I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
.
Anyone who bases their phone purchase on the megapixel count of the camera is an idiot.
They already do, and have for many years. For example, megahertz has mattered to Apple a lot through the years, even though we all know that how much work actually gets done per clock cycle matters more.
Apple doesn't simply use megahertz to measure performance. Over the past 10 years they've always used system benchmarks. Which measures the same task that takes the entire system to perform.
Quote:
We were talking about revenues, Teno. You do understand the difference between revenues and profits, correct?
Actually I meant revenue and put profits by accident. I do know the difference and revenue generally has to grow for profit to grown. Revenue can grow and profit may not grow.
Quote:
I could, and you know I'm very good at digging up such quotes, but... why bother? Nearly everyone I've talked to understands this but you. iPhone sales were not the sole reason why the stock took a dump (the economy sure hurt too) but they were a big part of it.
Well I haven't seen any major analyst directly make this correlation. Right now it is only your opinion without any supportive evidence.
Quote:
I don't think it much matters, considering more ppl look at specs than read specific reviews on even the biggest tech sites, like CNET or Engadget.
Most people don't look at specs at all. The cool factor and "will it impress all my friends" are more important.
Quote:
Ars Technica called the iPhone out for missing camera and video features, though to be fair they found the camera to be "acceptable"
That's pretty much the worst that can be said. There are phones with better cameras. But the iPhones camera is acceptable because the cameras on other phones aren't that much better.
Quote:
But of course, what really matters is word-of-mouth. This YouTube video (with nearly 200,000 views) made me wince, but it's largely true:
That was pathetic. But it goes along with what you do Baggins. A lot of unsupported opinion and conjecture. What would have been more helpful is actually showing blown up pictures taken with the two cameras. So we can see the difference and not just watch them talk about it.
Quote:
Anyways, why so defensive about the camera, Teno? Odds are Apple probably will fix it on the 3G iPhone, unless Jobs had too many three-martini lunches during the planning meetings.
I would much rather Apple improve the more useful features. I actually don't care about the camera. My point to you is that very few people do.
Anyone who bases their phone purchase on the megapixel count of the camera is an idiot.
They should buy MS products.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
I think the "up to a point" in terms of playing the specs game is an important point. Maybe the iPhone camera probably should use some improvement, but more is not always better, especially when it comes to megapixels. What more megapixels does is divide the already meager available light among more sensor areas, making them effectively less sensitive and more noisy.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
.
Do you know anything about photography?
I guess I'm coming off like a dick, but honestly don't you know about lenses, image sensors, flash(lighting) ect... things that make up PICTURE QUALITY?
Do you really think that adding a 5 megapixel camera to the iPhone will instantly make the pictures better?
Frankly I'm impressed with the quality of the images I've seen already with the iPhone. If you're really serious about photography, which I'm assuming since you claim the need for a higher megapixel camera, then get a decent point and shoot or a DSLR.
Do you know anything about this thread? Because you're repeating some very basic points that were covered many posts ago, ad nauseum. \
Quote:
I guess I'm coming off like a dick,
Well, yeah. But at least you're aware of it.
Quote:
but honestly don't you know about lenses, image sensors, flash(lighting) ect... things that make up PICTURE QUALITY?
Read the thread. What you're saying isn't new.
Quote:
Do you really think that adding a 5 megapixel camera to the iPhone will instantly make the pictures better?
Frankly, I don't care all that much if it does... though I certainly know ppl who would. I'm more concerned about improving the iPhone's position vs its competition, and improving iPhone sales.
Quote:
Frankly I'm impressed with the quality of the images I've seen already with the iPhone. If you're really serious about photography, which I'm assuming since you claim the need for a higher megapixel camera, then get a decent point and shoot or a DSLR.
That point was addressed many posts ago. Again, read the thread. Thanks.
Do you know anything about this thread? Because you're repeating some very basic points that were covered many posts ago, ad nauseum. \
Well, yeah. But at least you're aware of it.
Read the thread. What you're saying isn't new.
Frankly, I don't care all that much if it does... though I certainly know ppl who would. I'm more concerned about improving the iPhone's position vs its competition, and improving iPhone sales.
That point was addressed many posts ago. Again, read the thread. Thanks.
.
After today, the only people who will care about the camera on the iPhone will be geeks at Ars and Anand.
And they were NEVER going to buy one in the first place. Now they have their excuse.
ok, it just felt about the same size as my nano in the shop, my mistake. My point was more that there are small, thin phones with 3G, with a reasonable camera, with a flash and decent battery life. There's no technical reason why Apple couldn't put that all in an iPhone which is quite a large phone. The Nokia 6500 in fact would make a pretty hot template for an 'iPhone Nano' except replace the keypad with a touch screen and allow it to be used in landscape mode to type. It's a nice size whereas I find the iPhone a little too big.
I apologize myself for my neuroticism with specs. Especially the correctness of specs. Technical specifications are part of the marketing these days. LG will gladly have people believe the Viewty is 14.8 mm thick at its thickest point, but it is not. I'm the sort of person that would force LG to put an asterisk next to the number with the small print saying it is the thickness of the body not including the lens protrusion. Same way with say, Lenovo x300 battery claims, thinness claims and weight claims (virtually every ultraportable laptop manufacturer have small print legalese stating their claims may "vary"). Apple probably breaks the battery claim too much, but at least they are somewhat close, Lenovo and others are really approaching lying on battery claims.
You're still missing a technical reason on why Apple would be add a disadvantage in terms of number of features versus the size of the phone. Twice the screen may be a 50% battery hit if the power consumption equation for "normal" cell phone devices is something like
total power consumption = 1/3rd is CPU, I/O, storage + 1/3rd are radios + 1/3rd is screen
On top of that the iPhone has one of the brightest screens on the market, if not the brightest. If wirelessinfo.com is right, the iPhone screen is 4x brighter than the LG Prada, a phone of similar aspirations; 2.8x brighter than a Palm Treo 750, 2.3x brighter than a Nokia N95-1, and 1.87x brighter than a Blackberry 8800. Only the HTC Kaiser/TyTn2/Tilt comes close to iPhone screen brightness. Twice the screen area at twice the levels of brightness of comparative phones means larger battery. On top of that, Apple's got a very thin form factor. This will all result in less volume for other goodies.
For a prospective iPhone "nano" with say a 3" screen and say a 102 x 52 x 12 mm form factor, I'd hazard a guess that 3G may not be possible if Apple wants decent 5+ hr battery life. Something may have to be reduced: screen brightness, battery life, WiFi chip, 3G; any number of things. Of course I'd prefer if they just made it 14 mm thick and maintain as many features of the current iPhone as possible.
After today, the only people who will care about the camera on the iPhone will be geeks at Ars and Anand.
And they were NEVER going to buy one in the first place. Now they have their excuse.
Really? You honestly think because Apple announced that they're going to go for the corporate space with the iPhone, alluva sudden other features don't matter any more? Nah.
It's great that they're taking on RIM. But that doesn't make the competition automagically vanish.
In any case, it's a silly thing to get aggro about. The 3G iPhone will likely see a bump in camera resolution and features, and should be adding video capture. All that, on top of 3G, and the software update in June? Sweet.
I think the "up to a point" in terms of playing the specs game is an important point. Maybe the iPhone camera probably should use some improvement, but more is not always better, especially when it comes to megapixels. What more megapixels does is divide the already meager available light among more sensor areas, making them effectively less sensitive and more noisy.
I dunno Jeff... you seem to be saying that the N95's camera should be worse than the iPhone's, because it just has "too darn many megapixels". Okay, I'm sure there's instances where that's true, and perhaps I just have lousy taste, but I kinda like how the N95's shots look compared to the iPhone's, despite the excess megapixels:
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
The funny thing is that the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone anymore, if ever it was. The N82 is supposed to be quite a bit better (nice xenon flash too), and Samsung apparently has a new 10-megapixel cameraphone out in South Korea.
I'm sure good dedicated cameras are considerably better still, but again, it's not about being better than dedicated cameras, its about being competitive with the high-end cellphone competition that's out there.
Ah well. Looking forward to seeing how good the camera/video capabilities are on the 3G iPhone.
Apple doesn't simply use megahertz to measure performance. Over the past 10 years they've always used system benchmarks. Which measures the same task that takes the entire system to perform.
Ok. Doesn't change the fact that Apple has had to worry about megahertz as a selling factor for its products. You'd call it "designing around consumer ignorance", others would call it acknowledging the reality of the market.
Quote:
Actually I meant revenue and put profits by accident. I do know the difference and revenue generally has to grow for profit to grown. Revenue can grow and profit may not grow.
Great. Regardless, the investment community sees mp3 players as a mature or maturing market. Add to that that Apple already has a very high marketshare in that market, and you can see why growth prospects there are not seen as high. The iPhone, by contrast, is a newcomer that potentially has a lot of room to grow, if Apple executes well. That's how they see it. You may not agree, but that is the reality.
Quote:
Well I haven't seen any major analyst directly make this correlation. Right now it is only your opinion without any supportive evidence.
"Teno doesn't get it." Noted. Used to it. At least you finally "got" 3G.
Quote:
Most people don't look at specs at all. The cool factor and "will it impress all my friends" are more important.
Meh. I'd say you need to appeal to both the status hounds and the tech spec geeks. It's not an "either/or" proposition.
Quote:
That's pretty much the worst that can be said. There are phones with better cameras. But the iPhones camera is acceptable because the cameras on other phones aren't that much better.
From what I've seen, shots with the N95 do seem to look significantly better, and the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone out there.
Quote:
That was pathetic. But it goes along with what you do Baggins. A lot of unsupported opinion and conjecture. What would have been more helpful is actually showing blown up pictures taken with the two cameras. So we can see the difference and not just watch them talk about it.
To quote Teno: "Waaaah."
Actually T, I did post some N95 and iPhone comparo shots, feel free to check 'em out.
Oh, and why hate on the YouTube video? Sure, it's no-budget, and it's corny, but most of what they say is true. And they did get around 200,000 views... have you put up anything on there that's been remotely that successful? Heck, they got nearly as many views as the CNET N95 vs iPhone YouTube video (219,000 views).
Quote:
I would much rather Apple improve the more useful features. I actually don't care about the camera. My point to you is that very few people do.
And my point to you is that perhaps you assume that others don't care about the camera because you yourself do not. But, you are not the market.
I myself am not a big photography freak. But, despite that, I can still see how a phone at the iPhone's price point and with the iPhone's hype might create consumer expectations that the iPhone be feature- and spec-competitive with other high-end phones.
In any case, we will likely know by June or so which way Apple chose to go here. If the 3G iPhone comes out with a 2.0 MP camera and still no video recording, I will say, "Guess you were right Teno... Apple seems to agree with you that camera/video functionality is no big deal in the iPhone." But for myself, I expect either a 3.2 or 5.0 MP camera on the 3G iPhone, plus video recording. Perhaps a flash and autofocus as well.
If that happens (and I think it likely, since the chipset they'll likely use supports those things), will you then complain that Apple shouldn't have improved those things? That would be funny, in a curiously negative sort of way.
Really? You honestly think because Apple announced that they're going to go for the corporate space with the iPhone, alluva sudden other features don't matter any more? Nah.
I think that enterprise features that now equal RIM, trump any perceived shortcomings of the built in camera.
The only people who care about the features of the iPhones camera are those that were never going to buy the thing.
I think that enterprise features that now equal RIM, trump any perceived shortcomings of the built in camera.
The only people who care about the features of the iPhones camera are those that were never going to buy the thing.
Bullshit. I've absolutely no use for ActiveSync support since I'm entirely Mac and Linux based - no Exchange here. On the other hand, a decent enough camera *is* quite useful and the iPhone camera whilst passable, could be better. Is it a deal breaker? No, unlike ActiveSync support for some.
I do hope they've added IMAP IDLE support to the regular iPhone Mail app though, since my mail servers all support IMAP IDLE. Currently it only does IMAP push mail with Yahoo! mail.
Bullshit. I've absolutely no use for ActiveSync support since I'm entirely Mac and Linux based - no Exchange here. On the other hand, a decent enough camera *is* quite useful and the iPhone camera whilst passable, could be better. Is it a deal breaker? No, unlike ActiveSync support for some.
I do hope they've added IMAP IDLE support to the regular iPhone Mail app though, since my mail servers all support IMAP IDLE. Currently it only does IMAP push mail with Yahoo! mail.
What's bullshit? The enterprise features Apple just announced for the iPhone? I hope your kidding because its huge. Maybe not for you but for most corporate users this was a deal breaker. Now it isn't.
Add the enterprise features to the robust platform to write apps for and the 'weakness' of the camera looks pretty insignificant.
What's bullshit? The enterprise features Apple just announced for the iPhone? I hope your kidding because its huge. Maybe not for you but for most corporate users this was a deal breaker. Now it isn't.
I understand it's huge for some. I was calling bullshit on your suggestion that ActiveSync support trumps a decent camera. Many people have absolutely no need for Exchange support (I don't know anyone actually but that's because I mostly don't deal with companies that run Microsoft solutions - my job is to provide the alternative) whereas they do have a need for a decent camera (most people I know). Since when was Apple's solution supposed to just be passable?
I'm actually kind of sad that Apple caved on the enterprise front. They've a decent platform themselves with IMAP IDLE, CalDav, Open Directory and their wiki collab server. None of that featured yesterday though. I hope their 'enterprise' features will include their own enterprise server standards at some point, not just Microsoft's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Add the enterprise features to the robust platform to write apps for and the 'weakness' of the camera looks pretty insignificant.
You can't totally fix weak hardware with software.
I dunno Jeff... you seem to be saying that the N95's camera should be worse than the iPhone's, because it just has "too darn many megapixels". Okay, I'm sure there's instances where that's true, and perhaps I just have lousy taste, but I kinda like how the N95's shots look compared to the iPhone's, despite the excess megapixels:
Sorry, I should have been clear, I meant within the constraint of a particular size. The N95 has a much thicker case to allows a larger camera and a bigger lens, the case is about twice as thick as the iPhone's as I recall, its camera system is about half way to that of a point and shoot in terms of size. I think it's fine that the N95 exists to serve certain needs, but I don't think it serves mine because I don't want a brick in my pocket.
A 10MP camera phone seems like even more buffoonery though. Competing to get the biggest number doesn't make the best product. Megapixels certainly won't do anyone any good if they're going to be radically scaled down for the web anyway. 3MP was about right for my pocket camera, I think. My dad bought an 8MP pocket camera and it's never made as nice of a picture, but people get surprised at how well the 3MP camera images print out.
I understand it's huge for some. I was calling bullshit on your suggestion that ActiveSync support trumps a decent camera. Many people have absolutely no need for Exchange support (I don't know anyone actually but that's because I mostly don't deal with companies that run Microsoft solutions - my job is to provide the alternative) whereas they do have a need for a decent camera (most people I know). Since when was Apple's solution supposed to just be passable?
The enterprise features do trump the phone features.
The enterprise features do trump the phone features.
Time will tell.
It serves different markets.
I really don't think the iPhone is yet enough to push any company to switch away from Exchange. It would seem like a switch to something Apple supports would mean a complete replacement of all computers, software and conversion of all data used in an organization, and that's not cheap.
I really don't think the iPhone is yet enough to push any company to switch away from Exchange. It would seem like a switch to something Apple supports would mean a complete replacement of all computers and software used in an organization, and that's not cheap.
Sure but I think the enterprise market is going to be a *lot* bigger than the market for 5 megapixel camera phones.
Why would a company have to switch to Macs if they adopted iPhones? Sure they may want a few in house if they decide to write apps but I know a lot of people with iPhones that have windows computers. iTunes works ok on pcs.
Comments
I'd call the camera one of the significant factors in the buying decision, and moreso in Europe than the US. You buy a high-end phone, you expect high-end features, and a good ('for a phone') camera is one of them. Is it at the top of the list? For most I'd say no, but its something you definitely look at. I don't think our perceptions are that far apart here.
.
Anyone who bases their phone purchase on the megapixel count of the camera is an idiot.
They should buy MS products.
They already do, and have for many years. For example, megahertz has mattered to Apple a lot through the years, even though we all know that how much work actually gets done per clock cycle matters more.
Apple doesn't simply use megahertz to measure performance. Over the past 10 years they've always used system benchmarks. Which measures the same task that takes the entire system to perform.
We were talking about revenues, Teno. You do understand the difference between revenues and profits, correct?
Actually I meant revenue and put profits by accident. I do know the difference and revenue generally has to grow for profit to grown. Revenue can grow and profit may not grow.
I could, and you know I'm very good at digging up such quotes, but... why bother? Nearly everyone I've talked to understands this but you. iPhone sales were not the sole reason why the stock took a dump (the economy sure hurt too) but they were a big part of it.
Well I haven't seen any major analyst directly make this correlation. Right now it is only your opinion without any supportive evidence.
I don't think it much matters, considering more ppl look at specs than read specific reviews on even the biggest tech sites, like CNET or Engadget.
Most people don't look at specs at all. The cool factor and "will it impress all my friends" are more important.
Ars Technica called the iPhone out for missing camera and video features, though to be fair they found the camera to be "acceptable"
That's pretty much the worst that can be said. There are phones with better cameras. But the iPhones camera is acceptable because the cameras on other phones aren't that much better.
But of course, what really matters is word-of-mouth. This YouTube video (with nearly 200,000 views) made me wince, but it's largely true:
That was pathetic. But it goes along with what you do Baggins. A lot of unsupported opinion and conjecture. What would have been more helpful is actually showing blown up pictures taken with the two cameras. So we can see the difference and not just watch them talk about it.
Anyways, why so defensive about the camera, Teno? Odds are Apple probably will fix it on the 3G iPhone, unless Jobs had too many three-martini lunches during the planning meetings.
I would much rather Apple improve the more useful features. I actually don't care about the camera. My point to you is that very few people do.
Anyone who bases their phone purchase on the megapixel count of the camera is an idiot.
They should buy MS products.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
I think the "up to a point" in terms of playing the specs game is an important point. Maybe the iPhone camera probably should use some improvement, but more is not always better, especially when it comes to megapixels. What more megapixels does is divide the already meager available light among more sensor areas, making them effectively less sensitive and more noisy.
Sigh. Sadly, its just that kind of "go buy an MS product" arrogance that's gotten Apple into trouble in the past. Because a lot of ppl DO "go buy the MS product", or something a lot like it.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game, up to a point. I'd much rather have Apple win it than anyone else.
.
Do you know anything about photography?
I guess I'm coming off like a dick, but honestly don't you know about lenses, image sensors, flash(lighting) ect... things that make up PICTURE QUALITY?
Do you really think that adding a 5 megapixel camera to the iPhone will instantly make the pictures better?
Frankly I'm impressed with the quality of the images I've seen already with the iPhone. If you're really serious about photography, which I'm assuming since you claim the need for a higher megapixel camera, then get a decent point and shoot or a DSLR.
Do you know anything about photography?
Do you know anything about this thread? Because you're repeating some very basic points that were covered many posts ago, ad nauseum.
I guess I'm coming off like a dick,
Well, yeah. But at least you're aware of it.
but honestly don't you know about lenses, image sensors, flash(lighting) ect... things that make up PICTURE QUALITY?
Read the thread. What you're saying isn't new.
Do you really think that adding a 5 megapixel camera to the iPhone will instantly make the pictures better?
Frankly, I don't care all that much if it does... though I certainly know ppl who would. I'm more concerned about improving the iPhone's position vs its competition, and improving iPhone sales.
Frankly I'm impressed with the quality of the images I've seen already with the iPhone. If you're really serious about photography, which I'm assuming since you claim the need for a higher megapixel camera, then get a decent point and shoot or a DSLR.
That point was addressed many posts ago. Again, read the thread. Thanks.
.
Do you know anything about this thread? Because you're repeating some very basic points that were covered many posts ago, ad nauseum.
Well, yeah. But at least you're aware of it.
Read the thread. What you're saying isn't new.
Frankly, I don't care all that much if it does... though I certainly know ppl who would. I'm more concerned about improving the iPhone's position vs its competition, and improving iPhone sales.
That point was addressed many posts ago. Again, read the thread. Thanks.
.
After today, the only people who will care about the camera on the iPhone will be geeks at Ars and Anand.
And they were NEVER going to buy one in the first place. Now they have their excuse.
ok, it just felt about the same size as my nano in the shop, my mistake. My point was more that there are small, thin phones with 3G, with a reasonable camera, with a flash and decent battery life. There's no technical reason why Apple couldn't put that all in an iPhone which is quite a large phone. The Nokia 6500 in fact would make a pretty hot template for an 'iPhone Nano' except replace the keypad with a touch screen and allow it to be used in landscape mode to type. It's a nice size whereas I find the iPhone a little too big.
I apologize myself for my neuroticism with specs. Especially the correctness of specs. Technical specifications are part of the marketing these days. LG will gladly have people believe the Viewty is 14.8 mm thick at its thickest point, but it is not. I'm the sort of person that would force LG to put an asterisk next to the number with the small print saying it is the thickness of the body not including the lens protrusion. Same way with say, Lenovo x300 battery claims, thinness claims and weight claims (virtually every ultraportable laptop manufacturer have small print legalese stating their claims may "vary"). Apple probably breaks the battery claim too much, but at least they are somewhat close, Lenovo and others are really approaching lying on battery claims.
You're still missing a technical reason on why Apple would be add a disadvantage in terms of number of features versus the size of the phone. Twice the screen may be a 50% battery hit if the power consumption equation for "normal" cell phone devices is something like
total power consumption = 1/3rd is CPU, I/O, storage + 1/3rd are radios + 1/3rd is screen
On top of that the iPhone has one of the brightest screens on the market, if not the brightest. If wirelessinfo.com is right, the iPhone screen is 4x brighter than the LG Prada, a phone of similar aspirations; 2.8x brighter than a Palm Treo 750, 2.3x brighter than a Nokia N95-1, and 1.87x brighter than a Blackberry 8800. Only the HTC Kaiser/TyTn2/Tilt comes close to iPhone screen brightness. Twice the screen area at twice the levels of brightness of comparative phones means larger battery. On top of that, Apple's got a very thin form factor. This will all result in less volume for other goodies.
For a prospective iPhone "nano" with say a 3" screen and say a 102 x 52 x 12 mm form factor, I'd hazard a guess that 3G may not be possible if Apple wants decent 5+ hr battery life. Something may have to be reduced: screen brightness, battery life, WiFi chip, 3G; any number of things. Of course I'd prefer if they just made it 14 mm thick and maintain as many features of the current iPhone as possible.
After today, the only people who will care about the camera on the iPhone will be geeks at Ars and Anand.
And they were NEVER going to buy one in the first place. Now they have their excuse.
Really? You honestly think because Apple announced that they're going to go for the corporate space with the iPhone, alluva sudden other features don't matter any more? Nah.
It's great that they're taking on RIM. But that doesn't make the competition automagically vanish.
In any case, it's a silly thing to get aggro about. The 3G iPhone will likely see a bump in camera resolution and features, and should be adding video capture. All that, on top of 3G, and the software update in June? Sweet.
.
I think the "up to a point" in terms of playing the specs game is an important point. Maybe the iPhone camera probably should use some improvement, but more is not always better, especially when it comes to megapixels. What more megapixels does is divide the already meager available light among more sensor areas, making them effectively less sensitive and more noisy.
I dunno Jeff... you seem to be saying that the N95's camera should be worse than the iPhone's, because it just has "too darn many megapixels". Okay, I'm sure there's instances where that's true, and perhaps I just have lousy taste, but I kinda like how the N95's shots look compared to the iPhone's, despite the excess megapixels:
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
Shot taken with N95
Shot taken with iPhone
The funny thing is that the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone anymore, if ever it was. The N82 is supposed to be quite a bit better (nice xenon flash too), and Samsung apparently has a new 10-megapixel cameraphone out in South Korea.
I'm sure good dedicated cameras are considerably better still, but again, it's not about being better than dedicated cameras, its about being competitive with the high-end cellphone competition that's out there.
Ah well. Looking forward to seeing how good the camera/video capabilities are on the 3G iPhone.
.
Apple doesn't simply use megahertz to measure performance. Over the past 10 years they've always used system benchmarks. Which measures the same task that takes the entire system to perform.
Ok. Doesn't change the fact that Apple has had to worry about megahertz as a selling factor for its products. You'd call it "designing around consumer ignorance", others would call it acknowledging the reality of the market.
Actually I meant revenue and put profits by accident. I do know the difference and revenue generally has to grow for profit to grown. Revenue can grow and profit may not grow.
Great. Regardless, the investment community sees mp3 players as a mature or maturing market. Add to that that Apple already has a very high marketshare in that market, and you can see why growth prospects there are not seen as high. The iPhone, by contrast, is a newcomer that potentially has a lot of room to grow, if Apple executes well. That's how they see it. You may not agree, but that is the reality.
Well I haven't seen any major analyst directly make this correlation. Right now it is only your opinion without any supportive evidence.
"Teno doesn't get it." Noted. Used to it. At least you finally "got" 3G.
Most people don't look at specs at all. The cool factor and "will it impress all my friends" are more important.
Meh. I'd say you need to appeal to both the status hounds and the tech spec geeks. It's not an "either/or" proposition.
That's pretty much the worst that can be said. There are phones with better cameras. But the iPhones camera is acceptable because the cameras on other phones aren't that much better.
From what I've seen, shots with the N95 do seem to look significantly better, and the N95 isn't even the best cameraphone out there.
That was pathetic. But it goes along with what you do Baggins. A lot of unsupported opinion and conjecture. What would have been more helpful is actually showing blown up pictures taken with the two cameras. So we can see the difference and not just watch them talk about it.
To quote Teno: "Waaaah."
Actually T, I did post some N95 and iPhone comparo shots, feel free to check 'em out.
Oh, and why hate on the YouTube video? Sure, it's no-budget, and it's corny, but most of what they say is true. And they did get around 200,000 views... have you put up anything on there that's been remotely that successful? Heck, they got nearly as many views as the CNET N95 vs iPhone YouTube video (219,000 views).
I would much rather Apple improve the more useful features. I actually don't care about the camera. My point to you is that very few people do.
And my point to you is that perhaps you assume that others don't care about the camera because you yourself do not. But, you are not the market.
I myself am not a big photography freak. But, despite that, I can still see how a phone at the iPhone's price point and with the iPhone's hype might create consumer expectations that the iPhone be feature- and spec-competitive with other high-end phones.
In any case, we will likely know by June or so which way Apple chose to go here. If the 3G iPhone comes out with a 2.0 MP camera and still no video recording, I will say, "Guess you were right Teno... Apple seems to agree with you that camera/video functionality is no big deal in the iPhone." But for myself, I expect either a 3.2 or 5.0 MP camera on the 3G iPhone, plus video recording. Perhaps a flash and autofocus as well.
If that happens (and I think it likely, since the chipset they'll likely use supports those things), will you then complain that Apple shouldn't have improved those things? That would be funny, in a curiously negative sort of way.
.
Really? You honestly think because Apple announced that they're going to go for the corporate space with the iPhone, alluva sudden other features don't matter any more? Nah.
I think that enterprise features that now equal RIM, trump any perceived shortcomings of the built in camera.
The only people who care about the features of the iPhones camera are those that were never going to buy the thing.
I think that enterprise features that now equal RIM, trump any perceived shortcomings of the built in camera.
The only people who care about the features of the iPhones camera are those that were never going to buy the thing.
Bullshit. I've absolutely no use for ActiveSync support since I'm entirely Mac and Linux based - no Exchange here. On the other hand, a decent enough camera *is* quite useful and the iPhone camera whilst passable, could be better. Is it a deal breaker? No, unlike ActiveSync support for some.
I do hope they've added IMAP IDLE support to the regular iPhone Mail app though, since my mail servers all support IMAP IDLE. Currently it only does IMAP push mail with Yahoo! mail.
Bullshit. I've absolutely no use for ActiveSync support since I'm entirely Mac and Linux based - no Exchange here. On the other hand, a decent enough camera *is* quite useful and the iPhone camera whilst passable, could be better. Is it a deal breaker? No, unlike ActiveSync support for some.
I do hope they've added IMAP IDLE support to the regular iPhone Mail app though, since my mail servers all support IMAP IDLE. Currently it only does IMAP push mail with Yahoo! mail.
What's bullshit? The enterprise features Apple just announced for the iPhone? I hope your kidding because its huge. Maybe not for you but for most corporate users this was a deal breaker. Now it isn't.
Add the enterprise features to the robust platform to write apps for and the 'weakness' of the camera looks pretty insignificant.
What's bullshit? The enterprise features Apple just announced for the iPhone? I hope your kidding because its huge. Maybe not for you but for most corporate users this was a deal breaker. Now it isn't.
I understand it's huge for some. I was calling bullshit on your suggestion that ActiveSync support trumps a decent camera. Many people have absolutely no need for Exchange support (I don't know anyone actually but that's because I mostly don't deal with companies that run Microsoft solutions - my job is to provide the alternative) whereas they do have a need for a decent camera (most people I know). Since when was Apple's solution supposed to just be passable?
I'm actually kind of sad that Apple caved on the enterprise front. They've a decent platform themselves with IMAP IDLE, CalDav, Open Directory and their wiki collab server. None of that featured yesterday though. I hope their 'enterprise' features will include their own enterprise server standards at some point, not just Microsoft's.
Add the enterprise features to the robust platform to write apps for and the 'weakness' of the camera looks pretty insignificant.
You can't totally fix weak hardware with software.
I dunno Jeff... you seem to be saying that the N95's camera should be worse than the iPhone's, because it just has "too darn many megapixels". Okay, I'm sure there's instances where that's true, and perhaps I just have lousy taste, but I kinda like how the N95's shots look compared to the iPhone's, despite the excess megapixels:
Sorry, I should have been clear, I meant within the constraint of a particular size. The N95 has a much thicker case to allows a larger camera and a bigger lens, the case is about twice as thick as the iPhone's as I recall, its camera system is about half way to that of a point and shoot in terms of size. I think it's fine that the N95 exists to serve certain needs, but I don't think it serves mine because I don't want a brick in my pocket.
A 10MP camera phone seems like even more buffoonery though. Competing to get the biggest number doesn't make the best product. Megapixels certainly won't do anyone any good if they're going to be radically scaled down for the web anyway. 3MP was about right for my pocket camera, I think. My dad bought an 8MP pocket camera and it's never made as nice of a picture, but people get surprised at how well the 3MP camera images print out.
I understand it's huge for some. I was calling bullshit on your suggestion that ActiveSync support trumps a decent camera. Many people have absolutely no need for Exchange support (I don't know anyone actually but that's because I mostly don't deal with companies that run Microsoft solutions - my job is to provide the alternative) whereas they do have a need for a decent camera (most people I know). Since when was Apple's solution supposed to just be passable?
The enterprise features do trump the phone features.
Time will tell.
The enterprise features do trump the phone features.
Time will tell.
It serves different markets.
I really don't think the iPhone is yet enough to push any company to switch away from Exchange. It would seem like a switch to something Apple supports would mean a complete replacement of all computers, software and conversion of all data used in an organization, and that's not cheap.
It serves different markets.
I really don't think the iPhone is yet enough to push any company to switch away from Exchange. It would seem like a switch to something Apple supports would mean a complete replacement of all computers and software used in an organization, and that's not cheap.
Sure but I think the enterprise market is going to be a *lot* bigger than the market for 5 megapixel camera phones.
Why would a company have to switch to Macs if they adopted iPhones? Sure they may want a few in house if they decide to write apps but I know a lot of people with iPhones that have windows computers. iTunes works ok on pcs.