By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
He didn't say it shouldn't have a camera, he only stated that if you want a camera with a flash and large lens that one may want to invest in a dedicated device.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
I disagree. The $400 camera comment above is dead on. Yes the phone has things you mention (calendar, notepad, etc) but their features are a subset of what you get on a laptop. Just like the camera is a subset of what you get on a $400 camera. Nasser's argument is well-said, if not obvious. I don't see any validity to what you're saying Haggar. Am I missing something?
Aluminum isn't necessarily inherently greener than plastic just because people think it is. There are problems with aluminum too. It's a very energy intensive material to convert from ore to alloy, and anodizing it requires the use of some pretty caustic chemicals too. That's why it's so expensive despite being more abundant than iron.
+++++++
I'm not sure where the idea that Aluminum is a green material came from either.
As you point out it is very expensive to produce and recycle.
In any event people need to get with the program, iPhone needs to improve its RF performance and getting rid of the aluminum is one issue that needs to be addressed. Like it or not function is more important than appearance in the case of a cell phone.
Even given that there are a lot of resin options available to Apple from which they can make a very nice shell for the iPhone.
I do not, at all, understand why the consensus is that if it's colored in such a tone as glossy white or black that it means it's plastic.
While true the color does not imply the material, plastic is the rational choice of materials to evolve the iPhone on.
Quote:
They don't move backwards with exterior material quality. If you must reduce Steve Job's role at AAPL to one responsibility - it's in-the-hand fit-and-finish-and-operational-polish supervisor. There is no way they are just ignoring the nearly universal utterance made in all the first-gen iPhone reviews about how incredibly high-quality and substantial the metal and glass made the phone feel.
Plastic of any variety would be absolutely idiotic.
Obviously you know nothing about plastics, there is a tremendous number of resins out there some of which are incredibly durable. You should not assume that Apple will use the same cheap crap that the rest of the phone industry uses. There is a whole range of engineered resins that would be suitable for an hand held device like iPhone.
Look up resins like Ultem and some of the other engineered materials. I once tried to dent a piece of Ultem with a 24 oz ball peen hammer, let me tell you the stuff is rugged. As to the more commercially available examples look at any Milwaukee tool you might find, the plastics on their tools is very rugged indeed.
Quote:
What am I suggesting is more likely? Ceramics, baby.
Maybe maybe not, I'm not sure about the economics of such materials. The other issue with metals and ceramics is the use of such in the cold. If it is 10 degrees below 0 F you don't want a metal housing on your phone at all.
Quote:
I'm too lazy to link the actual filing, but to anyone who's read at least a couple of their patents: I've never read one that had such incredibly convincing language explaining that this is the inevitable future of the mentioned Apple products. 100% radio transparency; greater density and rigidity than comparable metals; more powerful control over texturing, coloring and application of residues (such as applying a thin layer of rubber coat for grip or the like); manufacturing processes that had already been planned and detailed; and (even mentioned in the filing) it undoubtedly makes the devices created with ceramics feel more upscale than anything before.
I'm not sure how putting a rubber coat on it makes is fell up scale, usually that is preparations for something else! In any event if they can deliver such at a reasonable price I will be impressed. I just know that one issue the new iPhone will have is dealing with RF performance, going to 3G just makes things worst.
Quote:
The writing is on the wall - er, the patent office's website.
Everyone seems to be ignoring Apple's (read: Ive and Jobs) obsession with crazy materials.
No we know and understand their obsessions but both of them realize that you can't get a reputation for terrible RF performance in the cell phone industry. Thus zero likely hood that future iPhones will have metal shells.
These are 100% real. I'm happy to take bets on it.
We have seen total consistency across 4 sets of images.
Unless there is some kind of international conspiracy of Photoshoppers, I am totally convinced that this is at least one version of the device. It's not a new iPod touch because you can read the word iPhone on the back.
It is clearly not a 3rd party case. It's too thin and the corners are too rounded to accomodate an iPhone.
All these images seem to depict the same thing: an empty shell. Without the electronics.
Notice that although the rear case is black or white. The Apple logo is a mirror-like polished metal.
This could imply a plastic case with a metal inlay, or a metal case with a colored paint. From these newest images it looks like the entire back of the case is the antenna.
The profile of the device takes cues from the Macbook Air. With a wedge shaped edge the device can be fatter while being easier to slip into a pocket.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
Not at all. But if I want to take good quality photos I'll buy a decent digital camera, and if I want a decent computer then I'll buy a laptop, and if I want a decent mp3 player then I'll buy one of those. I want a GOOD phone, and not a mediocre phone/camera/mp3 player/etc.
All these negative comments are reminiscent of all the 3rd gen iPod Nano comments. You know, the "fatty" nano pics that couldn't be real and that most people hated--including me--until it was seen in person.
Obviously you know nothing about plastics, there is a tremendous number of resins out there some of which are incredibly durable. You should not assume that Apple will use the same cheap crap that the rest of the phone industry uses. There is a whole range of engineered resins that would be suitable for an hand held device like iPhone.
Look up resins like Ultem and some of the other engineered materials. I once tried to dent a piece of Ultem with a 24 oz ball peen hammer, let me tell you the stuff is rugged. As to the more commercially available examples look at any Milwaukee tool you might find, the plastics on their tools is very rugged indeed.
Dave
Excellent
I had been pushing (I *guess* trolling) this opinion in multiple venues hoping someone more knowledgeable would school me.
Any more neat materials to read about besides Ultem?
The Minis and other Nanos certainly feel more natural in your hand. That is my brother's biggest issue with it, but the choice to include a bigger screen was a good move. I suppose they could make it a "candy bar" again by removing the clickwheel and allowing you to watch video sideways like the Touch, but then we have an issue with blind tactileless operation of the device.
Err, you do know this is a mobile phone? Buy yourself a camera if you really need flash and a bigger lens.
It's not a matter of me wanting a 10 megapixel camera in a phone, it's a matter of having something quick and easy. Some new phones have a rudimentary flash, and while it may not have the power of a digital camera, it is something that can be used in a bind. In regular light, the iPhone camera does an *marginal* job. Take away some light, and the phone is garbage. If I see a something I like in low light, I can't take a quick picture and probably won't get a chance to take that picture again. I know there is no phone that will ever please everyone, but if some cheap phones can have rudimentary flash, this "jesus" phone can at least have something like it.
I had been pushing (I *guess* trolling) this opinion in multiple venues hoping someone more knowledgeable would school me.
Any more neat materials to read about besides Ultem?
If there are these super plastics readily available, I'm wondering why Apple hasn't used them already?
MacBook cases, iPods, and pretty much all the white plastic stuff Apple has made are all notoriously easy to scratch. I would have thought that if Apple were inclined to use a super durable plastic housing material, they would have done it long before now. Plus, they seem to be steadily moving away from plastics in their case designs, in general.
I'm holding out for Zirconium, myself. Apple has the patent on file, it's super hard and radio transparent, and is in common use for industrial applications. It strikes as exactly the kind of forward thinking material technology that Apple would make every effort to press into service, as a product differentiator. Like, show up at the Zirconium plant and challenge them to fabricate a light, thin, impact resistant case.
I'm no authority, but I would imagine that a ceramic material would be far greener than either plastic or aluminum, as well.
People should be asknig themselves why every "leaked" photo we get of this phone is blurry, from a bad angle, or doesn't focus in on the bits that matter (often a picture of the back of the case). I wouldn't put much weight in any of these pics, and they could even be leaks that Apple itself have setup.
All that is true, but Apple really needs a radio transparent material to cover the back. The iPhone has a decent antenna but with an all plastic or zirconia or Kevlar or carbon fiber or Area 51 alien spaceship metal as a backing it could have a great antenna. And 3G radios are much more suseptible to interference. This is one area I hope Apple puts function over form and being green.
I vote for the alien metal. I have some of it here. It's pretty good.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
The problem is that unless you want your phone to look like a camera, there is simply no way it's going to be as good as an even low end point and shoot. The sensor chip is too small. The lens is too small, and the circuitry required to pull it all together costs too much for a phone.
That doesn't mean that they can't take usable pictures, but even 5 MP is wasted. I've gotten images from a couple of these "picture" phones, and the pictures are only good when seen on a monitor, over the internet. Try to make a good 8 x 10 print, and they fall apart.
How much do you want to pay for the camera function? $10, $25, $50, $75?, $100?
No it wouldn't. Apple don't use Intel's WiFi chips. That's why Apple's website and other marketing materials have never mentioned the word "Centrino". None of Apple's laptops have ever been "Centrino" based as you have to use the entire platform chipset to be allowed by Intel to use the name, and Apple have never used Intel's wireless chip.
A delay on the integrated graphics would indeed delay any new MacBooks.
I wasn't originally expecting any laptop updates from Apple at WWDC, but then AI started talking about the possibility and I got all excited (been waiting a long time to get a MacBook Pro with MacBook-style keyboard and magnetic latch). Now my hopes are being dashed. How cruel you are, AI.
Comments
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
He didn't say it shouldn't have a camera, he only stated that if you want a camera with a flash and large lens that one may want to invest in a dedicated device.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
I disagree. The $400 camera comment above is dead on. Yes the phone has things you mention (calendar, notepad, etc) but their features are a subset of what you get on a laptop. Just like the camera is a subset of what you get on a $400 camera. Nasser's argument is well-said, if not obvious. I don't see any validity to what you're saying Haggar. Am I missing something?
Aluminum isn't necessarily inherently greener than plastic just because people think it is. There are problems with aluminum too. It's a very energy intensive material to convert from ore to alloy, and anodizing it requires the use of some pretty caustic chemicals too. That's why it's so expensive despite being more abundant than iron.
+++++++
I'm not sure where the idea that Aluminum is a green material came from either.
As you point out it is very expensive to produce and recycle.
In any event people need to get with the program, iPhone needs to improve its RF performance and getting rid of the aluminum is one issue that needs to be addressed. Like it or not function is more important than appearance in the case of a cell phone.
Even given that there are a lot of resin options available to Apple from which they can make a very nice shell for the iPhone.
Dave
I do not, at all, understand why the consensus is that if it's colored in such a tone as glossy white or black that it means it's plastic.
While true the color does not imply the material, plastic is the rational choice of materials to evolve the iPhone on.
They don't move backwards with exterior material quality. If you must reduce Steve Job's role at AAPL to one responsibility - it's in-the-hand fit-and-finish-and-operational-polish supervisor. There is no way they are just ignoring the nearly universal utterance made in all the first-gen iPhone reviews about how incredibly high-quality and substantial the metal and glass made the phone feel.
Plastic of any variety would be absolutely idiotic.
Obviously you know nothing about plastics, there is a tremendous number of resins out there some of which are incredibly durable. You should not assume that Apple will use the same cheap crap that the rest of the phone industry uses. There is a whole range of engineered resins that would be suitable for an hand held device like iPhone.
Look up resins like Ultem and some of the other engineered materials. I once tried to dent a piece of Ultem with a 24 oz ball peen hammer, let me tell you the stuff is rugged. As to the more commercially available examples look at any Milwaukee tool you might find, the plastics on their tools is very rugged indeed.
What am I suggesting is more likely? Ceramics, baby.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_casings.html
Maybe maybe not, I'm not sure about the economics of such materials. The other issue with metals and ceramics is the use of such in the cold. If it is 10 degrees below 0 F you don't want a metal housing on your phone at all.
I'm too lazy to link the actual filing, but to anyone who's read at least a couple of their patents: I've never read one that had such incredibly convincing language explaining that this is the inevitable future of the mentioned Apple products. 100% radio transparency; greater density and rigidity than comparable metals; more powerful control over texturing, coloring and application of residues (such as applying a thin layer of rubber coat for grip or the like); manufacturing processes that had already been planned and detailed; and (even mentioned in the filing) it undoubtedly makes the devices created with ceramics feel more upscale than anything before.
I'm not sure how putting a rubber coat on it makes is fell up scale, usually that is preparations for something else! In any event if they can deliver such at a reasonable price I will be impressed. I just know that one issue the new iPhone will have is dealing with RF performance, going to 3G just makes things worst.
The writing is on the wall - er, the patent office's website.
Everyone seems to be ignoring Apple's (read: Ive and Jobs) obsession with crazy materials.
No we know and understand their obsessions but both of them realize that you can't get a reputation for terrible RF performance in the cell phone industry. Thus zero likely hood that future iPhones will have metal shells.
Dave
We have seen total consistency across 4 sets of images.
Unless there is some kind of international conspiracy of Photoshoppers, I am totally convinced that this is at least one version of the device. It's not a new iPod touch because you can read the word iPhone on the back.
It is clearly not a 3rd party case. It's too thin and the corners are too rounded to accomodate an iPhone.
All these images seem to depict the same thing: an empty shell. Without the electronics.
Notice that although the rear case is black or white. The Apple logo is a mirror-like polished metal.
This could imply a plastic case with a metal inlay, or a metal case with a colored paint. From these newest images it looks like the entire back of the case is the antenna.
The profile of the device takes cues from the Macbook Air. With a wedge shaped edge the device can be fatter while being easier to slip into a pocket.
C.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
Not at all. But if I want to take good quality photos I'll buy a decent digital camera, and if I want a decent computer then I'll buy a laptop, and if I want a decent mp3 player then I'll buy one of those. I want a GOOD phone, and not a mediocre phone/camera/mp3 player/etc.
All these negative comments are reminiscent of all the 3rd gen iPod Nano comments.
The same thing happened when photos of the new keyboard showed up. At least one person even said that it had to be a photoshop job.
You know, the "fatty" nano pics that couldn't be real and that most people hated--including me--until it was seen in person.
My sister still doesn't like it.
Obviously you know nothing about plastics, there is a tremendous number of resins out there some of which are incredibly durable. You should not assume that Apple will use the same cheap crap that the rest of the phone industry uses. There is a whole range of engineered resins that would be suitable for an hand held device like iPhone.
Look up resins like Ultem and some of the other engineered materials. I once tried to dent a piece of Ultem with a 24 oz ball peen hammer, let me tell you the stuff is rugged. As to the more commercially available examples look at any Milwaukee tool you might find, the plastics on their tools is very rugged indeed.
Dave
Excellent
I had been pushing (I *guess* trolling) this opinion in multiple venues hoping someone more knowledgeable would school me.
Any more neat materials to read about besides Ultem?
My sister still doesn't like it.
The Minis and other Nanos certainly feel more natural in your hand. That is my brother's biggest issue with it, but the choice to include a bigger screen was a good move. I suppose they could make it a "candy bar" again by removing the clickwheel and allowing you to watch video sideways like the Touch, but then we have an issue with blind tactileless operation of the device.
Err, you do know this is a mobile phone? Buy yourself a camera if you really need flash and a bigger lens.
It's not a matter of me wanting a 10 megapixel camera in a phone, it's a matter of having something quick and easy. Some new phones have a rudimentary flash, and while it may not have the power of a digital camera, it is something that can be used in a bind. In regular light, the iPhone camera does an *marginal* job. Take away some light, and the phone is garbage. If I see a something I like in low light, I can't take a quick picture and probably won't get a chance to take that picture again. I know there is no phone that will ever please everyone, but if some cheap phones can have rudimentary flash, this "jesus" phone can at least have something like it.
Excellent
I had been pushing (I *guess* trolling) this opinion in multiple venues hoping someone more knowledgeable would school me.
Any more neat materials to read about besides Ultem?
If there are these super plastics readily available, I'm wondering why Apple hasn't used them already?
MacBook cases, iPods, and pretty much all the white plastic stuff Apple has made are all notoriously easy to scratch. I would have thought that if Apple were inclined to use a super durable plastic housing material, they would have done it long before now. Plus, they seem to be steadily moving away from plastics in their case designs, in general.
I'm holding out for Zirconium, myself. Apple has the patent on file, it's super hard and radio transparent, and is in common use for industrial applications. It strikes as exactly the kind of forward thinking material technology that Apple would make every effort to press into service, as a product differentiator. Like, show up at the Zirconium plant and challenge them to fabricate a light, thin, impact resistant case.
I'm no authority, but I would imagine that a ceramic material would be far greener than either plastic or aluminum, as well.
All hail bad ass ceramic iPhones!
All that is true, but Apple really needs a radio transparent material to cover the back. The iPhone has a decent antenna but with an all plastic or zirconia or Kevlar or carbon fiber or Area 51 alien spaceship metal as a backing it could have a great antenna. And 3G radios are much more suseptible to interference. This is one area I hope Apple puts function over form and being green.
I vote for the alien metal. I have some of it here. It's pretty good.
By this logic, anybody who wants to do anything other than talk should buy a laptop computer, a camera, an mp3 player, an address book, a desk calendar, and a notepad.
The problem is that unless you want your phone to look like a camera, there is simply no way it's going to be as good as an even low end point and shoot. The sensor chip is too small. The lens is too small, and the circuitry required to pull it all together costs too much for a phone.
That doesn't mean that they can't take usable pictures, but even 5 MP is wasted. I've gotten images from a couple of these "picture" phones, and the pictures are only good when seen on a monitor, over the internet. Try to make a good 8 x 10 print, and they fall apart.
How much do you want to pay for the camera function? $10, $25, $50, $75?, $100?
No it wouldn't. Apple don't use Intel's WiFi chips. That's why Apple's website and other marketing materials have never mentioned the word "Centrino". None of Apple's laptops have ever been "Centrino" based as you have to use the entire platform chipset to be allowed by Intel to use the name, and Apple have never used Intel's wireless chip.
A delay on the integrated graphics would indeed delay any new MacBooks.
I wasn't originally expecting any laptop updates from Apple at WWDC, but then AI started talking about the possibility and I got all excited (been waiting a long time to get a MacBook Pro with MacBook-style keyboard and magnetic latch). Now my hopes are being dashed. How cruel you are, AI.
Um, Mr. Language police:
Apple don't use Intel's WiFi chips.
Sorry, I just had to.