Tsk tsk - such language. Banned because "I'm a fuckwit"?
How professional of you. Truly Apple has much to fear from such a stand-up operation. They'd never guess what kind of good-n-juicy dirt you must have here.
Feel free to ban tho - because "I'm a fuckwit" or whatever else your Jr. High-School brain can muster. It's all comedy gold.
A friend of mine was just showing me his new iPhone and I was telling him about how he can save battery time by setting his e-mail options to only check every hour as opposed to every 15 minutes. So he went to e-mail settings and under "messages" he has no "Auto-Check" option. It just plain doesn't exist.
A friend of mine was just showing me his new iPhone and I was telling him about how he can save battery time by setting his e-mail options to only check every hour as opposed to every 15 minutes. So he went to e-mail settings and under "messages" he has no "Auto-Check" option. It just plain doesn't exist.
Not being able to run applications in the background is quite obviously for power management reasons and has nothing to do with blocking out iChat competitors.
You're blurring "the quality of their reporting of the rumour" with "the quality of the rumour itself".
I agree that they shouldn't report bad rumours, in general.
However, this rumour is prominent enough that people would have heard on the grapevine.
So AppleInsider reported the rumour AND the past success of the source... which is something some people might not have been aware of.
I'm not blurring the quality of the rumour.
The mere fact it comes from Kevin, means it has no quality.
He's just advertising his name.
And AI fell for it.... again.
As AI pointed out, the best (and maybe only) call Kevin made was the nano when many knew about it just before it came out. (like starting a rumour the titanic has a leak)
The idea that Apple specifically is preventing hundreds of thousands of developers from building apps with the SDK that run in the background.... MERELY BECAUSE OF iCHAT is one of the dumbest quotes you're gonna read by anyone.
Doesn't pass the laugh test and AI shouldn't lower itself further by putting this text in a paragraph.
You can believe you have a rumour that two cameras are in the model, I don't.
I don't believe they are crippling the SDK capability because iChat on a mobile phone is worth MORE to Apple.
You can believe this stuff, I'm laughing already and others will sooner or later.
1) You don't believe that Kevin Rose actually has a source that gave him the info, or
2) that 2 cameras on a 3G iPhone is a reasonable prediction?
Which is it?
It must be #1, considering the huge number of 3G phones which have a secondary camera for video calls.
I'm gonna have to go with #2 since Apple hasn't even included a video camera or even MMS, both of which are software updates. I don't see Apple adding a HW feature that has only one use, and one that is nothing more than a novelty. Though, they do include it on most of their Macs, and it's a novelty there too, so who knows.
that was my first thought. how many people do you see doing video calls outside of telecom commercials and sales rooms? one thing apple does not suffer from is 'featuritis' and adding more hardware to the iphone to appeal to a small percent of potential users is not apple's style. i'm sure there are other features that are more important to a larger base that should be considered first.
For those of us that travel a lot and find ourselves away from our kids, video chatting/calling is a road weary parent's best friend. The kids love to see us and vice versa. If I could do this from my phone, rather than set up a time, coordinate time zones and be in the hotel room when the little ones want to kiss me goodnight, you bet I will. And once you find one use, you'll find more.
For those of us that travel a lot and find ourselves away from our kids, video chatting/calling is a road weary parent's best friend. The kids love to see us and vice versa. If I could do this from my phone, rather than set up a time, coordinate time zones and be in the hotel room when the little ones want to kiss me goodnight, you bet I will. And once you find one use, you'll find more.
YO BABY IT WORKS.....we took our mb to chicago when my wife and i were away from our 4 and 6 year old for the first time (4days) taught my 6 year old how to do ichat and bingo they and we loved it...let's go over your homeowork chloe.....when i told my wife they might have this in the iphone she yelled out.....we'd get two so we don't have to take the laptop which slows you down in the airport now.
They already have a flash. Just make the screen white like how it's done with Photobooth, etc
Except that the screen is on one side and the camera is on the other side. You would actually be blinding yourself while trying to take a picture of something else.
The screen going white does not constitute an actual flash, I do believe. It's just an effect that looks neat. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
It's light, but not enough to be as useful as other lights. It's useful on an iMac, but those have a few tens of times more screen area, and they might even go brighter per area than a phone.
The screen going white does not constitute an actual flash, I do believe. It's just an effect that looks neat. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
It is useful, because the way it works, it pumps up the output to max, while removing everything from the screen.
The iMac, and laptops, can do this because the monitor is built-in. Because of that, the computer can take direct control of the brightness, color, and contrast, which separate monitors (esp. if they aren't Apple's) can't have done to them.
It is useful, because the way it works, it pumps up the output to max, while removing everything from the screen.
The iMac, and laptops, can do this because the monitor is built-in. Because of that, the computer can take direct control of the brightness, color, and contrast, which separate monitors (esp. if they aren't Apple's) can't have done to them.
Given that the little cameras in question aren't any good, I don't think that really matters that much. If the user cared, they can go through the little color profile thing or use one of those calibration bugs. Then the OS should have good enough control, assuming it really needed it.
Given that the little cameras in question aren't any good, I don't think that really matters that much. If the user cared, they can go through the little color profile thing or use one of those calibration bugs. Then the OS should have good enough control, assuming it really needed it.
It only matters to the point that Apple can pump the screen output high enough to give a good exposure, with the correct while balance for the built-in camera, the while balance for which they know.
That's all we can expect. The camera is certainly good enough for the purpose for which it's intended, which is for video chat (where the screen is left normal) and fun pictures to keep on your machine, send to others, or to use as your image in web sites or other purposes like that.
Comments
How professional of you. Truly Apple has much to fear from such a stand-up operation. They'd never guess what kind of good-n-juicy dirt you must have here.
Feel free to ban tho - because "I'm a fuckwit" or whatever else your Jr. High-School brain can muster. It's all comedy gold.
Hmm.
Ba-Bye.
A friend of mine was just showing me his new iPhone and I was telling him about how he can save battery time by setting his e-mail options to only check every hour as opposed to every 15 minutes. So he went to e-mail settings and under "messages" he has no "Auto-Check" option. It just plain doesn't exist.
Has he tried restoring?
What a moronic comment: Other sites won't take the place of the bought-out ones?
Welcome to the 21st century.....
I thought the Think Secret situation was more complicated than that anyway.
AppleInsider may be a great rumour site, but you couldn't prove it by THIS article.
It's a joke, by a guy that's considered a joke.
You can't simply have someone make something up, then call it a rumour, and then have credibility by reporting it.
Let's get back to something REAL.
You're blurring "the quality of their reporting of the rumour" with "the quality of the rumour itself".
I agree that they shouldn't report bad rumours, in general.
However, this rumour is prominent enough that people would have heard on the grapevine.
So AppleInsider reported the rumour AND the past success of the source... which is something some people might not have been aware of.
Yeah! Because we the phones we have in Europe have been larded up with features nobody uses for years! Ha!
Does this statement come with some type of translator?
You're blurring "the quality of their reporting of the rumour" with "the quality of the rumour itself".
I agree that they shouldn't report bad rumours, in general.
However, this rumour is prominent enough that people would have heard on the grapevine.
So AppleInsider reported the rumour AND the past success of the source... which is something some people might not have been aware of.
I'm not blurring the quality of the rumour.
The mere fact it comes from Kevin, means it has no quality.
He's just advertising his name.
And AI fell for it.... again.
As AI pointed out, the best (and maybe only) call Kevin made was the nano when many knew about it just before it came out. (like starting a rumour the titanic has a leak)
The idea that Apple specifically is preventing hundreds of thousands of developers from building apps with the SDK that run in the background.... MERELY BECAUSE OF iCHAT is one of the dumbest quotes you're gonna read by anyone.
Doesn't pass the laugh test and AI shouldn't lower itself further by putting this text in a paragraph.
You can believe you have a rumour that two cameras are in the model, I don't.
I don't believe they are crippling the SDK capability because iChat on a mobile phone is worth MORE to Apple.
You can believe this stuff, I'm laughing already and others will sooner or later.
You can believe you have a rumour that two cameras are in the model, I don't.
So ...
1) You don't believe that Kevin Rose actually has a source that gave him the info, or
2) that 2 cameras on a 3G iPhone is a reasonable prediction?
Which is it?
It must be #1, considering the huge number of 3G phones which have a secondary camera for video calls.
So ...
1) You don't believe that Kevin Rose actually has a source that gave him the info, or
2) that 2 cameras on a 3G iPhone is a reasonable prediction?
Which is it?
It must be #1, considering the huge number of 3G phones which have a secondary camera for video calls.
I'm gonna have to go with #2 since Apple hasn't even included a video camera or even MMS, both of which are software updates. I don't see Apple adding a HW feature that has only one use, and one that is nothing more than a novelty. Though, they do include it on most of their Macs, and it's a novelty there too, so who knows.
that was my first thought. how many people do you see doing video calls outside of telecom commercials and sales rooms? one thing apple does not suffer from is 'featuritis' and adding more hardware to the iphone to appeal to a small percent of potential users is not apple's style. i'm sure there are other features that are more important to a larger base that should be considered first.
For those of us that travel a lot and find ourselves away from our kids, video chatting/calling is a road weary parent's best friend. The kids love to see us and vice versa. If I could do this from my phone, rather than set up a time, coordinate time zones and be in the hotel room when the little ones want to kiss me goodnight, you bet I will. And once you find one use, you'll find more.
For those of us that travel a lot and find ourselves away from our kids, video chatting/calling is a road weary parent's best friend. The kids love to see us and vice versa. If I could do this from my phone, rather than set up a time, coordinate time zones and be in the hotel room when the little ones want to kiss me goodnight, you bet I will. And once you find one use, you'll find more.
YO BABY IT WORKS.....we took our mb to chicago when my wife and i were away from our 4 and 6 year old for the first time (4days) taught my 6 year old how to do ichat and bingo they and we loved it...let's go over your homeowork chloe.....when i told my wife they might have this in the iphone she yelled out.....we'd get two so we don't have to take the laptop which slows you down in the airport now.
that would be a huge addition
I can see them adding that, but not in the next version. Maybe 2 or 3 years time.
They already have a flash. Just make the screen white like how it's done with Photobooth, etc
They already have a flash. Just make the screen white like how it's done with Photobooth, etc
Except that the screen is on one side and the camera is on the other side. You would actually be blinding yourself while trying to take a picture of something else.
The screen going white does not constitute an actual flash, I do believe. It's just an effect that looks neat. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
It's light, but not enough to be as useful as other lights. It's useful on an iMac, but those have a few tens of times more screen area, and they might even go brighter per area than a phone.
The screen going white does not constitute an actual flash, I do believe. It's just an effect that looks neat. It doesn't actually do anything useful.
It is useful, because the way it works, it pumps up the output to max, while removing everything from the screen.
The iMac, and laptops, can do this because the monitor is built-in. Because of that, the computer can take direct control of the brightness, color, and contrast, which separate monitors (esp. if they aren't Apple's) can't have done to them.
It is useful, because the way it works, it pumps up the output to max, while removing everything from the screen.
The iMac, and laptops, can do this because the monitor is built-in. Because of that, the computer can take direct control of the brightness, color, and contrast, which separate monitors (esp. if they aren't Apple's) can't have done to them.
Given that the little cameras in question aren't any good, I don't think that really matters that much. If the user cared, they can go through the little color profile thing or use one of those calibration bugs. Then the OS should have good enough control, assuming it really needed it.
Given that the little cameras in question aren't any good, I don't think that really matters that much. If the user cared, they can go through the little color profile thing or use one of those calibration bugs. Then the OS should have good enough control, assuming it really needed it.
It only matters to the point that Apple can pump the screen output high enough to give a good exposure, with the correct while balance for the built-in camera, the while balance for which they know.
That's all we can expect. The camera is certainly good enough for the purpose for which it's intended, which is for video chat (where the screen is left normal) and fun pictures to keep on your machine, send to others, or to use as your image in web sites or other purposes like that.