Why cant iphone record video?

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 68
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    The point I'm making is that if other manufacturers can make slim, full touch screen devices with decent cameras and all the other trimmings, it doesn't take a genius to work out Apple are shafting customers somewhere.

    I'm happy for anyone who wants to be taken advantage of to give them their money but I will keep my money until Apple give us a spec we deserve.



    ... an amazing expression of blind entitlement and self victimization.



    Various companies offer products with various features and tradeoffs. You'll have to learn to deal with it. Either that or continue to call companies evil for failing to conform to your personal vision of the optimal feature set.



    Hint: It is reasonable to simply disagree with apple's prioritization of features. You're expression of displeasure is something entirely different than that.
  • Reply 42 of 68
    bavlondon2bavlondon2 Posts: 694member
    Or maybe the USA is simply behind the rest of the world in respect to what features are more important and widely used.



    mrochester the Veiwty is a good example of what you are talking about. Slim smart touch screen device. HSDPA, decent screen, 5MP cam with AF. VGA 30fps plus QVGA upto 120fps for slo motion. And it overtook iphone in sales in less than 2 months. Its just another example of how everyone else is moving forward and Apple are trying to hold everyone back.



    Sure they have a nice fancy UI but thats about it. Once others start using OpenGL in their OS Apple will be forced to step up.
  • Reply 43 of 68
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Apple are trying to hold everyone back.



    You're seriously saying that apple is holding the mobile phone industry back?



    Oh why bother; I'm done. And yes I'll let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.
  • Reply 44 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post


    Or maybe the USA is simply behind the rest of the world in respect to what features are more important and widely used.



    mrochester the Veiwty is a good example of what you are talking about. Slim smart touch screen device. HSDPA, decent screen, 5MP cam with AF. VGA 30fps plus QVGA upto 120fps for slo motion. And it overtook iphone in sales in less than 2 months. Its just another example of how everyone else is moving forward and Apple are trying to hold everyone back.



    Sure they have a nice fancy UI but thats about it. Once others start using OpenGL in their OS Apple will be forced to step up.



    That funny!

    OpenGL is easy. GUI software is not.



    You don't really know what NextStep is. But it's why Apple has a massive collection of developers making money and LG has ...er.. what exactly? Yet another Windows Mobile device.



    Listen, its really, really simple. Mobile phone companies are desperate for people to buy their shit. And for years and years they have been shoehorning gadgets and widgets into them to convince people to buy their product rather than someone elses.



    Sony Ericsson have been putting nice cameras in their phones for years. It's a great novelty! But what kind of cretin would fall for buying one phone over another, because it takes better photographs! That's as stupid as picking your make of car based on the quality of the carpets!

    It's a dumb marketing ploy, and it is amazing people fall for it. It's not as if anyone who is serious about photographs would ever consider taking one with a phone.



    Phones are for communicating. They are portable network devices. Creating a better phone means making a better communication device. The iPhone has just jumped up the ladder in how incredibly useful it is. Push email is great. I have wireless syncing with a notebook (Evernote) and I can press a button and find the nearest pub. And Twitter is very cool.



    Apple have disrupted the phone industry by saying, all that shit you have been pushing at people for the last ten years a waste of time. What people want in a phone is this.



    It is very similar to what Nintendo have done with the Wii. Instead of copying, they innovated. Instead of offering full screen antialiasing and more vertex buffers, they offered fun.



    Clever eh?



    C.



    Disruption Ahoy!



    http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...lenews_barrons



    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...uts-2000-Jobs/
  • Reply 45 of 68
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    That funny!

    OpenGL is easy. GUI software is not.



    You don't really know what NextStep is. But it's why Apple has a massive collection of developers making money and LG has ...er.. what exactly? Yet another Windows Mobile device.



    LG has a whole slew of design awards and while I'm not their greatest fan, you have to keep your eyes peeled for the next great threat down the pipe.



    Quote:

    Listen, its really, really simple. Mobile phone companies are desperate for people to buy their shit. And for years and years they have been shoehorning gadgets and widgets into them to convince people to buy their product rather than someone elses.



    Every consumer electronics company has been shoehorning "shit" into their products to improve them. The reason Apple jumped in here is because it wised up and realized that cell phones are likely our next true computing platform.



    You knock companies that have experience managing dozens of different handsets with multitudes of features and also designing the software for them simply because Apple has managed to come up with one phone. Even if an LG, Nokia or whoever screws up in one area, it doesn't matter because they have another 30 phones you can choose from to keep brand loyalty.



    Quote:

    Sony Ericsson have been putting nice cameras in their phones for years. It's a great novelty! But what kind of cretin would fall for buying one phone over another, because it takes better photographs! That's as stupid as picking your make of car based on the quality of the carpets!

    It's a dumb marketing ploy, and it is amazing people fall for it. It's not as if anyone who is serious about photographs would ever consider taking one with a phone.



    At first it is a novelty and then at some stage it becomes a tipping point. I'm sure the first radios in cars were novelties. If you tried to sell a car without one now you would look like an idiot.



    The other thing wrong with your analogy is that the iPhone itself isn't that great of a phone. It isn't like people have remarked about its incredible battery life, the ability to find and hold weak signals or the incredible audio quality the calls. It has the best browser in the business. It has better than average media management. It is a mediocre phone and mediocre camera.



    Quote:

    Phones are for communicating. They are portable network devices. Creating a better phone means making a better communication device. The iPhone has just jumped up the ladder in how incredibly useful it is. Push email is great. I have wireless syncing with a notebook (Evernote) and I can press a button and find the nearest pub. And Twitter is very cool.



    Yes and the iPhone makes decent calls while others have better audio quality, better signal and better battery life. Apple has map based GPS and others have turn based. Apple isn't terrible but the others aren't standing still. My last phone didn't have a touch screen or full HTML browser. My new one does. Apple's "improvement" this round is adding 3G which again, they are catching up on compared to most companies.



    Quote:

    Apple have disrupted the phone industry by saying, all that shit you have been pushing at people for the last ten years a waste of time. What people want in a phone is this.



    It is very similar to what Nintendo have done with the Wii. Instead of copying, they innovated. Instead of offering full screen antialiasing and more vertex buffers, they offered fun.



    Apple's disruption was a little less than you manage. They clearly wanted to make the carriers secondary and instead now have AT&T subsidize the phone just like everyone else. They wanted the phone to be something you buy and the later can take from carrier to carrier. Instead you now sign a long contract with AT&T, just like everyone else.



    Nintendo with their motion controllers took their console in an entirely different direction, but also made a smart bet that HDTV penetration wasn't high enough yet to hurt them with regard to graphics. I would mention myself that even if the family does have a 60 inch HDTV, who is going to allow the kids to monopolize it all day? It was a safe bet for this generation but I would not make it next generation of consoles. I doubt Nintendo will as well.



    Now back to the topic at hand.... why does Apple include Photo Booth and video conferencing on every computer, but not on their next generation computing platform? It is clear they consider it a priority with one but not the other.
  • Reply 46 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Apple made a bet. That as far as cameras go, all people want from phones is a Polaroid style snap. Anything more is a waste of time. I happen to agree. You probably don't, but it is comical that the most popular phone on Flickr is the iPhone.



    If you read my links, SE are hurting. Nokia are hurting.

    You might have read that RIM is being downgraded. And Palm is close to death.

    It might have something to do with the potential of the device I am using right now.



    C.
  • Reply 47 of 68
    bavlondon2bavlondon2 Posts: 694member
    How is Nokia hurting? They are the market leaders and have just solidified their position by buying out the rest of Symbian.
  • Reply 48 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post


    How is Nokia hurting? They are the market leaders and have just solidified their position by buying out the rest of Symbian.



    http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...lenews_barrons



    Nokia dominate the low-end and sell a hell of lot of the cheap handsets.

    But Nokia struggle in the high-end of the market. And it's the high-end where the big profits are.



    Nokia was wrong to tie themselves to Symbian. It is not a great development platform.

    This is the reason why.



    In 1997 Symbian was this:



    In 1997, Cocoa was this:





    C.
  • Reply 49 of 68
    mrochestermrochester Posts: 693member
    Nevermind the fact that their market share continues to increase. They sell about 1.2million phones everyday. It took Apple a massively overhyped launch weekend to achieve anywhere near that figure.
  • Reply 50 of 68
    mrochestermrochester Posts: 693member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...lenews_barrons



    They have a lot of the low end and sell a hell of lot of the cheap handsets.

    But Nokia struggle in the high end of the market. And it's the high end where the actual profits are.



    I think Nokia was wrong to tie themselves to Symbian. It's not a great development plaform.

    This is the reason why.



    In 1997 Symbian was this:



    In 1997, Cocoa was this:





    C.



    LOL, love to see you with that 'Cocoa' example in your pocket LOL. What a ridiculous post!
  • Reply 51 of 68
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,478moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    LOL, love to see you with that 'Cocoa' example in your pocket LOL. What a ridiculous post!



    True all those years ago but I think he meant Apple made a better bet taking a desktop OS and making a phone to run it than taking a mobile OS and pushing it forward.



    Pushing from the top down vs the bottom up have different advantages. Symbian was already optimized to run well on low-end devices, OS X had to be optimized.



    However, OS X is a full unix OS with much richer development capability than Symbian will ever have and has been for a while.



    I used to own a Psion computer. I loved it and it was more powerful than my graphics calculator but there were very few apps for it that I found useful. Great keyboard though - the one I had was like the Macbook keyboard. Removable Flash memory too - I think I had 4MB or something.
  • Reply 52 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    LOL, love to see you with that 'Cocoa' example in your pocket LOL. What a ridiculous post!



    Dude, I hate to say this, but you are an what experts call an idiot. That's exactly what we have now.



    Symbian was a compromised OS designed to run on low-power low-memory systems.

    It answered this question. "How can we squeeze a GUI onto a low-power handheld?"



    NextStep was based on a different premise.

    "$10,000 is cheap for a workstation, but, how the hell can we bring down the cost of building expensive software."



    NextStep begat Cocoa, and Cocoa became the iPhone API.

    Because of Cocoa, you can build a really nice iPhone App in minutes. And if you hadn't noticed, Moore's Law means that there is much more CPU power in the iPhone as in that Next pizza box.



    From Wikipedia:

    The NeXT Computer was based on the new 25 MHz Motorola 68030 central processing unit (CPU). It included between 8 and 64 MB of random access memory (RAM), a 256 MB magneto-optical drive (MO) drive, a 40 MB (swap-only), 330 MB, or 660 MB hard drive, 10Base-2 Ethernet, NuBus and a 17-inch MegaPixel grayscale display measuring 1120 by 832 pixels.



    Go ask a Symbian developer about Cocoa, and once they stop crying, see what they have to say about ridiculous.



    C.
  • Reply 53 of 68
    bavlondon2bavlondon2 Posts: 694member
    And you are what experts would call a fanboy.



    Nokia have probably sold more 6300's than iphones and iphone 3g put together 20 times over. And your going to sit there and insist Nokia are hurting.



    When iphone was priced at £269 you were sitting here saying "its an expensive model". Only Apple could market something at that price and everyone slated them for it.



    What happened next? Apple were forced to lower their price for the follow up model becasue they knew they couldnt afford to be that greedy 2 times in a row. Sooner or later they will also learn you need a wide ranging feature set to attract consumers as well. The iphone is nice and I will still get one as a 2nd phone but by todays standards it simply cant be called a mobile phone. Its just a ipod with nice eye candy and basic phone features.



    Perhaps when Apple announce a serious competitor to say the N95. (and when I say competitor I mean something that can match it in specs, not just in a few UI tricks) then maybe you will have something to shout about but until then they are still learning and still have a long way to go. I dont even know why im going on about this. They only have made 2 phones to date lol I think the facts speak for themselves.



    PS Did you read Nokias Q2 market share results?



    122 million phones totally worldwide. (kind of puts in perspective what the iphone sold and even that was after the most hyped up campaign ever) Out of that you might be interested to know 4.5million of those were sold in North America (up +78%).



  • Reply 54 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post


    And you are what experts would call a fanboy.



    I certainly am a fan. I use the iPhone more than any device I have ever owned. It's just an amazing bit of kit. It makes every phone I have owned by Nokia, SE look like it was made in the 80s by Sinclair.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bavlondon2 View Post


    PS Did you read Nokias Q2 market share results?



    122 million phones totally worldwide. (kind of puts in perspective what the iphone sold and even that was after the most hyped up campaign ever) Out of that you might be interested to know 4.5million of those were sold in North America (up +78%).







    I think Nokia will continue to survive for a long time. They totally own the bottom end of the market. And I am sure they can make a good business out selling billions of handsets to Africa.



    I don't think Apple will every go into the bottom end, because there is very little profit to be made there. Dell sells more computers than Apple. But Apple is more profitable than Dell.



    The battle is not in the past. 2007 and 2008 sales are not in dispute. The top-end is where the battle is going to be. It's not going to be about value-added hardware features. *Anyone* can buy components and glue them together.



    The battle is going to be about software.



    This means before it starts, Nokia is screwed. Because of Symbian. If Nokia wants a part of the top-end, their only chance is going over to Android.



    C.



  • Reply 55 of 68
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    i.



    And then people would want to mail videos. Upload videos to YouTube, and generally abuse the crap out of their unlimited data accounts. My guess is that AT&T have urged Apple to hold-back on the heavy outgoing data.



    Pardon me, but I would like to explain how the free market works: a company such as ATT, puts a service up for sale, us users agree to the terms set forth and agree that their price is acceptable to us.



    ATT said that they would be willing to do unlimited phone data for $30/Mo, now, lets define unlimited...that means no limit (hell, I am at a little over a gig in my first week...) I listen to pandora, watch youtube and MLB vids, surf the net, look up showtimes and ticket info, do email, and sometimes even make a phone call. Do you really think they would care about a 2MB video upload of the costumed assholes who sat in front of us at the Friday 12:01 AM Batman show?



    the sick part is a friend shot it with a FREE PHONE...a FREE, cheap ass crap phone and proceeded to make fun of me for spending so much on a pathetically weak phone...I kinda agree with her.
  • Reply 56 of 68
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    Pardon me, but I would like to explain how the free market works: a company such as ATT, puts a service up for sale, us users agree to the terms set forth and agree that their price is acceptable to us.



    Sure but although they call it unlimited, they want to limit what you can do with it.



    Carriers make most of their money by charging you for making calls, sending SMSs etc. When you get charged for sending a SMS it's equivalent to $24000 per megabyte.



    The carriers are restricting what phones can do, until they can update their business model.



    There are parts of the world where the telecom companies sell you broadband, but block VOIP - because their business is based on selling calls.



    It's bad. The carriers need to update their business model.



    C.



    Act 1



    The AT&T Presentation..



    Jobs: You gotta see this, the iPhone has this neat video camera in it.

    (he demos by shooting Phill Shiller do an impression of Steve Balmer - everyone laughs when he plays the video back)



    Jobs: This is awesome. And now it just press send and ... Boom.



    (Everyone smiles and applauds)



    AT&T Dude: Video MMS. Very cool. We make 3 bucks on each video MMS sent



    Jobs: Er. No. What's an MMS? I am sending it as an email attachment. So folks can send pictures of their kids to grandparents and they can include them in iPhoto. It's awesome.



    (The AT&T guys all look at each other. )



    AT&T Dude: I'm sorry. But no. We can't have people sending video clips for *free*. We are a business here.



    Jobs: But if you charge them three bucks, no one will use it.



    AT&T Dude: The idiots will.



    (The AT&T guys all laugh. )



    Jobs: I see...



    (Jobs starts typing an email on the phone: Dear Betrtrand, Let's hold back video sending until these bozos understand they are in the data shipping business. )
  • Reply 57 of 68
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    I think Nokia will continue to survive for a long time. They totally own the bottom end of the market.



    I'm sorry but low-end Sony-Ericssons run circles around low-end Nokias. I honestly don't understand why anyone would choose Nokia for a free-with-contract or low cost "handset only" phone. The public is going to realize this and Nokia will lose market share quickly.
  • Reply 58 of 68
    Carniphage your talking crap now. Nokia only good at low end phones? I dont see SE or Samsung or anyone else for that matter able to compete with Nokia when it comes to top of the range phones.



    Bottom line is your not always going to be carrying a camera around with you. Say for example I am chilling out with my gf or any friend for that matter. Some event occurs for which I would like to capture those events on video. Can you really see me carrying a camera with me everywhere I go just to have it ready? Mobile phones have reached the stage where they can take decent pics and vids. Of course a dedicated unit will produce better results but you don?t get the convenience factor with a dedicated unit. Its all about convergence devices these days and iphone doesn?t converge enough gadgets!
  • Reply 59 of 68
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Dude, I hate to say this, but you are an what experts call an idiot. That's exactly what we have now.



    Symbian was a compromised OS designed to run on low-power low-memory systems.

    It answered this question. "How can we squeeze a GUI onto a low-power handheld?"



    NextStep was based on a different premise.

    "$10,000 is cheap for a workstation, but, how the hell can we bring down the cost of building expensive software."



    NextStep begat Cocoa, and Cocoa became the iPhone API.

    Because of Cocoa, you can build a really nice iPhone App in minutes. And if you hadn't noticed, Moore's Law means that there is much more CPU power in the iPhone as in that Next pizza box.



    From Wikipedia:

    The NeXT Computer was based on the new 25 MHz Motorola 68030 central processing unit (CPU). It included between 8 and 64 MB of random access memory (RAM), a 256 MB magneto-optical drive (MO) drive, a 40 MB (swap-only), 330 MB, or 660 MB hard drive, 10Base-2 Ethernet, NuBus and a 17-inch MegaPixel grayscale display measuring 1120 by 832 pixels.



    Go ask a Symbian developer about Cocoa, and once they stop crying, see what they have to say about ridiculous.



    C.



    I'm afraid you're the idiot for comparing a 1997 desktop OS to a mobile OS. Show me the Apple mobile phone OS from 1997 compared to the Symbian OS of 1997. Then we can start talking. Wait, no, you say that doesn't exist and it took Apple 10 more years to produce a mobile OS? Well bully me.



    It might be true that Cocoa is wonderful to develop for, but there are 2 main sticking points. Firstly, Symbian has a vast advantage in the amount of software and applications available for it. Second, developing for the iPhone is only targetting a very tiny audience.



    And to say that Nokia are struggling at the high end is a total farce and you know it. The N95 alone topped nearly 10million unit sales and that is but one of the many high end Nokia phones available. All in all, the figures at the high end for Nokia are going to be many multiples of what Apple has achieved. BTW, having just looked, Nokia sold 11 million N-Series devices in the 4th quarter of 2007.



    And not only that, but Nokia do really well at the bottom end of the market too, which just goes to show how they have all the bases covered.



    Quote:

    I honestly don't understand why anyone would choose Nokia for a free-with-contract



    Free with contract means N95-8GB so there are plenty of reasons to choose it
  • Reply 60 of 68
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    You're a whiner! You're a fanboi!



    Sorry, but that seems to be the only purpose of this thread.



    Everyone wishes it could do video recording. No one knows exactly why it doesn't, whether it's technical or political or something else. I'm sure it's not that it's technically impossible, and I'm sure it's not Apple just deciding to be mean to us. My personal theory is that it's harder than you'd think to have cross-platform video files that integrate well on both Mac and PC, but I have no idea. It could be that, given the hardware, the video sucks so hard that Apple figures that having it would be more of an embarrassment than not having it. Who knows?
Sign In or Register to comment.