Is is the photo, or does the Matte look a tad shorter and thinner?
don't like matte at all, i think it lowers the overall appeal of the phone because it makes it looks cheap and nasty.
On the other hand, if it was metal it would be lovely
What if they do this:
8GB Glossy-only Black ($199)
16GB Glossy or Matte Black ($299)
32GB Matte-only Black ($399)
64GB Gold-plated ($999)
Is is the photo, or does the Matte look a tad shorter and thinner?
you forgot the platinum, diamond-embossed version.What if they do this:
8GB Glossy-only Black ($199)
16GB Glossy or Matte Black ($299)
32GB Matte-only Black ($399)
64GB Gold-plated ($999)
About 6 months ago I interviewed with Apple and when asked what the worst design decision was the Apple made, I mentioned the redesign from first gen to second gen iPhone. I can grip the sides of the original iPhone and can slap egrips onto the edges to make it even easier. However, the second gen iPhone is shaped like a used bar of soap, has no edge to grip, and hence no place for egrips. I returned mine for a refund after I dropped it a dozen times when I got it home from the at&t store.
I told them that they either need to put an edge back onto it or use that rubbery grippy material that Blackberry has on some of their phones. Perhaps the matte finish is that material?
What really makes this iPhone look cheap are the Quality Assurance icons on the back. They are too big, and too prominently visible in white. What's next: a barcode?
I'd rather see a few screws than this.
Wow, i seem to be the only one around here who thinks the matte looks totally lame.Also, I've been using my shiny 3G (without any protectors) since quite some time now and have no visible scratches at all.
I wonder though, will the matte finish be similar to the first HTC Touch? That looked lame as well, but it felt nice in the palm of my hand.
I think you might be on to something.