vincenz
Apr 28, 05:02 PM
Is the white iPhone being demoed in the retail stores? Surely someone can go there and compare also.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 08:11 PM
Redesign that quick? But than again, a delay till September might be the reason. Who know, sure looks bad ass though.
well lets consider the long list of bad press and problems in the iPhone 4 design. For example the your holding it wrong and piss poor lay out of the antenna. Glass back breaking all the time. I think they wanted to get off that before it got really out of hand. Might as well end it while they have the chance. Also could be the hardware update was going to be well pretty limited so they make the outside chance so people jump to buy a new one. They know Apple fanboys like to show off they have the lastest and greatest so they make it impossible for them to make it look like the could at a glance (for example 3G and 3GS. Unless you saw the back you could never tell)
There is no way it could be that thin.
It could be. The curved edges give it an optical illusion to look thinner than it really is. It is a cheating trick
I hope it's not drastically thinner and lighter. The 4 at the minute is just right, nice to hold feels right.
Maybe It's just my man handling sausage fingers but I wouldn't like to see it similar to the iPod touch.
Yeah there is a limit before you become too small. At a certain point you just can not make it any thinner and lighter and still have it conformable to use.
The iPhone 4 had just the right thickness. Tapering everything to a weak point is bad engineering.
And when has Apple followed good engineering design. They rather look pretty than listen to their engineers and tell them to deal with it. I believe their are multiple reports of Apple own engineers speaking out saying they told them that the design of the iPhone 4 Antenna was bad idea but instead they were told to deal with it and do it. Nothing the engineers could do about it. Apple choose to make their phones look pretty instead of function. Apple is a Form over function company.
Looks top-heavy and tough to hold. Not going to happen.
Top heavy is not really a big issue with something that small and light.
well lets consider the long list of bad press and problems in the iPhone 4 design. For example the your holding it wrong and piss poor lay out of the antenna. Glass back breaking all the time. I think they wanted to get off that before it got really out of hand. Might as well end it while they have the chance. Also could be the hardware update was going to be well pretty limited so they make the outside chance so people jump to buy a new one. They know Apple fanboys like to show off they have the lastest and greatest so they make it impossible for them to make it look like the could at a glance (for example 3G and 3GS. Unless you saw the back you could never tell)
There is no way it could be that thin.
It could be. The curved edges give it an optical illusion to look thinner than it really is. It is a cheating trick
I hope it's not drastically thinner and lighter. The 4 at the minute is just right, nice to hold feels right.
Maybe It's just my man handling sausage fingers but I wouldn't like to see it similar to the iPod touch.
Yeah there is a limit before you become too small. At a certain point you just can not make it any thinner and lighter and still have it conformable to use.
The iPhone 4 had just the right thickness. Tapering everything to a weak point is bad engineering.
And when has Apple followed good engineering design. They rather look pretty than listen to their engineers and tell them to deal with it. I believe their are multiple reports of Apple own engineers speaking out saying they told them that the design of the iPhone 4 Antenna was bad idea but instead they were told to deal with it and do it. Nothing the engineers could do about it. Apple choose to make their phones look pretty instead of function. Apple is a Form over function company.
Looks top-heavy and tough to hold. Not going to happen.
Top heavy is not really a big issue with something that small and light.
MacFly123
Sep 29, 11:54 PM
ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC AT&T!!! :eek: :rolleyes:
coder12
Apr 14, 07:07 AM
"iX" = "Ix", which is the nickname for the character Ford Prefect in the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
It's the new iWatch nano with a built in towel rack!
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
It's the new iWatch nano with a built in towel rack!
arkmannj
May 3, 08:09 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Mac Mini: Core2Duo
:( :rolleyes:
maybe our day will come soon,
Mac Mini: Core2Duo
:( :rolleyes:
maybe our day will come soon,
network23
Jul 25, 11:16 AM
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
Snowy,
I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.
What happened?
If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.
Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.
Snowy,
I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.
What happened?
If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.
Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.
Lennholm
Apr 22, 08:23 AM
282522
Looks completely different to me. ;)
How are they different? They are both round with a 3D look and have a triangle with the same alignment and angles in the middle. They even perform the same function, to start playback of media content. Are you really going to nitpick about the colors? That's not different enough, Apple should definetely sue.
Looks completely different to me. ;)
How are they different? They are both round with a 3D look and have a triangle with the same alignment and angles in the middle. They even perform the same function, to start playback of media content. Are you really going to nitpick about the colors? That's not different enough, Apple should definetely sue.
leekohler
Nov 1, 07:50 AM
'Nuff said.
bembol
Sep 16, 09:06 PM
Picked up...
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/LouDiamonds/MagicTrackPadKeyboard.jpg
I'm done using the Mouse. I love my new set up with Apple Wireless Keyboard and Magic TrackPad.
I also picked up glee (Season One) on BD. :cool:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/LouDiamonds/MagicTrackPadKeyboard.jpg
I'm done using the Mouse. I love my new set up with Apple Wireless Keyboard and Magic TrackPad.
I also picked up glee (Season One) on BD. :cool:
appleguy123
Apr 28, 01:09 PM
Looks like I had the wolf roles backwards. Oh well. I'll be watching to see if my prediction holds up. :D
tjsdaname
Dec 4, 10:58 AM
Why not .223?
My choice for a 22LR would be the GSG-5. And for the AR platform... the DPMS LR-308 :cool: hell of a gun.
well, im only 17 and .223 is just to expensive for me to shoot...
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
My choice for a 22LR would be the GSG-5. And for the AR platform... the DPMS LR-308 :cool: hell of a gun.
well, im only 17 and .223 is just to expensive for me to shoot...
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
Yvan256
Apr 30, 11:57 AM
add to that AAC is not exactly a free. It has licencing cost to it. Mp3 is complete free and open.
Both AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Licensing_and_patents) and MP3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues) have licensing fees. It's also a complete mess on the MP3 licensing side.
Both AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Licensing_and_patents) and MP3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues) have licensing fees. It's also a complete mess on the MP3 licensing side.
marksman
Apr 22, 11:15 AM
Apple doesn't compromise their overall vision and functionality for single features like all the other handset makers.
So this is no surprise. This is why the individual iOS devices completely dominate their market segments.
So this is no surprise. This is why the individual iOS devices completely dominate their market segments.
Eidorian
Apr 13, 02:06 PM
I think the changes to the latest Apple TV is a sign of where Apple wants to be headed. The next Apple TV will be even smaller and come free when you buy a Mac, iPad, or iPhone. Wait and see! Just like giving e-mail away helps Google's ecosystem, so does getting Apple TVs into people's houses help Apple's ecosystem.I want to believe.
Then again we are talking about the company that is nickel and diming for nearly every formerly included accessory now.
Then again we are talking about the company that is nickel and diming for nearly every formerly included accessory now.
firestarter
Apr 27, 11:50 AM
For that matter, I get the feeling that the person taking the video isn't an employee, just a hunch.
It was an employee. You don't need to have 'just a hunch' when most of the media reports confirm this. The employee was fired.
I can understand not reading the whole thread, but not reading anything and preferring to make up your own version of events is kind of lazy.
It was an employee. You don't need to have 'just a hunch' when most of the media reports confirm this. The employee was fired.
I can understand not reading the whole thread, but not reading anything and preferring to make up your own version of events is kind of lazy.
DewGuy1999
Sep 14, 08:39 AM
:D
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats. When's the housewarming?
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats. When's the housewarming?
zen
Apr 19, 12:39 AM
For those experiencing the "device is not eligible for this build" error, the solution is up at the Apple support discussions. (https://discussions.apple.com/message/13386595?messageID=13386595)
sksmith78
Apr 15, 02:51 PM
Just updated, and the UI does appear to be smoother. I agree with other posts that third party apps do not sometimes begin with a smooth animation.
Luph67
Apr 22, 05:41 PM
That thing looks terribly ugly.
IJ Reilly
Jan 30, 02:00 PM
Actually, the US Dollar is declining due to the Fed interest rate cuts.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
More to do with paranoid, small-time, inexperienced investors, than anything else.
Now here's some interesting theories. The dollar started its decline long before the Fed began lowering interest rates. In fact it has stabilized and gained back some since. Actually, the president submits budgets to Congress. Finally, when the market swings wildly as it has recently, look to the behavior of large institutional investors. They are the controllers of large blocks of shares. What they decide moves markets, not small-time investors. They're just along for the ride, for the most part.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
More to do with paranoid, small-time, inexperienced investors, than anything else.
Now here's some interesting theories. The dollar started its decline long before the Fed began lowering interest rates. In fact it has stabilized and gained back some since. Actually, the president submits budgets to Congress. Finally, when the market swings wildly as it has recently, look to the behavior of large institutional investors. They are the controllers of large blocks of shares. What they decide moves markets, not small-time investors. They're just along for the ride, for the most part.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:29 AM
wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wi-Max whatever)? I used to think that this was a cool thing to have in an iPod. an iPod with internet radio capability sounds like a really cool idea. I'm lukewarm about now.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
OceanView
Mar 16, 11:07 AM
Would you be willing to sell it? Since you would have to wait in line to exchange anyways?
I have a friend that is REALLY looking for a 32 gig white one. He leaves back to Arizona in a couple days, it would mean a lot if you considered it.
I just posted this so if no one has a trade for me I may do it.
Check with me later
I have a friend that is REALLY looking for a 32 gig white one. He leaves back to Arizona in a couple days, it would mean a lot if you considered it.
I just posted this so if no one has a trade for me I may do it.
Check with me later
iEvolution
Apr 29, 07:49 PM
But this is how the true Apple believer thinks. If Apple doesn't make it, you don't need it. If anyone else makes it, it's junk. All that matters is that Apple makes huge sums of money so we can brag about it here. We want to pay a high price so Apple can continue to produce products that we want to buy and we don't want any competition. All we care about it what Steve says.
That's your choice man and I respect it, we all have our own ways.
That's your choice man and I respect it, we all have our own ways.
southernpaws
Apr 23, 11:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
And there we have it friends! This guy has no clue what he's talking about. There are no hybrid LTE/3G chips available yet, so the multiple chips thing has nothing to do with GSM/CDMA. If Apple wanted to support 3G AND LTE which they would have to do considering how scarce LTE is at the moment, the only way for them to do it is to use two chips. Battery life would drain.
Here's a site for you to consider: Thunderbolt Battery Life (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/03/18/htc-thunderbolt-battery-life/)
This is what people are talking about when they say the iPhone's battery life would be horrible. It has nothing to do with a hybrid CDMA/GSM chip, and has everything to do with the lack of a hybrid 3G/LTE chip.
In fact, hybrid CDMA/GSM chips exist, and are already being used by Apple.
You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
Unfortunately, you don't see everything from your so called consumer perspective. Millions of people own iPhones, and it's not like they had no choice. Apple does a fine job of listening to the majority of consumers. Just not you
You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
And there we have it friends! This guy has no clue what he's talking about. There are no hybrid LTE/3G chips available yet, so the multiple chips thing has nothing to do with GSM/CDMA. If Apple wanted to support 3G AND LTE which they would have to do considering how scarce LTE is at the moment, the only way for them to do it is to use two chips. Battery life would drain.
Here's a site for you to consider: Thunderbolt Battery Life (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/03/18/htc-thunderbolt-battery-life/)
This is what people are talking about when they say the iPhone's battery life would be horrible. It has nothing to do with a hybrid CDMA/GSM chip, and has everything to do with the lack of a hybrid 3G/LTE chip.
In fact, hybrid CDMA/GSM chips exist, and are already being used by Apple.
You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
Unfortunately, you don't see everything from your so called consumer perspective. Millions of people own iPhones, and it's not like they had no choice. Apple does a fine job of listening to the majority of consumers. Just not you
