Idou is not just a concept. The SE reps had units in their hands and there are plenty of hands on videos on youtube.
On the subject of pixels check out the new N86 (8MP).This is the first device with variable aperture ranging from F2.4/3.2/F4.8. That means the device does better in low light situations thanks to the wider aperture of F2.4 and takes sharper shots in bright daylight thanks to the F4.8 aperture value.
It's got the first 28mm wide angle lens on a mobile phone.
Too bad Sharp only used a 29mm lens on their phone's dating back a few years but they use CCD sensors.
If they are both 8MP cameras, why not? If a camera phone cannot stand on its own then what is the point of adding more pixels?
Because one is a dedicated camera with proper optics and one is a phone that is only meant to be used for a year or 2 before being replaced that's why. Do you think people who buy 5 and 8 megapixel phones sit back and think like you do. No phone is going to use high end optics for many years to come so if thats what you are waiting for them please stop the silly nonsense camera talk. I realise in North America you guys are starved of good camera phones but in Europe and here in the UK that is not the case. People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels. If everyone thought like you did then there would be no demand for better camera phones but thats not the case is it?
By your rationale should I choose not to use any touch screen phone that doesn't have an AMOLED screen becasue lets face it if it's is being touted for playing movies and doesn't have an AMOLED screen it's crap right so why keep adding pixels to the screen resolution? Get real.
Your constant throwbacks to camera optics have absolutley no bearing on the industry at all and these views are probably shared by a very minute fraction of the population who use phones. Im guessing that part of the population resides in North America where you have been starved of good camera phones. By definition what is a camera phone? Is it a phone to use as a primary imaging device? No of course not, it is a device that allows you to take pictures on the go. I would rather have something that is adequete and 5mp rather than something that is crap and 2mp.
Because one is a dedicated camera with proper optics and one is a phone that is only meant to be used for a year or 2 before being replaced that's why. Do you think people who buy 5 and 8 megapixel phones sit back and think like you do.
Not likely, marketing has fooled them into thinking they actually have a 5 or 8MP camera.
Quote:
No phone is going to use high end optics for many years to come so if thats what you are waiting for them please stop the silly nonsense camera talk.
Its only nonsesne to someone who wants to ignore the truth, you in particular keep demanding better camera phones, and choose to ignore the realities of how cameras actually work. You cannot simply add more pixels and get a significantly better image, that is simply a fact.
Quote:
I realize in North America you guys are starved of good camera phones but in Europe and here in the UK that is not the case. People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels. If everyone thought like you did then there would be no demand for better camera phones but thats not the case is it?
People do like using camera phones. The manufacturer will market camera phones with higher pixels because they know people are easily marketed to. The manufacturers know these pixels tricks aren't true, but they will sell them if people will buy them.
Quote:
By your rationale should I choose not to use any touch screen phone that doesn't have an AMOLED screen becasue lets face it if it's is being touted for playing movies and doesn't have an AMOLED screen it's crap right so why keep adding pixels to the screen resolution? Get real.
No one markets LED screens as having the same functionality of AMOLED screens.
Quote:
Your constant throwbacks to camera optics have absolutley no bearing on the industry at all and these views are probably shared by a very minute fraction of the population who use phones. Im guessing that part of the population resides in North America where you have been starved of good camera phones. By definition what is a camera phone? Is it a phone to use as a primary imaging device? No of course not, it is a device that allows you to take pictures on the go. I would rather have something that is adequate and 5mp rather than something that is crap and 2mp.
What I'm saying does have bearing on the industry. People can clearly see that camera phones are crap, camera phones have not effected the sales of dedicated point and shoot cameras. Efficiently using pixels to create a smaller resolution picture will actually yield a sharper picture, than attempting to use more numerous and smaller pixels to create a picture with more resolution. This is simply the way it works.
Perhaps in North America we are savvy enough to not wish for a bulkier phone simply to add a sub-par camera that will never be able to take a picture as good as a dedicated camera.
Ok then show me some statistics that prove that last point? Show me som stats to prove that phones with poor cameras sell more than phones with 'good cameras'.
Also this is probably a silly question to ask you directly but do you think Apple will keep the camera the same in the up coming iphone?
Their of course is no official list of the best selling phones. Every list somewhat shifts the same phones around in different order. But clearly no list shows a correlation of the best selling phones having the most megapixels.
I'm sure Apple is willing to include a camera with more megapixels if it doesn't force an increase in the phones size. I'm sure the camera is at the bottom of Apple's priority list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bavlondon2
Ok then show me some statistics that prove that last point? Show me some stats to prove that phones with poor cameras sell more than phones with 'good cameras'.
Also this is probably a silly question to ask you directly but do you think Apple will keep the camera the same in the up coming iphone?
No that would be copy and paste. Despite any views on megapixels the fact is that to the average customer the device will seem a more attractive proposition if it had more megapixels as the consumer would feel more comfortable taking random pics.
This phone recorder allow you to record conversations on a telephone line. The telephone recorder will silently record both sides of the conversation. Units are activated by sound or by someone picking up the phone. You can connect these phone recorders to an open phone jack and set them to record only conversations or you can use them as room recorders. You will not record dead time, only actual conversations.
The UI on the Sony phone reminds me of what we've seen of the Zune HD-- some pretty animations that don't appear to add anything at all to usability.
Not to say it won't be a good phone, but I get the impression that everyone's decided that the way to compete with the iPhone is to make big touch screens with cool animations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly the kind of cluelessness that allowed Apple to break into the phone market in such a big way. It's like "usability" just isn't a part of these guys conceptual framework, and when confronted by the success of the iPhone all they can think is "stuff moves around, we should do that."
The UI on the Sony phone reminds me of what we've seen of the Zune HD-- some pretty animations that don't appear to add anything at all to usability.
Not to say it won't be a good phone, but I get the impression that everyone's decided that the way to compete with the iPhone is to make big touch screens with cool animations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly the kind of cluelessness that allowed Apple to break into the phone market in such a big way. It's like "usability" just isn't a part of these guys conceptual framework, and when confronted by the success of the iPhone all they can think is "stuff moves around, we should do that."
To be fair, doing those things does get you pretty close to the iPhone. A big touchscreen button that says 'Internet' that when opened allows you to select from stored bookmarks, or type an address, which you can then navigate with your finger, double tapping to zoom in etc, and in a lot of cases, pinch to zoom, sounds an awful lot like the iPhone experience to me. A big 'email' button that you touch to compose and read email, also sounds a lot like the iPhone.
Usability is such a buzz word that really means very little these days. You can do the same thing on either device, but how you go about achieving them is different. Just because they work in different ways does not suddenly mean one is less usable than the other. In fact, someone who already has an S60 device will probably find the SE far more usable, because they already know the OS, whereas there'd be a learning curve to use the iPhone. Which device is more usable in that instance then? Suddenly it's the SE, and we wonder if Apple ever considered usability when designing the iPhone.
I plonked my iPhone in front of my sister and mum yesterday to show them some photos. I had to show them how to move between the photos because they had no idea just from looking at the device. They do know how to move between photos on their Nokia phones. To them, their Nokia devices are more usable, because they know how to use them!
So, in conclusion, usability means very little when looking at these devices because what might be usable for one person, isn't for another! LOL, mini essay over.
The SE Satio (to give the Idou it's proper name) has been officially announced and will go on sale in September.
It seems Open Symbian will not be ready in time so it will use Symbian S60 v5, the same as the Nokia 5800 and the soon to be released N97 and Samsung Omnia HD.
Meanwhile Samsung has announced the Pixon12 with a 12.1 megapixel camera, 28mm wide angle lens and xenon flash, although it's not a smartphone the camera will probably appear in the next Omnia model.
The Nokia 1100 is the largest selling mobile phone ever, it doesn't have a camera, the 6300 is one of the largest selling phones it has a 2 megapixel camera the average for all phones sold is likely to be between these points based on the sheer volume of these handsets sold.
People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels.
Those would be the people that don't understand the difference between image quality and pixel count then.
Real photography demands large sensors and lots of expensive glass.
Camera phones are, at best, devices for casual snapping. Nothing wrong with that. But casual photography does not benefit from more pixels. It needs better low-light performance. They should make photo-sites larger not smaller.
A 12 megapixel sensor, in a phone is about as sensible as a JATO rocket pack on a kids tricycle.
When a phone manufacturer turns to mega-pixellage as their USP, isn't it an indication that they have given up trying to compete on the quality of the phone?
I like a nice car stereo, but it'd be crazy to select a car *because* of the stereo.
To be fair, doing those things does get you pretty close to the iPhone. A big touchscreen button that says 'Internet' that when opened allows you to select from stored bookmarks, or type an address, which you can then navigate with your finger, double tapping to zoom in etc, and in a lot of cases, pinch to zoom, sounds an awful lot like the iPhone experience to me. A big 'email' button that you touch to compose and read email, also sounds a lot like the iPhone.
Usability is such a buzz word that really means very little these days. You can do the same thing on either device, but how you go about achieving them is different. Just because they work in different ways does not suddenly mean one is less usable than the other. In fact, someone who already has an S60 device will probably find the SE far more usable, because they already know the OS, whereas there'd be a learning curve to use the iPhone. Which device is more usable in that instance then? Suddenly it's the SE, and we wonder if Apple ever considered usability when designing the iPhone.
I plonked my iPhone in front of my sister and mum yesterday to show them some photos. I had to show them how to move between the photos because they had no idea just from looking at the device. They do know how to move between photos on their Nokia phones. To them, their Nokia devices are more usable, because they know how to use them!
So, in conclusion, usability means very little when looking at these devices because what might be usable for one person, isn't for another! LOL, mini essay over.
The iPhone has brought with it an explosion of mobile internet use and an explosion of app purchase and installation. I would say that the reason for that is that Apple made processes that were once the domain of geek "smartphone" users into things that "just a phone" users feel comfortable doing.
I'm constantly hearing about how this phone or that can everything the iPhone can, or do it better, but the figures speak for themselves. What makes the iPhone unique is the huge percentage of iPhone users that actually avail themselves of all of its "features", as opposed to all those phones that ladle on the features so that a small subset of geek users can have bragging rights.
It's true that ease of use is in the eye of the beholder, but the way the typical iPhone user actually uses their iPhone suggests that Apple figured out a way to make using and moving between a broad range of applications far less intimidating and accessible than pretty much everything on the market prior to its release.
And it still appears to me that the response from the industry at large has been mostly to add big touch screens with cool animations, or pad the "features" list, or both, without worrying too much about sweating the details of how, exactly, everything works together.
If you think that "usability" is just a buzz word, or that that a touch screen and animations are all there is to an iPhone, then you're probably not who Apple is trying to sell a phone to. It's likely that any number of phones from other manufacturers will meet your needs.
But Apple's still the one with the wildly disproportionate mobile internet share and the wildly disproportionate app sales. That isn't because iPhone owners have been somehow hypnotized into thinking they "should" use their iPhone indiscriminately for all kinds of things, it's because they get one and discover they can. Pretty much all of them.
Comments
Idou is not just a concept. The SE reps had units in their hands and there are plenty of hands on videos on youtube.
On the subject of pixels check out the new N86 (8MP).This is the first device with variable aperture ranging from F2.4/3.2/F4.8. That means the device does better in low light situations thanks to the wider aperture of F2.4 and takes sharper shots in bright daylight thanks to the F4.8 aperture value.
It's got the first 28mm wide angle lens on a mobile phone.
Too bad Sharp only used a 29mm lens on their phone's dating back a few years but they use CCD sensors.
For all of the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post, that Nokia 8MP camera is rubbish to this 8MP camera.
If you put both cameras through the test I mentioned, the difference would be stark and clear.
Are you really going to compare a digital camera with a phone?
Are you really going to compare a digital camera with a phone?
For all of the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post, that Nokia 8MP camera is rubbish to this 8MP camera.
If you put both cameras through the test I mentioned, the difference would be stark and clear.
Why would you compare a camera and a phone?
useless
Why would you compare a camera and a phone?
useless
If they are both 8MP cameras, why not? If a camera phone cannot stand on its own then what is the point of adding more pixels?
Because one is a dedicated camera with proper optics and one is a phone that is only meant to be used for a year or 2 before being replaced that's why. Do you think people who buy 5 and 8 megapixel phones sit back and think like you do. No phone is going to use high end optics for many years to come so if thats what you are waiting for them please stop the silly nonsense camera talk. I realise in North America you guys are starved of good camera phones but in Europe and here in the UK that is not the case. People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels. If everyone thought like you did then there would be no demand for better camera phones but thats not the case is it?
By your rationale should I choose not to use any touch screen phone that doesn't have an AMOLED screen becasue lets face it if it's is being touted for playing movies and doesn't have an AMOLED screen it's crap right so why keep adding pixels to the screen resolution? Get real.
Your constant throwbacks to camera optics have absolutley no bearing on the industry at all and these views are probably shared by a very minute fraction of the population who use phones. Im guessing that part of the population resides in North America where you have been starved of good camera phones. By definition what is a camera phone? Is it a phone to use as a primary imaging device? No of course not, it is a device that allows you to take pictures on the go. I would rather have something that is adequete and 5mp rather than something that is crap and 2mp.
Because one is a dedicated camera with proper optics and one is a phone that is only meant to be used for a year or 2 before being replaced that's why. Do you think people who buy 5 and 8 megapixel phones sit back and think like you do.
Not likely, marketing has fooled them into thinking they actually have a 5 or 8MP camera.
No phone is going to use high end optics for many years to come so if thats what you are waiting for them please stop the silly nonsense camera talk.
Its only nonsesne to someone who wants to ignore the truth, you in particular keep demanding better camera phones, and choose to ignore the realities of how cameras actually work. You cannot simply add more pixels and get a significantly better image, that is simply a fact.
I realize in North America you guys are starved of good camera phones but in Europe and here in the UK that is not the case. People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels. If everyone thought like you did then there would be no demand for better camera phones but thats not the case is it?
People do like using camera phones. The manufacturer will market camera phones with higher pixels because they know people are easily marketed to. The manufacturers know these pixels tricks aren't true, but they will sell them if people will buy them.
By your rationale should I choose not to use any touch screen phone that doesn't have an AMOLED screen becasue lets face it if it's is being touted for playing movies and doesn't have an AMOLED screen it's crap right so why keep adding pixels to the screen resolution? Get real.
No one markets LED screens as having the same functionality of AMOLED screens.
Your constant throwbacks to camera optics have absolutley no bearing on the industry at all and these views are probably shared by a very minute fraction of the population who use phones. Im guessing that part of the population resides in North America where you have been starved of good camera phones. By definition what is a camera phone? Is it a phone to use as a primary imaging device? No of course not, it is a device that allows you to take pictures on the go. I would rather have something that is adequate and 5mp rather than something that is crap and 2mp.
What I'm saying does have bearing on the industry. People can clearly see that camera phones are crap, camera phones have not effected the sales of dedicated point and shoot cameras. Efficiently using pixels to create a smaller resolution picture will actually yield a sharper picture, than attempting to use more numerous and smaller pixels to create a picture with more resolution. This is simply the way it works.
Perhaps in North America we are savvy enough to not wish for a bulkier phone simply to add a sub-par camera that will never be able to take a picture as good as a dedicated camera.
Also this is probably a silly question to ask you directly but do you think Apple will keep the camera the same in the up coming iphone?
I'm sure Apple is willing to include a camera with more megapixels if it doesn't force an increase in the phones size. I'm sure the camera is at the bottom of Apple's priority list.
Ok then show me some statistics that prove that last point? Show me some stats to prove that phones with poor cameras sell more than phones with 'good cameras'.
Also this is probably a silly question to ask you directly but do you think Apple will keep the camera the same in the up coming iphone?
Not to say it won't be a good phone, but I get the impression that everyone's decided that the way to compete with the iPhone is to make big touch screens with cool animations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly the kind of cluelessness that allowed Apple to break into the phone market in such a big way. It's like "usability" just isn't a part of these guys conceptual framework, and when confronted by the success of the iPhone all they can think is "stuff moves around, we should do that."
The UI on the Sony phone reminds me of what we've seen of the Zune HD-- some pretty animations that don't appear to add anything at all to usability.
Not to say it won't be a good phone, but I get the impression that everyone's decided that the way to compete with the iPhone is to make big touch screens with cool animations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly the kind of cluelessness that allowed Apple to break into the phone market in such a big way. It's like "usability" just isn't a part of these guys conceptual framework, and when confronted by the success of the iPhone all they can think is "stuff moves around, we should do that."
To be fair, doing those things does get you pretty close to the iPhone. A big touchscreen button that says 'Internet' that when opened allows you to select from stored bookmarks, or type an address, which you can then navigate with your finger, double tapping to zoom in etc, and in a lot of cases, pinch to zoom, sounds an awful lot like the iPhone experience to me. A big 'email' button that you touch to compose and read email, also sounds a lot like the iPhone.
Usability is such a buzz word that really means very little these days. You can do the same thing on either device, but how you go about achieving them is different. Just because they work in different ways does not suddenly mean one is less usable than the other. In fact, someone who already has an S60 device will probably find the SE far more usable, because they already know the OS, whereas there'd be a learning curve to use the iPhone. Which device is more usable in that instance then? Suddenly it's the SE, and we wonder if Apple ever considered usability when designing the iPhone.
I plonked my iPhone in front of my sister and mum yesterday to show them some photos. I had to show them how to move between the photos because they had no idea just from looking at the device. They do know how to move between photos on their Nokia phones. To them, their Nokia devices are more usable, because they know how to use them!
So, in conclusion, usability means very little when looking at these devices because what might be usable for one person, isn't for another! LOL, mini essay over.
Despite your opinion I would imagine that would seem appealing to most rather than a basic 2mp camera which no options at all.
But the point is Apple cannot sit on their laurels any more as this is now the 2nd device to offer a UI which is as good as iphones bar multitouch.
Why are you saying second? What about Android, or the Pre? (Granted, the latter isn't shipping, but the former certainly is.)
Thats becasue it hasnt been announced properly yet. But its running on OMAP 3rd gen. Also the OS is the new symbian foundation so its S60.
I don't think that's S60. S60 is a GUI toolkit and API set, similar to Cocoa. It's not the OS underneath.
Amorya
It seems Open Symbian will not be ready in time so it will use Symbian S60 v5, the same as the Nokia 5800 and the soon to be released N97 and Samsung Omnia HD.
Meanwhile Samsung has announced the Pixon12 with a 12.1 megapixel camera, 28mm wide angle lens and xenon flash, although it's not a smartphone the camera will probably appear in the next Omnia model.
The Nokia 1100 is the largest selling mobile phone ever, it doesn't have a camera, the 6300 is one of the largest selling phones it has a 2 megapixel camera the average for all phones sold is likely to be between these points based on the sheer volume of these handsets sold.
People enjoy using camera phones and they enjoy having more megapixels.
Those would be the people that don't understand the difference between image quality and pixel count then.
Real photography demands large sensors and lots of expensive glass.
Camera phones are, at best, devices for casual snapping. Nothing wrong with that. But casual photography does not benefit from more pixels. It needs better low-light performance. They should make photo-sites larger not smaller.
A 12 megapixel sensor, in a phone is about as sensible as a JATO rocket pack on a kids tricycle.
When a phone manufacturer turns to mega-pixellage as their USP, isn't it an indication that they have given up trying to compete on the quality of the phone?
I like a nice car stereo, but it'd be crazy to select a car *because* of the stereo.
C
To be fair, doing those things does get you pretty close to the iPhone. A big touchscreen button that says 'Internet' that when opened allows you to select from stored bookmarks, or type an address, which you can then navigate with your finger, double tapping to zoom in etc, and in a lot of cases, pinch to zoom, sounds an awful lot like the iPhone experience to me. A big 'email' button that you touch to compose and read email, also sounds a lot like the iPhone.
Usability is such a buzz word that really means very little these days. You can do the same thing on either device, but how you go about achieving them is different. Just because they work in different ways does not suddenly mean one is less usable than the other. In fact, someone who already has an S60 device will probably find the SE far more usable, because they already know the OS, whereas there'd be a learning curve to use the iPhone. Which device is more usable in that instance then? Suddenly it's the SE, and we wonder if Apple ever considered usability when designing the iPhone.
I plonked my iPhone in front of my sister and mum yesterday to show them some photos. I had to show them how to move between the photos because they had no idea just from looking at the device. They do know how to move between photos on their Nokia phones. To them, their Nokia devices are more usable, because they know how to use them!
So, in conclusion, usability means very little when looking at these devices because what might be usable for one person, isn't for another! LOL, mini essay over.
The iPhone has brought with it an explosion of mobile internet use and an explosion of app purchase and installation. I would say that the reason for that is that Apple made processes that were once the domain of geek "smartphone" users into things that "just a phone" users feel comfortable doing.
I'm constantly hearing about how this phone or that can everything the iPhone can, or do it better, but the figures speak for themselves. What makes the iPhone unique is the huge percentage of iPhone users that actually avail themselves of all of its "features", as opposed to all those phones that ladle on the features so that a small subset of geek users can have bragging rights.
It's true that ease of use is in the eye of the beholder, but the way the typical iPhone user actually uses their iPhone suggests that Apple figured out a way to make using and moving between a broad range of applications far less intimidating and accessible than pretty much everything on the market prior to its release.
And it still appears to me that the response from the industry at large has been mostly to add big touch screens with cool animations, or pad the "features" list, or both, without worrying too much about sweating the details of how, exactly, everything works together.
If you think that "usability" is just a buzz word, or that that a touch screen and animations are all there is to an iPhone, then you're probably not who Apple is trying to sell a phone to. It's likely that any number of phones from other manufacturers will meet your needs.
But Apple's still the one with the wildly disproportionate mobile internet share and the wildly disproportionate app sales. That isn't because iPhone owners have been somehow hypnotized into thinking they "should" use their iPhone indiscriminately for all kinds of things, it's because they get one and discover they can. Pretty much all of them.
Which is what I call "usability."
As an imagination exercise I took a survey of imaginary cameraphone users in my own imagination:
And I asked them: "What do you do with your cameraphone photographs?"
A good 30% did not use the camera at all.
Of those that do..
100% will look at the photos on the cellphone itself ( Display rez: 0.25M Pixels)
25% will view on a computer (Display rez: 1.5M Pixels)
5% will view the photo on their HD TV (Display rez: 2M Pixels)
1% will view the photo on a "pro" cinema display (Display rez 3M Pixels)
10% will occasionally get 6x4 prints made (Display rez 3M Pixels)
1% will occasionally get 8x10 prints made (Display rez 8M Pixels)
0.0001% will view the image on a real cinema screen (Display rez 2M Pixels)
I am not convinced that 12 megapixels is of much practical benefit. (Other than as a sales trick to fool the technically naive. )
Camera phone pictures are poor, not because of low-resolution but because of bad optics and poor low-light performance.
C.