Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Possible Photos of 3G iPhone

Camera Location?

Does anyone else think the BEST camera location would be IN the HOME button? I mean, they look practically the same anyway. For those that feel it would be too low, perhaps the accelerometer would allow you to flip the phone (kinda like we do with Safari now, but a complete 180º).
=rg=
 
dm303 said:
1. Could be fake
The camera is on the rear of the phone and it claims to do video conferencing
Click to expand...
There is a front-mounted camera--top right of the phone in this picture.

Yes, I know its fake, but it appears the black one doesn't have the dock connector in this photo.

robgreene said:
Does anyone else think the BEST camera location would be IN the HOME button? I mean, they look practically the same anyway. For those that feel it would be too low, perhaps the accelerometer would allow you to flip the phone (kinda like we do with Safari now, but a complete 180º).
=rg=
Click to expand...
I wouldn't always want to be touching the camera lens. It's too low. Why go through the annoyance of flipping your phone upside down, when the camera would work perfectly fine on top?
 
iceman1234 said:
these phones look too thin to hold a battery large enough to support, power hungry, 3G chips.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you say that?

Check out the Samsung F480 (2.8" display) and F490 (3.2" display)

These phones are HSDPA with touch screens and 5 megapixel autofocus cameras with flash and a secondary camera for video calls.

They are slightly thinner than the iPhone and much smaller in width and length. There is plenty of room in something the size of today's iPhone for a battery much larger than these Samsungs.
 
Martin C said:
I wouldn't always want to be touching the camera lens. It's too low. Why go through the annoyance of flipping your phone upside down, when the camera would work perfectly fine on top?
Click to expand...

A few thoughts:

(1) You're going to be touching every part of the screen at some point or another. Sure the HOME button would get more traffic, but every time you make a call, you're putting the whole phone up to your face.

(2) You wouldn't be touching the camera LENS, you'd be touching the glass/plastic covering over the HOME button, beneath which lies the camera lens.

(3) I'm not suggesting flipping the phone would be required, just optional for anyone who prefers it on top. Personally, I would be plenty fine to have it on the bottom.
 
dm303 said:
1. Could be fake
The camera is on the rear of the phone and it claims to do video conferencing

2. Could be real
If the patented technology to have a some form of camera behind the LCD panel has been developed and implemented

If 2. then... this thing is going to be incredibly immersive. It'll be the first video conferencing device I've seen, where you look directly into the eyes of the person you're talking to. In all existing systems, you either look at the screen and your eyes don't connect, or you look into a camera mounted to the side of the screen.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I have never seen a 3G video phone which doesn't have the video chat camera at the top of the front screen...
 
For a little while I was thinking the red version looked a little thicker than the black, which if it is a different model might explain the button difference...but a little time in photoshop shows it was my eyes faking me out.
 
I apologise if this has been said. But if you look at it side on you can see they incorporated macbook air styling into it.
 
kemble54 said:
The CAMERA:

So, these pictures look fairly authentic, but think about this: The two camera lenses are in the EXACT same position on the phone. One lens is pointing out the back, another faces forward (Video Chat). Anyone that knows anything about cameras knows that the phone is simply too thin to have two cameras in opposing directions on something that small. It's just impossible.

my two cents.
Click to expand...

I agree. The primary camera is the thickest part of a phone. The secondary camera would not be on top of the primary camera in a device this thin.

And look how big the secondary camera is - it's four times the size of any normal phone's secondary camera! And why would it have a visible square bezel under the glass when it has not need to any more conspicuous than the ambient light sensor or thermal ray and sensor that are well hidden without a ridiculous square bezel under the glass!

Surely they would have added at least an LED flash if not a xenon.
 
dm303 said:
If 2. then... this thing is going to be incredibly immersive. It'll be the first video conferencing device I've seen, where you look directly into the eyes of the person you're talking to. In all existing systems, you either look at the screen and your eyes don't connect, or you look into a camera mounted to the side of the screen.
Click to expand...

Huh? Since the massive global launch of 3G networks in 2003, every 3G phone has had it's secondary camera for video calls just above the screen next to the earpiece.
 
ALittleDrive said:
I'm sorry, that girl is cute, and I don't think hispanic...and what does being "hispanic" have anything to do with anything? Apple could certainly use hispanic actors, not a shocker. Agreed, though, that guy looks like a goof, but it could be his shock and amazement at using such a cool device [me laughing, but not out loud].
Click to expand...

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. She's not ugly, I'll grant that, it was said for shock value.

She looks hispanic to me, as does Carlos Rodriguez. I have nothing against hispanics/latins/whatever. My ex-wife and my current significant other are both Mexican-Americans. Must have struck some politically correct nerve in you.

My point was that at first glance I didn't think Apple would use two people of the same ethnicity in the same ad, if only two people are featured in the ad. They tend to be very diverse and politically correct, going for that rainbow world effect. (I may just be thinking iPod ads, though; the Mac/PC ad guys probably disprove my original thesis here.)

Either way, I vote fake on the ads, 50/50 on the actual design of the phone.
 
probably a fake but a good one. But if this was it i would not be disappointed if this was it. Bring on WWDC :D
 
The thing I noticed is the silence switch is sticking out on the tapered side quite a bit. Wouldn't that switch flip every time you slipped it in a pocket?

As for the camera, you never need both cameras on at once. If the camera had some kind of internal mirror-flip thingie that let it look either way, this would make for an incredibly high quality chat camera, and you'd be able to have both lenses in the same place on the camera. And you do need an indication of where the front camera is, as shown, to keep people from obscuring the lens with a finger.
 
Completely fake but i like the way they look... they are what we all are expecting. (Red) is missing the lock key and the blk is missing a dock slot. I must admit I wouldn't mind having the black one. I haven't had an iPhone for about a month now since I sold mine to be read for the one that comes out Monday (crosses fingers).
 
MusLtngBlue said:
First, why are they using Photoshop for publishing print materials? A job like that is usually done in a program like Quark. Seems a little fishy to me.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most important tell-tale sign here. If these are print materials, there is no reason to be setting type in Photoshop.

The LOOK good though.
 
Chaszmyr said:
It appears the black one has a lock button on top and the red one does not. I'm calling fake, but I'd be happy if they're real.
Click to expand...
Also, notice the shadow on the Apple logo. It is absolutely identical on both.
It can't be... That's virtually impossible.
I'm calling fake too.
 
More problems. You can see from the side shot that the bottom is tapered like the top. Then where do the speakers go? Will they point away from you? That makes little sense.

And the dock connector? You'd think that Apple would still try to use the same dock as the original iPhone.
 
All those images are in some type of Graphics editing software such as Illustrator or Photoshop... I'll call fake also.
 
Martin C said:
Yes, I know its fake, but it appears the black one doesn't have the dock connector in this photo.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it does. Although it is hard to see the connector on the purported iPhone itself, you can see it on the reflection of said iPhone on the surface below it.

The things that bother me most about the authenticity of these photos are the errors in capitalization of XP and WiFi, the missing lock button on the top of the RED iPhone, and the fact that the images are all in an editing program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back