Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!
Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?
If you're looking for lousy service and coverage, just get Sprint.
Not true in NYC anymore. I originally went with them a few years ago because they had the best phones, and the Samsung i300, later the i330. But the service was adequate.
But after the last blackout if got far better. I also like the plan for our three phones.
Now I have the Treo 700p, but other carriers have it as well. The EV-DO works very well and is fairly cheap.
Look at your Dashboard content. I am convinced that a 'hidden' reason for the development of Widgets was not only to feed Dashboard, but to have a readymade body of software to feed a Video iPod and/or the iPhone and/or the iTablet.
Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!
Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?
The purpose would be to connect to the internet at high speed, and in addition, use it as a WiFi modem for a laptop.
You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx
I don't know what you mean by "thin".
Here are some touch screens made by a well known company.
These are larger screens, starting at 12.2", and they are meant for vandal proof applications, as you will read. They are thicker therefore, but notice the thickness's offered. one mm equals about 1/25th".
The next series is for smaller items. The size we are talking about. PDA's, Mobile Apps, etc.
Look at the thicknesses here. They are very thin. The thickness of the LCD and backlight are far thicker. Again, remember that one mm is about 1/25th".
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't know what you mean by "thin".
Here are some touch screens made by a well known company...
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
Provide an example of what *you* consider to be a thin device.
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
I think that you are not very adept at understanding posts.
I said in my earlier post that it would require about one sixteenth of an inch extra thickness for the touchscreen. You can reread it if you like. I said that there would "not much" of a fdifference. I did not say that there would be "no" difference.
I then provided several links to a major manufacturer of those screens.
As you will have seen for yourself, those screens are as thin as one seventy fifth of an inch. As those touch screens are bonded to the LCD beneath, it's pretty obvious that they won't add much to the thickness of the device.
If you really expect me, or anyone, to actually do a search for you to find out what the thicknesses of all of the touch screen devices out there are, you are nuts!
I was being very polite in response to your aggressively worded post. The least you can do is to think it out for yourself with the information I provided.
Can you prove that any other manufacturers other than Apple really care about just how thin their products are, unless they are highly styled, but poorly functioning phones, such as the Razor?
You want me to prove a negative, which is impossible.
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
no, I'm annoyed with your posts. mine don't bother me at all.
I'm not referring to screen "coatings. I'm refering to touch screens. A screen coating is an antireflective layer, or an anti scratch surface, or even a screen protecter.
You stated that a touch screen would add thickness. I said that it would add a little.
You did not refer to anything other than a touch screen. The electronics are trivial. One small surface mounted driver chip. There is no light that must shine through it other than the one provided for the LCD. Brightness there is determined by voltage. These screens pass 80 to 90% of the light.
If you misinterpret what I say, then my statement stands.
Otherwise, I have no wish to have a fight. The information is straightforward.
What is put into a phone determines how it will look. the battery is an important factor. The Treo 600 was criticised for not having a replacable battery. The 650 added one, and added a small bit of thickness because of it. That's one reason why Apple doesn't have replacable batteries. If they have them in their phones, they will be thicker, or will possibly have less lifetime (smaller battery). Movable buttons add another 3 to7 mm.
By the time they are through, the phone is big and heavy. Then add a camera, a computer chip, plenty of RAM, a memory card slot, and you add more. then include the antenna, speaker mic and ear piece. The radio transmitter/receiver, Bluetooth, and possibly WiFi, and the battery just got bigger and heavier.
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
As far as I know most all, if not all of those models are complex. It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen.
It will be intersting to see, as you say. Just remember that devices without touchscreens are thick as well. Look at the Zune compared to the 5G. Materials matter as well.
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
Buy yourself a Sony Ericsson M600i, then. It's 15mm (.59") thick ... with a touchscreen.
Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen...
The touch screen is the most complexity, which is the point of my original post that you refuted with screen thickness. The wireless radio, battery, input knobs are a given.
Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.
36% thicker, to be pedantic, considering the Q is .43 inches thick.
I currently own 3 phones: Moto v3i, SE M600i and an HTC TyTN. Each, successively, provides me with a greater range of abilities with their increased size. Would I like a v3i sized phone with all the technology provided by the TyTN? Sure.
If it were currently possible to squeeze quad-band GSM, tri-band UMTS/HSDPA, b/g wi-fi, a decent sized qwerty keyboard, a 2 MP photo camera, a VGA video-call camera, and bluetooth into a form-factor that matched a closed v3i, don't you think it would be done?
You claim that the touchscreen is what is adding the complexity. Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities.
"Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities."
Oh yeah, no problem to slap a film onto the screen. You'd think all smartphones would have 'em. But drawing on a screen, the processor having to listen for touch drawings, and increased luminance required to shine through the scuff marks make the device more complex. How's the battery life on the M600i? Maybe they could've added a few more battery millimeters.
And when you write that it "reduces complexity", we are posting on two opposite ideas. It's easier to use a smart phone with a touch screen, yes. But it makes the internal operation of it more complex, more power, and hence, thicker.
This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.
Wow... that's an awesome idea. With the updated widget creation tools in the next release of OSX Leopard we can expect to see some pretty powerful widgets find their way into the Dashboard. If Apple went with this sort of idea for a phone we could expect some very cheap, extremely powerful application appear for the phone quickly. Writing a simple spreadsheet or text editing widgit that communicates with Office or Pages would be easy! Aries... you've gotten me all excited over here!
The technology behind Safari has already been ported to Symbian and runs on Nokia phones so you could at least run the simpler dashboard widgets easily. Some of the widgets however are full OSX Cocoa apps and those would be an awful lot harder to transfer across.
Apple already has written Symbian apps too. On Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ phones iSync copies across a Symbian app to handle syncing.
If these aren't clues enough as to what OS an Apple phone would run then I don't know what is.
The problem I have with the full video iPod is where you're expected to get the content from. Music CDs can be ripped easily because they have no DRM. DVDs do. Plus it takes a lifetime to transcode a DVD to ipod sized video unless you've got the latest top end kit.
That leaves buying videos from the iTunes store. Something you can only do in the USA currently and it's incredibly limited.
So, for all but the geeks who know how to illegally rip DVDs and Americans, there's no content AT ALL for a video iPod. Music is still where it's at.
DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.
Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours. If you have a slower machine, just pop in the disc before you go to bed. And you don't have to be a geek to figure it out, just grab an app like Instant Handbrake, you just select the DVD tracks you want and hit the button. Done. It's not illegal either as long as you are ripping content you own a copy of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables?
It's not a smart idea for big audio/video files, but wouldn't you want the option of wireless for playlists, synching contacts and calendars, email, things like that? Transferring stuff like that would take just seconds.
Comments
The analyst, who remained mum on his sources, said at least one of the models will include WiFi wireless capabilities
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!
Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?
If you're looking for lousy service and coverage, just get Sprint.
Not true in NYC anymore. I originally went with them a few years ago because they had the best phones, and the Samsung i300, later the i330. But the service was adequate.
But after the last blackout if got far better. I also like the plan for our three phones.
Now I have the Treo 700p, but other carriers have it as well. The EV-DO works very well and is fairly cheap.
Look at your Dashboard content. I am convinced that a 'hidden' reason for the development of Widgets was not only to feed Dashboard, but to have a readymade body of software to feed a Video iPod and/or the iPhone and/or the iTablet.
...I hope.
V/R,
Aries 1B
Interesting idea.
Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables? No, wait we could connect wirelessly with the iPhone plugged into the wall socket charging!
Easy! Do I qualify for the Microsoft Academy of Smart Design ?
The purpose would be to connect to the internet at high speed, and in addition, use it as a WiFi modem for a laptop.
But, you do qualify.
You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx
mel,
You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx
I don't know what you mean by "thin".
Here are some touch screens made by a well known company.
These are larger screens, starting at 12.2", and they are meant for vandal proof applications, as you will read. They are thicker therefore, but notice the thickness's offered. one mm equals about 1/25th".
http://www.touchinternational.com/li.../R-plusnew.pdf
The next series is for smaller items. The size we are talking about. PDA's, Mobile Apps, etc.
Look at the thicknesses here. They are very thin. The thickness of the LCD and backlight are far thicker. Again, remember that one mm is about 1/25th".
http://www.touchinternational.com/li...s/ti4touch.pdf
They have thinner models as well.
http://www.touchinternational.com/li...tremetouch.pdf
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
I don't know what you mean by "thin".
Here are some touch screens made by a well known company...
But those are not devices.
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
Provide an example of what *you* consider to be a thin device.
But those are not devices.
I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
I think that you are not very adept at understanding posts.
I said in my earlier post that it would require about one sixteenth of an inch extra thickness for the touchscreen. You can reread it if you like. I said that there would "not much" of a fdifference. I did not say that there would be "no" difference.
I then provided several links to a major manufacturer of those screens.
As you will have seen for yourself, those screens are as thin as one seventy fifth of an inch. As those touch screens are bonded to the LCD beneath, it's pretty obvious that they won't add much to the thickness of the device.
If you really expect me, or anyone, to actually do a search for you to find out what the thicknesses of all of the touch screen devices out there are, you are nuts!
I was being very polite in response to your aggressively worded post. The least you can do is to think it out for yourself with the information I provided.
Can you prove that any other manufacturers other than Apple really care about just how thin their products are, unless they are highly styled, but poorly functioning phones, such as the Razor?
You want me to prove a negative, which is impossible.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
sigh.
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this.
Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim.
You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of your posts, since I'm "not very adept at understanding posts" and all.
no, I'm annoyed with your posts. mine don't bother me at all.
I'm not referring to screen "coatings. I'm refering to touch screens. A screen coating is an antireflective layer, or an anti scratch surface, or even a screen protecter.
You stated that a touch screen would add thickness. I said that it would add a little.
You did not refer to anything other than a touch screen. The electronics are trivial. One small surface mounted driver chip. There is no light that must shine through it other than the one provided for the LCD. Brightness there is determined by voltage. These screens pass 80 to 90% of the light.
If you misinterpret what I say, then my statement stands.
Otherwise, I have no wish to have a fight. The information is straightforward.
What is put into a phone determines how it will look. the battery is an important factor. The Treo 600 was criticised for not having a replacable battery. The 650 added one, and added a small bit of thickness because of it. That's one reason why Apple doesn't have replacable batteries. If they have them in their phones, they will be thicker, or will possibly have less lifetime (smaller battery). Movable buttons add another 3 to7 mm.
By the time they are through, the phone is big and heavy. Then add a camera, a computer chip, plenty of RAM, a memory card slot, and you add more. then include the antenna, speaker mic and ear piece. The radio transmitter/receiver, Bluetooth, and possibly WiFi, and the battery just got bigger and heavier.
You can keep going.
A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:
HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
Okay.
A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:
HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
As far as I know most all, if not all of those models are complex. It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen.
It will be intersting to see, as you say. Just remember that devices without touchscreens are thick as well. Look at the Zune compared to the 5G. Materials matter as well.
Okay.
A quick google found this information of touch screen phones:
HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71"
HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71"
PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74"
Treo 680\t.8"
PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t
HTC TyTN\t.9"
Hitachi G1000\t .9"
Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9"
HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93"
Motorola MPx\t .94"
Samsung SCH-i730\t.93"
Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97"
Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02"
The Motorola Q is full featured at 11mm (.4") thick, without a touch screen.
Certainly Apple is dealing with this issue if they plan an iPhone or iPod with this functionality. I'm looking forward to what device they finally launch.
Buy yourself a Sony Ericsson M600i, then. It's 15mm (.59") thick ... with a touchscreen.
I've got one. It's barely bigger than my v3i.
It's the complexity that makes them big. It's not the touchscreen...
The touch screen is the most complexity, which is the point of my original post that you refuted with screen thickness. The wireless radio, battery, input knobs are a given.
Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.
36% thicker, to be pedantic, considering the Q is .43 inches thick.
I currently own 3 phones: Moto v3i, SE M600i and an HTC TyTN. Each, successively, provides me with a greater range of abilities with their increased size. Would I like a v3i sized phone with all the technology provided by the TyTN? Sure.
If it were currently possible to squeeze quad-band GSM, tri-band UMTS/HSDPA, b/g wi-fi, a decent sized qwerty keyboard, a 2 MP photo camera, a VGA video-call camera, and bluetooth into a form-factor that matched a closed v3i, don't you think it would be done?
You claim that the touchscreen is what is adding the complexity. Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities.
"Melgross has clearly pointed out that the touchscreen barely increases the thickness of a phone and that it's a reasonably easy endeavour to add one to a phone. I posit that a touchscreen reduces the complexity of a phone with these abilities."
Oh yeah, no problem to slap a film onto the screen. You'd think all smartphones would have 'em. But drawing on a screen, the processor having to listen for touch drawings, and increased luminance required to shine through the scuff marks make the device more complex. How's the battery life on the M600i? Maybe they could've added a few more battery millimeters.
And when you write that it "reduces complexity", we are posting on two opposite ideas. It's easier to use a smart phone with a touch screen, yes. But it makes the internal operation of it more complex, more power, and hence, thicker.
This entire tangent demonstrates that touch screen devices are at least 36% thicker than non touch screen devices, and even that with reduced battery to achieve it.
Wow... that's an awesome idea. With the updated widget creation tools in the next release of OSX Leopard we can expect to see some pretty powerful widgets find their way into the Dashboard. If Apple went with this sort of idea for a phone we could expect some very cheap, extremely powerful application appear for the phone quickly. Writing a simple spreadsheet or text editing widgit that communicates with Office or Pages would be easy! Aries... you've gotten me all excited over here!
The technology behind Safari has already been ported to Symbian and runs on Nokia phones so you could at least run the simpler dashboard widgets easily. Some of the widgets however are full OSX Cocoa apps and those would be an awful lot harder to transfer across.
Apple already has written Symbian apps too. On Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ phones iSync copies across a Symbian app to handle syncing.
If these aren't clues enough as to what OS an Apple phone would run then I don't know what is.
The problem I have with the full video iPod is where you're expected to get the content from. Music CDs can be ripped easily because they have no DRM. DVDs do. Plus it takes a lifetime to transcode a DVD to ipod sized video unless you've got the latest top end kit.
That leaves buying videos from the iTunes store. Something you can only do in the USA currently and it's incredibly limited.
So, for all but the geeks who know how to illegally rip DVDs and Americans, there's no content AT ALL for a video iPod. Music is still where it's at.
DVD's do what? Have DRM? Not an issue when the ripping apps make it irrelevant.
Even the new minis will rip a DVD in a couple hours. If you have a slower machine, just pop in the disc before you go to bed. And you don't have to be a geek to figure it out, just grab an app like Instant Handbrake, you just select the DVD tracks you want and hit the button. Done. It's not illegal either as long as you are ripping content you own a copy of.
Is this so we can connect to our machines at 1/10th the speed and chew up loads battery for the 'convenience' of no cables?
It's not a smart idea for big audio/video files, but wouldn't you want the option of wireless for playlists, synching contacts and calendars, email, things like that? Transferring stuff like that would take just seconds.