downloaded the original image & messed around with image levels in Pixelmator... this is what came up.
is this normal?
or does anyone think that this is just some (un)imaginative photoshop-job?
I thought that the pixels looked odd too, especially the discolouration on the right hand side figures. But, if you do a screen grab of your own "About" screen and open it in photoshop, the same discolouration is present.
I'd say the image is genuine, as for what it represents?
Nokia?? LOL, those other also-rans churn out derviatives and knock-offs so easily because they are nowhere near the iPhone experience. Not even in the same league, with their horrible interfaces, etc.
And Apple IS competing with rival phone makers, and quite impressively, too. Where have you been for the last year??
I was merely stating that the iphone not only needs to get better year by year in terms of software but also hardware,since its obvious from Apple's direction of acquiring PA Semi, and a host of other talents to get ahead of rivals in terms of hardware,dont tell me the iphone would still be a "HIT" with the current components 5 years down the road with no hardware alterations? The user experience,gui and ease of use is incredible but if you want to facilitate more features in it then of course its has to have the means to do so.
What do we all need in the current iphone 3g that's not there? Builtin MMS, Video Recording, Bluetooth File Transfer, Audio Recording etc etc so OS 3.0 give us all that and then what do we need on the hardware side? A better camera (you'll have it), better storage, faster loadings, FM (if true this will be great), double the ram (which makes a huge difference cause when we turn the iphone on it has around 30-35 mb of memory left and if we run all the apps that are allowed to run in the background like mail, safari, ipod then only around 8-10 mbs are left so double memory means even after running all those apps at once we'd still have over half the memory free which actually opens new horizons for the iphone to compete with the Palm Pre's much hyped multitasking). So what else there is to be asked for? It's gonna be a perfect update for apps hungry ppl like me.
3 last characters of serial number should give the device capacity. "3NR" looks weird again.
It's iPhone 3G model numbers, which begin with leading "MB...", iPhones of first generation showed "MA...". And the screen shot pretends the new model should still show "MB..."...
What do we all need in the current iphone 3g that's not there? Builtin MMS, Video Recording, Bluetooth File Transfer, Audio Recording etc etc so OS 3.0 give us all that and then what do we need on the hardware side? A better camera (you'll have it), better storage, faster loadings, FM (if true this will be great), double the ram (which makes a huge difference cause when we turn the iphone on it has around 30-35 mb of memory left and if we run all the apps that are allowed to run in the background like mail, safari, ipod then only around 8-10 mbs are left so double memory means even after running all those apps at once we'd still have over half the memory free which actually opens new horizons for the iphone to compete with the Palm Pre's much hyped multitasking). So what else there is to be asked for? It's gonna be a perfect update for apps hungry ppl like me.
We NEED a better battery. With more CPU processing and more memory, plus apps running in the background the current (see same as in original iPhone) battery in the iPhone 3G just won't cut it (it barely cuts it now if you use 3G).
I passed the image to a person who has iPhone OS 3.0 to take a look. All he said is FAKE but he did not comment the details. He is not an image expert as far as I know, so this decision seems to be made based on the content. He does not speak Chinese. He is not an Apple employee, just a regular iPhone developer, so no inside info on the subject. Someone with iPhone 3.0 - please check those table again.
May be it is the size already discussed. Those who contribute the large difference to the beta software, be aware that ALL iPhone 3.0 phones have a beta software! However, the reduced number of space could be due to installed apps or application data (e.g. cached Safari content or emails), so the only image does not need to be that large. The point is: we can not rule out the the possibility that the image is genuine based on the size alone.
I still say no FLASH spells trouble this time around. Not only are we in an epic terrible economy mind you, all the anti msft commercials, but with the pre palm coming this could be bad for apple, especially that contracts are expiring and plans could be cheaper, and then flash. Font try to sway someone who works in media, dreamweqver, rapid weaver, htmlcoding. Flash is everywhere, Hulu, myspace, MLB HD streaming, and all movie web sites, and the iPhone is supposed to be media friendly??? Not, spare me the QuickTime, heck even moststeaming rumors have to be reducituzed on YouTube before placed in macrumors a d appleinsider before we can see them. How ironic is that. Fkashwill make a difference this time and so will Palms Pre.
You watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
Oh boy....here we go with all of supposed "claims" of seeing prototypes and having access to supposed new Apple hardware. Happens every time!!!
The specifications given look quite believable, and it looks like they've attacked the biggest iPhone issues.
256MB RAM instead of 128MB - this will be a major improvement. I don't know how much iPhone OS eats up by itself, and how much is left for applications, but if there was 64MB available to applications before, now there will be 192MB (assuming in-memory footprint of iPhone OS doesn't increase with 3.0). Whatever, this would mean bigger, tastier games and applications, and mobile Safari could be a lot more usable.
600MHz ARM = 50% faster. This is a big change even if the CPU isn't an ARM Cortex A8. If it was, then that's probably more like 100% faster, but I suspect that this is a process shrink of the existing Samsung ARM SoC. The built-in graphics could also be faster as a result, but that will be difficult to ascertain. The memory was also on the same package as the SoC, so the bump to 256MB also supports there being a newer version of the SoC.
3.2MP camera - this was rumoured anyway.
FM Radio - this is part of the WiFi/Bluetooth controller, it only required an antenna to be attached, and an application. I suspect it will be used as a transmitter for in-car use. There was a rumour about this I vaguely recall. It's effectively a free feature to Apple to include.
The 3.5G instead of 3.1G is presumably because of HSUPA or something, just the version of 3G that was being used. Also might be because of a more up to date 3G controller in the new iPhone, although I thought the current iPhone supported 3.5 and that the new one might support 3.75, but I forget the exact details.
I was merely stating that the iphone not only needs to get better year by year in terms of software but also hardware,since its obvious from Apple's direction of acquiring PA Semi, and a host of other talents to get ahead of rivals in terms of hardware,dont tell me the iphone would still be a "HIT" with the current components 5 years down the road with no hardware alterations? The user experience,gui and ease of use is incredible but if you want to facilitate more features in it then of course its has to have the means to do so.
Well why wouldn't it get better year after year? What are you talking about?
256MB RAM instead of 128MB - this will be a major improvement. I don't know how much iPhone OS eats up by itself, and how much is left for applications, but if there was 64MB available to applications before, now there will be 192MB (assuming in-memory footprint of iPhone OS doesn't increase with 3.0). Whatever, this would mean bigger, tastier games and applications, and mobile Safari could be a lot more usable.
600MHz ARM = 50% faster. This is a big change even if the CPU isn't an ARM Cortex A8. If it was, then that's probably more like 100% faster, but I suspect that this is a process shrink of the existing Samsung ARM SoC. The built-in graphics could also be faster as a result, but that will be difficult to ascertain. The memory was also on the same package as the SoC, so the bump to 256MB also supports there being a newer version of the SoC.
Actually you're almost right on the ram case.
In my general tests when its sitting on Springboard, the iPhone consumes, without the iPod app running, around 60 - 65 MB. Thats in its unused state. (no 3rd party apps open).
Standard background apps (actual apps, not all processes) are the phone, mail, safari and the iPod itself.
While most productivity apps will generally find it hard to compromise the iPhone's memory from there, games will quite easily, so they get far more memory warnings (a feature in the OS to warn apps that memory usage over the entire system is growing critical) which they then have to handle.
Dammit! Still no specialized HD graphics processor. Will the 600 MHz processor be enough put the PSP out to pasture?
I think the upgrade is enough to get current iPhone owners to buy newer iPhones, but WS and the industry pundits are going to throw a fit. I'm certain they would expect to have the iPhone to sport full motion HD on an OLED screen. There won't be any video-conferencing camera either. The iPhone will be claimed to be so far behind the industry hardware curve, it will become the biggest disappointment of the handset industry due to lack of innovation. Every competitor handset company will have an arm-long list of features that Apple left off and their handsets have.
Every Apple loyalist extols the iPhone platform is about the software, so I guess this subtle upgrade is to be expected. I'm already braced for most of this, so I won't be disappointed. The extra speed, more memory, a slightly better camera and hopefully a longer lasting battery will be good enough for 98% of the real users. That's who Apple has to impress and not the handset nerds, analysts and tech pundits. Let the WWDC yawns begin, right now.
I guess built-in time travel and matter transmutation features will arrive in the next version.
Well why wouldn't it get better year after year? What are you talking about?
dude seriously, i was replying to the other guy why there should be a refresh on a yearly basis. You came in with the comment "And Apple IS competing with rival phone makers, and quite impressively, too. Where have you been for the last year??". And i said, if apple needs to get better it should improve on the hardware,get it? Anyways i feel this is a non issue,sorry for being OT.
Dammit! Still no specialized HD graphics processor. Will the 600 MHz processor be enough put the PSP out to pasture?
Well we don't know what is in the SoC.
It could be the same SoC as used in the current iPhone, no shrink, no nothing, but running faster and with 256MB RAM instead of 128MB on its package.
It could be a mere shrink of the same, the extra speed is achieved within the same or lower power usage envelope.
It could have new features, potentially including: Upgrade to Cortex A8 ARM, Upgrade of Graphics to SGX from MBX or clock speed enhancement even maybe the inclusion of Imagination's video decode functionality.
Now I think that the second option is the likeliest, maybe with a faster graphics unit. Possibly the graphics will be SGX instead of MBX, but maybe that is being left for Apple's own chippery from PA Semi next year.
32 GB is 32,000,000,000 bytes. Computers read the data in binary codes, which means 1 thousand is not 1000 but rather 1024. So take 32,000,000,000 and divide that number by 1024, then 1024 again, and then 1024 again and you'll get that number. 29.8 GB formatted capacity (computer recognized number). Minus the OS and you'll get roughly 29 GB of available space.
For example:
Your 8GB iPhone has only 7.45 GB of total space (computer recognized). After the OS, you get 7.08GB of free space, I think.
Your 16GB iPhone has only 14.9 GB of total space (computer recognized). After the OS, you'd have about 14.53 GB of available space.
OS 3.0 might be a lot more space hungry, so it uses up .6 GB instead of .37GB like OS 2.x? I don't know for sure. But that number sounds right to me. At least if it's fake, the person who did it already did his/her homework.
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
Back in the day the SI prefixes where stolen and used for memory capacities because 1024 is pretty close to 1000. KB = 1024 bytes, MB = 1024^2 bytes and GB = 1024^3 bytes.
Then drive manufacturers realised that they could inflate their capacities by using Kilo/Mega/Giga with the SI meanings - 1000, 1000^2, 1000^3. So they did.
At the same time someone came up with KiB, MiB and GiB to represent the 1024, 1024^2 and 1024^3 capacities. Nobody gives a damn about these meanings, although in the modern world we should use them for powers of two sizes, like used in computers for RAM size. I.e., a MacBook Air comes with 2 GiB RAM.
Hard drives are formatted into blocks which are powers of two in size. Therefore in my opinion, hard drives should be sold in powers of two capacities, i.e., GiB, or 1024^3, or TiB - 1024^4.
What actually amazes me is that someone somehow made a Flash chip that isn't a power of two in capacity (memory chips are 2D arrays of bit storage, it's easiest and logical to make them powers of two in capacity). What I think happens here is that the chip is 32GiB in size, but the difference in capacity between 32GB and 32GiB is used as spare recovery blocks, for when a block in used flash dies (usually it dies by not being writeable any more, so the flash controller can read the data from the duff block and copy it to a spare block).
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
That's not the best explanation. There is absolutely no reason for OS 3.0 to have more than 2x the size for a device which has minor hardware changes compared to the current iPhone. I take the reports on iPhone OS 3.0 on current iPhone 3G as a reference. Note that it has all this "debugging code" and other mythological staff right there, because it is the same pre-release version.
600 MHz or not, I don't believe Apple will release a phone with a mere speed-bump of the chip used 2 years ago. How the poster knows it's 600 MHz but no other info on the chip?
Anyway, Apple knows what they are doing better than most of us here. Few years back there were a lot of complains why Apple refuses to use hi-res displays for notebooks. I was complaining too, until I bought a notebook with 1600 x something on 15". Now I know why
I remember the time when the majority of the point-and-shoot cameras sacrificed quality in a megapixel race. If the product history is any indication, Apple is very good in making the proper compromise. It is always after the REAL value than the marketing BS. They had some minor glitches here and there but overall they were quite good IMO.
I do expect, however, that the new iPhone will not have the P.A. Semi stuff ready for prime time and that it will be declared doomed Apple cripple-wear on this forums and then the sales numbers will paint quite a different picture.
That's not the best explanation. There is absolutely no reason for OS 3.0 to have more than 2x the size for a device which has minor hardware changes compared to the current iPhone. I take the reports on iPhone OS 3.0 on current iPhone 3G as a reference. Note that it has all this "debugging code" and other mythological staff right there, because it is the same pre-release version.
600 MHz or not, I don't believe Apple will release a phone with a mere speed-bump of the chip used 2 years ago. How the poster knows it's 600 MHz but no other info on the chip?
Anyway, Apple knows what they are doing better than most of us here. Few years back there were a lot of complains why Apple refuses to use hi-res displays for notebooks. I was complaining too, until I bought a notebook with 1600 x something on 15". Now I know why
I remember the time when the majority of the point-and-shoot cameras sacrificed quality in a megapixel race. If the product history is any indication, Apple is very good in making the proper compromise. It is always after the REAL value than the marketing BS. They had some minor glitches here and there but overall they were quite good IMO.
I do expect, however, that the new iPhone will not have the P.A. Semi stuff ready for prime time and that it will be declared doomed Apple cripple-wear on this forums and then the sales numbers will paint quite a different picture.
You misunderstand my meaning. I was discussing the explanation why storage devices (iPods included) have less drive capacity than advertised, and presumably why advertisements can get away with saying "actual formatted capacity less".
Comments
downloaded the original image & messed around with image levels in Pixelmator... this is what came up.
is this normal?
or does anyone think that this is just some (un)imaginative photoshop-job?
I thought that the pixels looked odd too, especially the discolouration on the right hand side figures. But, if you do a screen grab of your own "About" screen and open it in photoshop, the same discolouration is present.
I'd say the image is genuine, as for what it represents?
Nokia?? LOL, those other also-rans churn out derviatives and knock-offs so easily because they are nowhere near the iPhone experience. Not even in the same league, with their horrible interfaces, etc.
And Apple IS competing with rival phone makers, and quite impressively, too. Where have you been for the last year??
I was merely stating that the iphone not only needs to get better year by year in terms of software but also hardware,since its obvious from Apple's direction of acquiring PA Semi, and a host of other talents to get ahead of rivals in terms of hardware,dont tell me the iphone would still be a "HIT" with the current components 5 years down the road with no hardware alterations? The user experience,gui and ease of use is incredible but if you want to facilitate more features in it then of course its has to have the means to do so.
It's iPhone 3G model numbers, which begin with leading "MB...", iPhones of first generation showed "MA...". And the screen shot pretends the new model should still show "MB..."...
the iPhone OS comes in well under a gigabyte. If this a 32GB device, why would the max capacity be about 29GB? iPhone OS is not 3GB!!
I can't believe you read a technology site and don't know the answer to that.
Hand in your geek badge on the way out...
What do we all need in the current iphone 3g that's not there? Builtin MMS, Video Recording, Bluetooth File Transfer, Audio Recording etc etc so OS 3.0 give us all that and then what do we need on the hardware side? A better camera (you'll have it), better storage, faster loadings, FM (if true this will be great), double the ram (which makes a huge difference cause when we turn the iphone on it has around 30-35 mb of memory left and if we run all the apps that are allowed to run in the background like mail, safari, ipod then only around 8-10 mbs are left so double memory means even after running all those apps at once we'd still have over half the memory free which actually opens new horizons for the iphone to compete with the Palm Pre's much hyped multitasking). So what else there is to be asked for? It's gonna be a perfect update for apps hungry ppl like me.
We NEED a better battery. With more CPU processing and more memory, plus apps running in the background the current (see same as in original iPhone) battery in the iPhone 3G just won't cut it (it barely cuts it now if you use 3G).
May be it is the size already discussed. Those who contribute the large difference to the beta software, be aware that ALL iPhone 3.0 phones have a beta software! However, the reduced number of space could be due to installed apps or application data (e.g. cached Safari content or emails), so the only image does not need to be that large. The point is: we can not rule out the the possibility that the image is genuine based on the size alone.
You watch.
Oh boy....here we go with all of supposed "claims" of seeing prototypes and having access to supposed new Apple hardware. Happens every time!!!
256MB RAM instead of 128MB - this will be a major improvement. I don't know how much iPhone OS eats up by itself, and how much is left for applications, but if there was 64MB available to applications before, now there will be 192MB (assuming in-memory footprint of iPhone OS doesn't increase with 3.0). Whatever, this would mean bigger, tastier games and applications, and mobile Safari could be a lot more usable.
600MHz ARM = 50% faster. This is a big change even if the CPU isn't an ARM Cortex A8. If it was, then that's probably more like 100% faster, but I suspect that this is a process shrink of the existing Samsung ARM SoC. The built-in graphics could also be faster as a result, but that will be difficult to ascertain. The memory was also on the same package as the SoC, so the bump to 256MB also supports there being a newer version of the SoC.
3.2MP camera - this was rumoured anyway.
FM Radio - this is part of the WiFi/Bluetooth controller, it only required an antenna to be attached, and an application. I suspect it will be used as a transmitter for in-car use. There was a rumour about this I vaguely recall. It's effectively a free feature to Apple to include.
The 3.5G instead of 3.1G is presumably because of HSUPA or something, just the version of 3G that was being used. Also might be because of a more up to date 3G controller in the new iPhone, although I thought the current iPhone supported 3.5 and that the new one might support 3.75, but I forget the exact details.
I was merely stating that the iphone not only needs to get better year by year in terms of software but also hardware,since its obvious from Apple's direction of acquiring PA Semi, and a host of other talents to get ahead of rivals in terms of hardware,dont tell me the iphone would still be a "HIT" with the current components 5 years down the road with no hardware alterations? The user experience,gui and ease of use is incredible but if you want to facilitate more features in it then of course its has to have the means to do so.
Well why wouldn't it get better year after year? What are you talking about?
256MB RAM instead of 128MB - this will be a major improvement. I don't know how much iPhone OS eats up by itself, and how much is left for applications, but if there was 64MB available to applications before, now there will be 192MB (assuming in-memory footprint of iPhone OS doesn't increase with 3.0). Whatever, this would mean bigger, tastier games and applications, and mobile Safari could be a lot more usable.
600MHz ARM = 50% faster. This is a big change even if the CPU isn't an ARM Cortex A8. If it was, then that's probably more like 100% faster, but I suspect that this is a process shrink of the existing Samsung ARM SoC. The built-in graphics could also be faster as a result, but that will be difficult to ascertain. The memory was also on the same package as the SoC, so the bump to 256MB also supports there being a newer version of the SoC.
Actually you're almost right on the ram case.
In my general tests when its sitting on Springboard, the iPhone consumes, without the iPod app running, around 60 - 65 MB. Thats in its unused state. (no 3rd party apps open).
Standard background apps (actual apps, not all processes) are the phone, mail, safari and the iPod itself.
While most productivity apps will generally find it hard to compromise the iPhone's memory from there, games will quite easily, so they get far more memory warnings (a feature in the OS to warn apps that memory usage over the entire system is growing critical) which they then have to handle.
为什么在中国用ATT的网络？
Why is that ATT if he is in China?
Could be test equipment acting as a "mini tower" on the production line.
I think the upgrade is enough to get current iPhone owners to buy newer iPhones, but WS and the industry pundits are going to throw a fit. I'm certain they would expect to have the iPhone to sport full motion HD on an OLED screen. There won't be any video-conferencing camera either. The iPhone will be claimed to be so far behind the industry hardware curve, it will become the biggest disappointment of the handset industry due to lack of innovation. Every competitor handset company will have an arm-long list of features that Apple left off and their handsets have.
Every Apple loyalist extols the iPhone platform is about the software, so I guess this subtle upgrade is to be expected. I'm already braced for most of this, so I won't be disappointed. The extra speed, more memory, a slightly better camera and hopefully a longer lasting battery will be good enough for 98% of the real users. That's who Apple has to impress and not the handset nerds, analysts and tech pundits. Let the WWDC yawns begin, right now.
I guess built-in time travel and matter transmutation features will arrive in the next version.
Well why wouldn't it get better year after year? What are you talking about?
dude seriously, i was replying to the other guy why there should be a refresh on a yearly basis. You came in with the comment "And Apple IS competing with rival phone makers, and quite impressively, too. Where have you been for the last year??". And i said, if apple needs to get better it should improve on the hardware,get it? Anyways i feel this is a non issue,sorry for being OT.
Dammit! Still no specialized HD graphics processor. Will the 600 MHz processor be enough put the PSP out to pasture?
Well we don't know what is in the SoC.
It could be the same SoC as used in the current iPhone, no shrink, no nothing, but running faster and with 256MB RAM instead of 128MB on its package.
It could be a mere shrink of the same, the extra speed is achieved within the same or lower power usage envelope.
It could have new features, potentially including: Upgrade to Cortex A8 ARM, Upgrade of Graphics to SGX from MBX or clock speed enhancement even maybe the inclusion of Imagination's video decode functionality.
Now I think that the second option is the likeliest, maybe with a faster graphics unit. Possibly the graphics will be SGX instead of MBX, but maybe that is being left for Apple's own chippery from PA Semi next year.
32 GB is 32,000,000,000 bytes. Computers read the data in binary codes, which means 1 thousand is not 1000 but rather 1024. So take 32,000,000,000 and divide that number by 1024, then 1024 again, and then 1024 again and you'll get that number. 29.8 GB formatted capacity (computer recognized number). Minus the OS and you'll get roughly 29 GB of available space.
For example:
Your 8GB iPhone has only 7.45 GB of total space (computer recognized). After the OS, you get 7.08GB of free space, I think.
Your 16GB iPhone has only 14.9 GB of total space (computer recognized). After the OS, you'd have about 14.53 GB of available space.
OS 3.0 might be a lot more space hungry, so it uses up .6 GB instead of .37GB like OS 2.x? I don't know for sure. But that number sounds right to me. At least if it's fake, the person who did it already did his/her homework.
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
Back in the day the SI prefixes where stolen and used for memory capacities because 1024 is pretty close to 1000. KB = 1024 bytes, MB = 1024^2 bytes and GB = 1024^3 bytes.
Then drive manufacturers realised that they could inflate their capacities by using Kilo/Mega/Giga with the SI meanings - 1000, 1000^2, 1000^3. So they did.
At the same time someone came up with KiB, MiB and GiB to represent the 1024, 1024^2 and 1024^3 capacities. Nobody gives a damn about these meanings, although in the modern world we should use them for powers of two sizes, like used in computers for RAM size. I.e., a MacBook Air comes with 2 GiB RAM.
Hard drives are formatted into blocks which are powers of two in size. Therefore in my opinion, hard drives should be sold in powers of two capacities, i.e., GiB, or 1024^3, or TiB - 1024^4.
What actually amazes me is that someone somehow made a Flash chip that isn't a power of two in capacity (memory chips are 2D arrays of bit storage, it's easiest and logical to make them powers of two in capacity). What I think happens here is that the chip is 32GiB in size, but the difference in capacity between 32GB and 32GiB is used as spare recovery blocks, for when a block in used flash dies (usually it dies by not being writeable any more, so the flash controller can read the data from the duff block and copy it to a spare block).
Thanks zero. That's the best explanation i've heard to this puzzling GB phenomenon. I figured there was a proper reason otherwise every drive manufacturer would get their ass sued for false advertising.
That's not the best explanation. There is absolutely no reason for OS 3.0 to have more than 2x the size for a device which has minor hardware changes compared to the current iPhone. I take the reports on iPhone OS 3.0 on current iPhone 3G as a reference. Note that it has all this "debugging code" and other mythological staff right there, because it is the same pre-release version.
600 MHz or not, I don't believe Apple will release a phone with a mere speed-bump of the chip used 2 years ago. How the poster knows it's 600 MHz but no other info on the chip?
Anyway, Apple knows what they are doing better than most of us here. Few years back there were a lot of complains why Apple refuses to use hi-res displays for notebooks. I was complaining too, until I bought a notebook with 1600 x something on 15". Now I know why
I remember the time when the majority of the point-and-shoot cameras sacrificed quality in a megapixel race. If the product history is any indication, Apple is very good in making the proper compromise. It is always after the REAL value than the marketing BS. They had some minor glitches here and there but overall they were quite good IMO.
I do expect, however, that the new iPhone will not have the P.A. Semi stuff ready for prime time and that it will be declared doomed Apple cripple-wear on this forums and then the sales numbers will paint quite a different picture.
That's not the best explanation. There is absolutely no reason for OS 3.0 to have more than 2x the size for a device which has minor hardware changes compared to the current iPhone. I take the reports on iPhone OS 3.0 on current iPhone 3G as a reference. Note that it has all this "debugging code" and other mythological staff right there, because it is the same pre-release version.
600 MHz or not, I don't believe Apple will release a phone with a mere speed-bump of the chip used 2 years ago. How the poster knows it's 600 MHz but no other info on the chip?
Anyway, Apple knows what they are doing better than most of us here. Few years back there were a lot of complains why Apple refuses to use hi-res displays for notebooks. I was complaining too, until I bought a notebook with 1600 x something on 15". Now I know why
I remember the time when the majority of the point-and-shoot cameras sacrificed quality in a megapixel race. If the product history is any indication, Apple is very good in making the proper compromise. It is always after the REAL value than the marketing BS. They had some minor glitches here and there but overall they were quite good IMO.
I do expect, however, that the new iPhone will not have the P.A. Semi stuff ready for prime time and that it will be declared doomed Apple cripple-wear on this forums and then the sales numbers will paint quite a different picture.
You misunderstand my meaning. I was discussing the explanation why storage devices (iPods included) have less drive capacity than advertised, and presumably why advertisements can get away with saying "actual formatted capacity less".