It has since been corrected. It was not correct an hour ago. At least they're not entirely asleep at the wheel.
That makes more sense but as for going a little heavy on the criticism, getting it right every time is not as easy as it looks. Being an ex-journalist (including a few years editing), I can assure you that quite capable people do miss stuff from time to time. It happens. It shouldn't but it does.
Forget NFC. I think it's a dead issue. It looks as though Apple is interested in using either WiFi, or more likely, Bluetooth 4 for this purpose, as they do in their own stores. How they will negate the NFC chips in the devices used on the products, I don't know. But there doesn't appear to be a need for NFC chips in the phone itself. Another technology that may be going away before it arrives.
They might but neither of those technologies are as secure as NFC and neither of them are ideal for majority of businesses. NFC's unique properties allow it to create a very small loop between devices. Even Low Energy Bluetooth can have a 50 meter range so your only security measure is the encryption used to send the data. NFC's loop is only about 6" and uses a secure handshake that makes it very difficult to intercept another's data.
In many ways it's more secure than a CC card because there is no way one can copy the number by sight, a camera, carbon paper, and it's less likely to see or capture a PIN when that PIN is only be used on your handheld device. It's also easier to cancel all cards immediately if your phone is stolen by locking and erasing the device and auto-informing all financial institutions registered with the device than by having to remember what was in your wallet and then dig up numbers for each.
"NFC*. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon... and for the rest of your life."
They might but neither of those technologies are as secure as NFC and neither of them are ideal for majority of businesses. NFC's unique properties allow it to create a very small loop between devices. Even Low Energy Bluetooth can have a 50 meter range so your only security measure is the encryption used to send the data. NFC's loop is only about 6" and uses a secure handshake that makes it very difficult to intercept another's data.
NFC is not secure either - it's trivial to make a reader and intercept data - it's already been done with NFC in credit cards. A better option is already possible with existing hardware — one-time use 2D barcodes.
App developers are up to the task. Whatever size or resolution Apple decides to use for the next iPhone, you can be sure the apps will be ready and customized. The key difference between Apple and Android apps seems to be that iOS developers make a lot more money on iOS over Android. For that reason alone you can count on them to get it done and done right. A bigger screen is almost a given at this point in time. Most people seem to support longer AND wider and not simply longer. I fall into that camp as well.
That isn't correct. Android apps are notorious for not scaling up properly on different Android phones, much less tablets. Sometimes the apps don't work at all, and other times, they "work" but are barely usable.
With the new iPad allowing retina apps to finally appear in their resolution on the iPad, most of the scaling problem with the lower rez iPhone apps has gone away.
Um, nothing I said is incorrect. Android apps have fragmentation issues when developers opt out from the prescribed approach, e.g., while developing highly-custom UIs for games. And I can't speak to how well Android's layout scheme works in general (I'm not an Android user) but I assume it works pretty well for vanilla stuff.
To optimize your application's UI for the different screen sizes and densities, you can provide alternative resources for any of the generalized sizes and densities. Typically, you should provide alternative layouts for some of the different screen sizes and alternative bitmap images for different screen densities. At runtime, the system uses the appropriate resources for your application, based on the generalized size or density of the current device screen.
You do not need to provide alternative resources for every combination of screen size and density. The system provides robust compatibility features that can handle most of the work of rendering your application on any device screen, provided that you've implemented your UI using techniques that allow it to gracefully resize (as described in the Best Practices, below).
You mean moving beyond the old "springs and struts" paradigm? Yes, that's one of the changes introduced last week. I don't know how well it works yet. The old model wasn't robust enough to handle arbitrary screen sizes; presumably the new way will be much better. ... and then the Android folks will steal that and it will help them deal with their device diversity mess.
Ah, ok, that's good. I'm still waiting for the videos to go up.
I thought I wanted (and still do) a 16:9 iPad, but competitor tablets look odd with that aspect ratio. It could just be that I'm biased against Samsung tablets etc.
I think it's because 16:9 is an awkward size to the eye and hand when it falls to the level of a tablet. On a movie screen, its origin, it's ok. Even as a TV screen, it seems oppressive to me, actually depressive. It's like Hollywood has dictated a geometry based on its debased standards. It's a prison-profile of an aspect ratio when it's reduced in size from the big screen.
The present iPad aspect feels right, like perfectly proportioned. Landscape looks like a classic landscape painting, portrait like a portrait. It's humane, and 16:9 is not.
The original iPhone is different. Just ok, neither natural nor unnatural. When it goes 16:9, I think it will escape the curse of the movie-screen-domination feel because you hold it in one hand. You dominate it. Your brain will be telling you you are holding a big movie in your hand. Charm by miniaturization. But if that ratio is taken up to tablet size, suddenly the awkward geometry takes over, and you're dealing with a slab, or a "slate," as Balmer likes to call it.
Long meditation on aspect ratio, hope it's not too tiresome. I trust Ive and Jobs on this, because they rely on both feel and look, the tactile and the visual, together. Others have no clue, thus 16:9 tablets.
NFC is not secure either - it's trivial to make a reader and intercept data - it's already been done with NFC in credit cards. A better option is already possible with existing hardware — one-time use 2D barcodes.
No security measure is absolute, but NFC is more secure than WiFi, BT, or simply being able to read the numbers off a card. NFC is as secure as an ATM machine where someone could put another device on it capture card and PIN data, but those have worked out very well for society.
One time codes offer a false sense of security but they do offer complexity. While they appear to be random to the average person they follow a specific set of rules which is how the devices can talk to each other. We've had these in computer software for decades and for almost as long we've had programs that can hack them.
The best methods will still require a personal PIN and that makes NFC more secure than giving your card to a minimum wage worker that you've never seen before and likely never again.
What is really the advantage of paying with your phone over pulling put your wallet and swiping a credit card? Is that process any less time consuming? What am I missing in regards to any advantage for using NFC through a phone and just using your card as you would normally do?
Notice that I never said I was against that. I'm expecting it to be "the new iPhone".
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6. Seems like you're hedging your bets now. LOL
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6.
Yes, before the introduction of the 3rd iPad. My personal opinion was that it would have been "iPhone 6"; I was only ever adamant that it would not be "iPhone 5".
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6. Seems like you're hedging your bets now. LOL
Lol, yeah I noticed that as well. All those silly arguments and justifications for why it should be called the 6 and not 5. Why anyone would give a rat's ass is beyond me. Far easier just to call it by the release year from now on. All new iPhones will simply be "iPhone". To differentiate in the future, you simply say the 2012 or 2013 model. Problem solved.
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6. Seems like you're hedging your bets now. LOL
That has never been his position. It's always been, just like mine and others, that the 6th generation iPhone with a presumed Apple A6 chip running iOS 6 would not be called iPhone 5. Additionally, the argument arose when people stated that iPhone 6 didn't make any sense when '5' was erroneously rationalized to come after '4S'.
That has never been his position. It's always been, just like mine and others, that the 6th generation iPhone with a presumed Apple A6 chip running iOS 6 would not be called iPhone 5. Additionally, the argument arose when people stated that iPhone 6 didn't make any sense when '5' was erroneously rationalized to come after '4S'.
The 3GS, 4S, and lack of an iPhone 2 proved that Apple will call it whatever they hell they feel like. If they want to call it the iPhone 7MF that is their right. But more importantly, who cares?
I'm sure it doesn't matter but I will not want an 16:9 iPhone. In my view 16 is too long and 9 is not wide enough. Also I find the size of the screen vs the phone is too little. Too much unused space. The sexy / modern / trendy / amazing would be if the screen would span from one edge to the other removing the bazel effectively. I don't really need the home button and I don't mind if it is not round. I'd prefer a phone that may be shorter but a little bit wider, the whole front is just a screen. I think it is a big mistake for Apple to make the iPhone to be a long stick. I don't see how this will appeal to the customers, what is the additional benefit of a long and narrow iPhone. I will definitely not buy it and will just stay with my iPhone 4 until it breaks down completely.
But this is just my opinion, so please don't rant. I'd like to be an Apple fan, but if they do this I can't. I hope the rumours are false, but it looks too real so my hope is disappearing with each new article. Of course, there will be many who will go with the crowd and praise anything just because it's Apple, but the majority of the people liked Apple for a reason. I think it's clear that the trend is bigger screen but proportionately, Apple may lose by trying to be too smart or too cautious. It doesn't matter if app developers can change their apps or not. The iPhone is the most profitable platform a new screen size will not change that. I think 4" or 4.5" at 3.2 aspect ratio would be great, then I would feel the new iPhone is "instant get". Otherwise not. I'm sorry for Apple (if the rumours are true - hopefully not).
The 3GS, 4S, and lack of an iPhone 2 proved that Apple will call it whatever they hell they feel like. If they want to call it the iPhone 7MF that is their right. But more importantly, who cares?
The fact that it's being discussed is proof that some people care. My caring has been solely placed on the rational behind what it will be called, not what it will be called. I've stated, along with TS, that calling it the iPhone 5 makes the least amount of sense. That said, they can call it the iPhone 5 if they wish and if it suits my needs I'll buy it just as if they called it the Zune N900 Ishtar now with Flavour Crystals I'd also buy it if it suited my needs.
I'm sure it doesn't matter but I will not want an 16:9 iPhone. In my view 16 is too long and 9 is not wide enough.
I can see how it might be too long for you but I don't see how it will not be wide enough since the proposed resolution and size will not alter the width of the display in any way. There is even one rumour which says the pixel density will decrease from 326 to 320 PPI thus making it slightly wider than it is now as it moves to a nearly 16:9 aspect ratio. In either case it will not be any narrower than it is today.
I can see how it might be too long for you but I don't see how it will not be wide enough since the proposed resolution and size will not alter the width of the display in any way. There is even one rumour which says the pixel density will decrease from 326 to 320 PPI thus making it slightly wider than it is now as it moves to a nearly 16:9 aspect ratio. In either case it will not be any narrower than it is today.
Maybe I didn't express myself perfectly, what I meant about "too long" or "not wide enough" was relative to the other dimension. Well, I'm serious now so I don't want to go into the area of jokes. I think Apple is making a mistake here (if the rumours are true), but good luck to them. Anyway, I'd recommend them not to stop here, but take a step further and make it 2.1:1 as I think that's the proper size for movies. That would be revolutionary. :-) Could be called the retina "stick".
I'm sure it doesn't matter but I will not want an 16:9 iPhone. In my view 16 is too long and 9 is not wide enough. Also I find the size of the screen vs the phone is too little. Too much unused space. The sexy / modern / trendy / amazing would be if the screen would span from one edge to the other removing the bazel effectively. I don't really need the home button and I don't mind if it is not round. I'd prefer a phone that may be shorter but a little bit wider, the whole front is just a screen. I think it is a big mistake for Apple to make the iPhone to be a long stick. I don't see how this will appeal to the customers, what is the additional benefit of a long and narrow iPhone. I will definitely not buy it and will just stay with my iPhone 4 until it breaks down completely.
But this is just my opinion, so please don't rant. I'd like to be an Apple fan, but if they do this I can't. I hope the rumours are false, but it looks too real so my hope is disappearing with each new article. Of course, there will be many who will go with the crowd and praise anything just because it's Apple, but the majority of the people liked Apple for a reason. I think it's clear that the trend is bigger screen but proportionately, Apple may lose by trying to be too smart or too cautious. It doesn't matter if app developers can change their apps or not. The iPhone is the most profitable platform a new screen size will not change that. I think 4" or 4.5" at 3.2 aspect ratio would be great, then I would feel the new iPhone is "instant get". Otherwise not. I'm sorry for Apple (if the rumours are true - hopefully not).
I understand what you're saying. But my advice is to not judge it by specs alone.
If they come out with something that you're not looking for spec wise. Go to the store and play around with it. Mess with it in all manner of ways. In pocket. Out. Ect.
If its then not what pleases you, skip it.
Keep in mind most people believed when the first iPhone released that:
1) Touch screens were unusable in a professional environment, and people wouldn't live with out a keyboard.
2) it was too big and cumbersome.
3) it's software was gimmicky
Look how things have turned out.
Everyone wants bigger touch screens now. Lol
Also while I do sometime wonder how my iPhone would look and function without the bezel, I do see the importance of a use for it. The bezel is that place your finger lies on to create a safe/secure and comfortable griping without touching the screen.
Sure I can hold it without it. But I'm on the fence as to if I want it off the phone completely.
What is really the advantage of paying with your phone over pulling put your wallet and swiping a credit card? Is that process any less time consuming? What am I missing in regards to any advantage for using NFC through a phone and just using your card as you would normally do?
I agree.
Even if Apple does come out with some amazing new payment technology... in the short term... only a handful of retailers will even use it. Who knows how long it will take to become as ubiquitous as accepting credit cards is now.
Right now... I can swipe my debit card anywhere cards are accepted... which is pretty much everywhere. I, personally, never have a problem with that.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
It has since been corrected. It was not correct an hour ago. At least they're not entirely asleep at the wheel.
That makes more sense but as for going a little heavy on the criticism, getting it right every time is not as easy as it looks. Being an ex-journalist (including a few years editing), I can assure you that quite capable people do miss stuff from time to time. It happens. It shouldn't but it does.
In many ways it's more secure than a CC card because there is no way one can copy the number by sight, a camera, carbon paper, and it's less likely to see or capture a PIN when that PIN is only be used on your handheld device. It's also easier to cancel all cards immediately if your phone is stolen by locking and erasing the device and auto-informing all financial institutions registered with the device than by having to remember what was in your wallet and then dig up numbers for each.
"NFC*. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon... and for the rest of your life."
* Or an NFC-like alternative.
I don't want NFC for money stuff. I can use it for tons of other things
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They might but neither of those technologies are as secure as NFC and neither of them are ideal for majority of businesses. NFC's unique properties allow it to create a very small loop between devices. Even Low Energy Bluetooth can have a 50 meter range so your only security measure is the encryption used to send the data. NFC's loop is only about 6" and uses a secure handshake that makes it very difficult to intercept another's data.
NFC is not secure either - it's trivial to make a reader and intercept data - it's already been done with NFC in credit cards. A better option is already possible with existing hardware — one-time use 2D barcodes.
App developers are up to the task. Whatever size or resolution Apple decides to use for the next iPhone, you can be sure the apps will be ready and customized. The key difference between Apple and Android apps seems to be that iOS developers make a lot more money on iOS over Android. For that reason alone you can count on them to get it done and done right. A bigger screen is almost a given at this point in time. Most people seem to support longer AND wider and not simply longer. I fall into that camp as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That isn't correct. Android apps are notorious for not scaling up properly on different Android phones, much less tablets. Sometimes the apps don't work at all, and other times, they "work" but are barely usable.
With the new iPad allowing retina apps to finally appear in their resolution on the iPad, most of the scaling problem with the lower rez iPhone apps has gone away.
Um, nothing I said is incorrect. Android apps have fragmentation issues when developers opt out from the prescribed approach, e.g., while developing highly-custom UIs for games. And I can't speak to how well Android's layout scheme works in general (I'm not an Android user) but I assume it works pretty well for vanilla stuff.
Quoting from http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html#screen-independence ...
Quote:
To optimize your application's UI for the different screen sizes and densities, you can provide alternative resources for any of the generalized sizes and densities. Typically, you should provide alternative layouts for some of the different screen sizes and alternative bitmap images for different screen densities. At runtime, the system uses the appropriate resources for your application, based on the generalized size or density of the current device screen.
You do not need to provide alternative resources for every combination of screen size and density. The system provides robust compatibility features that can handle most of the work of rendering your application on any device screen, provided that you've implemented your UI using techniques that allow it to gracefully resize (as described in the Best Practices, below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
You mean moving beyond the old "springs and struts" paradigm? Yes, that's one of the changes introduced last week. I don't know how well it works yet. The old model wasn't robust enough to handle arbitrary screen sizes; presumably the new way will be much better. ... and then the Android folks will steal that and it will help them deal with their device diversity mess.
Ah, ok, that's good. I'm still waiting for the videos to go up.
I think it's because 16:9 is an awkward size to the eye and hand when it falls to the level of a tablet. On a movie screen, its origin, it's ok. Even as a TV screen, it seems oppressive to me, actually depressive. It's like Hollywood has dictated a geometry based on its debased standards. It's a prison-profile of an aspect ratio when it's reduced in size from the big screen.
The present iPad aspect feels right, like perfectly proportioned. Landscape looks like a classic landscape painting, portrait like a portrait. It's humane, and 16:9 is not.
The original iPhone is different. Just ok, neither natural nor unnatural. When it goes 16:9, I think it will escape the curse of the movie-screen-domination feel because you hold it in one hand. You dominate it. Your brain will be telling you you are holding a big movie in your hand. Charm by miniaturization. But if that ratio is taken up to tablet size, suddenly the awkward geometry takes over, and you're dealing with a slab, or a "slate," as Balmer likes to call it.
Long meditation on aspect ratio, hope it's not too tiresome. I trust Ive and Jobs on this, because they rely on both feel and look, the tactile and the visual, together. Others have no clue, thus 16:9 tablets.
No security measure is absolute, but NFC is more secure than WiFi, BT, or simply being able to read the numbers off a card. NFC is as secure as an ATM machine where someone could put another device on it capture card and PIN data, but those have worked out very well for society.
One time codes offer a false sense of security but they do offer complexity. While they appear to be random to the average person they follow a specific set of rules which is how the devices can talk to each other. We've had these in computer software for decades and for almost as long we've had programs that can hack them.
The best methods will still require a personal PIN and that makes NFC more secure than giving your card to a minimum wage worker that you've never seen before and likely never again.
What is really the advantage of paying with your phone over pulling put your wallet and swiping a credit card? Is that process any less time consuming? What am I missing in regards to any advantage for using NFC through a phone and just using your card as you would normally do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Notice that I never said I was against that. I'm expecting it to be "the new iPhone".
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6. Seems like you're hedging your bets now. LOL
Yes, before the introduction of the 3rd iPad. My personal opinion was that it would have been "iPhone 6"; I was only ever adamant that it would not be "iPhone 5".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
You have been on every Mac forum lambasting anyone calling it the iPhone 5 and adamant it will be called the iPhone 6. Seems like you're hedging your bets now. LOL
Lol, yeah I noticed that as well. All those silly arguments and justifications for why it should be called the 6 and not 5. Why anyone would give a rat's ass is beyond me. Far easier just to call it by the release year from now on. All new iPhones will simply be "iPhone". To differentiate in the future, you simply say the 2012 or 2013 model. Problem solved.
That has never been his position. It's always been, just like mine and others, that the 6th generation iPhone with a presumed Apple A6 chip running iOS 6 would not be called iPhone 5. Additionally, the argument arose when people stated that iPhone 6 didn't make any sense when '5' was erroneously rationalized to come after '4S'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That has never been his position. It's always been, just like mine and others, that the 6th generation iPhone with a presumed Apple A6 chip running iOS 6 would not be called iPhone 5. Additionally, the argument arose when people stated that iPhone 6 didn't make any sense when '5' was erroneously rationalized to come after '4S'.
The 3GS, 4S, and lack of an iPhone 2 proved that Apple will call it whatever they hell they feel like. If they want to call it the iPhone 7MF that is their right. But more importantly, who cares?
I'm sure it doesn't matter but I will not want an 16:9 iPhone. In my view 16 is too long and 9 is not wide enough. Also I find the size of the screen vs the phone is too little. Too much unused space. The sexy / modern / trendy / amazing would be if the screen would span from one edge to the other removing the bazel effectively. I don't really need the home button and I don't mind if it is not round. I'd prefer a phone that may be shorter but a little bit wider, the whole front is just a screen. I think it is a big mistake for Apple to make the iPhone to be a long stick. I don't see how this will appeal to the customers, what is the additional benefit of a long and narrow iPhone. I will definitely not buy it and will just stay with my iPhone 4 until it breaks down completely.
But this is just my opinion, so please don't rant. I'd like to be an Apple fan, but if they do this I can't. I hope the rumours are false, but it looks too real so my hope is disappearing with each new article. Of course, there will be many who will go with the crowd and praise anything just because it's Apple, but the majority of the people liked Apple for a reason. I think it's clear that the trend is bigger screen but proportionately, Apple may lose by trying to be too smart or too cautious. It doesn't matter if app developers can change their apps or not. The iPhone is the most profitable platform a new screen size will not change that. I think 4" or 4.5" at 3.2 aspect ratio would be great, then I would feel the new iPhone is "instant get". Otherwise not. I'm sorry for Apple (if the rumours are true - hopefully not).
I can see how it might be too long for you but I don't see how it will not be wide enough since the proposed resolution and size will not alter the width of the display in any way. There is even one rumour which says the pixel density will decrease from 326 to 320 PPI thus making it slightly wider than it is now as it moves to a nearly 16:9 aspect ratio. In either case it will not be any narrower than it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I can see how it might be too long for you but I don't see how it will not be wide enough since the proposed resolution and size will not alter the width of the display in any way. There is even one rumour which says the pixel density will decrease from 326 to 320 PPI thus making it slightly wider than it is now as it moves to a nearly 16:9 aspect ratio. In either case it will not be any narrower than it is today.
Maybe I didn't express myself perfectly, what I meant about "too long" or "not wide enough" was relative to the other dimension. Well, I'm serious now so I don't want to go into the area of jokes. I think Apple is making a mistake here (if the rumours are true), but good luck to them. Anyway, I'd recommend them not to stop here, but take a step further and make it 2.1:1 as I think that's the proper size for movies. That would be revolutionary. :-) Could be called the retina "stick".
I understand what you're saying. But my advice is to not judge it by specs alone.
If they come out with something that you're not looking for spec wise. Go to the store and play around with it. Mess with it in all manner of ways. In pocket. Out. Ect.
If its then not what pleases you, skip it.
Keep in mind most people believed when the first iPhone released that:
1) Touch screens were unusable in a professional environment, and people wouldn't live with out a keyboard.
2) it was too big and cumbersome.
3) it's software was gimmicky
Look how things have turned out.
Everyone wants bigger touch screens now. Lol
Also while I do sometime wonder how my iPhone would look and function without the bezel, I do see the importance of a use for it. The bezel is that place your finger lies on to create a safe/secure and comfortable griping without touching the screen.
Sure I can hold it without it. But I'm on the fence as to if I want it off the phone completely.
I agree.
Even if Apple does come out with some amazing new payment technology... in the short term... only a handful of retailers will even use it. Who knows how long it will take to become as ubiquitous as accepting credit cards is now.
Right now... I can swipe my debit card anywhere cards are accepted... which is pretty much everywhere. I, personally, never have a problem with that.