Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Television Ad Says iPhone "Coming June 29th"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MLeepson said:
Could be a now playing or a shortcut to something? I assume it's like one of those items that jumps up and down to get attention. Thoughts?
I just looked on CNN Tech and it got "front" page coverage (of the tech section)
http://beta.cnn.com/TECH/
But take a look of that picture. Those finger prints are NASTY! It must have been the day Steve announced it and his hands were sweaty.
You're right, that is bad pic of the iPhone. Those fingerprints are gross... clear to send to some fingerprinting identity place and identify the person
i checked the FCC site, and approval documents for GPS receivers, the only ones that require one have FM transmitters, or bluetooth transmitters/receivers.
so, Apple can add a GPS without approval.
the GPS rumors starts to be credible.
google maps for the iPhone was written by Apple, they just use the gmaps API, Apple has clearly made this application a priority.
+ i saw a patent explaining how Apple makes a case that let's radio waves trough, something that is required for a GPS without a visible antenna.
if the iPhone has no GPS i will wait (i'm in europe, so i have to wait anyway)
I just looked on CNN Tech and it got "front" page coverage (of the tech section)
http://beta.cnn.com/TECH/
But take a look of that picture. Those finger prints are NASTY! It must have been the day Steve announced it and his hands were sweaty.
Yeah, that isn't exactly the best product shot to use!
I've seen a lot of comments on the CNET site, saying that CNET seems very biased against Apple. For example, they rated the MBP only a 7.4 out of 10, even though the only "cons" were a lack of built-in media card reader (?!) and only 90 days of toll-free phone support. So I have to wonder if they intentionally used a less-than-glamorous picture. Sounds a bit paranoid, but honestly, who would use a picture like that?
That's amusing, and sadly, I could see them doing something like that.
Ah well, the public will decide whether the iPhone is a great innovation or not, not some potentially biased site. The sales figures will ultimately determine whether the iPhone is a successful product, regardless of how crappy the product pictures might be that are out there. 
I am hoping that they will open up ordering for the iPhone early, and have delivery on the same day (with one day shipping) as the available in store method.
I don't see any reason they couldn't do that. Other than wanting to create a grey market situation by a$$h*les who will re-sell their place in line, or phone in your area code on ebay.
Yeah, that's okay if you're in the US, but almost everywhere else 3G is becoming the norm.
If you're in Europe you may as well get the Nokia N95. I can't see any reason (other than brand loyalty) for getting an iPhone over one of these.
That's a pretty good guess, especially since they've recently added that to Apple TV.
I think that's my kind of final impression on this. The iPhone does some really cool things, both in function and interface. I'd like to see some sort of iCal datebook/wi-fi mail and web/flash-based iPod like version of the iPhone -- would certainly improve on my Palm, even if it wouldn't make the perfect digital notebook. That I'd buy. Even at an Apple-style premium price. But bottom line, this is a bunch of great Apple R&D, design and implementation that is nothing but a big coup for AT&T. It's the first Apple product I've seen in a long time that's highly inaccessible to Apple consumers not because of premium price, but because of something Apple considers antithetical to its core business: lack of choice and inability of their customers to control their devices rather than the other way around. Buy a Mac, you're not even locked into Mac OS X and haven't been for years. Buy an iPod, you're not at all locked into getting your content from the iTunes Store. The iTunes Store is often a bargain, but you can easily get your physical media content onto an iPod. Same for Apple TV. But buy an iPhone, you're locked into one mediocre carrier for *two years*. You're not even allowed to buy one and use it for it's numerous non-phone functions off the AT&T network (thus my insistence that there is indeed a hidden carrier subsidy).
I'm not saying it won't sell. But I'm flat disappointed, not in the device, but for the incarceration you must endure to own one. Sounds like some other technology company I can't recall the name of right now.
As for the implication of GPS. Maybe, but I doubt it. You could easily do "the nearest good seafood restaurant" by identifying the cell tower to which you're connected. No GPS required.
re: Logo on the phone is 'AT&T' not 'at&t'
AT&T's policy is to use all caps when the company name is being displayed texually. Only in the logo will you find the characters lowercase.
AT&T's policy is to use all caps when the company name is being displayed texually. Only in the logo will you find the characters lowercase.
I think we're in luck... did a quick search of the Apple discussion forums and one poster mentions the original press release:
"iPhone will be sold in the US through Apples retail and online stores, and through Cingulars retail and online stores."
I double checked just to make sure:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09iphone.html
You're wrong on both counts. If you want it as a $600 8-gig camera-equipped WiFi iPod, you can do so. Just like you can buy other unsubsidised GSM phones without a cell plan. If you want to use it for GSM/EDGE, however, you will need to have a 2-year agreement with AT&T.
It's been clarified many times that there is no subsidy. Of course, the carrier wants to keep customers as long as possible, so if they can get the millions of customers they already have by requiring a 2-year contract for a bottom-end phone, of course they can get away with requiring a 2-year contract for they top-end phone for the small percentage of their customers who will buy an iPhone.
Wow, over 400 comments. I've read that people have stated most consumers don't know about the iPhone, and that knowledge is limited thus far to Mac users and techies. Don't know if that's necessarily true, but 400 comments in a day or two proves just how much people seem to be interested in this new device. Personally, I'll make my decision on whether it's worth the $499 or $599 on the second version. As a Cingular/AT&T (and why didn't AT&T just keep the Cingular name? Don't they know the negative image AT&T has??? lol) customer, I ventured into a store to purchase a new RAZR and asked the rep about the iPhone. "Supposedly" there will be a second version due out this fall with 3G (according to AT&T insider info, this store manager just got back from regional meetings held in NYC and was briefed on the iPhone, although who knows if it's true). By the time the second version is released, I'll be in the market. Until then, it's all interesting to read.
Hi
I can't disagree with that in any way. As far as most technology goes, the U.S. seems like cavemen / cavewomen. It's actually annoying to realize it. My Nokia 6630 is 3G -- It's a non-US sold model -- and it's from 2004. For another example: Internet access costs probably ~1/10th "across the pond."
Do you think the numerous non-phone functions stop working if you wander out of AT&T's coverage area? That's a serious question, not sarcastic.
I dont even think it has a file manager to make iDisk useful.
Which brings me to the point about accessing media on the go and not just things that have been synced. For instance, if this is the *real* internet, can I go to Flickr and download an image and have it open up in the Photos application? Same way with PDFs.