Yeah, I understand why they did it for the US one.
The difference is, here 3G has 70% of the UK covered, and EDGE has 30%. That's why we're bitter. I'd be OK if O2 would improve their EDGE network, but there's no real incentive for them to do so. There will be a 3G iPhone next year (touch wood), so they're probably just waiting for that rather than increasing coverage of EDGE.
Amorya
I'm sorry, Amorya, I wrongly assumed you were in the states. From what you've said, that certainly explains why some of you are bitter about the situation.
If they could, without making it more fragile, and by adding pixels not just making them bigger then by all means. I'd hate to see it get bigger physically though. It's already a little too big width x height for a pocketable device IMHO although they're kind of limited in what they can do if they've got a touchscreen qwerty keyboard to fit in there that's still typeable on with fat fingers.
It's already the best screen you can get in a phone of it's size, no question about it.
Yup. And it needs to get better. We arm-chair Apple CEOs have been dreaming up entire iPhone lineups. From the Menlow/Silverthorne thread in FH:
I think it is a really good idea for Apple to diversify the iPhone line to 3 versions: a nano cheap version at 4 x 2 inches in size, the current iPhone size of 4.4 x 2.4 inches, and a pro version of 4.8 x 2.8 size or so. This would allow for screens of 3.2", 3.8" and 4.2" diagonal 3:2 aspect ratio screens, if they can thin out the current iPhone [bezels] in half or so to 1/8 inch, and carry prices in the $150-250, $300-400, $450-$550 range. With the pro version having a larger screen, a half inch wider, I imagine a soft QWERTY would be a bit easier, while the nano version will have to resort to T9.
And the mid-range would have 0.2 inches wider screen too! We will leave the engineering to the underlings...
Yeah, I understand why they did it for the US one.
The difference is, here 3G has 70% of the UK covered, and EDGE has 30%. That's why we're bitter. I'd be OK if O2 would improve their EDGE network, but there's no real incentive for them to do so. There will be a 3G iPhone next year (touch wood), so they're probably just waiting for that rather than increasing coverage of EDGE.
Amorya
Actually when Apple first went into talks with O2 and Telefonica O2 did mention they would be willing to build an EDGE network but then they decided against it after hearing how soon after the 3G one would follow so natuarally it makes sense. But yeah for us brits im sure its a nice piece of kit to have but damn I need 3G for those train journeys home from work haha! Most networks have 99% coverage by the way for 3G. I know 3 does, as does Voda. O2 must have too, not sure about Orange but I get 3G when I am.
Actually when Apple first went into talks with O2 and Telefonica O2 did mention they would be willing to build an EDGE network but then they decided against it after hearing how soon after the 3G one would follow so natuarally it makes sense. But yeah for us brits im sure its a nice piece of kit to have but damn I need 3G for those train journeys home from work haha! Most networks have 99% coverage by the way for 3G. I know 3 does, as does Voda. O2 must have too, not sure about Orange but I get 3G when I am.
99% coverage by population perhaps but 3G certainly isn't 99% by geography.
Then again I'd be very surprised if EDGE covers even 30% of the population on O2 never mind geographically.
...This drives the point home, however, that for those that keep talking about 3G iPhones being what Apple should have started out with, as what would have been a mistake. EDGE is far more dominant in the US than 3G ? not everyone has EDGE, let alone 3G. It makes far more business sense to introduce a new cell phone with a large and solid infrastructure, using the fastest data speeds that the most people can get. Now that over a million people in the US have an iPhone they will likely introduce a 3G ? even if there are less places that can make the most of the higher speed ? as it otherwise shifts down to EDGE...
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
Varients are made sometimes for different regions depending on what networks used the most. eg: K800/K790 - We didnt see the K790 in the UK becasue there is hardley any edge. Only Orange has EDGE and I dont even know what % coverage that is. Ideally though yes you would assume that a phone should just be made to make use of all possible network speeds.
I was under the assumption that 3G was reverse compatible with EDGE. Is this just in the US. Or a complete fallacy?
Not really. It's a different frequency and technology. UMTS 3G isn't that far off CDMA in the US and is quite different to the GSM 2G tech. But that's not important, most phones support both, usually with two chips. If 3G isn't available it'll drop back to EDGE (if available either on the phone or the network) or GPRS. In most of Europe, that means the iPhone is operating on plain GPRS since we didn't bother with EDGE for the most part and went straight to 3G some years ago. Now we're rolling out HSPA (7.2mbps). EDGE is actually fairly rare on handsets too for that reason although you do get it on some of the cheap handsets that don't do 3G, of which there are still quite a few.
The K800/K790 is a good example to use since we got the UMTS 3G and GPRS K800 whereas the US and Canada got the EDGE only version. The K800 didn't have EDGE because it'd be pointless here. Apple don't seem to have worked that out.
Varients are made sometimes for different regions depending on what networks used the most. eg: K800/K790 - We didnt see the K790 in the UK becasue there is hardley any edge. Only Orange has EDGE and I dont even know what % coverage that is. Ideally though yes you would assume that a phone should just be made to make use of all possible network speeds.
T-Mobile do too though not a lot. That's why pre-launch of the iPhone most people expected either Orange or T-Mobile here. When it went to O2 it was a surprise but a few weeks before launch O2 users in London were mysteriously reporting O2 had started installing EDGE on their towers.
Does anyone know when iphone will offer full flash support. N95 8gbs latest firmware updaet has flashlite 3 which allows to browse native youtube as well as dailymotion. Apple needs to get a move on!
Does anyone know when iphone will offer full flash support. N95 8gbs latest firmware updaet has flashlite 3 which allows to browse native youtube as well as dailymotion. Apple needs to get a move on!
When I last looked, SWF's code was shocking bad. It renders everything on the CPU, which would suck down battery life and probably be slow on the iPhone's large screen buffer. Apple will probably not implement it until they have a proper hardware-rendering solution.
They might not bother. Apple hates SWF, and eveyone (YouTube and Adobe included) is moving to h264 for video playback. In fact h264 *is* the new video format for Flash.
I thought Flash was dying out. Are there any Flash sites worth visiting?
When I last looked, SWF's code was shocking bad. It renders everything on the CPU, which would suck down battery life and probably be slow on the iPhone's large screen buffer. Apple will probably not implement it until they have a proper hardware-rendering solution.
They might not bother. Apple hates SWF, and eveyone (YouTube and Adobe included) is moving to h264 for video playback. In fact h264 *is* the new video format for Flash.
I thought Flash was dying out. Are there any Flash sites worth visiting?
C.
Hulu, Joost, YouTube (the real youtube with all the content, not the iPhone version that isn't complete), NBC Direct, Shockwave.com, Google Photo slideshows embedded in html pages, etc. Flash isn't going anywhere. It really doesn't matter if the video is handled by h264 if the rest of the site is designed in flash, that still means that its a site you can't visit. Regular Flash is still the most efficient way to get large graphics and animation in a site without bogging down with large graphics.
Does anyone know when iphone will offer full flash support. N95 8gbs latest firmware updaet has flashlite 3 which allows to browse native youtube as well as dailymotion. Apple needs to get a move on!
Hulu, Joost, YouTube (the real youtube with all the content, not the iPhone version that isn't complete), NBC Direct, Shockwave.com, Google Photo slideshows embedded in html pages, etc. Flash isn't going anywhere. It really doesn't matter if the video is handled by h264 if the rest of the site is designed in flash, that still means that its a site you can't visit. Regular Flash is still the most efficient way to get large graphics and animation in a site without bogging down with large graphics.
If you remove the video streaming - that's a very short list.
I understand that 1.1.3 is due soon. Many of the blogs e.g., http://personafile.com/iPhone-apps.html said 1.1.3 was due this week. But Apple is yet to release it. I think because 1.1.3 will support the forthcoming SDK and that isn't due until MacWorld. This happened with 1.1.2 too, bloggers said it was due in days and then it took a few weeks. I think 1.1.3 will include copy and paste, or I sure hope it does!
The SDK isn't due until February so the 1.1.3 release may be entirely unrelated to it.
The SDK isn't due until February so the 1.1.3 release may be entirely unrelated to it.
Remember, though, that Intel wasn't due for awhile when the iMac and MBP were released. I wouldn't be surprised that the SDK is in 1.1.3, released in February. It could work that SDK is released early with a new iPhone update.
Remember, though, that Intel wasn't due for awhile when the iMac and MBP were released. I wouldn't be surprised that the SDK is in 1.1.3, released in February. It could work that SDK is released early with a new iPhone update.
Who knows.
They could release 1.1.3 next week and the SDK in Feb, or both in Feb, or both next week, or a 1.1.4 with the SDK in Feb, or both late in March, or 2.0 alongside the new 3G phones.
They could release 1.1.3 next week and the SDK in Feb, or both in Feb, or both next week, or a 1.1.4 with the SDK in Feb, or both late in March, or 2.0 alongside the new 3G phones.
Well, 1.1.3 is released today and it looks like by late February or later, a new update will accommodate the SDK and installable apps. aegis gets the gold star.
I'm still hoping for OS-X "mobile" to be upgraded to Leopard, Safari upgraded to 3.x, Expose+File Coverflow+Quicklaunch, and other wondrous features to appear too. If it happens at all, it'll probably be the 2.0 update.
Comments
Yeah, I understand why they did it for the US one.
The difference is, here 3G has 70% of the UK covered, and EDGE has 30%. That's why we're bitter. I'd be OK if O2 would improve their EDGE network, but there's no real incentive for them to do so. There will be a 3G iPhone next year (touch wood), so they're probably just waiting for that rather than increasing coverage of EDGE.
Amorya
I'm sorry, Amorya, I wrongly assumed you were in the states. From what you've said, that certainly explains why some of you are bitter about the situation.
If they could, without making it more fragile, and by adding pixels not just making them bigger then by all means. I'd hate to see it get bigger physically though. It's already a little too big width x height for a pocketable device IMHO although they're kind of limited in what they can do if they've got a touchscreen qwerty keyboard to fit in there that's still typeable on with fat fingers.
It's already the best screen you can get in a phone of it's size, no question about it.
Yup. And it needs to get better. We arm-chair Apple CEOs have been dreaming up entire iPhone lineups. From the Menlow/Silverthorne thread in FH:
I think it is a really good idea for Apple to diversify the iPhone line to 3 versions: a nano cheap version at 4 x 2 inches in size, the current iPhone size of 4.4 x 2.4 inches, and a pro version of 4.8 x 2.8 size or so. This would allow for screens of 3.2", 3.8" and 4.2" diagonal 3:2 aspect ratio screens, if they can thin out the current iPhone [bezels] in half or so to 1/8 inch, and carry prices in the $150-250, $300-400, $450-$550 range. With the pro version having a larger screen, a half inch wider, I imagine a soft QWERTY would be a bit easier, while the nano version will have to resort to T9.
And the mid-range would have 0.2 inches wider screen too! We will leave the engineering to the underlings...
Yeah, I understand why they did it for the US one.
The difference is, here 3G has 70% of the UK covered, and EDGE has 30%. That's why we're bitter. I'd be OK if O2 would improve their EDGE network, but there's no real incentive for them to do so. There will be a 3G iPhone next year (touch wood), so they're probably just waiting for that rather than increasing coverage of EDGE.
Amorya
Actually when Apple first went into talks with O2 and Telefonica O2 did mention they would be willing to build an EDGE network but then they decided against it after hearing how soon after the 3G one would follow so natuarally it makes sense. But yeah for us brits im sure its a nice piece of kit to have but damn I need 3G for those train journeys home from work haha! Most networks have 99% coverage by the way for 3G. I know 3 does, as does Voda. O2 must have too, not sure about Orange but I get 3G when I am.
Actually when Apple first went into talks with O2 and Telefonica O2 did mention they would be willing to build an EDGE network but then they decided against it after hearing how soon after the 3G one would follow so natuarally it makes sense. But yeah for us brits im sure its a nice piece of kit to have but damn I need 3G for those train journeys home from work haha! Most networks have 99% coverage by the way for 3G. I know 3 does, as does Voda. O2 must have too, not sure about Orange but I get 3G when I am.
99% coverage by population perhaps but 3G certainly isn't 99% by geography.
Then again I'd be very surprised if EDGE covers even 30% of the population on O2 never mind geographically.
...This drives the point home, however, that for those that keep talking about 3G iPhones being what Apple should have started out with, as what would have been a mistake. EDGE is far more dominant in the US than 3G ? not everyone has EDGE, let alone 3G. It makes far more business sense to introduce a new cell phone with a large and solid infrastructure, using the fastest data speeds that the most people can get. Now that over a million people in the US have an iPhone they will likely introduce a 3G ? even if there are less places that can make the most of the higher speed ? as it otherwise shifts down to EDGE...
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
I was under the assumption that 3G was reverse compatible with EDGE. Is this just in the US. Or a complete fallacy?
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
As HyteProsector said, the 3G iPhone would use 3G first and then shift to EDGE when unable to effectively access 3G - at least in the US.
A 3G iPhone should have had both 3G and EDGE. Therefore everyone would have access to the fastest network available in their area.
Varients are made sometimes for different regions depending on what networks used the most. eg: K800/K790 - We didnt see the K790 in the UK becasue there is hardley any edge. Only Orange has EDGE and I dont even know what % coverage that is. Ideally though yes you would assume that a phone should just be made to make use of all possible network speeds.
I was under the assumption that 3G was reverse compatible with EDGE. Is this just in the US. Or a complete fallacy?
Not really. It's a different frequency and technology. UMTS 3G isn't that far off CDMA in the US and is quite different to the GSM 2G tech. But that's not important, most phones support both, usually with two chips. If 3G isn't available it'll drop back to EDGE (if available either on the phone or the network) or GPRS. In most of Europe, that means the iPhone is operating on plain GPRS since we didn't bother with EDGE for the most part and went straight to 3G some years ago. Now we're rolling out HSPA (7.2mbps). EDGE is actually fairly rare on handsets too for that reason although you do get it on some of the cheap handsets that don't do 3G, of which there are still quite a few.
The K800/K790 is a good example to use since we got the UMTS 3G and GPRS K800 whereas the US and Canada got the EDGE only version. The K800 didn't have EDGE because it'd be pointless here. Apple don't seem to have worked that out.
Varients are made sometimes for different regions depending on what networks used the most. eg: K800/K790 - We didnt see the K790 in the UK becasue there is hardley any edge. Only Orange has EDGE and I dont even know what % coverage that is. Ideally though yes you would assume that a phone should just be made to make use of all possible network speeds.
T-Mobile do too though not a lot. That's why pre-launch of the iPhone most people expected either Orange or T-Mobile here. When it went to O2 it was a surprise but a few weeks before launch O2 users in London were mysteriously reporting O2 had started installing EDGE on their towers.
Does anyone know when iphone will offer full flash support. N95 8gbs latest firmware updaet has flashlite 3 which allows to browse native youtube as well as dailymotion. Apple needs to get a move on!
When I last looked, SWF's code was shocking bad. It renders everything on the CPU, which would suck down battery life and probably be slow on the iPhone's large screen buffer. Apple will probably not implement it until they have a proper hardware-rendering solution.
They might not bother. Apple hates SWF, and eveyone (YouTube and Adobe included) is moving to h264 for video playback. In fact h264 *is* the new video format for Flash.
I thought Flash was dying out. Are there any Flash sites worth visiting?
C.
When I last looked, SWF's code was shocking bad. It renders everything on the CPU, which would suck down battery life and probably be slow on the iPhone's large screen buffer. Apple will probably not implement it until they have a proper hardware-rendering solution.
They might not bother. Apple hates SWF, and eveyone (YouTube and Adobe included) is moving to h264 for video playback. In fact h264 *is* the new video format for Flash.
I thought Flash was dying out. Are there any Flash sites worth visiting?
C.
Hulu, Joost, YouTube (the real youtube with all the content, not the iPhone version that isn't complete), NBC Direct, Shockwave.com, Google Photo slideshows embedded in html pages, etc. Flash isn't going anywhere. It really doesn't matter if the video is handled by h264 if the rest of the site is designed in flash, that still means that its a site you can't visit. Regular Flash is still the most efficient way to get large graphics and animation in a site without bogging down with large graphics.
Does anyone know when iphone will offer full flash support. N95 8gbs latest firmware updaet has flashlite 3 which allows to browse native youtube as well as dailymotion. Apple needs to get a move on!
Adobe needs to get a move on.
Hulu, Joost, YouTube (the real youtube with all the content, not the iPhone version that isn't complete), NBC Direct, Shockwave.com, Google Photo slideshows embedded in html pages, etc. Flash isn't going anywhere. It really doesn't matter if the video is handled by h264 if the rest of the site is designed in flash, that still means that its a site you can't visit. Regular Flash is still the most efficient way to get large graphics and animation in a site without bogging down with large graphics.
If you remove the video streaming - that's a very short list.
I understand that 1.1.3 is due soon. Many of the blogs e.g., http://personafile.com/iPhone-apps.html said 1.1.3 was due this week. But Apple is yet to release it. I think because 1.1.3 will support the forthcoming SDK and that isn't due until MacWorld. This happened with 1.1.2 too, bloggers said it was due in days and then it took a few weeks. I think 1.1.3 will include copy and paste, or I sure hope it does!
The SDK isn't due until February so the 1.1.3 release may be entirely unrelated to it.
The SDK isn't due until February so the 1.1.3 release may be entirely unrelated to it.
Remember, though, that Intel wasn't due for awhile when the iMac and MBP were released. I wouldn't be surprised that the SDK is in 1.1.3, released in February. It could work that SDK is released early with a new iPhone update.
Remember, though, that Intel wasn't due for awhile when the iMac and MBP were released. I wouldn't be surprised that the SDK is in 1.1.3, released in February. It could work that SDK is released early with a new iPhone update.
Who knows.
They could release 1.1.3 next week and the SDK in Feb, or both in Feb, or both next week, or a 1.1.4 with the SDK in Feb, or both late in March, or 2.0 alongside the new 3G phones.
Who knows.
Wisest words on this post so far.
Who knows.
They could release 1.1.3 next week and the SDK in Feb, or both in Feb, or both next week, or a 1.1.4 with the SDK in Feb, or both late in March, or 2.0 alongside the new 3G phones.
Well, 1.1.3 is released today and it looks like by late February or later, a new update will accommodate the SDK and installable apps.
I'm still hoping for OS-X "mobile" to be upgraded to Leopard, Safari upgraded to 3.x, Expose+File Coverflow+Quicklaunch, and other wondrous features to appear too. If it happens at all, it'll probably be the 2.0 update.