now i am very confused. what is a pita? my mum is american and my dad learned english rather than american so i was brought up under both. i find these conversations funny.
but, as for the new iphone, whenever it is out - i am almost game. though i cannot imagine using it too much if i move back to a dangerous city like toronto where a friend of mine was mugged for a 13$ walkman
If you're not sure what a given acronym or initialism stands for, you can usually find the answer at wiktionary (make sure you enter the letters all UPPERCASE).
Why on earth would you say that it's logical for the iPhone to go back to a material that every other product has moved away from?
There are several other posts that explain it. It has to do with the RF hardware. Aluminium is not RF transparent, therefore the the radio is affected by the material. The iPhone doesn't have a completely aluminium back because of this, but HSPA radios are much more susceptible to interference than EDGE. By using a completely radio transparent material also allows Apple to place the antenna anywhere it wants and to expand its size to allow for even better reception.
WiFi is even affected by this which is probably way the MacBook gets better reception than the MBP. The Mac line can also spare more power to push pass these barriers. The iPod's without radios are obviously are not in this bind.
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.
AMEN TO THAT.....its the mega anything "push the consumer to another product" retail lie. apple fought that with the mega hertz myth
Can anyone with a good monitor and photo editing tools make out the FCC iD? I think it should start with BCGA and have a number not much higher than 1203.
I think the iPhone will have 2 cameras and these leaked photos do nothing to dissuade me.
The camera can either be hidden in the sensor cluster by the earpiece, or perhaps behind the display with the back of the display being transparent, providing a view of the world from the lens' point of view. This would also aid in simulating eye contact during mobile chat.
As for a flash or a light for video conferencing, that would be accomplished by the display. The flash would work like Photo Booth does now, I don't know how a constant light would work.
For video chat to work, the image has to be something other than a silhouette, so they'll probably have to implement some sort of light. If not the display, maybe the flash could be one of those two little holes shown earlier in the earpiece, and there's super-bright LED's in there, though I'm still leaning toward the camera behind display/display light idea because it's cool as hell and they discussed putting solar panels behind the display in another posting.
There are several other posts that explain it. It has to do with the RF hardware. Aluminium is not RF transparent, therefore the the radio is affected by the material. The iPhone doesn't have a completely aluminium back because of this, but HSPA radios are much more susceptible to interference than EDGE. By using a completely radio transparent material also allows Apple to place the antenna anywhere it wants and to expand its size to allow for even better reception.
WiFi is even affected by this which is probably way the MacBook gets better reception than the MBP. The Mac line can also spare more power to push pass these barriers. The iPod's without radios are obviously are not in this bind.
All their laptops are affected by RF interference. Don't be surprised if they modify the aluminum enclosures with areas where this isn't the case.
The front camera is the ringed sensor on the left.
I'll need some more convincing proof than that as the two other brown circles to the right look identical to what you are calling the camera. Plus, that transparent cover the supposed camera looks like it would hamper the camera function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
All their laptops are affected by RF interference. Don't be surprised if they modify the aluminum enclosures with areas where this isn't the case.
I'd personally like to see that happen, but you know how people will react to a section of the case on the monitor's edge being a different material from the rest. It also does affect the structural integrity by not using a single solid piece, but they can minimize that to a point where it's inconsequential.
I'll need some more convincing proof than that as the two other brown circles to the right look identical to what you are calling the camera. Plus, that transparent cover the supposed camera looks like it would hamper the camera function.
The other two sensors are the light sensor and the proximity sensor. Which, if you look, are present in the current iPhone, just above the top speaker.
The glass on the entire front of the iPhone is optical glass. And just as it will let light out, for the screen, it will probably let light in for the camera. This glass extends into the sensor area but is painted black on the back. The paint is absent over the sensors.
If you look at the camera on the back of the current iPhone, you'll notice it has a 5mm glass cover. The actual lens itself is only 1.5mm across.
Separately, an issue with integrated graphics chipsets associated with Centrino 2 has also allegedly created problems and would specifically stall the launch of new aluminum MacBooks, which are likely to depend on Intel's built-in video hardware.
Simple fix for that problem really - don't relay on Intel's integrated graphics hardware.
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.
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".
Yes. "Apple don't" would get you points off in an English composition in most of the English speaking world, as well as almost anywhere English is taught as a second language.
While I know it doesn't seem fair, that form is increasingly seen as parochial. I know a number of English speaking Indians, and they don't use that form.
Also its not known where majority of those people who voted on flickr reside. Probably mostly in the US.
Doesn't matter. The numbers are from their worldwide user base. so if most of the photo's from the iPhone ARE from the US, that makes the other numbers even worse in comparison.
It's not a misunderstanding. we discuss this all the time here.
I brought it up because it's interesting how we look at this. The non American speaking English speakers look at our way of speaking as being wrong, while we look at theirs that way.
It's jarring to see something written down the way you're told expressly in school NOT to do it.
As this is mostly an American English writing board, I thought I'd bother him about it since he likes to (good-naturedly, of course) poke at us as the "Grammar Police"...
Comments
But it's not cut and dry. Other nouns are different.English are a real PITA somtimes.
now i am very confused. what is a pita? my mum is american and my dad learned english rather than american so i was brought up under both. i find these conversations funny.
but, as for the new iphone, whenever it is out - i am almost game. though i cannot imagine using it too much if i move back to a dangerous city like toronto where a friend of mine was mugged for a 13$ walkman
now i am very confused. what is a pita?
If you're not sure what a given acronym or initialism stands for, you can usually find the answer at wiktionary (make sure you enter the letters all UPPERCASE).
While true the color does not imply the material, plastic is the rational choice of materials to evolve the iPhone on.
Why?
Apple's entire product line is moving AWAY from plastic..
iPod nano and classic have gone from plastic to aluminum.
iMac went from plastic to aluminum.
New MacBooks are rumored to be aluminum.
The mini, MacBookPro and MacPro are already aluminum.
Why on earth would you say that it's logical for the iPhone to go back to a material that every other product has moved away from?
Why on earth would you say that it's logical for the iPhone to go back to a material that every other product has moved away from?
There are several other posts that explain it. It has to do with the RF hardware. Aluminium is not RF transparent, therefore the the radio is affected by the material. The iPhone doesn't have a completely aluminium back because of this, but HSPA radios are much more susceptible to interference than EDGE. By using a completely radio transparent material also allows Apple to place the antenna anywhere it wants and to expand its size to allow for even better reception.
WiFi is even affected by this which is probably way the MacBook gets better reception than the MBP. The Mac line can also spare more power to push pass these barriers. The iPod's without radios are obviously are not in this bind.
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.
AMEN TO THAT.....its the mega anything "push the consumer to another product" retail lie. apple fought that with the mega hertz myth
The camera can either be hidden in the sensor cluster by the earpiece, or perhaps behind the display with the back of the display being transparent, providing a view of the world from the lens' point of view. This would also aid in simulating eye contact during mobile chat.
As for a flash or a light for video conferencing, that would be accomplished by the display. The flash would work like Photo Booth does now, I don't know how a constant light would work.
For video chat to work, the image has to be something other than a silhouette, so they'll probably have to implement some sort of light. If not the display, maybe the flash could be one of those two little holes shown earlier in the earpiece, and there's super-bright LED's in there, though I'm still leaning toward the camera behind display/display light idea because it's cool as hell and they discussed putting solar panels behind the display in another posting.
I think the iPhone will have 2 cameras and these leaked photos do nothing to dissuade me.
The front camera is the ringed sensor on the left.
C.
There are several other posts that explain it. It has to do with the RF hardware. Aluminium is not RF transparent, therefore the the radio is affected by the material. The iPhone doesn't have a completely aluminium back because of this, but HSPA radios are much more susceptible to interference than EDGE. By using a completely radio transparent material also allows Apple to place the antenna anywhere it wants and to expand its size to allow for even better reception.
WiFi is even affected by this which is probably way the MacBook gets better reception than the MBP. The Mac line can also spare more power to push pass these barriers. The iPod's without radios are obviously are not in this bind.
All their laptops are affected by RF interference. Don't be surprised if they modify the aluminum enclosures with areas where this isn't the case.
The front camera is the ringed sensor on the left.
I'll need some more convincing proof than that as the two other brown circles to the right look identical to what you are calling the camera. Plus, that transparent cover the supposed camera looks like it would hamper the camera function.
All their laptops are affected by RF interference. Don't be surprised if they modify the aluminum enclosures with areas where this isn't the case.
I'd personally like to see that happen, but you know how people will react to a section of the case on the monitor's edge being a different material from the rest. It also does affect the structural integrity by not using a single solid piece, but they can minimize that to a point where it's inconsequential.
though i cannot imagine using it too much if i move back to a dangerous city like toronto where a friend of mine was mugged for a 13$ walkman
I thought Victoria was the crime capital of Canada. Right? More car thefts in North America than anywhere else? Yes?
I'll need some more convincing proof than that as the two other brown circles to the right look identical to what you are calling the camera. Plus, that transparent cover the supposed camera looks like it would hamper the camera function.
The other two sensors are the light sensor and the proximity sensor. Which, if you look, are present in the current iPhone, just above the top speaker.
The glass on the entire front of the iPhone is optical glass. And just as it will let light out, for the screen, it will probably let light in for the camera. This glass extends into the sensor area but is painted black on the back. The paint is absent over the sensors.
If you look at the camera on the back of the current iPhone, you'll notice it has a 5mm glass cover. The actual lens itself is only 1.5mm across.
C.
Separately, an issue with integrated graphics chipsets associated with Centrino 2 has also allegedly created problems and would specifically stall the launch of new aluminum MacBooks, which are likely to depend on Intel's built-in video hardware.
Simple fix for that problem really - don't relay on Intel's integrated graphics hardware.
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.
That's how I got here.
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".
Yes. "Apple don't" would get you points off in an English composition in most of the English speaking world, as well as almost anywhere English is taught as a second language.
While I know it doesn't seem fair, that form is increasingly seen as parochial. I know a number of English speaking Indians, and they don't use that form.
Also its not known where majority of those people who voted on flickr reside. Probably mostly in the US.
Doesn't matter. The numbers are from their worldwide user base. so if most of the photo's from the iPhone ARE from the US, that makes the other numbers even worse in comparison.
American English: Company name is singular.
British English: Company name is plural.
Simple misunderstanding.
It's not a misunderstanding. we discuss this all the time here.
I brought it up because it's interesting how we look at this. The non American speaking English speakers look at our way of speaking as being wrong, while we look at theirs that way.
It's jarring to see something written down the way you're told expressly in school NOT to do it.
As this is mostly an American English writing board, I thought I'd bother him about it since he likes to (good-naturedly, of course) poke at us as the "Grammar Police"...
now i get it
Yup, you got it exactly.
Amusing, isn't it?
Why?
Apple's entire product line is moving AWAY from plastic..
iPod nano and classic have gone from plastic to aluminum.
iMac went from plastic to aluminum.
New MacBooks are rumored to be aluminum.
The mini, MacBookPro and MacPro are already aluminum.
Why on earth would you say that it's logical for the iPhone to go back to a material that every other product has moved away from?
I would hate to think that Apple is always so rigid that they can't make a decision based on usability, at least once in a while.
I thought Victoria was the crime capital of Canada. Right? More car thefts in North America than anywhere else? Yes?
I thought that was my block.