digitalbiker
Aug 11, 02:39 PM
What about the keyboard don't you like? I have MacBook and my wife has a MacBook Pro. Both seem very good. I do miss the lighted keyboard though. Almost went and bough a Pro today with Glossy screen but afraid of Sept. updates:)
I think that whoever is complaining about the MacBook keyboard has never used one. I personally like it much better than the old PB and new MBP.
The whole keyboard is firmer. Keys have larger area to press. The individual keys are not as mushy feeling as the flimsy keys of the PB and the keys don't come close to touching the screen.
Backlighting would be only ehancement that the new keyboard could use.
I would love to see a new MBP design. I would like to see a new display, go back to hard plastic like the MB, eliminate open latch, new keyboard like MB, FW 800, Merom core 2 duo, X1900 GPU, redesigned case with removable HD, battery, and easy memory access like the MB.:D :D :D :D
I think that whoever is complaining about the MacBook keyboard has never used one. I personally like it much better than the old PB and new MBP.
The whole keyboard is firmer. Keys have larger area to press. The individual keys are not as mushy feeling as the flimsy keys of the PB and the keys don't come close to touching the screen.
Backlighting would be only ehancement that the new keyboard could use.
I would love to see a new MBP design. I would like to see a new display, go back to hard plastic like the MB, eliminate open latch, new keyboard like MB, FW 800, Merom core 2 duo, X1900 GPU, redesigned case with removable HD, battery, and easy memory access like the MB.:D :D :D :D
Benjy91
Mar 28, 09:53 AM
So your attitude is "if I can't have it, I don't want anyone to have it."?
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Did I say that I don't want people to have a new phone? Im just not disappointed there isn't any new ones announced, and relieved I wont have to fork out for one at full price from Apple, and instead get a subsidized one from my Network.
And in honesty im not surprised, the specs of the iPhone 4 are still plenty (Could only do with larger storage options).
I think it's too soon for a Dual-Core A5 iPhone, with an 8MP Camera and full 1080p recording, which will probably be what the next one will have.
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Did I say that I don't want people to have a new phone? Im just not disappointed there isn't any new ones announced, and relieved I wont have to fork out for one at full price from Apple, and instead get a subsidized one from my Network.
And in honesty im not surprised, the specs of the iPhone 4 are still plenty (Could only do with larger storage options).
I think it's too soon for a Dual-Core A5 iPhone, with an 8MP Camera and full 1080p recording, which will probably be what the next one will have.
Kilamite
Apr 9, 08:25 PM
Exactly.
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
LegendKillerUK
Apr 20, 07:44 AM
I'm still on a 3G so I'll be loving whatever they do for the 5. I personally don't want them to touch the externals, it's my favourite looking device.
Genetheninja
Apr 26, 04:25 PM
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
syklee26
Sep 11, 11:14 AM
airport extreme base station has wait time of 1-3 weeks.
new version that streams video might be on the way.
new version that streams video might be on the way.
dukebound85
May 3, 01:36 AM
For the love of your education system, do make the switch! I'm an engineering student from Canada. So I have to learn both imperial and SI. Imperial is such a pain in the ass. The units don't mean anything and they are not made to fit with each other so you have conversions factors everywhere. Also, pound force and pound mass, WTF?
Pound force and pound mass compared to kg's and N's? really? Not that hard to grasp lol
Additionally, you would be surprised at how many engineering applications here in the US still use Imperial
Are there really any benefits to the Customary scale, or do we just perceive benefits because it's what we're used to? And if the latter is the case, why make American students learn two systems of units when one fulfills all needs?
I have to ask you, aside from base 10, what makes metric superior?
If it is to have an easier time with conversions and what not, then why would I leave a system that I am very familiar with, even if it is not base 10?
I don't believe one system is better than the other. They are just different.
Pound force and pound mass compared to kg's and N's? really? Not that hard to grasp lol
Additionally, you would be surprised at how many engineering applications here in the US still use Imperial
Are there really any benefits to the Customary scale, or do we just perceive benefits because it's what we're used to? And if the latter is the case, why make American students learn two systems of units when one fulfills all needs?
I have to ask you, aside from base 10, what makes metric superior?
If it is to have an easier time with conversions and what not, then why would I leave a system that I am very familiar with, even if it is not base 10?
I don't believe one system is better than the other. They are just different.
Vegasman
Mar 29, 06:28 PM
Ah... dude... yes they have had suicides there... 11 attempts in 5 months out of 300,000 employees.
You do realize this is lower than the US actual suicide rate of 11 per-100K per-year.
Sorry... but I hate it when people and the press use "drama" to make a point and in reality... the Chinese workers at Foxconn are no different than your average US citizen.
And I think Foxconn actually had around 800,000 employees at the time, 300,000 of which were at one factory.
You do realize this is lower than the US actual suicide rate of 11 per-100K per-year.
Sorry... but I hate it when people and the press use "drama" to make a point and in reality... the Chinese workers at Foxconn are no different than your average US citizen.
And I think Foxconn actually had around 800,000 employees at the time, 300,000 of which were at one factory.
mixel
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
I voted positive.. It's only good for us that there are multiple modern, solid, successful handheld OS around. I hope Win Mobile gets some share too.
Quite funny seeing Symbian dying by the side of the road too, I've never liked it much despite loving some of Nokia's hardware choices.
I prefer my Apple-land devices but I can see why some people don't. :) Bring on the competition. I like Apple's slow but steady and generally well implemented feature roll-outs too.. Agree about the notification system though, it needs replacing.
Quite funny seeing Symbian dying by the side of the road too, I've never liked it much despite loving some of Nokia's hardware choices.
I prefer my Apple-land devices but I can see why some people don't. :) Bring on the competition. I like Apple's slow but steady and generally well implemented feature roll-outs too.. Agree about the notification system though, it needs replacing.
LaMerVipere
Aug 7, 02:56 PM
LAME
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
� Airport Extreme & Bluetooth 2.0 still not standard
� Weak graphics card standard (GeForce 7300, ugh)
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
� Airport Extreme & Bluetooth 2.0 still not standard
� Weak graphics card standard (GeForce 7300, ugh)
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
axonic labs
May 6, 01:11 AM
Oh Charlie, you so silly.
Charlie is still trying to bring nVidia down. Apple won't switch to a slower CPU.
Charlie is still trying to bring nVidia down. Apple won't switch to a slower CPU.
vendettabass
Aug 11, 09:39 AM
mac mini for 64 bit :p :D
applesith
Mar 29, 03:14 PM
Because it's rapidly becoming the case that EVERYTHING can be produced more cheaply in places like China and India -- even things that were previously thought to be "safe" industries (medical X-Rays are read in India / China, legal documents are authored overseas and sent back to the US to be signed) because they required and educated or advanced workforce.
So, I turn the question back to you -- how will you afford to buy an iPod when you are asked to take a substantial (50% or more) pay cut because an individual in India or China can do YOUR job more cheaply.
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
And then the price of labor in those producing countries will rise. Then return to other countries. it cycled back and forth.
So, I turn the question back to you -- how will you afford to buy an iPod when you are asked to take a substantial (50% or more) pay cut because an individual in India or China can do YOUR job more cheaply.
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
And then the price of labor in those producing countries will rise. Then return to other countries. it cycled back and forth.
Ava's Meeshee
Apr 20, 09:31 AM
Oh, right, so that justifies arrogance, parochialism and chauvinism. Carry on then.
What justifies European & European colonial sense of entitlement in forums like these?
What justifies European & European colonial sense of entitlement in forums like these?
Eldiablojoe
May 3, 11:00 PM
I don't know what you guys mean by leaders. We make our decisions individually in the thread, right?
No, I don't understand it that way. I understand that each group (one if we stay together, multiple if we split up) designates a leader. We do ALL of our conversation in the thread. Only the group leaders communicate the wishes of their group to the Game Gods via PM. They may take the consensus of the group, or they may implement decisions unilaterally without regard to group majority.
No, I don't understand it that way. I understand that each group (one if we stay together, multiple if we split up) designates a leader. We do ALL of our conversation in the thread. Only the group leaders communicate the wishes of their group to the Game Gods via PM. They may take the consensus of the group, or they may implement decisions unilaterally without regard to group majority.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
milo
Aug 11, 05:43 PM
3 - If Merom, etc.. are 32bit, then 10.4.7 is 64bit? :confused:
10.5 will be 64 bit, 10.4.x is not.
10.5 will be 64 bit, 10.4.x is not.
rtcruz1
Apr 26, 04:22 PM
The way the Android OS is structured, and with the number of manufacturers making Android based smartphones, it would only be a matter time before the total number outgrew what one manufacturer of one phone could make.
worldfar
Aug 4, 08:17 PM
although the Merom is average faster than Yohan 10%~20%:cool:
0815
Apr 5, 02:44 PM
That's very true. But Apple (or any software, consumer electronics company) would be foolish to not close known security holes.
Yes, new holes will be found. And Apple will try to plug those up, as well. I can't see an argument for people complaining that Apple is patching security holes.
At least on iPhone you can apply the updates on the day they come out (well, JB versions have to wait a couple of days) ... compare this to Android and WinMobile7 where you are at the mercy of the carrier to 'enrich' the update with their 'features' which might take many weeks or month - if it ever comes.
Yes, new holes will be found. And Apple will try to plug those up, as well. I can't see an argument for people complaining that Apple is patching security holes.
At least on iPhone you can apply the updates on the day they come out (well, JB versions have to wait a couple of days) ... compare this to Android and WinMobile7 where you are at the mercy of the carrier to 'enrich' the update with their 'features' which might take many weeks or month - if it ever comes.
iamrawr
May 7, 11:16 PM
Do it! Free is good :cool:
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 08:56 AM
Redundant power supplies are generally not a standard feature for most x86 servers sold. It isn't a must (requirement); it is an optional feature need if want to sell to the relatively small subset of the market that wants them. (e.g, none of Google's, Microsoft's ,etc search/cloud servers have dual power supplies and they number in the many, many thousands. )
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
xPismo
Sep 11, 04:07 PM
...No prob with a H.264 at 2-6 mpbs. Files for a 90 minute movie at 700 mb (near-DVD-quality...I just hope for a renting solution as this is what people do with MOVIES.... If they have another solution: bring it on; it's gonna make sense.
Nicely put. Shocking to believe what modern compression and modern (read lower) expectations of the average film watcher have allowed distriution solutions to do.
I'm expecting a slick, consumer oriented solution to the video portion of the iTunes music store, but I'm not holding my breath for a 'movie' store or movie rental store solution.
At a compression value I would accecpt, files will still be to big for the internet of today / average power of a computer today / the HD's of today.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. We shall see.
Nicely put. Shocking to believe what modern compression and modern (read lower) expectations of the average film watcher have allowed distriution solutions to do.
I'm expecting a slick, consumer oriented solution to the video portion of the iTunes music store, but I'm not holding my breath for a 'movie' store or movie rental store solution.
At a compression value I would accecpt, files will still be to big for the internet of today / average power of a computer today / the HD's of today.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. We shall see.