell towers aren't omnidirectional antennas, even if it seems that way. If you take a look at a tower, they have a lot of vertical white trapezoid boxes in a circle, facing away from the center of the tower. Those are sector antennas, they divide the landscape by so many degrees of a circle, how many depends on the design of the antenna. You're only connected to one of those sectors. You get better gain and allows more subscribers to connect to a tower than would otherwise be possible with an omni.
Quote:
Tracking devices can figure out where you are roughly and then know where to concentrate a signal to connect your device in a stable manner.
Probably way too expensive and unreliable. You'd have to have a mechanical tracking system for each subscriber that is in range, which will have a more limited operational temperature range than a completely electronic system with no moving parts.
Quote:
I think the first step that needs to be taken is to stop the separation of computers and phones. They should be on the same network. 3G in laptops is one thing but I should be able to take calls from anyone on my computer or make a call from my computer without using specialised applications. Gradually we are moving this way with FaceTime, iMessage, Skype etc but it seems like where we are now should have been reached 5-10 years ago.
The recently surfaced prototype appears to validate earlier reports that Apple was looking into building 3G wireless into its notebooks. In 2009, rumors swirled that wireless carriers would help subsidize the cost of new Macs with 3G data service plans after a job listing appeared for a 3G specialist for Macs.
Comments
I was kind of thinking that too, but now I'm a little more skeptical. Why is the A in august not capitalized there on the lock screen? Is there a region format that changes the capitalization on the month? The "day date month" format is used by the UK region setting, but on my iPhone 4, the month is still capitalized.
My guess is that it's on a danish region setting. It says "Fredag" too.
This isn't the first time that you've said this so I'm guessing you don't really grok that a technology well suited to providing a small number of users bandwidth across a large area probably isn't well suited to providing a large number of users bandwidth across a small area.
Any explanation WHY it's not 'well-suited' for that?
I say screw 3G and 4G altogether. Have Apple push for 802.22 inclusion in consumer devices and make a new generation of AirPort base stations based on 802.22.
The telecoms had their chance. They failed miserably. Let consumers own their own "towers" now.
Mostly off-topic but I'll post this "what if?" scenario from Jean-Louis Gassée about Apple buying T-Mobile USA.
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. You can compare the border, but really, maybe it's just a photo put on a China copy... Weird with the old notificationsystem on the screen though. But I hope you're happy with me sharing it anyways.
Can you post using a different image provider? Thanks.
Imageshack always shows as a blocked image after a few hours.
May I request all posters stop using Imageshack? It always shows as "Domain Unregistered".
Can you post using a different image provider? Thanks.
Imageshack always shows as a blocked image after a few hours.
May I request all posters stop using Imageshack? It always shows as "Domain Unregistered".
Weird, cuz I can see it.. And you're right, now it's larger.
Weird, cuz I can see it.. And you're right, now it's larger.
Seriously, it's 2011. Mr. Blurrycam should have retired back in aught three. He should be sipping mimoSLRas on his deck chair in Camcun by now, for crying out loud.
Weird, cuz I can see it.. And you're right, now it's larger. ...
This is the same fake image from that French site last month. The photos of the other side look the same (i.e. - there are no volume buttons or silent switch), which is your first clue that it's likely a fake. Also, as has been pointed out the reflection shows a regular old iPhone 4. Also, no sim tray visible. Also, the screen image on the top of the phone is not centred. Also, if it was a world phone as predicted, it would also have a second black band on the side we see in this picture, close to the top of the phone, and a lot of the reflections on the chrome rim seem to make no sense.
I'd be really, really surprised if this is the real deal. The more you look at it the more you see what a total fake it is.
This is the same fake image from that French site last month. The photos of the other side look the same (i.e. - there are no volume buttons or silent switch), which is your first clue that it's likely a fake. Also, as has been pointed out the reflection shows a regular old iPhone 4. Also, no sim tray visible. Also, the screen image on the top of the phone is not centred. Also, if it was a world phone as predicted, it would also have a second black band on the side we see in this picture, close to the top of the phone, and a lot of the reflections on the chrome rim seem to make no sense.
I'd be really, really surprised if this is the real deal.
I didn't know photoshopping could be done so well, and still they forgot the glassreflection.. I'm sorry! Damn it.
Maybe it got "Steved." That's actually the term used at Apple for "cancelled at the last moment by Steve Jobs because he didn't like it for whatever reason."
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. ...
I do have a kind of an idea. Look at the very deep, long shadow cast by the thinner "iPhone" directly toward our point of view. Compare it with the shorter shadows cast by the real iPhone 4, the keyboard in the upper right, and both the coiled and straight cables. No way that extra-long shadow can happen in real life.
That antenna solution isn't particularly attractive. And it looks easy to break off.
Maybe it got "Steved." That's actually the term used at Apple for "cancelled at the last moment by Steve Jobs because he didn't like it for whatever reason."
99.9% of these prototypes get this treatment.
This prototype probably got two seconds of Steve's attention.
Also why not fix the computer himself if he is an apple engineer ( or find a buddy with hrardware skills if he was more of a software guy.
Maybe he sees prototypes all the time, realized that this was a four year old machine, and simply didn't care enough to be bothered?
Also they description on ebay says that he noticed he mac was "different" because of the red logic board, i would have noticed it by a giant antenna!
It's just reaffirming that it's a genuine prototype.
In other words he did not know how to fire it up without the right hardware skills. Which is once again suspect because whoever gave it to him could have helped out with that if the seller was indeed part of the engineering team.
Again, you're assuming he gave a damn.
Any explanation WHY it's not 'well-suited' for that?
Ok, my RF physics is very very rusty (I'm a field theory guy), but essentially available bandwidth increases with frequency of carrier and decreases with cell size.
Imagine a very simple analogy, think of a building made entirely of glass which is an array of square rooms representing cells, and in which we use an optical frequency to carry data. Two devices in the same room communicating with the base station have to multiplex across the available bandwidth, say by using different time windows. Adjacent rooms use different frequencies, and anything further than adjacent the signals are below the noise floor so can be ignored.
Now an actual cellular system is more complicated because base stations use multiple antenna and have a degree of directionality, so can support more bandwidth than this approximation alone would indicate, but the factors still apply - bigger cells means less system-wide bandwidth.
You can see this in practical terms by looking at a cellular map of base stations, for example http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/search
Zooming into covent garden (a popular retail area) you see much denser cells than out in Holborn or Clerkenwell. Head out to the suburbs and it's less again. Finally in rural areas cells are huge. Generally in rural areas you end up falling back on a 2G network because they support larger cells.
Sorry, I'm feeling this is pretty legit, but I really have no kind of idea. You can compare the border, but really, maybe it's just a photo put on a China copy... Weird with the old notificationsystem on the screen though. But I hope you're happy with me sharing it anyways.
That's fake. The black line that supposed to indicate an antenna break is not perpendicular to the screen.
That's fake. The black line that supposed to indicate an antenna break is not perpendicular to the screen.
That and the reflection proves it's just a regular iPhone?
Mostly off-topic but I'll post this "what if?" scenario from Jean-Louis Gassée about Apple buying T-Mobile USA.[/INDENT]
I don't think buying a carrier is the best thing to do. There's a lot of baggage that comes with it and would be seen as anti-competitive. Apple can enforce their quality control on their own tight-knit group. Trying to do that with a carrier would be very difficult and would tarnish their brand. Apple wouldn't want to end up like the brand you see being openly laughed at in the following video, no prizes for guessing. Skip to 1:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0Nhu83Cgs
I would like to see them help bring some real innovation to the field though and one that seemed very interesting was another development from Steve Perlman concerning antenna capacity and getting around the limits imposed by Shannon's Law:
http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/28/st...ss-data-rates/
Some of the technology features sub-millisecond latency and he had mentioned about even being able to run RAM remotely over a network. Not that the example of RAM is practical but having such low latency is advantageous for wireless communication. I find his presentations fascinating and to me he seems like the perfect embodiment of a true inventor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QxrQnJCXKo
As far as Apple is concerned, getting access to such unique antenna designs and protocols could open up the possibility of not even requiring a carrier. P2P signal boosting is an option and another might be sending mini base stations to homes for routing signals. Carriers do this sort of thing with cars.
Ultimately, there has to be a better way to get a wireless signal to a device than simply firing waves out in all directions at as high a power as you can send out. You'd really want the equivalent of a wire without using a wire e.g like a sonic 'LASER' or SASER:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10267528-72.html
Tracking devices can figure out where you are roughly and then know where to concentrate a signal to connect your device in a stable manner.
I think the first step that needs to be taken is to stop the separation of computers and phones. They should be on the same network. 3G in laptops is one thing but I should be able to take calls from anyone on my computer or make a call from my computer without using specialised applications. Gradually we are moving this way with FaceTime, iMessage, Skype etc but it seems like where we are now should have been reached 5-10 years ago.
Ultimately, there has to be a better way to get a wireless signal to a device than simply firing waves out in all directions at as high a power as you can send out.
On the tower end, there is. Cell towers aren't omnidirectional antennas, even if it seems that way. If you take a look at a tower, they have a lot of vertical white trapezoid boxes in a circle, facing away from the center of the tower. Those are sector antennas, they divide the landscape by so many degrees of a circle, how many depends on the design of the antenna. You're only connected to one of those sectors. You get better gain and allows more subscribers to connect to a tower than would otherwise be possible with an omni.
Tracking devices can figure out where you are roughly and then know where to concentrate a signal to connect your device in a stable manner.
Probably way too expensive and unreliable. You'd have to have a mechanical tracking system for each subscriber that is in range, which will have a more limited operational temperature range than a completely electronic system with no moving parts.
I think the first step that needs to be taken is to stop the separation of computers and phones. They should be on the same network. 3G in laptops is one thing but I should be able to take calls from anyone on my computer or make a call from my computer without using specialised applications. Gradually we are moving this way with FaceTime, iMessage, Skype etc but it seems like where we are now should have been reached 5-10 years ago.
That would be nice.
The recently surfaced prototype appears to validate earlier reports that Apple was looking into building 3G wireless into its notebooks. In 2009, rumors swirled that wireless carriers would help subsidize the cost of new Macs with 3G data service plans after a job listing appeared for a 3G specialist for Macs.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
cool subsidized cost of new macs, oh wait but then you have to pay a monthly fee for 2-years nvm