Apple was very proud to show off iPhone 5's seamless joints and how the assembly robots match the best fitting parts when putting the phone together. The bands, if true, are a big departure and a lazy design.
Regarding the waterproofing: iPhone is my always-in-my-hand camera - this means in the pool, on the yacht, at the beach, and in the Jacuzzi - waterproofing is important to me and many others. I have a waterproofing case but its just not the same. There is no excuse not to make it waterproof.
Excuse my ignorance, but how exactly do waterproof/resistant phones work? Does sound come out of the speaker holes? Does the microphone work? How is the headphone jack protected? All the buttons and switches that depress and move. How are these all sealed from water, but still operate correctly? Serious question.
Probably many different solutions. Gaskets, hydrophobic materials, submerging contacts in plastic, etc... I do know that there solutions are available and Apple can do better job than anybody.
Apple was very proud to show off iPhone 5's seamless joints and how the assembly robots match the best fitting parts when putting the phone together. The bands, if true, are a big departure and a lazy design.
Regarding the waterproofing: iPhone is my always-in-my-hand camera - this means in the pool, on the yacht, at the beach, and in the Jacuzzi - waterproofing is important to me and many others. I have a waterproofing case but its just not the same. There is no excuse not to make it waterproof.
"Lazy design." I look forward to you eating those words, and since you lead such a busy life, in the Jacuzzi would be about right.
Seriously though, you can't judge this kind of thing from a lousy picture. You have to hold it in your hands, and thereby engage your right brain.
I just wonder why they wouldn’t make the whole case out of LiquidMetal, then.
I was basing that on the idea that the LiquidMetal pieces were themselves conducting antennas, not just transparent to antennas underneath in other words. And since there must be discrete antennas for different radios, so would there have to be a mosaic of LM elements. But this is all imagined. I know nothing but the fact that Apple doesn't do sloppy, lazy, ugly or useless design.
Unsurprisingly, AppleInsider and other sites chose not to publish a story about this homicide since it just might make the sites look bad for pushing people to such extremes to leak confidential information for money.
First, stabbing someone who is trying to evade a metal detector is illegal even in China, and it isn't mandated by Foxconn nor Apple. FWIW, individuals are still responsible for their own behavior, and no, they weren't "just following orders."
And "pushing" people to extremes isn't a valid defense for industrial theft, even if working conditions are deplorable. Nobody sentenced these people to enter the Foxconn workforce. If you made your bed, you sleep in it.
I don't think money changes hands between rumor aggregator sites like AppleInsider and sites which are first to post "exclusive" leak photos like nowhereelse.fr. But the aggregators profit from the leak nonetheless, and we're individually responsible (in small measure) for creating demand for leaks in the first place by enabling the economic model for websites to exploit such information.
I was basing that on the idea that the LiquidMetal pieces were themselves conducting antennas, not just transparent to antennas underneath in other words.
How can something transparent to a frequency conduct it?
I was basing that on the idea that the LiquidMetal pieces were themselves conducting antennas, not just transparent to antennas underneath in other words.
How can something transparent to a frequency conduct it?
It can't. No metal can be transparent—to visible light or radio waves. We all laugh at Star Trek IV's "transparent aluminum", but it's the same thing. For something to be a metal, it means there's a gas of electrons not attached to any particular atom, free to move at will through the bulk of the material. They absorb and reemit incoming photons, and also conduct electricity (and heat). Without that, it's not a metal. "Liquid Metal" is not "radio-transparent". By definition. How these fantasies get started, I can't imagine.
Now if you want transparent aluminum, you turn it into aluminum oxide, grow crystals of it, cut it into sheets, and Bob's your uncle; there's your transparent aluminum. It's actually alumina (and they are somehow allowed to call it "sapphire", despite the fact that it doesn't have the titanium impurities to make it blue), and it's not a metal. Metallic aluminum, or metallic anything else, is not, and cannot be, transparent to light or radio waves. Period.
It can't. No metal can be transparent—to visible light or radio waves. We all laugh at Star Trek IV's "transparent aluminum", but it's the same thing. For something to be a metal, it means there's a gas of electrons not attached to any particular atom, free to move at will through the bulk of the material. They absorb and reemit incoming photons, and also conduct electricity (and heat). Without that, it's not a metal. "Liquid Metal" is not "radio-transparent". By definition. How these fantasies get started, I can't imagine.
Now if you want transparent aluminum, you turn it into aluminum oxide, grow crystals of it, cut it into sheets, and Bob's your uncle; there's your transparent aluminum. It's actually alumina (and they are somehow allowed to call it "sapphire", despite the fact that it doesn't have the titanium impurities to make it blue), and it's not a metal. Metallic aluminum, or metallic anything else, is not, and cannot be, transparent to light or radio waves. Period.
1) Don't we call it a metal because of the elements within it are called metals?
2) I don't think impurities are required for something to be sapphire, and there are many different colors for sapphire. I think it just needs to be aluminium oxide.
1) Don't we call it a metal because of the elements within it are called metals?
2) I don't think impurities are required for something to be sapphire, and there are many different colors for sapphire. I think it just needs to be aluminium oxide.
1) Those elements are called metals because they have at least one loosely-held electron in the outer shell that in bulk material becomes free to move at will anywhere and behave as a "gas" of electrons, absorbing and reemitting photons ("reflecting" EM radiation), conducting electricity and heat. That's what the word "metal" means.
2) There are different colors for sapphire, caused by different impurities. Pure aluminum oxide is colorless. In the US, at least, there's a certain minimum chromium content before you're allowed to call it "ruby", why wouldn't the same thing be true of sapphire?
"Liquid Metal" is not "radio-transparent". By definition. How these fantasies get started, I can't imagine.
Perhaps the association with Apple’s patent for radio transparent ceramics...
That could be. I still remember the furor over the curved plastic back of the iPhone 3G being replaced with sintered alumina, now the hysteria is over crystalline alumina. Like I said before, I think alumina is the new unicorn fur.
I do not like the bands either. I could understand if there were used for water proofing, impact mitigation but from the inside of the case you cannot see them so they appear to be purely decorative (sigh, ugly). With all the gaping holes i do not see this phone to be a waterproof - too bad my cheapo pebble watch is... so the technology is there. We shell see...
The iPhone 6 will have a million times the technology of your pebble, as well as many, many more design considerations. I own a pebble too (and love it) but the "my pebble is waterproof so the iPhone should be too" is a pretty weak and naive argument. The pebble is made entirely out of plastic, and has zero ports- no headphone ports, charging ports, speaker holes, microphone, sim card slot, etc. The only reason the S5 is "waterproof" is because it has ugly ass plugs for the ports, which I don't think is an approach anyone would want Apple to take. I've owned 6 iPhones and have NEVER had any water damage, so although in theory the feature would be nice, its not worth all the compromises.
And for those calling this phone "ugly", the iPhone 3G was called the same thing when shown off, the iPhone 4 was labelled an atrocity based on leaks (and now considered the benchmark and probably the most gorgeous phone of all time), and the iPhone 5 was called ugly too. Enough with the kneejerk reactions.
We have no confirmation of anything at this point.
We don't? I would vehemently disagree. I'm sure you're paying close enough attention to know the actual cover glass for the 4.7" has leaked, and it indeed curves at the edges, to match up to the curving sides.
Apple was very proud to show off iPhone 5's seamless joints and how the assembly robots match the best fitting parts when putting the phone together. The bands, if true, are a big departure and a lazy design.
Regarding the waterproofing: iPhone is my always-in-my-hand camera - this means in the pool, on the yacht, at the beach, and in the Jacuzzi - waterproofing is important to me and many others. I have a waterproofing case but its just not the same. There is no excuse not to make it waterproof.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> Yes there is! It compromises the entire design, for an incredibly stupid reason!
The iPhone 6 will have a million times the technology of your pebble, as well as many, many more design considerations. I own a pebble too (and love it) but the "my pebble is waterproof so the iPhone should be too" is a pretty weak and naive argument. The pebble is made entirely out of plastic, and has zero ports- no headphone ports, charging ports, speaker holes, microphone, sim card slot, etc.
You got pebble so you know the way charging is done. And it's waterproof. I have a waterproof case for my iPhones with fully functional headphone jack. You can have a telephone conversation with this waterproof case on. So it should be possible for apple to do it w/o the need for the case. The phone is much more expensive than the pebble watch which is one more reason to protect it.
And for those calling this phone "ugly", the iPhone 3G was called the same thing when shown off, the iPhone 4 was labelled an atrocity based on leaks (and now considered the benchmark and probably the most gorgeous phone of all time), and the iPhone 5 was called ugly too. Enough with the kneejerk reactions.
I had and liked all previous versions of iPhones - but I don't like the bands on this ugly mockup. As far as compromising..... No way, I would not want to compromise... The technology could be available....
Comments
I just wonder why they wouldn’t make the whole case out of LiquidMetal, then.
I couldn't care less about the bands.
I also couldn't care less about waterproofing.
Guess this is the device for me!
Apple was very proud to show off iPhone 5's seamless joints and how the assembly robots match the best fitting parts when putting the phone together. The bands, if true, are a big departure and a lazy design.
Regarding the waterproofing: iPhone is my always-in-my-hand camera - this means in the pool, on the yacht, at the beach, and in the Jacuzzi - waterproofing is important to me and many others. I have a waterproofing case but its just not the same. There is no excuse not to make it waterproof.
Goophone hasn't made them yet.
Excuse my ignorance, but how exactly do waterproof/resistant phones work? Does sound come out of the speaker holes? Does the microphone work? How is the headphone jack protected? All the buttons and switches that depress and move. How are these all sealed from water, but still operate correctly? Serious question.
Probably many different solutions. Gaskets, hydrophobic materials, submerging contacts in plastic, etc... I do know that there solutions are available and Apple can do better job than anybody.
"Lazy design." I look forward to you eating those words, and since you lead such a busy life, in the Jacuzzi would be about right.
Seriously though, you can't judge this kind of thing from a lousy picture. You have to hold it in your hands, and thereby engage your right brain.
I was basing that on the idea that the LiquidMetal pieces were themselves conducting antennas, not just transparent to antennas underneath in other words. And since there must be discrete antennas for different radios, so would there have to be a mosaic of LM elements. But this is all imagined. I know nothing but the fact that Apple doesn't do sloppy, lazy, ugly or useless design.
First, stabbing someone who is trying to evade a metal detector is illegal even in China, and it isn't mandated by Foxconn nor Apple. FWIW, individuals are still responsible for their own behavior, and no, they weren't "just following orders."
And "pushing" people to extremes isn't a valid defense for industrial theft, even if working conditions are deplorable. Nobody sentenced these people to enter the Foxconn workforce. If you made your bed, you sleep in it.
I don't think money changes hands between rumor aggregator sites like AppleInsider and sites which are first to post "exclusive" leak photos like nowhereelse.fr. But the aggregators profit from the leak nonetheless, and we're individually responsible (in small measure) for creating demand for leaks in the first place by enabling the economic model for websites to exploit such information.
How can something transparent to a frequency conduct it?
It can't. No metal can be transparent—to visible light or radio waves. We all laugh at Star Trek IV's "transparent aluminum", but it's the same thing. For something to be a metal, it means there's a gas of electrons not attached to any particular atom, free to move at will through the bulk of the material. They absorb and reemit incoming photons, and also conduct electricity (and heat). Without that, it's not a metal. "Liquid Metal" is not "radio-transparent". By definition. How these fantasies get started, I can't imagine.
Now if you want transparent aluminum, you turn it into aluminum oxide, grow crystals of it, cut it into sheets, and Bob's your uncle; there's your transparent aluminum. It's actually alumina (and they are somehow allowed to call it "sapphire", despite the fact that it doesn't have the titanium impurities to make it blue), and it's not a metal. Metallic aluminum, or metallic anything else, is not, and cannot be, transparent to light or radio waves. Period.
1) Don't we call it a metal because of the elements within it are called metals?
2) I don't think impurities are required for something to be sapphire, and there are many different colors for sapphire. I think it just needs to be aluminium oxide.
Perhaps the association with Apple’s patent for radio transparent ceramics...
1) Those elements are called metals because they have at least one loosely-held electron in the outer shell that in bulk material becomes free to move at will anywhere and behave as a "gas" of electrons, absorbing and reemitting photons ("reflecting" EM radiation), conducting electricity and heat. That's what the word "metal" means.
2) There are different colors for sapphire, caused by different impurities. Pure aluminum oxide is colorless. In the US, at least, there's a certain minimum chromium content before you're allowed to call it "ruby", why wouldn't the same thing be true of sapphire?
That could be. I still remember the furor over the curved plastic back of the iPhone 3G being replaced with sintered alumina, now the hysteria is over crystalline alumina. Like I said before, I think alumina is the new unicorn fur.
I do not like the bands either. I could understand if there were used for water proofing, impact mitigation but from the inside of the case you cannot see them so they appear to be purely decorative (sigh, ugly). With all the gaping holes i do not see this phone to be a waterproof - too bad my cheapo pebble watch is... so the technology is there. We shell see...
The iPhone 6 will have a million times the technology of your pebble, as well as many, many more design considerations. I own a pebble too (and love it) but the "my pebble is waterproof so the iPhone should be too" is a pretty weak and naive argument. The pebble is made entirely out of plastic, and has zero ports- no headphone ports, charging ports, speaker holes, microphone, sim card slot, etc. The only reason the S5 is "waterproof" is because it has ugly ass plugs for the ports, which I don't think is an approach anyone would want Apple to take. I've owned 6 iPhones and have NEVER had any water damage, so although in theory the feature would be nice, its not worth all the compromises.
And for those calling this phone "ugly", the iPhone 3G was called the same thing when shown off, the iPhone 4 was labelled an atrocity based on leaks (and now considered the benchmark and probably the most gorgeous phone of all time), and the iPhone 5 was called ugly too. Enough with the kneejerk reactions.
Fixed that for you.
And for those calling this phone "ugly", the iPhone 3G was called the same thing when shown off
True, but only because it was ugly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
and the iPhone 5 was called ugly too.
Again, true, but only because it was ugly.
We have no confirmation of anything at this point.
We don't? I would vehemently disagree. I'm sure you're paying close enough attention to know the actual cover glass for the 4.7" has leaked, and it indeed curves at the edges, to match up to the curving sides.
Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
Apple was very proud to show off iPhone 5's seamless joints and how the assembly robots match the best fitting parts when putting the phone together. The bands, if true, are a big departure and a lazy design.
Regarding the waterproofing: iPhone is my always-in-my-hand camera - this means in the pool, on the yacht, at the beach, and in the Jacuzzi - waterproofing is important to me and many others. I have a waterproofing case but its just not the same. There is no excuse not to make it waterproof.
Don't use your phone in the pool! Unbelievable.
I had and liked all previous versions of iPhones - but I don't like the bands on this ugly mockup. As far as compromising..... No way, I would not want to compromise... The technology could be available....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2636078/Now-THATS-waterproof-Super-material-repels-water-strongly-causes-liquid-droplets-BOUNCE-off.html