has anyone noticed how horribly cramped and unreadable the Pre apps are starting to look? They do not look well-designed or easy to navigate. The more 3rd-party apps I see for the Pre the more it reminds me of a stylus-reliant Palm Treo. If they keep this up, I may need to dump my stock much sooner than I thought.
And yes I am well aware there are some crappy shareware recorders for the iPhone which can grab a few seconds of wobbly motion.
1) The iPhone (1st gen and Second gen (3G) hardware has a pretty crappy camera chip which takes about a 1/10s to pull the data off it.
Not only does this mean you struggle to get more than 8 or 9 frames per second. But the top of the frame is a whole tenth of a second in front of the bottom. For capturing motion this "rolling shutter" is extremely sucky. Any action is reduced to jello like motion.
In short, any captured video footage looks doubly shitty. And Apple has an allergy to shitty features. Better leave the feature out.
2) There's no hardware to compress the video to a small size. The shareware apps ignore this and simply fill the iPhone with data - till it runs out. To compress a movie down to a nice H264 would take the iPhone's processor about 3 minutes and the CPU would start to melt the case by the time it had finished.
3) If people had the option of video recording, suddenly they'd want to mail the movie to their buddies as an email attachment. And while Apple might be cool with this - the carriers would whine bitterly about people UPLOADING 10MB attachments.
The decision to leave out video was not mean-spirited, or crooked. It was just smart. Let's leave out this feature until some point in the future when we can do it properly. The market didn't seem to mind the omission too much.
The next iPhone rev will probably have a decent imaging chip, a hardware encoder and .., who knows ... the phone network might be able to cope with video attachments.
C.
+++ and thank you.
I've seen the video from a jail break app, it looks awful.
The idea that Apple "could" have enabled video at any time and didn't just to be assholes, or that the fact that video will most likely be limited to the new hardware is an artificial limitation to drive sales, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The imaging chip in the current iPhone can't make decent video. Therefore, Apple won't use it for video. When they put a chip in the phone that can, then they might.
Could they have put a chip that did decent video in the iPhone in the first place? Sure. But hardware design, especially power and space constrained hardware design, is all about tradeoffs. Size, heat, power consumption, complexity, price, getting something to market, and doing something well as opposes to just ticking off a box on a features list. They concentrated on what they considered primary functionality, done very well, in the smallest possible package with the best possible battery life for that size and weight.
Did they imagine that the might put a better imaging chip in the iPhone at some point (or better anything else)? Of course. Did they plan on hardware improving overtime as a mechanism to drive sales? Duh. That's the nature of the hardware business.
Remember when everyone was sure that Apple didn't make a 3G phone in the first place because they were stupid or conniving? And Apple said they were waiting for more power efficient radios? And then such radios became available, and Apple used them, and the 3G iPhone still has to trade some battery life for that functionality? Yeah, it's like that.
And it doesn't matter what other phones do, because each of those phones themselves have made design decisions based on tradeoffs. They may be bigger, heavier, have shorter battery life, a worse screen, leave off some other functionality such as WiFi, etc.
Comparing any individual feature across phones tells me nothing, without talking about the entire package and knowing what tradeoffs were made.
You can always disagree with the choices made on a particular phone, but imagining that because one phone has one feature that another lacks, the latter phone must be intentionally crippled is just plain ignorant.
has anyone noticed how horribly cramped and unreadable the Pre apps are starting to look? They do not look well-designed or easy to navigate. The more 3rd-party apps I see for the Pre the more it reminds me of a stylus-reliant Palm Treo. If they keep this up, I may need to dump my stock much sooner than I thought.
Maybe that's why there isn't an onscreen keyboard, just the physical one. No room.
BTW, anyone arguing that Apple withholds features artificially to drive new hardware sales might want to take a look at this massive list of software enhancements that iPhone owners have gotten, for free, since the initial release.
Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?
And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.
The iPhone is a platform. It will improve over time. A lot of that improvement will come as software enhancements, which, owing to the iPhone's subscription pricing structure, will be free. Some of it will come as hardware enhancements, which, owing to the nature of hardware, will come about as a result of improving tech and require purchasing same.
That's the inevitable process of consumer electronics.
Here's a game: what bell and whistles, after the coming new hardware release, is Apple "artificially" withholding? There must be something, because otherwise how will they get you to buy the new new phone, when it becomes available in a year or two?
If you can't say now, then you have no argument to make. Of course, that won't keep folks from waiting a year, seeing what else hits the market, and then claiming that Apple "should have" included whatever in the upcoming release, and they chose not to to fleece their fan boys.
pre is based on well structured exposure when we can hold touch play with and review sites have an impartial review then we can tell how it will impact the market
as fast as sprint AND palm has burned through $$$$$ its a game of chicken who falters first
also putting their eggs in this basket means why buy any palm anything till it comes out
also....a bird in the hand (iphone, rim) is worth two pre in the bush
go with a known then an unknown, also who will be here 1-2-3 years from now
hate to have your phone where the carrier crashes before your contract is up
OR
your contract is longer than the life of the phone maker company
i wouldn't buy a pre for the above reasons, perhaps iphone or rim, maybe nokia, but the rest of the smart phone vendors may have to merge, refocus to stay in business
i predict much consolidation over the next 6-18 months
why, who has strong OS, apple, rim, who else??? pre? will sprint even be here.
BTW, anyone arguing that Apple withholds features artificially to drive new hardware sales might want to take a look at this massive list of software enhancements that iPhone owners have gotten, for free, since the initial release.
Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?
And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.
So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?
You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.
Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.
So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.
So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?
You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.
Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.
So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.
The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.
So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.
Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.
You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.
The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.
So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.
Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.
You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.
Seeing as there are several MMS apps in the iPhone App Store again you are throwing around unsupported speculation. Swirly MMS is using some service other than AT&T's service. There are some MMS apps that create a short cut to downloading MMS using the web code that AT&T provides when the iPhone receives an MMS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
Seeing as there are several MMS apps in the iPhone App Store again you are throwing around unsupported speculation. Swirly MMS is using some service other than AT&T's service. There are some MMS apps that create a short cut to downloading MMS using the web code that AT&T provides when the iPhone receives an MMS.
The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.
Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.
Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.
I would call that a fact.
That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.
The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.
The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.
Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.
Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)
But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.
As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.
Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.
If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.
That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.
The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.
If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.
But you know something, even if Apple simply didn't want to deliver MMS in favor of e-mail, I could understand that. It could be a combination of the two. They didn't think the phone was capable of doing it properly, and they weren't in a hurry to deliver the service.
That wouldn't surprise me.
But as for other features I would disagree strongly to people that Apple deliberately held back.
I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.
If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.
They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.
The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...
"An unfortunate scenario when you consider that MMS -- touted as a natural successor to SMS -- was a mobile data application that was originally intended for 3G only."
"MMS over GPRS doesn't overshadow MMS over 3G because the former is a bit clumsy and MMS is a lot richer in a UMTS environment." He also highlights that the additional capacity that 3G will provide permits operators to deal with lots of traffic more effectively. "After all, we have already, seen delays in the reception of SMS due to the volume of traffic,"
"GPRS works fine for MMS but as the technology grows and becomes richer -- the need to go to 3G for additional bandwidth will definitely be there."
I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).
But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.
As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.
Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.
If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.
You have to allow for that.
This is dust as well. No one is claiming that there would be trade-offs that would make the experience "un-Apple-like" and thus Apple simply choose to do what they wanted to do with regard to this. People put this argument forward with regard to multitasking and it is plausible given the state of technology and the memory of the phone.
However much less capable and much older phones than this do MMS and Apple didn't say experience or too bad, they claimed the radio couldn't transmit the data.
If it were a contract matter then Apple should explain it as such. People easily understand this is why the iPod Touch gets charged for updates while the iPhone does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.
Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.
The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.
We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.
This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
I thought I clearly stated that the lack of MMS from the original iPhone and it being only a 3G tech is fishy as much lesser phones have MMS. I said there are legitimate technical reasons why other things weren't added to the original v1.0 iPhone software and that any proof that MMS is artificially being held back from original iPhones does not invalidate those other technical limitations.
However, as I stated in a later post, I speculated that the technical limitation may not be with the iPhone but with AT&T's ability to handle excessive EDGE uploads. To say that because the iPhone can handle it that every other part can handle it is shortsided, at best. For all we know AT&T is the one that kept MMS out of the original iPhone. It just a scenario, not a declaration of fact, but as I stated something is fishy which means we are not getting the full picture.
They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.
The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...
"An unfortunate scenario when you consider that MMS -- touted as a natural successor to SMS -- was a mobile data application that was originally intended for 3G only."
"MMS over GPRS doesn't overshadow MMS over 3G because the former is a bit clumsy and MMS is a lot richer in a UMTS environment." He also highlights that the additional capacity that 3G will provide permits operators to deal with lots of traffic more effectively. "After all, we have already, seen delays in the reception of SMS due to the volume of traffic,"
"GPRS works fine for MMS but as the technology grows and becomes richer -- the need to go to 3G for additional bandwidth will definitely be there."
I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).
I'm happy you found that, as it points out what I just said. What I read was from late 2007, so I don't remember how to find that article. But every carrier will be affected in the same way.
Two years ago, I didn't see much SMS or MMS use here in the US. I didn't think it would be important. No one I knew or spoke to really used it, including the many teenagers I spoke to at my daughters school, which is one with a very large base of technologically knowledgeable kids.
But, over that time, things changed, and last year, a trillion SMS and MMS's were sent in the US.
Apple wants to give the best experience, and no doubt, the most advanced. It's not surprising they feel as though the older phone wasn't capable of doing that.
Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.
The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.
We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.
This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.
So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.
C.
My first thoughts are,
• "Then wouldn't the original iPhones be unable to get the v3.0 software altogether?"
• "If it's under 24 months from the first launch of the iPhone or under 24 months from the time you bought your original iPhone wouldn't you be eligible?"
• "If the iPod Touch gets v3.0 for pay because of SOx, and if this was the case for the original iPhone, why not just charge them a fee for the MMS upgrade?"
There is something deeper here. I doubt it is actually sinister as many are claiming, but we are certainly not seeing a full picture.
Comments
It's not an artificial limitation.
And yes I am well aware there are some crappy shareware recorders for the iPhone which can grab a few seconds of wobbly motion.
1) The iPhone (1st gen and Second gen (3G) hardware has a pretty crappy camera chip which takes about a 1/10s to pull the data off it.
Not only does this mean you struggle to get more than 8 or 9 frames per second. But the top of the frame is a whole tenth of a second in front of the bottom. For capturing motion this "rolling shutter" is extremely sucky. Any action is reduced to jello like motion.
In short, any captured video footage looks doubly shitty. And Apple has an allergy to shitty features. Better leave the feature out.
2) There's no hardware to compress the video to a small size. The shareware apps ignore this and simply fill the iPhone with data - till it runs out. To compress a movie down to a nice H264 would take the iPhone's processor about 3 minutes and the CPU would start to melt the case by the time it had finished.
3) If people had the option of video recording, suddenly they'd want to mail the movie to their buddies as an email attachment. And while Apple might be cool with this - the carriers would whine bitterly about people UPLOADING 10MB attachments.
The decision to leave out video was not mean-spirited, or crooked. It was just smart. Let's leave out this feature until some point in the future when we can do it properly. The market didn't seem to mind the omission too much.
The next iPhone rev will probably have a decent imaging chip, a hardware encoder and .., who knows ... the phone network might be able to cope with video attachments.
C.
+++ and thank you.
I've seen the video from a jail break app, it looks awful.
The idea that Apple "could" have enabled video at any time and didn't just to be assholes, or that the fact that video will most likely be limited to the new hardware is an artificial limitation to drive sales, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The imaging chip in the current iPhone can't make decent video. Therefore, Apple won't use it for video. When they put a chip in the phone that can, then they might.
Could they have put a chip that did decent video in the iPhone in the first place? Sure. But hardware design, especially power and space constrained hardware design, is all about tradeoffs. Size, heat, power consumption, complexity, price, getting something to market, and doing something well as opposes to just ticking off a box on a features list. They concentrated on what they considered primary functionality, done very well, in the smallest possible package with the best possible battery life for that size and weight.
Did they imagine that the might put a better imaging chip in the iPhone at some point (or better anything else)? Of course. Did they plan on hardware improving overtime as a mechanism to drive sales? Duh. That's the nature of the hardware business.
Remember when everyone was sure that Apple didn't make a 3G phone in the first place because they were stupid or conniving? And Apple said they were waiting for more power efficient radios? And then such radios became available, and Apple used them, and the 3G iPhone still has to trade some battery life for that functionality? Yeah, it's like that.
And it doesn't matter what other phones do, because each of those phones themselves have made design decisions based on tradeoffs. They may be bigger, heavier, have shorter battery life, a worse screen, leave off some other functionality such as WiFi, etc.
Comparing any individual feature across phones tells me nothing, without talking about the entire package and knowing what tradeoffs were made.
You can always disagree with the choices made on a particular phone, but imagining that because one phone has one feature that another lacks, the latter phone must be intentionally crippled is just plain ignorant.
has anyone noticed how horribly cramped and unreadable the Pre apps are starting to look? They do not look well-designed or easy to navigate. The more 3rd-party apps I see for the Pre the more it reminds me of a stylus-reliant Palm Treo. If they keep this up, I may need to dump my stock much sooner than I thought.
Maybe that's why there isn't an onscreen keyboard, just the physical one. No room.
Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?
And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.
The iPhone is a platform. It will improve over time. A lot of that improvement will come as software enhancements, which, owing to the iPhone's subscription pricing structure, will be free. Some of it will come as hardware enhancements, which, owing to the nature of hardware, will come about as a result of improving tech and require purchasing same.
That's the inevitable process of consumer electronics.
Here's a game: what bell and whistles, after the coming new hardware release, is Apple "artificially" withholding? There must be something, because otherwise how will they get you to buy the new new phone, when it becomes available in a year or two?
If you can't say now, then you have no argument to make. Of course, that won't keep folks from waiting a year, seeing what else hits the market, and then claiming that Apple "should have" included whatever in the upcoming release, and they chose not to to fleece their fan boys.
Because some folks are fucking idiots.
as fast as sprint AND palm has burned through $$$$$ its a game of chicken who falters first
also putting their eggs in this basket means why buy any palm anything till it comes out
also....a bird in the hand (iphone, rim) is worth two pre in the bush
go with a known then an unknown, also who will be here 1-2-3 years from now
hate to have your phone where the carrier crashes before your contract is up
OR
your contract is longer than the life of the phone maker company
i wouldn't buy a pre for the above reasons, perhaps iphone or rim, maybe nokia, but the rest of the smart phone vendors may have to merge, refocus to stay in business
i predict much consolidation over the next 6-18 months
why, who has strong OS, apple, rim, who else??? pre? will sprint even be here.
BTW, anyone arguing that Apple withholds features artificially to drive new hardware sales might want to take a look at this massive list of software enhancements that iPhone owners have gotten, for free, since the initial release.
Maybe someone can point me to another phone OS, from a presumably less greedy vendor, which has seen this level and pace of improvement?
And please don't tell me that Apple is simply providing what they "should" have included from the start. That's a brain dead argument that could be applied to each and every software and hardware product in the world, from the beginning of time.
So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?
You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.
Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.
So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.
So you want someone to explain this to you, but they can't use the argument you don't want to hear because that would undermine your point?
You are correct that Apple has added new functionality with releases and that is very cool. However a very good chunk of your own link is in fact, bug fixes and features that should (or will be included since they were not) have from the beginning.
Finally it isn't even like Apple is 100% altruistic since a good chunk of the updates had to do with making the app store and content available which nets Apple money.
So credit where do, but most of us aren't going to put on the blinders and just refuse to hear arguments and valid points.
The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.
So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.
Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.
You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.
The point to a lot of this is first of all, you can't prove that Apple has been withholding features, though it does sound like a lot of fun inventing yet another conspiracy theory.
So you can just say that you think Apple has been doing this, you can't state it as a fact.
Even though some of that is bug fixes, there are a large number of new major features.
You also have to look back in time to the other mobile platforms to see how long it took for them to evolve. It took a while.
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.
I would call that a fact.
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
Seeing as there are several MMS apps in the iPhone App Store again you are throwing around unsupported speculation. Swirly MMS is using some service other than AT&T's service. There are some MMS apps that create a short cut to downloading MMS using the web code that AT&T provides when the iPhone receives an MMS.
The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.
Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.
Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)
Actually it is very easy to prove Apple has and continues to withhold features. With the release of 3.0, Apple will not allow the original iPhone to do MMS claiming it is a radio issue. Meanwhile on jailbroken original iPhones, SwirlyMMSs sends and receives those messages just fine in the past and future.
I can see the point of Adda and others noting that Apple might not add video due to the unsatisfactory performance of the original camera chip. However there is really no logical reason that first iPhone cannot do MMS.
I would call that a fact.
That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.
The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.
The claim and reality stands regardless of the dust tossed up. The MMS support issue IS NOT hardware related. 2G phones and the 2g iPhone are capable of dealing with MMS. Apple claims it cannot due to hardware limitations. That is clearly a lie.
Please realize that noting there are several apps, even apps that take different approaches all just prove that it is possible to have the iPhone send MMS messages.
Before you wander off and toss up more dust, please support the claim that the 2G iPhone CANNOT send or receive MMS messages due to the radio in it as Apple claims. Myself nor should anyone else be expected to consider your half-assertions and inferences to be proof of anything. (example it uses a non-AT&T MMS service which proves what again?)
But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.
As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.
Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.
If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.
You have to allow for that.
That's not a good example. What Apple wants to do, in the way they want to do it, and the way some third party jailbroken app does it could be very different.
The software isn't even out yet, nor is the new phone. Until it is, your example doesn't hold.
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.
If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.
But you know something, even if Apple simply didn't want to deliver MMS in favor of e-mail, I could understand that. It could be a combination of the two. They didn't think the phone was capable of doing it properly, and they weren't in a hurry to deliver the service.
That wouldn't surprise me.
But as for other features I would disagree strongly to people that Apple deliberately held back.
I read somewhere that MMS is moving to 3G. If so, and I have no reason to not believe that, then the question is what will happen to all the older MMS services? Will they be killed? That seems to be the point.
If that's true, and Apple is looking to the new standards to implement this, then the old radio may not be sufficient.
They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.
The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).
But his statements are true, no matter what you are saying here.
As I said, Apple could want to do this in a way that would b much better, but would tax the current hardware more.
Like it or not, Apple can do things the way they think is best. The fact that they can be done in a way that AT&T, or other services may not like is important to note. Almost no one uses these other methods now, so they get away with it. But if all iPhone users did, its very possible that AT&T, along with the other carriers, would not be happy, and that devolves back to Apple, whether you like that idea or not.
If Apple must remain within the rules the contracts allow, then they can't do certain things the way the jailbreakers do.
You have to allow for that.
This is dust as well. No one is claiming that there would be trade-offs that would make the experience "un-Apple-like" and thus Apple simply choose to do what they wanted to do with regard to this. People put this argument forward with regard to multitasking and it is plausible given the state of technology and the memory of the phone.
However much less capable and much older phones than this do MMS and Apple didn't say experience or too bad, they claimed the radio couldn't transmit the data.
If it were a contract matter then Apple should explain it as such. People easily understand this is why the iPod Touch gets charged for updates while the iPhone does not.
His example isn't great, but there is something fishy about MMS. The majority of phones capable of MMS don't have 3G, only EDGE or even GPRS, and they can send and receive MMS. I think that only a WAP capable phone is required.
So why did Apple state that it was a 3G technology. It is a 3GPP tech, but that, as you know, is completely different.
If there is any evidence that Apple is artificially limiting their software to push new devices then I think this is the best example, based on current data. However, I vehemently disagree with Trumptman's assertion that it would prove that anything else that came after the the 1.0 release of the iPhone was just to push the sales of later devices, and not because of technical reasons.
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.
Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.
The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.
We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.
This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.
So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.
C.
So you think there are legitimate technical reasons for claiming that a 2G iPhone cannot process MMS messages while claiming much older and less capable phones that all receive and send on the same frequences, etc. can do this?
I thought I clearly stated that the lack of MMS from the original iPhone and it being only a 3G tech is fishy as much lesser phones have MMS. I said there are legitimate technical reasons why other things weren't added to the original v1.0 iPhone software and that any proof that MMS is artificially being held back from original iPhones does not invalidate those other technical limitations.
However, as I stated in a later post, I speculated that the technical limitation may not be with the iPhone but with AT&T's ability to handle excessive EDGE uploads. To say that because the iPhone can handle it that every other part can handle it is shortsided, at best. For all we know AT&T is the one that kept MMS out of the original iPhone. It just a scenario, not a declaration of fact, but as I stated something is fishy which means we are not getting the full picture.
They are including some things that most MMS-capable phones can't do. Sending of vCards is pretty nifty, though would be very low data. Can audio and video be sent over non-3G phones via MMS? The standard allows it, but do the handset software and the carrier's allow it.
The article below from June 2000 states some interesting things...I wonder if this wasn't more of an AT&T decision with their EDGE networks already swamped with data or that Apple is actually pushing the envelope with a much more rich MMS app that is only viable with 3G (in the US).
I'm happy you found that, as it points out what I just said. What I read was from late 2007, so I don't remember how to find that article. But every carrier will be affected in the same way.
Two years ago, I didn't see much SMS or MMS use here in the US. I didn't think it would be important. No one I knew or spoke to really used it, including the many teenagers I spoke to at my daughters school, which is one with a very large base of technologically knowledgeable kids.
But, over that time, things changed, and last year, a trillion SMS and MMS's were sent in the US.
Apple wants to give the best experience, and no doubt, the most advanced. It's not surprising they feel as though the older phone wasn't capable of doing that.
I think this is SarbanesOxley at work.
Apple recognizes the sales revenue from iPhone sales as a series of payments over 24 months. In that period it can legitimately deliver new features to iPhone users free of charge.
The iPod touch does not share this revenue model. So all new features have to be paid for with an upgrade fee.
We are getting close to the point where some first-gen iPhones are now out of the subscription window - And Apple may not be able to add features for free.
This is just a guess - and it could be argued that cut-and-paste is just as much a new feature as MMS.
So we will see when 3.0 is shipped.
C.
My first thoughts are,There is something deeper here. I doubt it is actually sinister as many are claiming, but we are certainly not seeing a full picture.