And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.
Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.
It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.
The worst part about this is, if you write to the author complaining of their use of cliches and banalities (I've tried) you only validate their viewpoint that Apple customers are indeed cultists. It also happens that much the same thinking goes on in places like this. You can't criticize the rhetorical approach used by people who naturally seem to think in terms of generalized insults without being branded as one of the people who deserves to be insulted. And round and round it goes.
LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*
Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.
I think you might want to retract your statement now.
Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.
All of that technical stuff just obscures the real issue, as far as I am concerned.
My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. That belief is not based on facts, its just a personal opinion based on nothing more than your own predilection. It reflects your personal bias. How do I know it is just a personal bias? I know because you insist that your position is the most logical one, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. Although you have attempted to claim that your argument is based on evidence, you haven't put forth even a rational argument to support it, much less provided any evidence. The fact that you think something does not make it evidence. And, the fact that 'it makes sense' to you also does not make something evidence.
I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on, I do. I wish the iPhone had a faster processor, I wish it cost half as mch, i wish it had more memory and twice as much battery life, and I wish it had a 7mp HD camera. But guess what? Just because I wish it doesn't make it feasible. When you build stuff like this, there is a balance between the competing demands and constraints of all of the technologies that you are bringing together. The art and science of design for these products is all about the balances that get struck. The fact that the balance wasn't to your liking doesn't mean 'the designers could have done better, but they wanted to take advantage of us as consumers.' That's just 'stinkin thinkin'.
Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.
My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. And, despite numerous rational arguments to the contrary, you insist that your position is the most logical, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. That is just irrational.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.
It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!
Quote:
I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on,
As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible
You still haven?t proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don? t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldn?t technically put a better camera in, but they couldn?t put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.
It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!
As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.
The problem I have with your argument is the attribution of intent, first and foremost. The decision not to include a better camera does not imply that there was an intent to gouge the consumer. There is just no logical defense for that, because it isn't a rational argument.
Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.
Finally, even if it was possible to do, or even if the decision boiled down to maintaining a specific margin on the devices, so what? That still doesn't equal an intent to take advantage of the consumer. If there were such an intent, you still haven't provided any evidence for it, so why do you choose to believe it?
I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.
This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.
Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.
And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.
My problem with the people crying foul for both of those situations is that there were options and they affected for the ones that wanted it and it affected very few people. For starters, the problem was clearly a driver issue that would be resolved (at some point) and SSD was used by only a few people. If there is anything to get upset about it?s that Apple wouldn?t even acknowledge when the problem will likely be resolved and their use of relatively slow SSDs. If that speed difference bothers you and you haven?t bought a new machine yet then don?t buy that machine. I see the same people complaining with every release and I am pretty sure they aren?t buying the new merchandise each time.
The other complaint was FW400 being dropped from the MacBook. Even though the MBPs and desktop Macs also dropped FW400 while retaining FW800 there was a lot of screaming that Apple is dropping FireWire, when this simply wasn?t the case. On top of that, it was a long time coming and well known what Apple was doing. They dropped it from the iPod line as an included cable, then they dropped the ability to sync using it, then the ability to charge from it, and then a case change on the Mac notebooks required the loss of the port and FW400 was the weakest link. Goodbye! It was a poorly designed port interface. They didn?t make it future-forward like the USB and FW800 port interface so to expect Apple to keep it for ever is absurd. MBs never had FW800 and they still haven?t.
People had options for the MBPs or the other MB if they wanted FW. Or, as predicted after the 17? MBP demo, wait until Apple give the 13? a sealed battery, then you?ll get FW800. Short-sided or not, space constraints or not there are still other options for the consumer, including keep your current Mac with FW, if you don?t like the result. It certainly doesn?t require page after page about how Apple is doomed.
You still haven’t proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don’ t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldn’t technically put a better camera in, but they couldn’t put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.
Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.
As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.
Quote:
Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.
If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.
Quote:
I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.
I have considered the evidence, and it seems to me that Apple deliberately holding back on the camera was more likely than them simply not being able to fit it into the device somehow. That's what I chose to believe because that's what the evidence I've looked at seems to suggest. Other than being told I have no idea how to make a device, there has been little evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you showed some evidence as to how Apple couldn't fit a better camera into the iPhone, then you'd have a stronger argument.
EDIT - Having measured both camera modules, they are both about 1cm x 1cm. The U600 is actually a slimmer device than the iPhone too. So it looks like it would have physically fitted.
LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*
Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.
I think you might want to retract your statement now.
And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5? touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2? display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if it?s too large in one direction but okay in another that doesn?t mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I don?t deny that it?s not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just don?t see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.
As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.
Come on, now you aren?t even trying to win. You are using a phone that uses a lot smaller and weaker HW than the iPhone does so the volume can be easily be less while allowing more room for a better camera. If that is the case, we can?t tell because these two devices are so very different and you haven?t provided any scale. Then it seems you are showing just the lens component and not the other HW that make up the camera.
Without getting all the data, which seems pretty impossible, we simply can?t make a determination. That is the issue at hand. You may be correct in everything you?ve stated, but it looks like it will have to remain a hypothesis unless you can provide some more conclusive evidence to make a deduction.
If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.
You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.
If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.
The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.
Quote:
And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5” touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2” display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if it’s too large in one direction but okay in another that doesn’t mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I don’t deny that it’s not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just don’t see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.
The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600. I am backing up my statements by providing measurements and figures. Please backup your statements with some figures and evidence rather than just saying 'you're wrong'. Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements before telling anyone else too...
Quote:
You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.
If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.
Apple probably are holding back with the 3mp camera.
We already know that Apple's big move with their second run was 3G and GPS. I'm sure they had calculated that this was more than enough to get people buying again without them having to upgrade the camera unit. I guessed they figured they could milk the 2mp unit for another year before they'd finally have to do something about it.
Whilst Apple are giving the newest software updates to all of their iPhone lineup, they are quietly missing features out of the oldest model. We've seen some rather wooly explanations for this being because of the hardware that was used, but that simply sounds more like an excuse than being the actual explanation for it. Afterall, MMS is simply a photo sent via a data connection, which I know the iPhone is more than capable of. Jailbreaking proves that it is possible. Equally, A2DP is mysteriously missing from the 2G iPhone, even though it features the same bluetooth capabilities as the 3G.
The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600.
If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then you?d have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.
Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?
If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then you?d have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.
Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
Do you honestly think you can somehow prove that Apple intended to gouge consumers because you think they could have used a better camera?
If so, I just haven't got anything else to say to you. I am amazed that you think any of what you have said gives any credibility to your argument... and I think any rational person would feel much the same.
The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.
I am sure I could but I made no claims that rely on any measurements. In fact I made no claims at all. You did. So posting an image and saying "see, I told you" is not exactly rigorous. Nor is: "here is a number, work the rest out for yourself".
Assuming that you will prove the first part (an important aspect of technical feasibility), there remain additional technical aspects on which you have already been challenged (memory and battery requirements). Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I can?t provide your proof for you.
2) The first two iPhones were not able to record adequate video while running OS X. There are plenty of YouTube videos to prove that video recording on a jailbroken iPhone was quite poor under OS X. You forget that OS X is desktop Operating System that has been shrunk down to fit in a phone, not a mobile OS that was designed from the ground up to originally run on much slower and older HW.
Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.
Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.
Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.
Well that is because Apple?s clientele are are stupid, Kool-Aid drinking sheep. On top of that, I?m ignorant because I prefer glossy displays. But Apple did make a huge mistake recently by allowing all iPhone owners to get v3.0, which goes against their secret maxim to force customers to by new HW with every new release.
Comments
And that's true of cars and sports franchises and ideologies and music styles, as well as computers, so I don't think it's at all necessary to get hung up on some idea of Apple cultists defending their religion against all comers.
Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.
It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.
The worst part about this is, if you write to the author complaining of their use of cliches and banalities (I've tried) you only validate their viewpoint that Apple customers are indeed cultists. It also happens that much the same thinking goes on in places like this. You can't criticize the rhetorical approach used by people who naturally seem to think in terms of generalized insults without being branded as one of the people who deserves to be insulted. And round and round it goes.
I suggest you check your facts before you post.
LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*
Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.
I think you might want to retract your statement now.
Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.
All of that technical stuff just obscures the real issue, as far as I am concerned.
My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. That belief is not based on facts, its just a personal opinion based on nothing more than your own predilection. It reflects your personal bias. How do I know it is just a personal bias? I know because you insist that your position is the most logical one, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. Although you have attempted to claim that your argument is based on evidence, you haven't put forth even a rational argument to support it, much less provided any evidence. The fact that you think something does not make it evidence. And, the fact that 'it makes sense' to you also does not make something evidence.
I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on, I do. I wish the iPhone had a faster processor, I wish it cost half as mch, i wish it had more memory and twice as much battery life, and I wish it had a 7mp HD camera. But guess what? Just because I wish it doesn't make it feasible. When you build stuff like this, there is a balance between the competing demands and constraints of all of the technologies that you are bringing together. The art and science of design for these products is all about the balances that get struck. The fact that the balance wasn't to your liking doesn't mean 'the designers could have done better, but they wanted to take advantage of us as consumers.' That's just 'stinkin thinkin'.
Mrochester, these are meaningless comparisons. On a technical point, you need to go by internal volume. Just because they match the thickness means nothing. Then there is feature set. How many of those phones had wifi? What about battery size? RAM? Memory? Every feature backed by hardware requires space and power, possibly shielding. You cannot single out a specific feature and then say 'well Apple could have done it too', because those other manufacturers did NOT do what Apple did. The comparison is invalid from the start, but you don't understand that because you don't understand what goes into developing products.
My point is that you ignore the complexity of building devices with this rich feature set and you choose to believe that the Apple's use of a lower MP camera was done deliberately to gouge the consumer at a later time. And, despite numerous rational arguments to the contrary, you insist that your position is the most logical, yet it is one for which you have literally no evidence at all. That is just irrational.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.
It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!
I get the fact that you wish the iPhone had a better camera early on,
As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible
You still haven?t proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don? t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldn?t technically put a better camera in, but they couldn?t put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.
Well my argument that Apple did it deliberately was that: it was technically possible, there was demand, and the cost could have easily been swallowed by the price of the device. Your argument to the contrary is that I clearly have no idea about how products are developed, yet you haven't provided any evidence to support what you're saying.
It's the complexity of building such a device that actually makes the whole thing even more inexcusable. Was Apple really, truely incapable of designing a decent camera unit to go in the iPhone? It sounds pretty pathetic if there were!
As stated above, I have no desire for a better camera in my 3G as I rarely use it. That's not to say I can't point out where Apple obviously shafted their customers.
The problem I have with your argument is the attribution of intent, first and foremost. The decision not to include a better camera does not imply that there was an intent to gouge the consumer. There is just no logical defense for that, because it isn't a rational argument.
Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.
Finally, even if it was possible to do, or even if the decision boiled down to maintaining a specific margin on the devices, so what? That still doesn't equal an intent to take advantage of the consumer. If there were such an intent, you still haven't provided any evidence for it, so why do you choose to believe it?
I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.
Blessings!
This was demonstrated most recently by the SATA issue on the MB Pros. I saw more than a few forum members making endless excuses and chastising anyone who thought that having your SSD performance cut in half on a new machine that is supposed to be "pro" level is completely acceptable.
Similarly, there were no shortage of people lined up to fight my assertion that removing firewire from the unibody Macbook was a terribly short-sighted move.
And as soon as Apple changes direction, they follow in lock-step like they had never though otherwise. It's not only frustrating to deal with, but almost creepy.
My problem with the people crying foul for both of those situations is that there were options and they affected for the ones that wanted it and it affected very few people. For starters, the problem was clearly a driver issue that would be resolved (at some point) and SSD was used by only a few people. If there is anything to get upset about it?s that Apple wouldn?t even acknowledge when the problem will likely be resolved and their use of relatively slow SSDs. If that speed difference bothers you and you haven?t bought a new machine yet then don?t buy that machine. I see the same people complaining with every release and I am pretty sure they aren?t buying the new merchandise each time.
The other complaint was FW400 being dropped from the MacBook. Even though the MBPs and desktop Macs also dropped FW400 while retaining FW800 there was a lot of screaming that Apple is dropping FireWire, when this simply wasn?t the case. On top of that, it was a long time coming and well known what Apple was doing. They dropped it from the iPod line as an included cable, then they dropped the ability to sync using it, then the ability to charge from it, and then a case change on the Mac notebooks required the loss of the port and FW400 was the weakest link. Goodbye! It was a poorly designed port interface. They didn?t make it future-forward like the USB and FW800 port interface so to expect Apple to keep it for ever is absurd. MBs never had FW800 and they still haven?t.
People had options for the MBPs or the other MB if they wanted FW. Or, as predicted after the 17? MBP demo, wait until Apple give the 13? a sealed battery, then you?ll get FW800. Short-sided or not, space constraints or not there are still other options for the consumer, including keep your current Mac with FW, if you don?t like the result. It certainly doesn?t require page after page about how Apple is doomed.
You still haven’t proved anything. I just looked at the original iPhone teardown. There is no extra room in that device, so unless you are claiming that higher resolution camera HW is the exact same size as the 2Mpx HW then i don’ t see what your argument is. There is no question that Apple couldn’t technically put a better camera in, but they couldn’t put a better camera in with space constraints that they have. Stating that Apple could have some funky extension off the device or stating that they could have made the iPhone larger to accommodate a better camera is not a valid argument.
Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.
As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.
Second, I have a problem with the way that you state things as absolutes without reference to context. Was it possible to put a better camera in a device the size of an iPhone? Perhaps it was. Was it possible to do that along with all of the additional device features, in the desired form factor, with the desired power consumption, the desired manufacturing complexity, the desired physical durability and reliability, and the desired end price point and margin? Possibly not. Unless you know something about what goes into the design and fabrication of such devices, I'm going to say that I don't find your assessment of the technical feasibility very convincing, because feasibility is not an absolute, it is only meaningful in context. Saying 'it was technically feasible' doesn't make it so, and ignoring the context of use for the particular technology also doesn't do much for your argument.
If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.
I wish I knew how to communicate with you on this subject, but I don't. My impression is that you would rather just believe that Apple is trying to gouge you, for whatever reason. If so, I leave you to those thoughts. I can't see how they enhance or enrich your life, but you of course are free to dwell in whatever state of mind you choose.
I have considered the evidence, and it seems to me that Apple deliberately holding back on the camera was more likely than them simply not being able to fit it into the device somehow. That's what I chose to believe because that's what the evidence I've looked at seems to suggest. Other than being told I have no idea how to make a device, there has been little evidence to the contrary. Perhaps if you showed some evidence as to how Apple couldn't fit a better camera into the iPhone, then you'd have a stronger argument.
EDIT - Having measured both camera modules, they are both about 1cm x 1cm. The U600 is actually a slimmer device than the iPhone too. So it looks like it would have physically fitted.
Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.
As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.
Using a 2D image of unknown scale?
I suggest you check your facts before you post.
LG Prada - 12mm thick, 2MP autofocus camera with video - Early 2007
Samsung D900 - 12.9mm thick, 3.2MP autofucus camera with video - *JUNE 2006*
Samsung U600 - *10.9mm thick*, 3.2MP autofocus camera with video - *APRIL 2007*
Not only were 3.2mp autofocus cameras with video available when the iPhone was released, they had already been available for a year, and were also available in devices slimmer than the iPhone. I will reiterate - Apple deliberately left a decent camera out of the original iPhone.
I think you might want to retract your statement now.
And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5? touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2? display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if it?s too large in one direction but okay in another that doesn?t mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I don?t deny that it?s not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just don?t see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.
Here's the 3.2mp autofocus camera module from the Samsung U600, released before the original iPhone.
image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ester/32mp.jpg
As you can see, it's about the same size as the one in the iPhone.
Come on, now you aren?t even trying to win. You are using a phone that uses a lot smaller and weaker HW than the iPhone does so the volume can be easily be less while allowing more room for a better camera. If that is the case, we can?t tell because these two devices are so very different and you haven?t provided any scale. Then it seems you are showing just the lens component and not the other HW that make up the camera.
Without getting all the data, which seems pretty impossible, we simply can?t make a determination. That is the issue at hand. You may be correct in everything you?ve stated, but it looks like it will have to remain a hypothesis unless you can provide some more conclusive evidence to make a deduction.
Here is your phone on Wikipedia?
If it was technically possible to do it back in 2007 (which seems more likely than not to me), and has now appeared on the 3GS as a much hyped feature, that sounds an awful lot like deliberately holding back a feature to sell more devices later on.
You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.
If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.
Using a 2D image of unknown scale?
The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.
And what is the volume of the phone, what other HW did they have, like 16GB flash or a 3.5” touch-screen, 128MB system RAM? Those things tend to take up more room than a phone with, for example, a 2” display, 32MB flash, 32MB system RAM. Then lets get the sizes of the camera HW, then we need exact dimensions because if it’s too large in one direction but okay in another that doesn’t mean it would still be feasible. There is a lot of engineering that is going on with these devices that blanket statements need to be backed up with some level of support if they are to be believed. I don’t deny that it’s not possible for a better camera to have been used, I just don’t see any evidence that supports your unmitigated claims.
The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600. I am backing up my statements by providing measurements and figures. Please backup your statements with some figures and evidence rather than just saying 'you're wrong'. Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements before telling anyone else too...
You are showing off a phone from 2007 that as a 3.2Mpx camera yet the 3GS still only has a 3.0Mpx camera. So based on your argument that means Apple still holding back, because I know I've seen 5Mpx+ in cell phones.
If is was about artificially forcing customers to upgrade their iPhones they would have upped the camera capabilities on the second run. Regardless that the volume decreased and the area the camera resides was tapered a bit, your argument dictates that Apple should have increases the resolution to increase sales. It also means that Apple shouldn't have offered the OS update to older phones, especially the original iPhone going into its third year of use.
Apple probably are holding back with the 3mp camera.
We already know that Apple's big move with their second run was 3G and GPS. I'm sure they had calculated that this was more than enough to get people buying again without them having to upgrade the camera unit. I guessed they figured they could milk the 2mp unit for another year before they'd finally have to do something about it.
Whilst Apple are giving the newest software updates to all of their iPhone lineup, they are quietly missing features out of the oldest model. We've seen some rather wooly explanations for this being because of the hardware that was used, but that simply sounds more like an excuse than being the actual explanation for it. Afterall, MMS is simply a photo sent via a data connection, which I know the iPhone is more than capable of. Jailbreaking proves that it is possible. Equally, A2DP is mysteriously missing from the 2G iPhone, even though it features the same bluetooth capabilities as the 3G.
The original iPhone is 47% larger by volume than the U600.
If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then you?d have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.
Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?
Thanx.
If the total volume contained only the camera components or if the devices contained exactly the same HW then you?d have a point but, as stated earlier, you are not considering the whole package.
Are you also under the impression that the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video just as well or better than any of the other phones that came before it?
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
Do you honestly think you can somehow prove that Apple intended to gouge consumers because you think they could have used a better camera?
If so, I just haven't got anything else to say to you. I am amazed that you think any of what you have said gives any credibility to your argument... and I think any rational person would feel much the same.
The U600 is 4.9cm wide, so you can work out the scale by measuring the image on screen. From that, you can work out how big the camera is, and they are the same size in the U600 and original iPhone.
I am sure I could but I made no claims that rely on any measurements. In fact I made no claims at all. You did. So posting an image and saying "see, I told you" is not exactly rigorous. Nor is: "here is a number, work the rest out for yourself".
Assuming that you will prove the first part (an important aspect of technical feasibility), there remain additional technical aspects on which you have already been challenged (memory and battery requirements). Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.
Nice to see you've conveniently failed to provide any evidence for your side of the argument which I asked for
Sure, the original and 3G iPhone should be able to record video. There's nothing stopping it other than Apple.
1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I can?t provide your proof for you.
2) The first two iPhones were not able to record adequate video while running OS X. There are plenty of YouTube videos to prove that video recording on a jailbroken iPhone was quite poor under OS X. You forget that OS X is desktop Operating System that has been shrunk down to fit in a phone, not a mobile OS that was designed from the ground up to originally run on much slower and older HW.
Once done with those, you may want to give some thought to justifying why Apple must necessarily have deliberately held back a feature for the sheer pleasure of screwing its customers.
Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.
Well of course, because that's how companies build consumer loyalty, which as we know Apple has so little.
Well that is because Apple?s clientele are are stupid, Kool-Aid drinking sheep. On top of that, I?m ignorant because I prefer glossy displays. But Apple did make a huge mistake recently by allowing all iPhone owners to get v3.0, which goes against their secret maxim to force customers to by new HW with every new release.