7) It;s on the back and it just screams Apple. I wonder how much Cingluar fought (and failed) at getting their name/logo on the phone?
Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.
The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system based on the cell towers and not satellites. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.
Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.
The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.
Let's not rush to judgement on this.
Why would he have bothered to mention it at all if that's all it is?
ALL cellphones come with GPS for that purpose.
Remember that this hasn't yet been through the FCC wringer, which is tough. Possibly he didn't want to mention a use that might not get approved.
They also have to finalize the software. When he had a meeting with Pogue for an hour yesterday, and Pogue was using the phone, he had a few rough spots. Jobs said it wasn't finished, and that there were "placement" icons on the screen that hadn't yet been assigned. More secrets?
Jobs doesn't mention things if there isn't a good reason.
People here seem to think that an iPod is coming with all the funcionality of the iPhone iPod. They are (almost certainly) wrong. The reason for this is simple - this phone packs a *lot* of processing/graphical punch to pack all these features in with full multitasking. Even Cover Flow needs a lot of power (try it out on an old G4). An iPod that could do all the non-phone stuff would still need to be really expensive, pretty much as expensive as the iPhone - hence we just get the iPhone.
Furthermore, it is the logical extension of the iPod growth. It started off simple but they have slowly been adding functionality to it. Why have a telephone, and an iPod, and a PDA (as I do at the moment)? It makes no sense because once you get the hardware meaty enough it might as well as do all the things together...
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I can pretty much agree with this. It's a good assessment of the situation.
Congrats on your first post.
It's self serving for me to say so, as I just agreed with it, but I think it's a good one.
Yes of course, been there done that, about 40 times in fact, but that was 10 years ago. Don't know how it's done now, but back then it required alot of post-processing and quality control. Especially if you were tracking something over 20-30 miles, say large ships in channels, say in the Panama Canal, say during the 1997 el Nino, and needed 6-DOF motions (minimum of 3 receivers on the moving body), and needed cm level accuracy (X, Y, and especially Z) from all three receivers.
But the point was that these are direct line-of-sight GPS techniques, they don't use AGPS (i. e. a combination of known cell tower coordinates (GPS coordinates) and RF triangulation + an assistant server to do the heavy lifting (calculate the cell phones position to 50m-300m (+/-))). So if the iPhone only uses AGPS don't expect it to save your ass if your lost in the woods somewhere without access to a cell phone network.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help to decode that information.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.
By help, I ment help yourself if you were lost in the woods, or lost on the road but outside cell phone service, cell is the transmitter and GPS is the receiver. I thought it was obvious, oh well.
AGPS is no better than RF triangulation (except for the fact that now the static GPS cell tower locations have been surveyed and submitted and EE HW has been added) in the cases where the cell phone doesn't have direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites, the cell tower ground based RF triangulation is the weak link here.
Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.
And that's how I entered this discussion, when someone asked if SJ was using actual GPS telemetry, I suggested perhaps not because he was inside (which would have blocked the iPhone GPS receiver because there was no direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites).
Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.
I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.
My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis. 250 gb flash storage memory isn't just around the corner so if you want to have your entire music library and video library with you it may be a while. Apple is clearly choosing mobility and form factor over storage and rightly so. Look at the best selling iPods. The 'work around' is the ability to access your library via .Mac (google and Yahoo in the future?) and download your other media when you desire.
I thinl flash memory will improve but I don't think it will catch up to people's demands for storage soon. By the time that that occurs I think users will have adapted to accessing their library with the device.
I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis.
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.
Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.
I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.
My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.
OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.
But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device. One telling statement from yesterday's keynote was along the lines of 'internet and phone in your pocket'. I really think the emphasis is going to be on portability going forward, not storage capacity. Often in life there are tradeoffs. I think Apple will sacrifice storage capacity for small form factor, less power consumption and better reliability when subjected to movement. To me that means flash. IMO.
PS i just looked at my thread and your response and I want to add that I think future iphones will have flash memory and not HDDs. In my previous post I said iPods. My bad.
"Apple's new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. "
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.
Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.
I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device.
So you think Apple are going to drop the HDD iPod before they can replace it with a flash one of at least equal storage capacity for the same or lower price? Didn't think so.
It is clear that with the phone, an HDD is a dumb option as it would make the phone too heavy and too expensive, not enough people would want it.
But we're talking about a "pure" iPod. An HDD iPod with widescreen instead of 4:3 screen. Plenty of people seem to want that. Apple could do as they do with the current iPod line-up - offer one widescreen version with fash and another with HDD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.
The biggest drawback to HDDs is they don't withstand movement well in my experience. A cell phone has to be able to withstand a fair amount of abuse (such as accidental drops) and flash is much better suited to this.
In the US all new cell phones are required to receive GPS. Currently they send the raw data to the providers servers when they figure out the location.
There is nothing that would keep Apple from also decoding the raw data within the phone so you would not need the providers server. That way any application could use the GPS data. I'm guessing that what is happening with the maps. Apple is sending real GPS location data and the map data is then returned.
When Apple lets the developers gain access I would assume we'll see navagation applications that will run on the iPhone.
One last note, for me only having EDGE is a show stopper, $500 to $600 for a device that can only do 80 to 110 kbps is just plain nuts. I really hope that Apple will add faster data rates before the release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent
OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.
But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.
So you think Apple are going to drop the HDD iPod before they can replace it with a flash one of at least equal storage capacity for the same or lower price? .
No. My original post was inaccurate. Should have said iPhone instead of iPod. Sorry for the confusion.
Essentially, I agree with everyone who wants to see what they're doing with the "pure" iPod. Personally, I'd really love to see a pure iPod with a hdd, no cellular technology (But it can keep bluetooth and wifi, pretty much because that way you could still make skype calls if you got a headset and were within the range of a wireless network, which I usually am). By avoiding a partnership with a crappy cellular provider, a whole bunch of legal stuff probably doesn't have to happen anymore, and the device could concievably be cheaper.
I won't be getting the iPhone, not this time around. I'm afraid I just can't justify a purchase like this at this point. I do think it's a revolutionary product, and I'm excited to use one in the future. But I also think that Jobs has opened up a pandora's box for innovation that really can't be closed anytime soon. Multi touch is going to be incorperated into many more things, the iPhone is going to get better and better, and like Steve said in the keynote, there's going to be a lot of awesome new stuff in 2007. The iPhone isn't Apple's trump card; it's their introduction.
Comments
7) It;s on the back and it just screams Apple. I wonder how much Cingluar fought (and failed) at getting their name/logo on the phone?
Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.
The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system based on the cell towers and not satellites. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.
Cingular's name is on the upper left corner of the display bezel.
The "GPS" probably isn't GPS. As I think Aegis said, it's probably a triangulation system. It's required for emergency service use and phone often have some way to allow non-emergency apps. I have an older phone that has this, but no software to use it. I leave it turned off, it supposedly has a way for the emergency crews to turn it on. Off is best because it takes more power when on.
Let's not rush to judgement on this.
Why would he have bothered to mention it at all if that's all it is?
ALL cellphones come with GPS for that purpose.
Remember that this hasn't yet been through the FCC wringer, which is tough. Possibly he didn't want to mention a use that might not get approved.
They also have to finalize the software. When he had a meeting with Pogue for an hour yesterday, and Pogue was using the phone, he had a few rough spots. Jobs said it wasn't finished, and that there were "placement" icons on the screen that hadn't yet been assigned. More secrets?
Jobs doesn't mention things if there isn't a good reason.
People here seem to think that an iPod is coming with all the funcionality of the iPhone iPod. They are (almost certainly) wrong. The reason for this is simple - this phone packs a *lot* of processing/graphical punch to pack all these features in with full multitasking. Even Cover Flow needs a lot of power (try it out on an old G4). An iPod that could do all the non-phone stuff would still need to be really expensive, pretty much as expensive as the iPhone - hence we just get the iPhone.
Furthermore, it is the logical extension of the iPod growth. It started off simple but they have slowly been adding functionality to it. Why have a telephone, and an iPod, and a PDA (as I do at the moment)? It makes no sense because once you get the hardware meaty enough it might as well as do all the things together...
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I can pretty much agree with this. It's a good assessment of the situation.
Congrats on your first post.
It's self serving for me to say so, as I just agreed with it, but I think it's a good one.
Yes of course, been there done that, about 40 times in fact, but that was 10 years ago. Don't know how it's done now, but back then it required alot of post-processing and quality control. Especially if you were tracking something over 20-30 miles, say large ships in channels, say in the Panama Canal, say during the 1997 el Nino, and needed 6-DOF motions (minimum of 3 receivers on the moving body), and needed cm level accuracy (X, Y, and especially Z) from all three receivers.
But the point was that these are direct line-of-sight GPS techniques, they don't use AGPS (i. e. a combination of known cell tower coordinates (GPS coordinates) and RF triangulation + an assistant server to do the heavy lifting (calculate the cell phones position to 50m-300m (+/-))). So if the iPhone only uses AGPS don't expect it to save your ass if your lost in the woods somewhere without access to a cell phone network.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help to decode that information.
Yes. That's what it does.
Okay, we're obviously just stuck on terminology here.
In my understanding, cell-tower based triangulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with GPS, in the strictest sense of the word.
The phone doesn't do anything except emit the same RF signals as always; position triangulation happens at the service provider's base station, based on the different ping-times reported to by the various towers which are receiving the phone's signal. It can only yield a unique position if at least 3 different towers are in range to receive the phone's signal.
The cell towers themselves *might* use GPS to identify their own coordinates back to the service provider. But I've never seen a cell tower move around -- its coordinates are fixed. So GPS may not come into the picture at all.
A phone that is truly using AGPS would actually receive the GPS satellite's signal using an antenna attached to (or inside) the handset itself, and uses outside help (such as an initial guess of the user's approximate position, or data about the satellites that are in line-of-sight in this part of the world right now, or estimates of the satellite signals' doppler shifts, or the current atomic clock time, or offers to "do the math for you") to decode that information. If we're out-of-range and cannot communicate with that outside helper, we're still just as screwed when we're lost in the forest.
By help, I ment help yourself if you were lost in the woods, or lost on the road but outside cell phone service, cell is the transmitter and GPS is the receiver. I thought it was obvious, oh well.
AGPS is no better than RF triangulation (except for the fact that now the static GPS cell tower locations have been surveyed and submitted and EE HW has been added) in the cases where the cell phone doesn't have direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites, the cell tower ground based RF triangulation is the weak link here.
Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.
And that's how I entered this discussion, when someone asked if SJ was using actual GPS telemetry, I suggested perhaps not because he was inside (which would have blocked the iPhone GPS receiver because there was no direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites).
Now granted, given that all cell phones have a GPS receiver AND direct line-of-sight to the GPS satellites (i. e. not indoors or blocked somehow), then I'd expect this to work quite well for GPS level accurate navigation purposes.
I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.
My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.
I don't think you're right here. The iPhone is phantastic, and I agree the merging of many devices into one is nirvana, but the day after the keynote, I'm left to wonder where is the "real" widescreen video iPod?, with 80GB or more of storage? 8 GB is paltry, and the concept of the iPod is you can take all (or most of it) with you, and play what you want when you want to. Having to carefully preselect which music, TV shows, or movies you can fit onto the iPhone is really not a forward step. Clearly, given Apple's strategy as becoming a dominant player in media distribution, having a portable device that can store your library in its entirety, or near to it, is a given.
But the iPhone is not meant to be the next iPod; it's called iPhone for a reason. And overall, it provides FAR more storage, capabilities, and elegance than competitive smartphones, so it wins big in that comparison. But how many iPod w/Video owners here feel oddly out of sorts with this announcement? Buying one as your primary device would be an upgrade and downgrade at the same time. There is still plenty of room in the product line for new dedicated iPods. And remember, many people can't or won't buy an iPhone because cost, complexity, carrier, current agreements, lack of need, etc.
I'm sure Apple recognizes this, but for multiple reasons, are deciding to wait until later this year to introduce a real video ipod. I would imagine overall cost, battery life, slow-to-jump-on-board movide studios, and spreading out launches to avoid overlap are some of the reasons, along with the fact that AppleTV is not released and in homes yet. So, as much as I'd like a real video iPod today, all these factors seem to say a fall/winter release.
A video iPod could look nearly identical to this iPod in form and functionality - remove the battery-sapping cellular technology and add the battery-sapping HD technology, and you'll probably have similar performance.
Down the road, when battery technology improves, higher capacity flash modules become cheaper, and overall costs diminish due to economies of scale, an all-in-one as the ONLY tehcnology MAY occur, but why would Apple be so domineering of customer's desires? They're making a TON of money with MANY different iPods now. That paradigm won't change anytime soon.
I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis. 250 gb flash storage memory isn't just around the corner so if you want to have your entire music library and video library with you it may be a while. Apple is clearly choosing mobility and form factor over storage and rightly so. Look at the best selling iPods. The 'work around' is the ability to access your library via .Mac (google and Yahoo in the future?) and download your other media when you desire.
I thinl flash memory will improve but I don't think it will catch up to people's demands for storage soon. By the time that that occurs I think users will have adapted to accessing their library with the device.
I think people that want to be able to store ALL of their content on iPods are going to be disappointed. I think the future of these ultra mobile devices is flash storage as it is less power hungry and frankly holds up better to the constant jostling that the devices are going to be subjected to on a daily basis.
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.
Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.
I certainly wouldn't want to make the assertion that all phones have a GPS receiver. I don't know that for a fact.
My impression is that most phone providers are actually using tower triangulation to provide for the E-911 requirements. My assertion is that those technologies specifically do NOT use AGPS from the handset's perspective.
OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.
But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device. One telling statement from yesterday's keynote was along the lines of 'internet and phone in your pocket'. I really think the emphasis is going to be on portability going forward, not storage capacity. Often in life there are tradeoffs. I think Apple will sacrifice storage capacity for small form factor, less power consumption and better reliability when subjected to movement. To me that means flash. IMO.
PS i just looked at my thread and your response and I want to add that I think future iphones will have flash memory and not HDDs. In my previous post I said iPods. My bad.
"Apple's new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. "
- Jasen.
Surely your argument is blown completely out of the water by the fact that there are already HDD-based iPods, they just don't have widescreen touch-sensitive displays.
It seems logical enough to me to introduce a top-of-the-line iPod Video above (i.e. in addition to and more expensive than) the current 5.5g iPod, with touch-sensitive widescreen and at least 80 GB storage. However, we still don't know the cost of the Cingular contract and how much that is subsidising the phone. It may be that an unsubsidised iPod Video would be prohibitively expensive.
Also, 1.8" 80 GB HDDs are more expensive than 8 GB flash, but it could be that the additional cost of an 80 GB HDD over 8 GB flash is offset (or more) by not having any cellular chips in the "pure" iPod.
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.
I don't think so. If you look carefully I said the FUTURE is flash. HDDs are power hungry and in my experience don't perform well as a mobile device.
So you think Apple are going to drop the HDD iPod before they can replace it with a flash one of at least equal storage capacity for the same or lower price? Didn't think so.
It is clear that with the phone, an HDD is a dumb option as it would make the phone too heavy and too expensive, not enough people would want it.
But we're talking about a "pure" iPod. An HDD iPod with widescreen instead of 4:3 screen. Plenty of people seem to want that. Apple could do as they do with the current iPod line-up - offer one widescreen version with fash and another with HDD.
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely.
Agreed.
My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
Definitely.
It's clearly not impossible but I'm just saying that an 80GB HDD phone would be an inch thick. A widescreen HDD iPod is more likely. My guess is that even if you drop all the radio hardware, it could still be 5mm thicker than the current $350 model and cost more.
Whether we agree with it or not, Apple tends to make the thinnest devices, and seems to be willing to forgo functionality to get there.
The biggest drawback to HDDs is they don't withstand movement well in my experience. A cell phone has to be able to withstand a fair amount of abuse (such as accidental drops) and flash is much better suited to this.
There is nothing that would keep Apple from also decoding the raw data within the phone so you would not need the providers server. That way any application could use the GPS data. I'm guessing that what is happening with the maps. Apple is sending real GPS location data and the map data is then returned.
When Apple lets the developers gain access I would assume we'll see navagation applications that will run on the iPhone.
One last note, for me only having EDGE is a show stopper, $500 to $600 for a device that can only do 80 to 110 kbps is just plain nuts. I really hope that Apple will add faster data rates before the release.
OK, gotcha, sorry for the confusion, AGPS is Assisted-GPS, offloads GPS calculations to server, OK. Therefore must have direct line-of-sight to function correctly.
But again, that just reaffirms my guess as to one reason SJ didn't use actual GPS data, he was inside, the signal was blocked.
So you think Apple are going to drop the HDD iPod before they can replace it with a flash one of at least equal storage capacity for the same or lower price? .
No. My original post was inaccurate. Should have said iPhone instead of iPod. Sorry for the confusion.
I won't be getting the iPhone, not this time around. I'm afraid I just can't justify a purchase like this at this point. I do think it's a revolutionary product, and I'm excited to use one in the future. But I also think that Jobs has opened up a pandora's box for innovation that really can't be closed anytime soon. Multi touch is going to be incorperated into many more things, the iPhone is going to get better and better, and like Steve said in the keynote, there's going to be a lot of awesome new stuff in 2007. The iPhone isn't Apple's trump card; it's their introduction.