Someone did mention that fact, and that resolution independence could come into play there. But who knows, Steve may really want to cripple the nano iPhone, at least for Gen 1. I wouldn't put anything past him.
I would say, instead of iphone "nano" (which implies smaller), we should consider it iphone "lite" (which implies less (pro-)features).
And SJ would go: "the iphone lite, with the same gorgeous screen as the iphone, is targeted towards people who just wanted an equipment which works just like a phone, plus a little bit more, but not as feature rich as the iphone itself... and is $100 cheaper, available as we speak..."
I would say, instead of iphone "nano" (which implies smaller), we should consider it iphone "lite" (which implies less (pro-)features).
Well it will be smaller, and historically the smaller iPods had a lighter feature set. You can consider it any which way, but I'd say the chances are it will be called nano. It worked for the iPod they probably won't change that winning formula.
Unfortunately, by that logic all mockups must be regarded as real until proven otherwise.
Just because images that turned out to be accurate have been dismissed as fake in the past, doesn't mean we can't judge anything new that comes along on the merits.
(Same deal as the "Apple is going to make a microwave oven-- seems unlikely-- that's what they said about a video iPod!" rap)
Well it will be smaller, and historically the smaller iPods had a lighter feature set. You can consider it any which way, but I'd say the chances are it will be called nano. It worked for the iPod they probably won't change that winning formula.
I don't think you can extrapolate directly from the iPods to the iPhone. The iPods didn't have an interface that was directly dependent on screen real estate for basic functionality.
Since MultiTouch is clearly a new platform for Apple, I don't think they'll release anything that compromises the "MultiTouch experience", any more than the would release a "Leopard OS X" machine that required an undersized dock or a menu bar that left anything out.
No internet - I wouldn't bet on it having no internet, but it wouldn't shock me.
I think your missing the big picture here. My shitty refurbished phone (LG VX4400) that I bought as a temp phone (after my old phone broke until I could get the new iPhone) has internet. Virtually all phones made within the past few years have internet. It's true it's the internet is over cellular network and sucks because it's a WAP browser, but it's still the internet. Apple HAS to provide some sort of internet on an iPhone Nano because that's what's expected. What's unique about the iPhone is that the internet is amazing. You can use WiFi (unlike many phones) and it has a full-featured web browser. Apple made a point of doing internet right with the iPhone and they also made a point of doing it right with the iPod Touch, which certainly does not need the internet as much as a cell phone (as a communication device) does. Apple would never provided crippled internet to an Apple device because that's exactly what they criticized about current mobile devices.
Given that context, do you still think Apple would leave out the internet on an "iPhone Nano"?
Even still, when we were ferreting around the new 3G iPhone firmware today, we were keeping an eye out for altered or additional camera drivers, something to indicate a front-facing camera. Nothing.
So is engadget trying to tell us that this iphone2 isnt 3g, or that its 3g but do not support video conferencing? Since even if apple use the screen as a source of video input, it still needs a driver.
Apple HAS to provide some sort of internet on an iPhone Nano because that's what's expected. What's unique about the iPhone is that the internet is amazing. You can use WiFi (unlike many phones) and it has a full-featured web browser.
Firstly when you are dealing with Apple anything is possibly. Do I think it would be stupid? Yes. Would that stop Apple? No. And secondly the most innovative thing about the iPhone is its UI, not Safari, but multi-touch in general. The Safari browser is great for a phone, but its the whole UI is the real killer.
To clarify; I want internet on the iPhone nano as much as the next guy, and I think it would be stupid idea to not have it on there, but none of that would lead me to believe that Apple aren't capable of, or wouldn't deliberately cripple the iPhone nano in such a way.
If Apple did everything they were supposed to do we'd have a newly designed Mighty Mouse years ago.
Firstly when you are dealing with Apple anything is possibly. Do I think it would be stupid? Yes. Would that stop Apple? No. And secondly the most innovative thing about the iPhone is its UI, not Safari, but multi-touch in general. The Safari browser is great for a phone, but its the whole UI is the real killer.
To clarify; I want internet on the iPhone nano as much as the next guy, and I think it would be stupid idea to not have it on there, but none of that would lead me to believe that Apple aren't capable of, or wouldn't deliberately cripple the iPhone nano in such a way.
If Apple did everything they were supposed to do we'd have a newly designed Mighty Mouse years ago.
What I'm saying is that with any new phone, smartphone or not, has to have some level of the internet. One of Apple's major selling points of both the iPhone and the iPod Touch is the mobile internet experience, and if Apple has to include internet at all, their going to include the best internet experience possible. Apple's is not stupid and most of the time they know where to make the right compromises.
About the Mighty Mouse, there is nothing wrong with the it. It may not be the best mouse (it's not), but it's an excellent basic mouse if you ask me. I love the 360 scroll ball and the side squeeze buttons.
About the Mighty Mouse, there is nothing wrong with the it. It may not be the best mouse (it's not), but it's an excellent basic mouse if you ask me. I love the 360 scroll ball and the side squeeze buttons.
No response in necessary, you just beat yourself up.
On second thought though I will respond. To a new Mac user you have to direct how to use the damn thing, not to mention trying to do that to an older person. "No, there are two buttons on top". "No you have to lift your finger of the right side when you are left clicking". "Yes I know it takes a while to get used to". And then finally when they are used to the mouse, the damn ball gets stuck. "But I always wash my hands first? I don't understand". I know, that's the problem, no one understands. But actually the real problem is the mouse it is piece of crap!" Sure it "looks" like something Apple would make, but it doesn't work or act like it. Steve obviously has no clue what makes a good mouse. It's one of the main things that needs substance first, and style second. But Apple wanted both at the same level, even actually they wanted more style, and as far as I can tell, that's why they built this disastrous mouse. Hopefully they can get on with bringing multi-touch to the Mac cause they cannot make mice, plain and simple.
No response in necessary, you just beat yourself up.
On second thought though I will respond. To a new Mac user you have to direct how to use the damn thing, not to mention trying to do that to an older person. "No, there are two buttons on top". "No you have to lift your finger of the right side when you are left clicking". "Yes I know it takes a while to get used to". And then finally when they are used to the mouse, the damn ball gets stuck. "But I always wash my hands first? I don't understand". I know, that's the problem, no one understands. But actually the real problem is the mouse it is piece of crap!" Sure it "looks" like something Apple would make, but it doesn't work or act like it. Steve obviously has no clue what makes a good mouse. It's one of the main things that needs substance first, and style second. But Apple wanted both at the same level, even actually they wanted more style, and as far as I can tell, that's why they built this disastrous mouse. Hopefully they can get on with bringing multi-touch to the Mac cause they cannot make mice, plain and simple.
Don't insult me.
The right-click on the Mighty Mouse is disabled by default so the average (inexperienced) user can ignore the fact that a second button exists, espessially since there aren't two physical buttons.
About lifting the left finger when right clicking: yes, it's awkward the first few times you use the mouse but after that it's smooth sailing.
Yes, the scroll ball does need to be cleaned every once in a while, but there is a very easy, fast, and effective way of cleaning it: turn the mouse upsidown and roll the ball vigerously on a sheet of printer paper.
Multi-touch is an interface for mobile devices where every bit of the user interface real-estate is crucial. Multi-touch has very limited (albiet some) uses on a computer platform. And when we do see multi-touch in computer platforms, it's implementation will be limited to certain isolated functions and applications and the mouse and keyboard will remain primary input devices. The mouse is an elegant solution to selection of GUI elements because a small movement of your hand relays a large movement of the cursor. Think of this as a scaling issue. When your hand is the cursor itself, as with multi-touch, your movements are not scaled, meaning I have to move my hand across the entire screen if I want to select something across the screen. Also, viewing displays at a 90 degree angle with your head pointing straight forward is optimal for ergonomics. If you have the monitor remain at a 90 degree angle, a multi-touch interface would require a lot of lifting of the arm which would become tedious and tiresome. If the screen laid flat on a surface, your head would be tilted down and your neck strained. This arrangement only works for mobile device because they are easily adjustable/movable.
Unfortunately, by that logic all mockups must be regarded as real until proven otherwise.
Just because images that turned out to be accurate have been dismissed as fake in the past, doesn't mean we can't judge anything new that comes along on the merits.
(Same deal as the "Apple is going to make a microwave oven-- seems unlikely-- that's what they said about a video iPod!" rap)
and conversely by THAT logic, everything we see pre show MUST be fake..
the point is the screen shot nano pics were hounded out of existence, decried as ugly, derided and dismissed. "Apple wouldn't release something so ugly" "Steve wouldn't let that design through" and "This could not possibly be an Ive design", "if this is from Ives, then Apple are really struggling"
but guess what, when Steve held up the nano, and there was an initial inrush of air from the audience, there then came the little gentle fairy tinkly winkly sound of RDF and since then there has been almost universal praise.
So, why is there this need to shot down something as FAAAAAAKE?
its been proven that even the big smart brain people get it wrong.
the iPhone screen shot pics SEEM to be in the same style as the nano ones, they SEEM about as close to evolutionary as one might expect, they look good and add to the excitement.
but lets kill all that dead and shout FAKE as loud as we can, and just go back to bed.
Comments
Someone did mention that fact, and that resolution independence could come into play there. But who knows, Steve may really want to cripple the nano iPhone, at least for Gen 1. I wouldn't put anything past him.
I would say, instead of iphone "nano" (which implies smaller), we should consider it iphone "lite" (which implies less (pro-)features).
And SJ would go: "the iphone lite, with the same gorgeous screen as the iphone, is targeted towards people who just wanted an equipment which works just like a phone, plus a little bit more, but not as feature rich as the iphone itself... and is $100 cheaper, available as we speak..."
I would say, instead of iphone "nano" (which implies smaller), we should consider it iphone "lite" (which implies less (pro-)features).
Well it will be smaller, and historically the smaller iPods had a lighter feature set. You can consider it any which way, but I'd say the chances are it will be called nano. It worked for the iPod they probably won't change that winning formula.
DUDE, That is totally FAKE. PFFT. Oh wait....
Unfortunately, by that logic all mockups must be regarded as real until proven otherwise.
Just because images that turned out to be accurate have been dismissed as fake in the past, doesn't mean we can't judge anything new that comes along on the merits.
(Same deal as the "Apple is going to make a microwave oven-- seems unlikely-- that's what they said about a video iPod!" rap)
Well it will be smaller, and historically the smaller iPods had a lighter feature set. You can consider it any which way, but I'd say the chances are it will be called nano. It worked for the iPod they probably won't change that winning formula.
I don't think you can extrapolate directly from the iPods to the iPhone. The iPods didn't have an interface that was directly dependent on screen real estate for basic functionality.
Since MultiTouch is clearly a new platform for Apple, I don't think they'll release anything that compromises the "MultiTouch experience", any more than the would release a "Leopard OS X" machine that required an undersized dock or a menu bar that left anything out.
No internet - I wouldn't bet on it having no internet, but it wouldn't shock me.
I think your missing the big picture here. My shitty refurbished phone (LG VX4400) that I bought as a temp phone (after my old phone broke until I could get the new iPhone) has internet. Virtually all phones made within the past few years have internet. It's true it's the internet is over cellular network and sucks because it's a WAP browser, but it's still the internet. Apple HAS to provide some sort of internet on an iPhone Nano because that's what's expected. What's unique about the iPhone is that the internet is amazing. You can use WiFi (unlike many phones) and it has a full-featured web browser. Apple made a point of doing internet right with the iPhone and they also made a point of doing it right with the iPod Touch, which certainly does not need the internet as much as a cell phone (as a communication device) does. Apple would never provided crippled internet to an Apple device because that's exactly what they criticized about current mobile devices.
Given that context, do you still think Apple would leave out the internet on an "iPhone Nano"?
I make no judgments.
Even still, when we were ferreting around the new 3G iPhone firmware today, we were keeping an eye out for altered or additional camera drivers, something to indicate a front-facing camera. Nothing.
So is engadget trying to tell us that this iphone2 isnt 3g, or that its 3g but do not support video conferencing? Since even if apple use the screen as a source of video input, it still needs a driver.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/07/l...e-wwdc-editio/
I make no judgments.
They called those keyboard images and the fatty images fake too. I think baldy is wrong about this one too.
When the iPhone 2.0 is released will it be sold exclusively at Apple stores or will it be sold at both Apple and AT&T stores?
Both.
Apple HAS to provide some sort of internet on an iPhone Nano because that's what's expected. What's unique about the iPhone is that the internet is amazing. You can use WiFi (unlike many phones) and it has a full-featured web browser.
Firstly when you are dealing with Apple anything is possibly. Do I think it would be stupid? Yes. Would that stop Apple? No. And secondly the most innovative thing about the iPhone is its UI, not Safari, but multi-touch in general. The Safari browser is great for a phone, but its the whole UI is the real killer.
To clarify; I want internet on the iPhone nano as much as the next guy, and I think it would be stupid idea to not have it on there, but none of that would lead me to believe that Apple aren't capable of, or wouldn't deliberately cripple the iPhone nano in such a way.
If Apple did everything they were supposed to do we'd have a newly designed Mighty Mouse years ago.
Both.
thanks for the quick response, ireland.
thanks for the quick response, ireland.
ur velcome
Firstly when you are dealing with Apple anything is possibly. Do I think it would be stupid? Yes. Would that stop Apple? No. And secondly the most innovative thing about the iPhone is its UI, not Safari, but multi-touch in general. The Safari browser is great for a phone, but its the whole UI is the real killer.
To clarify; I want internet on the iPhone nano as much as the next guy, and I think it would be stupid idea to not have it on there, but none of that would lead me to believe that Apple aren't capable of, or wouldn't deliberately cripple the iPhone nano in such a way.
If Apple did everything they were supposed to do we'd have a newly designed Mighty Mouse years ago.
What I'm saying is that with any new phone, smartphone or not, has to have some level of the internet. One of Apple's major selling points of both the iPhone and the iPod Touch is the mobile internet experience, and if Apple has to include internet at all, their going to include the best internet experience possible. Apple's is not stupid and most of the time they know where to make the right compromises.
About the Mighty Mouse, there is nothing wrong with the it. It may not be the best mouse (it's not), but it's an excellent basic mouse if you ask me. I love the 360 scroll ball and the side squeeze buttons.
found this on a google news search
http://www.htlounge.net/article/6087...design-leaked/
found this on a google news search
No it's a real case.
About the Mighty Mouse, there is nothing wrong with the it. It may not be the best mouse (it's not), but it's an excellent basic mouse if you ask me. I love the 360 scroll ball and the side squeeze buttons.
No response in necessary, you just beat yourself up.
On second thought though I will respond. To a new Mac user you have to direct how to use the damn thing, not to mention trying to do that to an older person. "No, there are two buttons on top". "No you have to lift your finger of the right side when you are left clicking". "Yes I know it takes a while to get used to". And then finally when they are used to the mouse, the damn ball gets stuck. "But I always wash my hands first? I don't understand". I know, that's the problem, no one understands. But actually the real problem is the mouse it is piece of crap!" Sure it "looks" like something Apple would make, but it doesn't work or act like it. Steve obviously has no clue what makes a good mouse. It's one of the main things that needs substance first, and style second. But Apple wanted both at the same level, even actually they wanted more style, and as far as I can tell, that's why they built this disastrous mouse. Hopefully they can get on with bringing multi-touch to the Mac cause they cannot make mice, plain and simple.
No response in necessary, you just beat yourself up.
On second thought though I will respond. To a new Mac user you have to direct how to use the damn thing, not to mention trying to do that to an older person. "No, there are two buttons on top". "No you have to lift your finger of the right side when you are left clicking". "Yes I know it takes a while to get used to". And then finally when they are used to the mouse, the damn ball gets stuck. "But I always wash my hands first? I don't understand". I know, that's the problem, no one understands. But actually the real problem is the mouse it is piece of crap!" Sure it "looks" like something Apple would make, but it doesn't work or act like it. Steve obviously has no clue what makes a good mouse. It's one of the main things that needs substance first, and style second. But Apple wanted both at the same level, even actually they wanted more style, and as far as I can tell, that's why they built this disastrous mouse. Hopefully they can get on with bringing multi-touch to the Mac cause they cannot make mice, plain and simple.
Don't insult me.
Unfortunately, by that logic all mockups must be regarded as real until proven otherwise.
Just because images that turned out to be accurate have been dismissed as fake in the past, doesn't mean we can't judge anything new that comes along on the merits.
(Same deal as the "Apple is going to make a microwave oven-- seems unlikely-- that's what they said about a video iPod!" rap)
and conversely by THAT logic, everything we see pre show MUST be fake..
the point is the screen shot nano pics were hounded out of existence, decried as ugly, derided and dismissed. "Apple wouldn't release something so ugly" "Steve wouldn't let that design through" and "This could not possibly be an Ive design", "if this is from Ives, then Apple are really struggling"
but guess what, when Steve held up the nano, and there was an initial inrush of air from the audience, there then came the little gentle fairy tinkly winkly sound of RDF and since then there has been almost universal praise.
So, why is there this need to shot down something as FAAAAAAKE?
its been proven that even the big smart brain people get it wrong.
the iPhone screen shot pics SEEM to be in the same style as the nano ones, they SEEM about as close to evolutionary as one might expect, they look good and add to the excitement.
but lets kill all that dead and shout FAKE as loud as we can, and just go back to bed.
They called those keyboard images and the fatty images fake too. I think baldy is wrong about this one too.
oooo, there speaks a man who still has a full head of hair
be careful who you call baldy though, your own could fall out while you wait for the Apple television