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!
Some of these super plastics are also super expensive. Much more expensive than almost any other reasonable material.
A couple cost several hundred dollars for a .25" x 12" rod.
There is nothing wrong with having a cheapo basic 3.2 or 5mp cam unit. Even mid range phones have decent cam modules these days so there really is no excuse. Just like there is no excuse for not having a radio tuner in iphone. Why cant you just admit that sometimes Apple make mistakes when leaving out specs?
There is nothing wrong with having a cheapo basic 3.2 or 5mp cam unit. Even mid range phones have decent cam modules these days so there really is no excuse. Just like there is no excuse for not having a radio tuner in iphone. Why cant you just admit that sometimes Apple make mistakes when leaving out specs?
You mean like the very few people insisting that if Apple only put a tuner in the iPod, it would really sell?
Sure, there are a few people who really care, but really few.
Most people use their camera phones to send a pic to someone else's camera phone. Who cares about a 5 MP image? For almost everyone, it's a waste.
I'm sorry, basically no one cares about having a radio tuner in the iPhone or in the iPod. This is a very niche market, and they shouldn't bother filling the phone up with such things that most people really don't care about.
You mean like the very few people insisting that if Apple only put a tuner in the iPod, it would really sell?
Sure, there are a few people who really care, but really few.
Most people use their camera phones to send a pic to someone else's camera phone. Who cares about a 5 MP image? For almost everyone, it's a waste.
Well at the very least it should not be a basic 2mp cam with no flash or AF. As for what people want are you saying that you have conducted a survey for every single potential customer worldwide and that only a few really want these things? Get your head screwed on straight mate. I dont like to use the word fanboy but when I see comments like that its hard to reply as your only displaying a pig ignorant affinity to Apple based on stupid reasons. So im guessing the LG Viewty which outsold the iphone in the UK within a few weeks got it completley wrong with its camera and specs right? Yeah thats what I thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho
I'm sorry, basically no one cares about having a radio tuner in the iPhone or in the iPod. This is a very niche market, and they shouldn't bother filling the phone up with such things that most people really don't care about.
And you speak for everyone worldwide do you? Who are you again?
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
Well at the very least it should not be a basic 2mp cam with no flash or AF. As for what people want are you saying that you have conducted a survey for every single potential customer worldwide and that only a few really want these things? Get your head screwed on straight mate. I dont like to use the word fanboy but when I see comments like that its hard to reply as your only displaying a pig ignorant affinity to Apple based on stupid reasons. So im guessing the LG Viewty which outsold the iphone in the UK within a few weeks got it completley wrong with its camera and specs right? Yeah thats what I thought.
Shooting video is something that I agree would be easy, as it only involves software, and has alreadt been done.
I think you should tighten your own loose screw. You're not too bright if you think that Apple hasn't thought about all of this already, and discarded it.
So if you want to make idiotic comments, go right ahead. The Lg isn't in the same category as the iPhone, Mr. genius.
People are also waiting for the 3G version. We'll see where the greater longevity lies, with your squinty camera phone, or the iPhone.
Quote:
And you speak for everyone worldwide do you? Who are you again?
As for conducting surveys, I do hope your question was merely rhetorical. I know who I am, but who the hell are you?
Quote:
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
Every company tells customers what they need and don't need. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.
If Apple wants their phones to be selling for $49.95 or given away for free, we'll see how long Nokia lasts with the even priced competition..
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.
I think the new design makes sense within the constraints of what it needed to do. In some ways it does look a little awkward, but I don't see a better way to keep it small, and still play video in a less than haphazard way.
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.
Lousy quality because taken with a lousy mobile-phone-camera (like the one on the iPhone).
Bad angle because taken by an unexperienced photographer, in a hurry not to get caughed.
Picture of the back because that's where the difference is (the front is the same as the current iPhone).
I woudn't be surprised if this turn out to be the real thing!
Griffin Technology reveals iPhone 3G size, camera and sensor positions
iDEALS CHINA INSIDER has taken photos which should once and for all verify the iPhone 3G size and the position of the new camera and sensors.
These photos are of GRIFFIN TECHNOLOGY?S new FlexGrip iPhone 3G silicone case mold and the iPhone 3G 3D specs to fill that case. (For those who are unfamiliar, GRIFFIN is considered to be the most creditable company in the iPod accessory business). These pictures will verify the iPhone 3G size and sensors and the position of the new camera. GRIFFIN?S body fitting FlexGrip case can only be made once they have the exact shape and size of the iPhone 3G
These are the images for the case molds from the site, they don't appear to be the usual blurry, cameraphone variety either.
I vote for the alien metal. I have some of it here. It's pretty good.
Oh that's the stuff which, when a blade is formed with it, cuts a whole in space time allowing you to enter Limbo, right? And from there go anywhere in the universe.
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
The current 1st Gen iPhone clearly didn't have as good a camera as the Sony Ericsson.
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
Presumably you would prefer "Apple doesn't"? This has been discussed before; in British English it is common to treat a company name as a collective noun.
In other words, my sentence above is "Apple (they) don't" as opposed to "Apple (it) doesn't". Think of the former case as using Apple to refer to "people employed by Apple".
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
C.
I saw that Flickr thing some time ago and was really impressed. Its a real kick in the teeth to the Nokia fanboys but that doesnt mean they cant and shouldnt improve it.
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
1) The problem with improving everything but the number of pixels is that the average person only uses the pixel count to determine quality. I think Apple will increase the iPhone to 3mp come June and hope they upgrade the other components too.
2) Thanks for the link. I just learned how to take a picture correctly with the iPhone. I always thought there was a delay because of the shoddy SW implementation.
3) That is impressive considering the number of iPhones compared to the number of Nokias with cameras and how much better Nokia's phone cameras are touted by their fans. I guess ease of use do account for something after all, but how do you quantify that on a spec sheet?
sorry, i just don't get the problem with his post.
Mr. H explained it. It's just the differences between American and British English. Canadian English notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Presumably you would prefer "Apple doesn't"? This has been discussed before; in British English it is common to treat a company name as a collective noun.
In other words, my sentence above is "Apple (they) don't" as opposed to "Apple (it) doesn't". Think of the former case as using Apple to refer to "people employed by Apple".
If Apple wants (singular) their (plural) phones to be selling for $49.95 or given away for free, we'll see how long Nokia lasts with the even priced competition..
Comments
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!
Some of these super plastics are also super expensive. Much more expensive than almost any other reasonable material.
A couple cost several hundred dollars for a .25" x 12" rod.
Even Apple couldn't afford that.
There is nothing wrong with having a cheapo basic 3.2 or 5mp cam unit. Even mid range phones have decent cam modules these days so there really is no excuse. Just like there is no excuse for not having a radio tuner in iphone. Why cant you just admit that sometimes Apple make mistakes when leaving out specs?
You mean like the very few people insisting that if Apple only put a tuner in the iPod, it would really sell?
Sure, there are a few people who really care, but really few.
Most people use their camera phones to send a pic to someone else's camera phone. Who cares about a 5 MP image? For almost everyone, it's a waste.
You mean like the very few people insisting that if Apple only put a tuner in the iPod, it would really sell?
Sure, there are a few people who really care, but really few.
Most people use their camera phones to send a pic to someone else's camera phone. Who cares about a 5 MP image? For almost everyone, it's a waste.
Well at the very least it should not be a basic 2mp cam with no flash or AF. As for what people want are you saying that you have conducted a survey for every single potential customer worldwide and that only a few really want these things? Get your head screwed on straight mate. I dont like to use the word fanboy but when I see comments like that its hard to reply as your only displaying a pig ignorant affinity to Apple based on stupid reasons. So im guessing the LG Viewty which outsold the iphone in the UK within a few weeks got it completley wrong with its camera and specs right? Yeah thats what I thought.
I'm sorry, basically no one cares about having a radio tuner in the iPhone or in the iPod. This is a very niche market, and they shouldn't bother filling the phone up with such things that most people really don't care about.
And you speak for everyone worldwide do you? Who are you again?
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
Well at the very least it should not be a basic 2mp cam with no flash or AF. As for what people want are you saying that you have conducted a survey for every single potential customer worldwide and that only a few really want these things? Get your head screwed on straight mate. I dont like to use the word fanboy but when I see comments like that its hard to reply as your only displaying a pig ignorant affinity to Apple based on stupid reasons. So im guessing the LG Viewty which outsold the iphone in the UK within a few weeks got it completley wrong with its camera and specs right? Yeah thats what I thought.
Shooting video is something that I agree would be easy, as it only involves software, and has alreadt been done.
I think you should tighten your own loose screw. You're not too bright if you think that Apple hasn't thought about all of this already, and discarded it.
So if you want to make idiotic comments, go right ahead. The Lg isn't in the same category as the iPhone, Mr. genius.
People are also waiting for the 3G version. We'll see where the greater longevity lies, with your squinty camera phone, or the iPhone.
And you speak for everyone worldwide do you? Who are you again?
As for conducting surveys, I do hope your question was merely rhetorical. I know who I am, but who the hell are you?
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
Every company tells customers what they need and don't need. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.
If Apple wants their phones to be selling for $49.95 or given away for free, we'll see how long Nokia lasts with the even priced competition..
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.
I think the new design makes sense within the constraints of what it needed to do. In some ways it does look a little awkward, but I don't see a better way to keep it small, and still play video in a less than haphazard way.
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.
Lousy quality because taken with a lousy mobile-phone-camera (like the one on the iPhone).
Bad angle because taken by an unexperienced photographer, in a hurry not to get caughed.
Picture of the back because that's where the difference is (the front is the same as the current iPhone).
I woudn't be surprised if this turn out to be the real thing!
Griffin Technology reveals iPhone 3G size, camera and sensor positions
iDEALS CHINA INSIDER has taken photos which should once and for all verify the iPhone 3G size and the position of the new camera and sensors.
These photos are of GRIFFIN TECHNOLOGY?S new FlexGrip iPhone 3G silicone case mold and the iPhone 3G 3D specs to fill that case. (For those who are unfamiliar, GRIFFIN is considered to be the most creditable company in the iPod accessory business). These pictures will verify the iPhone 3G size and sensors and the position of the new camera. GRIFFIN?S body fitting FlexGrip case can only be made once they have the exact shape and size of the iPhone 3G
These are the images for the case molds from the site, they don't appear to be the usual blurry, cameraphone variety either.
I vote for the alien metal. I have some of it here. It's pretty good.
Oh that's the stuff which, when a blade is formed with it, cuts a whole in space time allowing you to enter Limbo, right? And from there go anywhere in the universe.
Yeah, that stuff's alright.
I dont think the likes of Nokia became market leaders by telling customers what they need and dont need. Instead they give them what they want and more. Apple just like to force feed things and you all eat it up. I admit much of what they give is great but they are still missing a lot in iphone and if they are ever to be taken seriously by the rest then they need to take their heads out of each others arses.
The current 1st Gen iPhone clearly didn't have as good a camera as the Sony Ericsson.
But I am not sure that many people actually care:
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/06/iphon...one-on-flickr/
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
C.
Um, Mr. Language police:
"Apple don't use Intel's WiFi chips."
Sorry, I just had to.
Presumably you would prefer "Apple doesn't"? This has been discussed before; in British English it is common to treat a company name as a collective noun.
In other words, my sentence above is "Apple (they) don't" as opposed to "Apple (it) doesn't". Think of the former case as using Apple to refer to "people employed by Apple".
The current 1st Gen iPhone clearly didn't have as good a camera as the Sony Ericsson.
But I am not sure that many people actually care:
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/06/iphon...one-on-flickr/
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
C.
I saw that Flickr thing some time ago and was really impressed. Its a real kick in the teeth to the Nokia fanboys but that doesnt mean they cant and shouldnt improve it.
The current 1st Gen iPhone clearly didn't have as good a camera as the Sony Ericsson.
But I am not sure that many people actually care:
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/06/iphon...one-on-flickr/
I watched a great presentation yesterday on cameras, and the amount of actual detail they capture. This has nothing at all to do with the number of pixels in the output digital image.
Increasing the number of photosites (sensors) on chip reduces the size of the photosites, and increases noise. Without awesome multi-thousand dollar lenses, all of this is pointless.
Yes, the iPhone camera could be improved for the new model. But Apple's goal should be to increase detail, low light performance and dynamic range, not increase number of pixels.
1) The problem with improving everything but the number of pixels is that the average person only uses the pixel count to determine quality. I think Apple will increase the iPhone to 3mp come June and hope they upgrade the other components too.
2) Thanks for the link. I just learned how to take a picture correctly with the iPhone. I always thought there was a delay because of the shoddy SW implementation.
3) That is impressive considering the number of iPhones compared to the number of Nokias with cameras and how much better Nokia's phone cameras are touted by their fans. I guess ease of use do account for something after all, but how do you quantify that on a spec sheet?
Um, Mr. Language police:
Sorry, I just had to.
sorry, i just don't get the problem with his post.
sorry, i just don't get the problem with his post.
American English: Company name is singular.
British English: Company name is plural.
Simple misunderstanding.
sorry, i just don't get the problem with his post.
Mr. H explained it. It's just the differences between American and British English. Canadian English notwithstanding.
Presumably you would prefer "Apple doesn't"? This has been discussed before; in British English it is common to treat a company name as a collective noun.
In other words, my sentence above is "Apple (they) don't" as opposed to "Apple (it) doesn't". Think of the former case as using Apple to refer to "people employed by Apple".
If Apple wants (singular) their (plural) phones to be selling for $49.95 or given away for free, we'll see how long Nokia lasts with the even priced competition..
now i get it
now i get it
But it's not cut and dry. Other nouns are different.English are a real PITA somtimes.