I wonder how many more times people are going to ask this question until June? I say at least 100.
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.
Mossberg: 3G iPhone In 60 Days
- Thread starter ~*allison*~
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wonder how many more times people are going to ask this question until June? I say at least 100.
The problem is that people want things that they can't even use or understand just because it sounds nice.
In order for the iPhone to have a camera that will replace your basic point-and-shoot even, the camera lens would have to be about 3 times bigger, thus uglying up your phone. AND the phone would have to be thicker.
An iPhone is not going to be able to replace your digital camera anytime in the next couple years people. Understand what's actually going on with the technology before demanding something that doesn't even make sense.
Can someone tell me this regarding 3G...
I just viewed my location on the at&t coverage locator and I am not in the dark orange (best coverage), nor the orange (good coverage), but in the dull yellow coverage area for moderate reception. When I check the 3G coverage status, my same location is blue dead center, not on the outer fringe of any type coverage. Does that mean, if I had the 3G phone, would my calling ability increase to receive and make calls (inside a building) at my present dull yellow spot or does the only thing 3G get me is faster download and upload speeds? - thanks.
this video does not actually show him saying they will be out in 60 days!!
-- if you watch closely the camera dips off screen right when he supposedly says that line!!
-- he undoubtedly says that the 3G iphone IS coming... however this video could easily have been altered
-- doesn't it seem a little sketch that the most important line of this entire video falls out of frame?
hasn't anyone else noticed this???
-- if you watch closely the camera dips off screen right when he supposedly says that line!!
-- he undoubtedly says that the 3G iphone IS coming... however this video could easily have been altered
-- doesn't it seem a little sketch that the most important line of this entire video falls out of frame?
hasn't anyone else noticed this???
what about his voice not changing at all? i think the simple explanation is that the person filming it realized he was about to say something important and got excited while zooming in.
Yeah that's for the US though.....
Oh well, I'm moving to Ontario, CA to live with my girlfriend just as soon as I can afford the one way ticket
Yay! Now I'll live in the country that gets the best stuff 1st
slightly off topic..... but I guess the opening sentence keeps it relative
Oh well, I'm moving to Ontario, CA to live with my girlfriend just as soon as I can afford the one way ticket
Yay! Now I'll live in the country that gets the best stuff 1st
slightly off topic..... but I guess the opening sentence keeps it relative
The potential is there for a much better camera!
I'm hoping for a lot more than that myself. I just don't know if all the technology will be there yet.
Dave
While I agree that there is more to making a great camera than high pixel count, the current iPhone is just too low of a pixel count to get very excited about. As to over all picture quality from cell phone cameras there is more research going into that sort of camera technology than one can easily imagine. All sorts of technologies are being thrown at cell cameras in the hopes of better image quality.
This is not a bad idea except for the fact that Apple would need to implement a high speed I/O port on the devices They do have unused pins on the I/O connector. I could see many a snap in devices for such an upgraded iPhone.
I'm hoping for a lot more than that myself. I just don't know if all the technology will be there yet.
Dave
why would they make a new iphone when 2.0 didnt even come out for this iphone? im confused about this.
thanks
espo
thanks
espo
The video is posted on Mossberg's site. Whether or not we will see the 3G iPhone in 60 days is up to question, but the fact that Mossberg said it is not.
The horrible use of sayings in this thread has me chuckling. It really annoys me too when Americans do them wrong (and don't think enough to realise). "Could care less" is the best example, THINK about what you're saying. It means you do care, as you could care less. D'uh. "Couldn't care less" however means that it would be impossible for you to care any less.
Case IN point, I'm very excited about the impending release of a 3G iPhone. I was very close to purchasing the current model, but I think it's worth waiting...
Case IN point, I'm very excited about the impending release of a 3G iPhone. I was very close to purchasing the current model, but I think it's worth waiting...
Yes, because it's only Americans who occasionally butcher the English language.
Maybe you should brush up on the very thing you're criticizing people over. You totally misused the phrase "case in point."
No he didn't... the case was made in the point, why is it misused?Yes, because it's only Americans who occasionally butcher the English language.
Maybe you should brush up on the very thing you're criticizing people over. You totally misused the phrase "case in point."
About cameras; Anything over 2 Megapixels is useless unless the aperture and sensor is made bigger (as in the size of the lens and aperture on the N95). BIG MEGAPIXELS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING WHEN YOU CANNOT GET ENOUGH LIGHT (DETAIL) THROUGH THE HOLE IN THE CAMERA SO TO FILL THOSE PIXELS.
About the fcc; pre-approved 3G chips exist, and have done for a while.
Yes, because it's only Americans who occasionally butcher the English language.
Maybe you should brush up on the very thing you're criticizing people over. You totally misused the phrase "case in point."
The discussion of the 3G iPhone is the case in point, the thing being discussed. I'm not using it in the idiom way but it (at least) makes sense in context.
From Answers.com "Case in point: A relevant example or illustration of something", with my statement being a relevant illustration of how I nearly bought an iPhone but will wait for the 3G version with all these rumours.
This is a very good point that is very rarely brought up. A high MP rating does not equal brilliant photos, this is especially true of camera-phones. I guess video recording would be more of an issue, 2MP isn't too bad as far as phones go (certainly not the best) but a complete lack of any kind of recording capability is a bit archaic.
I have seen a comparison in a German print magazine, some devices from Nokia and Sony Ericsson have been a lot a lot better in picture quality than iPhone.
Megapixels may play a role, but it is certainly not the main factor. Much more important are:
- Some devices have a camera that can actually focus, so they are able to make the important part of the picture really sharp even with a larger aperture. The iPhone in contrast uses a simple fixed focus lens. They have to make the aperture small enough to make all distances "just sharp enough", but nothing will ever be really "in focus". A small aperture will reduce low light performance (more noise). Software filtering is not the answer to noise, because it also destroys fine detail. A small aperture (combined with a small sensor with small pixels) will also increase diffraction making the picture even more blury (so a 5 MP+ fixed focus camera would not make me happy).
- Some competitors include a LED or even a Xenon flash light, so indoor shots are a lot easier to take with lower noise.
- Some devices do have real optical zoom instead of cheap, faked digital zoom.
Of course all this has a down side: Focusing optics and optical zoom require moving parts and would be hard to integrate in such a thin package like the iPhone. The device could also become more fragile in case it is dropped etc....
Christian
That was an intresting video not only because of the iPhone reference but because of the ideas and facts about the current state of broadband in the US.
This country is lagging behind in it's internet infrastructure. and i agree with him when he talks about the crappy service Telecoms call broadband.
This is very important specially for Apple, a company that is building a service that will need true broadband to succeed.
This is why I believe that Disc media will never go away. Until we have broadband offerings compared to those in Japan and or Europe we will never be able to detach our self from Physical Disc media.
This country is lagging behind in it's internet infrastructure. and i agree with him when he talks about the crappy service Telecoms call broadband.
This is very important specially for Apple, a company that is building a service that will need true broadband to succeed.
This is why I believe that Disc media will never go away. Until we have broadband offerings compared to those in Japan and or Europe we will never be able to detach our self from Physical Disc media.
I'm glad I joined the EnglishRumors forums
And bring on the 3g iphone, the sooner the better
I´m sure you meant "better the sooner"?
People keep saying how bad the internet service is in the US. I'm trying to figure out if, because I live so close to DC (2 miles from the city limits, in an area where a lot of congresspeople have their homes) the service I get is just better than most, or what?
I mean, I have Comcast, and I get about 10 mbit per second download. Upload speed is around 2 mbits. I pay about $43 per month for the service, and it pretty much never goes down.
I'm a pretty damned heavy internet user. I run a web site off my PC for my own purposes, so I can access files from other places. Large files sometimes, and yeah, when I'm trying to get a 400 megabyte file from my server, it stinks to have to wait about 30 minutes. But downloading a file that large takes about 5 minutes typically.
When I watch streaming video it starts instantaneously. Web sites come up in an instant. Bittorrent files take no time...
So my question is, what use are people getting out of their 50 mbit connections that it's so valuable to them that I can't get out of 10? I just can't imagine how much more speed anyone would really need day to day. Can someone clear that up?
So in your world, forever and 2 years are about the same? As Verizon builds out their fiber network, the competition is pushing the cable companies to expand their offerings, and we'll easily have those 50 megabit speeds in 2-3 years, if past trends hold.
Don't count on it. The iPhone already takes great pictures given the format of the camera.
More megapixels wouldn't automatically improve the picture. The limiting factor on the iPhone is probably the lens and the distance between the lens and the sensor. It's hard to imagine getting a significantly better lens into this size device.
This does not sound a lot different what I am used to here in Germany.
In some major cities here you now can get VDSL with 50 mbit/s and some providers are even talink abour 100 mbit/s. This is mainly intended for delivery of IPTV in HD quality. This is good for marketting, but limited to a few places. ADSL2+ (16 mbit/s+) is widely available now and most people can at least be connected to services that offer 1 mbit/s or more. I don't think thats much different from the USA.
But in my optinion the problem is somewhere else. There are still millions(!) of people that cannot be connected to any service faster than ISDN. That means they have to pay internet in most cases per minute(!) at only 64 kbit/s or boundle both ISDN channels to get 128 kbit/s (but at twice the cost).
Since ISDN is not common in the US (or anywhere else but in Germany) I wonder how many US people still have to use slow modem conntections?
If someone proposes internet to replace disc based media etc. he should remember a lot people who need days(!) to download a movie or large software packaged.
Christian
You were discussing the misuse of language for the first half of the post, so I took it that "language usage" was your case. It seemed to me that you were just using the phrase as a transition into your next point.
I'm one of the masses that Mossberg is referring to with a "stated" 5-6 mbp download and a much much slower upload (Time Warner Cable). I only dream of the speeds that you have. I also lose even more speed because of being wireless.
However, in the transfer of information, like the capacity of HD space, I don't think continued increases will be unnecessary. As larger files are created to watch content, etc. the need for a faster and faster pipeline will be needed. Right now my speed is perfect for the small and blurry images of you-tube - but not for my Aquas TV in HD.
Just for the record, you shouldn't be losing any speed over wireless unless you're on the fringes of your reception. A wireless router is still going to have a higher throughput than the majority of home broadband connections.