I cannot see how creating 3.5 inch OLED screen is a technical challenge in any way.
Who said that it was?
It's a matter of having a customer base that would offset the costs of developing it, plus pay for the costs of producing it, and giving a decent profit. If that doesn't exist, neither will the product.
It's very likely that there has been no customer. If Apple decides to be one, then it could happen. But as I said earlier, it takes time to come out with a new product. If Apple expressed interest about now, it's not likely it would be ready until, at least, the beginning of next year.
But, really, we don't know if Apple has expressed interest. That's the rumor part of this.
I would imagine Apple would have no problem getting the proper screens from OLED manufacturers. I would believe OLED manufacturers have been trying to sell Apple on using the tech in iPhones as well as iPods. It would be quite a contract for whoever won it.
I can agree the question would be does Apple want OLED screens.
From what I understand about GPS in the device itself at least at this point is not necessarily the best way to go. When you enter a new area your phone has to find the satellite which can take few minutes. GPS in general takes a heavy toll on power conservation.
From what I've read assisted GPS can be a much better solution as the contact with the satellite is done on backend servers and not within the device itself. Contact between the device and server is instantaneous over 3G or WiFi.
From what I've read about OLED is that it is ready to be used. What is mostly holding back its adoption is simply that its more expensive than LCD. Once it begins to be used more widely the prices will come down.
You need GPS in the device for it to be accurate. It's pretty much useless for directions if it's not. Assisted GPS is an addition to normal GSP which improves the time it takes to find satellites. Pretty much everything you're saying here is wrong.
I would imagine Apple would have no problem getting the proper screens from OLED manufacturers. I would believe OLED manufacturers have been trying to sell Apple on using the tech in iPhones as well as iPods. It would be quite a contract for whoever won it.
I can agree the question would be does Apple want OLED screens.
Where we differ is you emphasis 3G as your supreme complaint. When I talk about updating the iPhone I mean in every way. Higher resolution screen, faster processor, more storage, denser battery, as well as 3G.
You forgot better camera, and adding video recording, voice-dialing, and MMS... all things I've mentioned a great deal. And lack of 3G isn't just my #1 complaint, it's been pretty much everyone's, along with price (especially in Europe).
Quote:
I'm sorry to hear your family emergency is has turned to tragedy.
I agree with most of what you say, except that most Asian markets are less mature, not more. Japan being the exception.
Japan, and Korea. Both have 3G penetration rates far beyond the rest of the world, and both tend to get the best stuff first, phones- and features-wise.
LTE, and Wi-Max, and HSUPA, and HSPA+, and EVDO RevB.
It's not just 4G, there's a lot of 3.5G coming even sooner than LTE/4G as well. Which is cool.
Tho' some argue whether WiMax is 3.5G or 4G, because the ITU hasn't put an official definition of 4G out yet. Whatev.
.
The one thing the three of can agree on is that there is plenty of room for improvement over the years. Unlike what someone else here thinks, 3G is just the beginning, not the end.
I think of the first iPhone and software as the public beta. The next version, with the SDK and the ver 2 software as being the "real" phone.
The one thing the three of can agree on is that there is plenty of room for improvement over the years. Unlike what someone else here thinks, 3G is just the beginning, not the end.
Exactly. As mobile bandwidth speeds continue to improve (3G to --> 3.5G to --> 4G), more and more new functionality will be possible for the iPhone. With 3G, video chat and over-the-air music downloads become practical. With 3.5G, good-quality streaming TV, good-quality streaming movies, perhaps over-the-air movie dloads. With 4G... god, who knows? Sky's the limit.
3G's not the end, just the beginning.
Quote:
I think of the first iPhone and software as the public beta. The next version, with the SDK and the ver 2 software as being the "real" phone.
Like the difference between 10.0 and 10.1 was.
Yup. Though I'd hope its more like the diff between 10.0 and 10.2.
10.0 was the product that established the beachhead, but 10.2/Jaguar was the first 'really good/really usable' version. I couldn't live with 10.1. \
I was going to buy an iphone this week, 16 gigs... should I wait for this one??
For the luv of gawd YES! Wait you fool!
I betcha five minutes before Steve debuts the new phone someone somewhere will ask this question. And then he will STILL go ahead and buy the older version anyway. Understand dude that the iphone 2 is coming really soon most likely in June. If you can't wait then go ahead and buy.
If not, well.....you've got enough information now. Make up your mind and make a decision.
You need GPS in the device for it to be accurate. It's pretty much useless for directions if it's not. Assisted GPS is an addition to normal GSP which improves the time it takes to find satellites. Pretty much everything you're saying here is wrong.
What you are describing is the original plan of how assisted GPS would work. But from what I'm reading assisted GPS only needs some basic information of where the device is. That information can come from other sources such as cell towers and WiFi signals.
What you are describing is the original plan of how assisted GPS would work. But from what I'm reading assisted GPS only needs some basic information of where the device is. That information can come from other sources such as cell towers and WiFi signals.
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
Interesting stuff. And yeah, that's been my understanding as well... GPS > tower triangulation in terms of accuracy.
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
The whole point of A-GPS is that the GPS chip in the mobile device is not receiving an accurate position. If it were then it would not need assistance. What I am talking about is not simply tower triangulation, it uses WiFi signals, cell tower information and GPS satellite coordinates.
When indoors or in dense urban environments it can be difficult for a mobile device to link to a satellite and receive an accurate reading. In using A-GPS the mobile device sends the back end server what information it has. The server has a better connection to the GPS satellite and reads the area where the device is located The server puts the two calculations together to come up with the reading.
The article I was reading says using cell towers and WiFi signals can work basically the same way. Cell tower and WiFi signals are generally in fixed position, they will never move. The phone can send its proximity to cell and WiFi signals. The backend server knows the GPS coordinates of those cell and WiFi signals and can extrapolate the distance the device is from those signals based on their GPS coordinates. Rendering an accurate position. The article was saying this technology is fairly new and will take some time to improve accuracy, but because its not difficult to do that it will improve quickly.
Skyhook the service that Apple uses has said its service will improve as people use it. Its service will find more WiFi signals learn the distance of those WiFi signals and their GPS coordinates as more people use it. Its accuracy will improve.
When indoors and in dense urban areas cell towers and WiFi will be easier and faster to calculate than GPS alone. Where GPS will have an advantage is out in rural areas where there are no WiFi signals and cell towers are far and few between. There will be less interference to block the device from the satellite.
Comments
I cannot see how creating 3.5 inch OLED screen is a technical challenge in any way.
Who said that it was?
It's a matter of having a customer base that would offset the costs of developing it, plus pay for the costs of producing it, and giving a decent profit. If that doesn't exist, neither will the product.
It's very likely that there has been no customer. If Apple decides to be one, then it could happen. But as I said earlier, it takes time to come out with a new product. If Apple expressed interest about now, it's not likely it would be ready until, at least, the beginning of next year.
But, really, we don't know if Apple has expressed interest. That's the rumor part of this.
I can agree the question would be does Apple want OLED screens.
From what I understand about GPS in the device itself at least at this point is not necessarily the best way to go. When you enter a new area your phone has to find the satellite which can take few minutes. GPS in general takes a heavy toll on power conservation.
From what I've read assisted GPS can be a much better solution as the contact with the satellite is done on backend servers and not within the device itself. Contact between the device and server is instantaneous over 3G or WiFi.
From what I've read about OLED is that it is ready to be used. What is mostly holding back its adoption is simply that its more expensive than LCD. Once it begins to be used more widely the prices will come down.
You need GPS in the device for it to be accurate. It's pretty much useless for directions if it's not. Assisted GPS is an addition to normal GSP which improves the time it takes to find satellites. Pretty much everything you're saying here is wrong.
I would imagine Apple would have no problem getting the proper screens from OLED manufacturers. I would believe OLED manufacturers have been trying to sell Apple on using the tech in iPhones as well as iPods. It would be quite a contract for whoever won it.
I can agree the question would be does Apple want OLED screens.
It's possible. I'm not negating any scenario.
Where we differ is you emphasis 3G as your supreme complaint. When I talk about updating the iPhone I mean in every way. Higher resolution screen, faster processor, more storage, denser battery, as well as 3G.
You forgot better camera, and adding video recording, voice-dialing, and MMS... all things I've mentioned a great deal.
I'm sorry to hear your family emergency is has turned to tragedy.
Thanks.
.
I agree with most of what you say, except that most Asian markets are less mature, not more. Japan being the exception.
Japan, and Korea. Both have 3G penetration rates far beyond the rest of the world, and both tend to get the best stuff first, phones- and features-wise.
.
Technology doesn't stop. 3G is not the end. The next mobile data standard is LTE.
LTE, and Wi-Max, and HSUPA, and HSPA+, and EVDO RevB.
It's not just 4G, there's a lot of 3.5G coming even sooner than LTE/4G as well. Which is cool.
Tho' some argue whether WiMax is 3.5G or 4G, because the ITU hasn't put an official definition of 4G out yet. Whatev.
.
LTE, and Wi-Max, and HSUPA, and HSPA+, and EVDO RevB.
It's not just 4G, there's a lot of 3.5G coming even sooner than LTE/4G as well. Which is cool.
Tho' some argue whether WiMax is 3.5G or 4G, because the ITU hasn't put an official definition of 4G out yet. Whatev.
.
The one thing the three of can agree on is that there is plenty of room for improvement over the years. Unlike what someone else here thinks, 3G is just the beginning, not the end.
I think of the first iPhone and software as the public beta. The next version, with the SDK and the ver 2 software as being the "real" phone.
Like the difference between 10.0 and 10.1 was.
The one thing the three of can agree on is that there is plenty of room for improvement over the years. Unlike what someone else here thinks, 3G is just the beginning, not the end.
Exactly. As mobile bandwidth speeds continue to improve (3G to --> 3.5G to --> 4G), more and more new functionality will be possible for the iPhone. With 3G, video chat and over-the-air music downloads become practical. With 3.5G, good-quality streaming TV, good-quality streaming movies, perhaps over-the-air movie dloads. With 4G... god, who knows? Sky's the limit.
3G's not the end, just the beginning.
I think of the first iPhone and software as the public beta. The next version, with the SDK and the ver 2 software as being the "real" phone.
Like the difference between 10.0 and 10.1 was.
Yup. Though I'd hope its more like the diff between 10.0 and 10.2.
10.0 was the product that established the beachhead, but 10.2/Jaguar was the first 'really good/really usable' version. I couldn't live with 10.1.
.
I was going to buy an iphone this week, 16 gigs... should I wait for this one??
For the luv of gawd YES! Wait you fool!
I betcha five minutes before Steve debuts the new phone someone somewhere will ask this question. And then he will STILL go ahead and buy the older version anyway. Understand dude that the iphone 2 is coming really soon most likely in June. If you can't wait then go ahead and buy.
If not, well.....you've got enough information now. Make up your mind and make a decision.
At some point, the wait is just too long for some ppl. That said, I would wait.
.
Its rumor time again. I predict the 3G iphone will be announced around the 5th April.
Why so?
You need GPS in the device for it to be accurate. It's pretty much useless for directions if it's not. Assisted GPS is an addition to normal GSP which improves the time it takes to find satellites. Pretty much everything you're saying here is wrong.
What you are describing is the original plan of how assisted GPS would work. But from what I'm reading assisted GPS only needs some basic information of where the device is. That information can come from other sources such as cell towers and WiFi signals.
What you are describing is the original plan of how assisted GPS would work. But from what I'm reading assisted GPS only needs some basic information of where the device is. That information can come from other sources such as cell towers and WiFi signals.
Nope. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-GPS
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
Nope. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-GPS
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
Interesting stuff. And yeah, that's been my understanding as well... GPS > tower triangulation in terms of accuracy.
.
A-GPS is just what the name says, an assist to normal GPS which affects mostly start up time. You cannot get accurate readings without a GPS receiver in the device. Cell tower triangulation gives you a very rough positioning.
The whole point of A-GPS is that the GPS chip in the mobile device is not receiving an accurate position. If it were then it would not need assistance. What I am talking about is not simply tower triangulation, it uses WiFi signals, cell tower information and GPS satellite coordinates.
When indoors or in dense urban environments it can be difficult for a mobile device to link to a satellite and receive an accurate reading. In using A-GPS the mobile device sends the back end server what information it has. The server has a better connection to the GPS satellite and reads the area where the device is located The server puts the two calculations together to come up with the reading.
The article I was reading says using cell towers and WiFi signals can work basically the same way. Cell tower and WiFi signals are generally in fixed position, they will never move. The phone can send its proximity to cell and WiFi signals. The backend server knows the GPS coordinates of those cell and WiFi signals and can extrapolate the distance the device is from those signals based on their GPS coordinates. Rendering an accurate position. The article was saying this technology is fairly new and will take some time to improve accuracy, but because its not difficult to do that it will improve quickly.
Skyhook the service that Apple uses has said its service will improve as people use it. Its service will find more WiFi signals learn the distance of those WiFi signals and their GPS coordinates as more people use it. Its accuracy will improve.
When indoors and in dense urban areas cell towers and WiFi will be easier and faster to calculate than GPS alone. Where GPS will have an advantage is out in rural areas where there are no WiFi signals and cell towers are far and few between. There will be less interference to block the device from the satellite.