Expected. This just show that the majority of targeted MB buyers don't care about Firewire.
lol...so true...i was a little skeptical at first, but only b/c my external HD is firewire. However by the time i'm ready to upgrade my MB i'll be willing to buy a new HD as well (probably just gonna go with Time Capsule actually). All the hoopla about lack of FW has clearly blown over and - once again - apple knows what what we want LONG before we do!
Is there any indication that the current iPhone Applications will not be compatible with the full function Mac OS? Or, can't both OS be installed in larger versions of iPod Touch, much like it is possible to have both Windows and Mac OS in Apple computers?
In terms of a more versatile and larger iPod Touch -- to serve as a very portable multifunction reader (Apple's answer to Kindle), gaming device and as an Apple's answer to the very popular NetBook -- a full function Mac OS may provide more advanced capabilities.
As to buying new softwares, note that more than 90%(?) of iPhone/iPod Touch Applications are free, and perhaps more than 99% are low price or free. I am not sure how many iPhone/iPod Touch owners have invested hundreds or thousands of dollars for downloaded applications already.
There might be a reason why Apple created a separate higher end gaming applications. More complex gaming applications may be better served by a full function Mac OS. This may be true also for other applications.
Serious gamers may not be too aversed to buy another higher end version (upgrade?) of their favorite games. Moreover, other potential users of portable larger iPod Touch, such those who plan to use it as readers, as a complex device for photo edit or graphic applications may welcome a full function Mac OS.
A simplified iPhone OS was needed for a number of reasons: the limits of phone and WiFi transmission technologies, current technologies for the RAM and other audio-visual functions and more likely the full function Mac OS drains the battery much faster or cause excessive heat generation (just speculating for the latter possibilities). Speed in transmissions, battery life, and chip technologies and the Mac OS Snow Leopard may make it more feasible to circumvent the current limitations of the iPhone. Moreover, a larger iPod Touch will have more space for more complex chips and other components and more powerful batteries.
Many of us knew this when the MacBook was introduced. Their are far more USB only devices than Firewire. For most people the lack of Firewire goes largely unnoticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Expected. This just show that the majority of targeted MB buyers don't care about Firewire.
I think everyone agrees that at&t is Apple's weakest link and once they are free of that stone around their neck, the iPhone will really find it's true potential as a consumer electronics product.
I agree 100%. I'm on AT&T with the iPhone 3G, and if I had the option to be on Verizon, I'd be on it. They'd sell more phones on other carriers than making a cheaper version.
I agree 100%. I'm on AT&T with the iPhone 3G, and if I had the option to be on Verizon, I'd be on it. They'd sell more phones on other carriers than making a cheaper version.
Oh man, I am so with you. I am unfortunately using a Blackberry 8830 on Verizon as I'm stuck on a small business account and it's not going to change anytime soon.
Could you guys imagine how many iPhones Apple would sell once they are available on all major carriers??? Even just adding Verizon into the fold would EASILY sell another 10+ million alone in 2009!
I'm pretty sure that a drop in resolution or screen size is not in the cards. I don't see much justification for higher resolution at the existing screen size, but there is space to make the screen longer in the current form factor. Existing fixed resolution applications would run fine in a "compatibility box" within that screen, while those applications that have vertical scrolling (lists, documents, Web pages) would simply use the additional room and require no changes.
A 568 x 320 display would be 16:9. A 512 x 320 display would be 16:10. A 568 x 320 display would have a 4" diagonal and can be made to fit the existing form factor by modifying slightly the home button and moving the speaker close to the edge. It would fit an additional row of icons.
Possibly, a new design with a 568 x 320 display would be a bit longer, so it could also be made slightly narrower (yet hold a battery with the same volume). For the sake of simplicity, the actual resolution could end up being rounded to 560 x 320 and achieve essentially the same effect.
If this "widescreen" iPhone were sold at the high end, the current "standard" format would be the low end, especially if they take 3G away. You would get two phones, clearly separated, but both good and app-store compatible. Meanwhile, Apple will probably ax the classic iPod 5G, so overall product count would remain the same.
I think a better solution would be to increase the pixel density. if you double the resolution in both the x and y planes to 960x640 but maintain the same screen size then the iphone can simply display legacy apps such that every pixel from the iphone 3G is represented by 4 pixels in the newer iphone. Everything maintains the same relative look and touchable elements remain the same size.
Newer apps can take advantage of the new resolution for sharper images.
A shame we can't say that about Apples computers anymore, anything computer related is just an after thought these days.
Hardly. New unibody Macbooks launched Fall of last year, and this year we have Snow Leopard coming which means that we won't see major hardware revisions until closer to the Snow Leopard launch.
The one advantage the AppleTV (I own one) has over the other two options is that I can rent most of the current movie releases, and rent them in HD. I don't rent that many movies, so for me it's actually more economical that Netflix. Netflix will be a problem for the AppleTV if they start providing a way to stream new releases, even if at an extra cost.
Another thing is that a lot of us have our digital music in iTunes, so if you have your ATV attached to your stereo, you have an interface to your music collection, made especially nice by the iPhone/Touch remote app.
Thirdly, I can rip DVDs I own using Handbrake to watch on the AppleTV, especially useful if you don't want your kids damaging the DVDs you've purchased.
All of this with wireless automatic syncing. I really like the thing, not that there isn't room for a lot of improvement.
3) An iPhone will always include: 480x320 res screen and 3.5" touchscreen simply because of the App Store. Messing with either one will cause WAY too many problems when you've got thousands of applications and millions of iPhones/iPod Touches to support.
4) Because of point two, there will NEVER be an iPhone nano. It simply does not make sense, when the App Store is a cash cow in an of itself. Remember that Apple sells software mainly to sell hardware (similar to iTunes/iPod model). Doesn't make sense to cut off that revenue stream.
You are obviously completely new to Apple, business, economics, technology and how it all works together. My guess is your Amish on your fist day off the fields.
1. Apple doesn't give a shit about screen resolution, it chooses to revolutionize instead.
2. Apple doesn't give a shit about who did what on the App store, it's not their software.
3. Apple doesn't give a shit about their old phones, they want you to buy a new one.
Changing the screen size ensures that people will have towrite new apps for the phone, people will have to re-purchase the same software, and they will sell more phones. Apple doesn't support all the 3rd party applications, it's a win win for them.
An iPhone nano just means more people buying more apps from the store. More people buying phones.
Your thinking is very Microsoft or Auto industry in nature. It's not what progressive companies do.
Apple doesn't create paradigms, it innovates and develops new technologies, lets the industry stifle itself in it's own paradigm, then smash's it with something new.
I think a better solution would be to increase the pixel density. if you double the resolution in both the x and y planes to 960x640 but maintain the same screen size then the iphone can simply display legacy apps such that every pixel from the iphone 3G is represented by 4 pixels in the newer iphone. Everything maintains the same relative look and touchable elements remain the same size.
Newer apps can take advantage of the new resolution for sharper images.
Agreed. Doubling the pixel density is the only way that Apple could guarantee 3rd party application compatibility - especially for games.
Is 960x640 feasible? I've certainly seen phones with that level of pixel density. However, the highest resolution screen that I've seen on a cell phone to data is "only" 800x480.
Agreed. Doubling the pixel density is the only way that Apple could guarantee 3rd party application compatibility - especially for games.
Is 960x640 feasible? I've certainly seen phones with that level of pixel density. However, the highest resolution screen that I've seen on a cell phone to data is "only" 800x480.
You guys are talking about four times, not two times, the pixel density. This requires four times the CPU/GPU power and lots more memory, just to get the same performance. iPhone pixel density is already very high. It could be higher, but only people with outstanding eyesight would benefit.
I would be highly surprised to see 960 x 640 on the current 3.5" screen any time soon. It might make sense several years down the road, with better mobile CPU and GPU performance.
A 960 x 640 resolution would make sense today, in a 7" tablet / reader device.
2. Apple doesn't give a shit about who did what on the App store, it's not their software.
3. Apple doesn't give a shit about their old phones, they want you to buy a new one.
Apple is actually quite careful with developers, more so than Microsoft. The smooth transition to Intel is but one example. XCode and Cocoa are stable development platforms as well.
The iPhone connector has not changed since it was introduced with the iPod.
Backward compatibility matters to Apple.
Apple does drop features that no longer make sense earlier than others do. But they don't introduce disruptive change for the sake of change, which is what Microsoft does.
As for the old phones, the fact that all iPhones can be upgraded to new firmware should tell you something. If you bought an iPhone 18 months ago and still have it, you have today a far more capable device than the one you bought.
Apple is actually quite careful with developers, more so than Microsoft. The smooth transition to Intel is but one example. XCode and Cocoa are stable development platforms as well.
The iPhone connector has not changed since it was introduced with the iPod.
Backward compatibility matters to Apple.
Apple does drop features that no longer make sense earlier than others do. But they don't introduce disruptive change for the sake of change, which is what Microsoft does.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
Cigarette lighter chargers that worked with the original iPhone didn't work with 3G, so whatever they changed my be the same reason for the loss of FW charging. Why they made any change I'd beyond me, but the new A/C plug is considerably smaller.
PS: While unlikely, I'm hoping that they drop the 30-pin connector in favour for mDP. This allows for a smaller connector and the ponential for faster adoption and easier connectivity to a TV for HD output.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
I know they could be better. But each one of my four Motorola phones previous to my iPhone used completely incompatible plugs. Granted, I don't replace cell phones too frequently, and models change and so forth.
But still, I think it's fair to say that Apple somewhat better than average; it's certainly not the worst by any means.
Is that good enough? If you care about needless obsolescence or the environment, no, it's not. We need Apple to improve. But I'd hardly say the company is in "doesn't give a shit" territory when it comes to backward compatibility.
Comments
Expected. This just show that the majority of targeted MB buyers don't care about Firewire.
lol...so true...i was a little skeptical at first, but only b/c my external HD is firewire. However by the time i'm ready to upgrade my MB i'll be willing to buy a new HD as well (probably just gonna go with Time Capsule actually). All the hoopla about lack of FW has clearly blown over and - once again - apple knows what what we want LONG before we do!
In terms of a more versatile and larger iPod Touch -- to serve as a very portable multifunction reader (Apple's answer to Kindle), gaming device and as an Apple's answer to the very popular NetBook -- a full function Mac OS may provide more advanced capabilities.
As to buying new softwares, note that more than 90%(?) of iPhone/iPod Touch Applications are free, and perhaps more than 99% are low price or free. I am not sure how many iPhone/iPod Touch owners have invested hundreds or thousands of dollars for downloaded applications already.
There might be a reason why Apple created a separate higher end gaming applications. More complex gaming applications may be better served by a full function Mac OS. This may be true also for other applications.
Serious gamers may not be too aversed to buy another higher end version (upgrade?) of their favorite games. Moreover, other potential users of portable larger iPod Touch, such those who plan to use it as readers, as a complex device for photo edit or graphic applications may welcome a full function Mac OS.
A simplified iPhone OS was needed for a number of reasons: the limits of phone and WiFi transmission technologies, current technologies for the RAM and other audio-visual functions and more likely the full function Mac OS drains the battery much faster or cause excessive heat generation (just speculating for the latter possibilities). Speed in transmissions, battery life, and chip technologies and the Mac OS Snow Leopard may make it more feasible to circumvent the current limitations of the iPhone. Moreover, a larger iPod Touch will have more space for more complex chips and other components and more powerful batteries.
Expected. This just show that the majority of targeted MB buyers don't care about Firewire.
I think everyone agrees that at&t is Apple's weakest link and once they are free of that stone around their neck, the iPhone will really find it's true potential as a consumer electronics product.
I agree 100%. I'm on AT&T with the iPhone 3G, and if I had the option to be on Verizon, I'd be on it. They'd sell more phones on other carriers than making a cheaper version.
I agree 100%. I'm on AT&T with the iPhone 3G, and if I had the option to be on Verizon, I'd be on it. They'd sell more phones on other carriers than making a cheaper version.
Oh man, I am so with you. I am unfortunately using a Blackberry 8830 on Verizon as I'm stuck on a small business account and it's not going to change anytime soon.
Could you guys imagine how many iPhones Apple would sell once they are available on all major carriers??? Even just adding Verizon into the fold would EASILY sell another 10+ million alone in 2009!
I'm pretty sure that a drop in resolution or screen size is not in the cards. I don't see much justification for higher resolution at the existing screen size, but there is space to make the screen longer in the current form factor. Existing fixed resolution applications would run fine in a "compatibility box" within that screen, while those applications that have vertical scrolling (lists, documents, Web pages) would simply use the additional room and require no changes.
A 568 x 320 display would be 16:9. A 512 x 320 display would be 16:10. A 568 x 320 display would have a 4" diagonal and can be made to fit the existing form factor by modifying slightly the home button and moving the speaker close to the edge. It would fit an additional row of icons.
Possibly, a new design with a 568 x 320 display would be a bit longer, so it could also be made slightly narrower (yet hold a battery with the same volume). For the sake of simplicity, the actual resolution could end up being rounded to 560 x 320 and achieve essentially the same effect.
If this "widescreen" iPhone were sold at the high end, the current "standard" format would be the low end, especially if they take 3G away. You would get two phones, clearly separated, but both good and app-store compatible. Meanwhile, Apple will probably ax the classic iPod 5G, so overall product count would remain the same.
I think a better solution would be to increase the pixel density. if you double the resolution in both the x and y planes to 960x640 but maintain the same screen size then the iphone can simply display legacy apps such that every pixel from the iphone 3G is represented by 4 pixels in the newer iphone. Everything maintains the same relative look and touchable elements remain the same size.
Newer apps can take advantage of the new resolution for sharper images.
Cook and Schiller in particular have teased a "very exciting" 2009 for iPhones.
A shame we can't say that about Apples computers anymore, anything computer related is just an after thought these days.
A shame we can't say that about Apples computers anymore, anything computer related is just an after thought these days.
Hardly. New unibody Macbooks launched Fall of last year, and this year we have Snow Leopard coming which means that we won't see major hardware revisions until closer to the Snow Leopard launch.
Another thing is that a lot of us have our digital music in iTunes, so if you have your ATV attached to your stereo, you have an interface to your music collection, made especially nice by the iPhone/Touch remote app.
Thirdly, I can rip DVDs I own using Handbrake to watch on the AppleTV, especially useful if you don't want your kids damaging the DVDs you've purchased.
All of this with wireless automatic syncing. I really like the thing, not that there isn't room for a lot of improvement.
3) An iPhone will always include: 480x320 res screen and 3.5" touchscreen simply because of the App Store. Messing with either one will cause WAY too many problems when you've got thousands of applications and millions of iPhones/iPod Touches to support.
4) Because of point two, there will NEVER be an iPhone nano. It simply does not make sense, when the App Store is a cash cow in an of itself. Remember that Apple sells software mainly to sell hardware (similar to iTunes/iPod model). Doesn't make sense to cut off that revenue stream.
You are obviously completely new to Apple, business, economics, technology and how it all works together. My guess is your Amish on your fist day off the fields.
1. Apple doesn't give a shit about screen resolution, it chooses to revolutionize instead.
2. Apple doesn't give a shit about who did what on the App store, it's not their software.
3. Apple doesn't give a shit about their old phones, they want you to buy a new one.
Changing the screen size ensures that people will have towrite new apps for the phone, people will have to re-purchase the same software, and they will sell more phones. Apple doesn't support all the 3rd party applications, it's a win win for them.
An iPhone nano just means more people buying more apps from the store. More people buying phones.
Your thinking is very Microsoft or Auto industry in nature. It's not what progressive companies do.
Apple doesn't create paradigms, it innovates and develops new technologies, lets the industry stifle itself in it's own paradigm, then smash's it with something new.
Dude, seriously... think different.
I think a better solution would be to increase the pixel density. if you double the resolution in both the x and y planes to 960x640 but maintain the same screen size then the iphone can simply display legacy apps such that every pixel from the iphone 3G is represented by 4 pixels in the newer iphone. Everything maintains the same relative look and touchable elements remain the same size.
Newer apps can take advantage of the new resolution for sharper images.
Agreed. Doubling the pixel density is the only way that Apple could guarantee 3rd party application compatibility - especially for games.
Is 960x640 feasible? I've certainly seen phones with that level of pixel density. However, the highest resolution screen that I've seen on a cell phone to data is "only" 800x480.
Agreed. Doubling the pixel density is the only way that Apple could guarantee 3rd party application compatibility - especially for games.
Is 960x640 feasible? I've certainly seen phones with that level of pixel density. However, the highest resolution screen that I've seen on a cell phone to data is "only" 800x480.
You guys are talking about four times, not two times, the pixel density. This requires four times the CPU/GPU power and lots more memory, just to get the same performance. iPhone pixel density is already very high. It could be higher, but only people with outstanding eyesight would benefit.
I would be highly surprised to see 960 x 640 on the current 3.5" screen any time soon. It might make sense several years down the road, with better mobile CPU and GPU performance.
A 960 x 640 resolution would make sense today, in a 7" tablet / reader device.
2. Apple doesn't give a shit about who did what on the App store, it's not their software.
3. Apple doesn't give a shit about their old phones, they want you to buy a new one.
Apple is actually quite careful with developers, more so than Microsoft. The smooth transition to Intel is but one example. XCode and Cocoa are stable development platforms as well.
The iPhone connector has not changed since it was introduced with the iPod.
Backward compatibility matters to Apple.
Apple does drop features that no longer make sense earlier than others do. But they don't introduce disruptive change for the sake of change, which is what Microsoft does.
As for the old phones, the fact that all iPhones can be upgraded to new firmware should tell you something. If you bought an iPhone 18 months ago and still have it, you have today a far more capable device than the one you bought.
Apple is actually quite careful with developers, more so than Microsoft. The smooth transition to Intel is but one example. XCode and Cocoa are stable development platforms as well.
The iPhone connector has not changed since it was introduced with the iPod.
Backward compatibility matters to Apple.
Apple does drop features that no longer make sense earlier than others do. But they don't introduce disruptive change for the sake of change, which is what Microsoft does.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
Cigarette lighter chargers that worked with the original iPhone didn't work with 3G, so whatever they changed my be the same reason for the loss of FW charging. Why they made any change I'd beyond me, but the new A/C plug is considerably smaller.
PS: While unlikely, I'm hoping that they drop the 30-pin connector in favour for mDP. This allows for a smaller connector and the ponential for faster adoption and easier connectivity to a TV for HD output.
They did drop the compatibility with the old voice recording system to put it into the dock connector - an action which meant that new iPods couldn't record for nearly a year, and when they finally came out, the new devices costed as much as twice as much as the previous ones did. They dropped video out from the top jack on new models for one in the dock, meaning your old video adapter was useless if you bought a new iPod. They also dropped Firewire syncing, and later, Firewire dock connector charging. Syncing, I understand as that takes an extra IC, but dropping FW charging really doesn't make much sense to me.
I know they could be better. But each one of my four Motorola phones previous to my iPhone used completely incompatible plugs. Granted, I don't replace cell phones too frequently, and models change and so forth.
But still, I think it's fair to say that Apple somewhat better than average; it's certainly not the worst by any means.
Is that good enough? If you care about needless obsolescence or the environment, no, it's not. We need Apple to improve. But I'd hardly say the company is in "doesn't give a shit" territory when it comes to backward compatibility.