Mossberg is right about the 3G phone. Also, he was never wrong about Flash on the iPhone. Adobe said they are going to use the SDK to make one for the iPhone. They COULD be one of the companies that Apple will allow to write a program to run in the background.
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
Yea, this is what I think. Flash (and yes, I know how many people on this site hate the program) will be released for the iPhone around the same time as 3G IMO. I personally look forward to it since so many sites I visit use Flash - including my own (although in a very limited way).
Why? Why is everyone wanting GPS on these phones? GPS on these phones suck. I have a Moto Q9h with GPS and frankly unless I stand in one place for 5 minutes it won't get a GPS signal. Once it gets it, its very faint though it does work at that point. But its expensive at $10 a month for the service.
On the other hand I have a TomTom GPS unit that gets a signal in about 30-50 seconds if I'm moving and has never failed and works perfectly every time.
Putting a GPS in the phone just drains its battery and adds stuff to the phone that while neat sometimes, is not worth dumping or trading off a real GPS for.
Same argument as a real camera vs phone camera.
The reason some of us would like GPS on an iPhone is because we want to limit the number of devices that we carry around. This however, does not discount your reasons against having it on the iPhone.
Adobe has already come forward and said that they cannot create an iPhone version of Flash with the SDK, but will need Apples help.
Personally I'd love GPS on the iPhone but I just can't see it yet. Apple has invested into the idea of GPS though, what with the Locate Me button. It doesn't work too well (the search radius was massive) and hopefully its something they'll go into in the future.
Tell you what though. A 32gb iPhone with 3G, GPS and a 4mp camera with optical zoom. I wouldn't need to buy another device for 18 months
Tell you what though. A 32gb iPhone with 3G, GPS and a 4mp camera with optical zoom. I wouldn't need to buy another device for 18 months
Personally, if I had to choose, I would take GPS over 3G. Obviosuly I would rather have both, but it is the GPS, not 3G that is making me wait for v2. Considering how much Apple touted the GMaps app, it seems crazy not to include GPS.
As for the time taken to get sat lock, there are ways around it. Ephemeris for the GPS birds can be downloaded from the internet. This allows the GPS chip to look for the sats in areas where they are likly to be, not the entire sky. HTC have used this quite sucessfully on their smartphone lineup. Also, the chip can be 'underclocked' (longer time between queries) to conserve battery where absolute accuracy is less important suchh as navigating on foot around a city. Where a more accurate fix is needed, the rate can be increased, albeit at the expense of battery life. This isn't too much of a deal as this is only needed when at higher speeds (driving) and as such the device is more likly to be powered from an external source.
As for the time taken to get sat lock, there are ways around it. Ephemeris for the GPS birds can be downloaded from the internet. This allows the GPS chip to look for the sats in areas where they are likly to be, not the entire sky. HTC have used this quite sucessfully on their smartphone lineup. Also, the chip can be 'underclocked' (longer time between queries) to conserve battery where absolute accuracy is less important suchh as navigating on foot around a city. Where a more accurate fix is needed, the rate can be increased, albeit at the expense of battery life. This isn't too much of a deal as this is only needed when at higher speeds (driving) and as such the device is more likly to be powered from an external source.
What's the surprise? Walt is playing it safe with his prediction. I think many of us already knew by watching the MWSF keynote that the 3G iPhone was going to be released in Q2.
He didn't really predict anything.
He didn't really predict anything.
Oops, you are right. I was confused by the graphs in one of the operators website that compared their coverage (indicated by index-number 100) to their competitors.
EDIT: As to the comments about having GPS in there.... Why? How many of us REALLY carry GPS-devices with us? And even if you do not carry them, do you still have the NEED for one? No, 95% of the time you don't need them in your car either.
Apparently the reality distortion field is located over your house. As I've said before, unlimited internet access on my 3G phone, and any other offered by AT&T, is still $20. It's not like they don't have 3G phones already. There will be no price hike.
All of this 3g crap is irrelevant. see...
THE internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.
At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, the grid will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalogue from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds.
The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the web, the grid could also provide the kind of power needed to transmit holographic images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.
David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could revolutionise society. With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine, he said.
The power of the grid will become apparent this summer after what scientists at Cern have termed their red button day - the switching-on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the new particle accelerator built to probe the origin of the universe. The grid will be activated at the same time to capture the data it generates.
Cern, based near Geneva, started the grid computing project seven years ago when researchers realised the LHC would generate annual data equivalent to 56m CDs - enough to make a stack 40 miles high.
This meant that scientists at Cern - where Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1989 - would no longer be able to use his creation for fear of causing a global collapse.
This is because the internet has evolved by linking together a hotchpotch of cables and routing equipment, much of which was originally designed for telephone calls and therefore lacks the capacity for high-speed data transmission.
By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.
Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project, said: We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at Cern. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries.
That network, in effect a parallel internet, is now built, using fibre optic cables that run from Cern to 11 centres in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.
One terminates at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory at Harwell in Oxfordshire.
From each centre, further connections radiate out to a host of other research institutions using existing high-speed academic networks.
It means Britain alone has 8,000 servers on the grid system so that any student or academic will theoretically be able to hook up to the grid rather than the internet from this autumn.
Ian Bird, project leader for Cerns high-speed computing project, said grid technology could make the internet so fast that people would stop using desktop computers to store information and entrust it all to the internet.
It will lead to whats known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere, he said.
Computers on the grid can also transmit data at lightning speed. This will allow researchers facing heavy processing tasks to call on the assistance of thousands of other computers around the world. The aim is to eliminate the dreaded frozen screen experienced by internet users who ask their machine to handle too much information.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece
THE internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.
At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, the grid will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalogue from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds.
The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the web, the grid could also provide the kind of power needed to transmit holographic images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.
David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could revolutionise society. With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine, he said.
The power of the grid will become apparent this summer after what scientists at Cern have termed their red button day - the switching-on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the new particle accelerator built to probe the origin of the universe. The grid will be activated at the same time to capture the data it generates.
Cern, based near Geneva, started the grid computing project seven years ago when researchers realised the LHC would generate annual data equivalent to 56m CDs - enough to make a stack 40 miles high.
This meant that scientists at Cern - where Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1989 - would no longer be able to use his creation for fear of causing a global collapse.
This is because the internet has evolved by linking together a hotchpotch of cables and routing equipment, much of which was originally designed for telephone calls and therefore lacks the capacity for high-speed data transmission.
By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.
Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project, said: We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at Cern. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries.
That network, in effect a parallel internet, is now built, using fibre optic cables that run from Cern to 11 centres in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.
One terminates at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory at Harwell in Oxfordshire.
From each centre, further connections radiate out to a host of other research institutions using existing high-speed academic networks.
It means Britain alone has 8,000 servers on the grid system so that any student or academic will theoretically be able to hook up to the grid rather than the internet from this autumn.
Ian Bird, project leader for Cerns high-speed computing project, said grid technology could make the internet so fast that people would stop using desktop computers to store information and entrust it all to the internet.
It will lead to whats known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere, he said.
Computers on the grid can also transmit data at lightning speed. This will allow researchers facing heavy processing tasks to call on the assistance of thousands of other computers around the world. The aim is to eliminate the dreaded frozen screen experienced by internet users who ask their machine to handle too much information.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece
I dont agree. Im 205 lbs, bodyguard, and security advisor.
Knowledge and being informed does not mean your a geek.
Not that being a geek or anything else is, I just dont see myself as a geek
Some people are missing a big point
The US market is NOTHING like any of the market's Walt touched on. Mainly, how big (geographically speaking) are the countries he's talking about? Yeah, the US has states bigger than those countries and that matters - a lot. The only way to fix all of that and have size not matter is to run fiber optics EVERYWHERE and the companies just don't have the dough for that without charging an arm and a leg. Japan can have these insane speeds because it's so small there isn't an issue about latency in the copper lines from the distribution facility to your house. The US has that problem and always will - the geography makes it that way. The tendency of the middle class to live in suburbs over urban and rural areas and the general lack of caring by the overwhelming majority of Americans are the reasons we are where we are today. Example - my parents live in "rural" Ohio about 6 miles outside of town (of about 5k people). The only broadband options they have are satellite (horribly expensive) and cable (which would charge them to run the cable from the road to our house (about half a mile). And that's in OHIO! I'm not talking about a cattle ranch in west texas or a desert lot in NM. The only way the entire country will get to broadband is to upgrade the entire grid to fiber optics and until that becomes price feasible we're going to have what we have right now and since most Americans haven't lived in Japan or Finland or Scandinavia we won't care because unless you know what's out there and have experienced it you have no idea there's something better (i.e. the Windows user who's never touched a Mac).
Ok - there's my 2 cents
The US market is NOTHING like any of the market's Walt touched on. Mainly, how big (geographically speaking) are the countries he's talking about? Yeah, the US has states bigger than those countries and that matters - a lot. The only way to fix all of that and have size not matter is to run fiber optics EVERYWHERE and the companies just don't have the dough for that without charging an arm and a leg. Japan can have these insane speeds because it's so small there isn't an issue about latency in the copper lines from the distribution facility to your house. The US has that problem and always will - the geography makes it that way. The tendency of the middle class to live in suburbs over urban and rural areas and the general lack of caring by the overwhelming majority of Americans are the reasons we are where we are today. Example - my parents live in "rural" Ohio about 6 miles outside of town (of about 5k people). The only broadband options they have are satellite (horribly expensive) and cable (which would charge them to run the cable from the road to our house (about half a mile). And that's in OHIO! I'm not talking about a cattle ranch in west texas or a desert lot in NM. The only way the entire country will get to broadband is to upgrade the entire grid to fiber optics and until that becomes price feasible we're going to have what we have right now and since most Americans haven't lived in Japan or Finland or Scandinavia we won't care because unless you know what's out there and have experienced it you have no idea there's something better (i.e. the Windows user who's never touched a Mac
).Ok - there's my 2 cents
And the Grid will be available to existing internet consumers in major cities when? I ask because you say "soon".
If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't fill this thread or forum up with ***.
The US market is NOTHING like any of the market's Walt touched on. Mainly, how big (geographically speaking) are the countries he's talking about? Yeah, the US has states bigger than those countries and that matters - a lot. The only way to fix all of that and have size not matter is to run fiber optics EVERYWHERE and the companies just don't have the dough for that without charging an arm and a leg. Japan can have these insane speeds because it's so small there isn't an issue about latency in the copper lines from the distribution facility to your house. The US has that problem and always will - the geography makes it that way. The tendency of the middle class to live in suburbs over urban and rural areas and the general lack of caring by the overwhelming majority of Americans are the reasons we are where we are today. Example - my parents live in "rural" Ohio about 6 miles outside of town (of about 5k people). The only broadband options they have are satellite (horribly expensive) and cable (which would charge them to run the cable from the road to our house (about half a mile). And that's in OHIO! I'm not talking about a cattle ranch in west texas or a desert lot in NM. The only way the entire country will get to broadband is to upgrade the entire grid to fiber optics and until that becomes price feasible we're going to have what we have right now and since most Americans haven't lived in Japan or Finland or Scandinavia we won't care because unless you know what's out there and have experienced it you have no idea there's something better (i.e. the Windows user who's never touched a Mac
Ok - there's my 2 cents
Your point is well taken. However, those who live in major cities should probably be wired for very fast broadband coverage. NYC is one of the international and economic centers of the world - and it should be able to compete with it's urban peers around the globe.
All I know is I want all cell phone towers replaced by large WIFI towers that make the grid available to my iPhone.
All I know is I want all cell phone towers replaced by large WIFI towers that make the grid available to my iPhone.
Well, I am excited about 3G coming to the iPhone for June. But the article is very interesting and I'm with you for having this GRID sometime in the future (hopefully sooner than later)!
Under the best situations it would increase your usage time vs battery alone (initially), it however will also likely increase the rate of decay of the battery, the exception being if it only provides supplemental power not storying any.
As far as releasing the phone, I hope it is released before the SDK & App Store goes public. It could be a major hassle for developers if it is not. Granted it most likely use the same sdk as 1.0 model and touch, but this would allow for zero time to test programs on the 2.0 or tailor to a new platform. It will either cause problems with inconsistencies (hardware or software), have unexpected new features of phone to be left out, or their projects to be delayed. Even a week or two would allow the interface and basic functionality to be tested and simple problems corrected before their release.
Here is my point of view...
The iPhone is right now on EDGE, or the 2.5G. Everyone is right now "OMG! 3G! 60 DAYS!," but will 3G really make that much of a difference in network speeds? No matter what, Wi-Fi will be faster then any other network speed. In my opinion, Apple should be looking more into make a Wireless-N chipset for the iPhone v2.
I don't actually own an iPhone, but I own an iPod touch. I find it's Wi-Fi speeds adequate with my daily needs, but living in a generation of going "faster," it could be faster. The whole human race at the moment are all about speed.
Example 1: "I need these download speeds to hurry up! Gosh! Stupid Dial-Up!"
Example 2: "I just want to run through this fast food joint and grab my food and be on my way as soon as possible."
Example 3: "My computer doesn't boot up fast enough!"
There could be an endless list of how humanity wants to go at speeds that don't please them. When the 3G iPhone comes out, people will bash Apple, saying that it's not fast enough. They'll be demanding for 4G, and so on and so forth. In today's society, the present/modern speed of something is always being demanded to be faster. The 3G iPhone will be great, but people will want it to be "faster." Faster processor, faster wireless chipset, faster boot time, faster syncing times, etc. On top of that, they'll want a higher-resolution screen, a bigger MegaPixel camera, bigger touch screen, etc.
So, in conclusion, ANY technology device is imperfect. Society today want perfection or near perfection. They want things to be better, thinner, bigger, faster, cheaper, prettier, etc. The iPhone has been out for a year, and it will take more then just a year to develop a "perfect iPhone" because there will never be a "perfect iPhone."
My opinion, it its worth anything.
The iPhone is right now on EDGE, or the 2.5G. Everyone is right now "OMG! 3G! 60 DAYS!," but will 3G really make that much of a difference in network speeds? No matter what, Wi-Fi will be faster then any other network speed. In my opinion, Apple should be looking more into make a Wireless-N chipset for the iPhone v2.
I don't actually own an iPhone, but I own an iPod touch. I find it's Wi-Fi speeds adequate with my daily needs, but living in a generation of going "faster," it could be faster. The whole human race at the moment are all about speed.
Example 1: "I need these download speeds to hurry up! Gosh! Stupid Dial-Up!"
Example 2: "I just want to run through this fast food joint and grab my food and be on my way as soon as possible."
Example 3: "My computer doesn't boot up fast enough!"
There could be an endless list of how humanity wants to go at speeds that don't please them. When the 3G iPhone comes out, people will bash Apple, saying that it's not fast enough. They'll be demanding for 4G, and so on and so forth. In today's society, the present/modern speed of something is always being demanded to be faster. The 3G iPhone will be great, but people will want it to be "faster." Faster processor, faster wireless chipset, faster boot time, faster syncing times, etc. On top of that, they'll want a higher-resolution screen, a bigger MegaPixel camera, bigger touch screen, etc.
So, in conclusion, ANY technology device is imperfect. Society today want perfection or near perfection. They want things to be better, thinner, bigger, faster, cheaper, prettier, etc. The iPhone has been out for a year, and it will take more then just a year to develop a "perfect iPhone" because there will never be a "perfect iPhone."
My opinion, it its worth anything.