General Discussion

Apple i-phone
SpANG at 10:27AM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
jebus, this looks sweet.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6634817287115134475&q=iphone

I just may get a cell phone now.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
ozoneocean at 10:46AM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Blargle! It looks ok. Yeah, I have to admit they actually produced a pretty decent product there, but the hype that accompanies anything Apple is repellent to me: It's like the devotion that follows the various video game products.

I read the description of the launch, with Jobs doing his stupid play acting and the crowd cheering on his every banal utterance… (although the actual description was rather more glowing), I've seen vids, I know what goes on. These people are adults?!

Aside from my antihype prejudice though, the thing does indeed look perfectly presentable, and in terms functionality it may actually have the logical evolution of features we've been expecting for so bloody long in mobile phones. So I approve of it, but I won't go crazy about it. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Volte6 at 11:18AM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 949
joined: 1-1-2006
Generally I think it sounds cool. The price isn't horrible when compared to other devices that share the same functionality (my Treo plays video, music, and is a phone, plus a full hardware qwerty keyboard - though it hsa other issues )… My biggest qualm is that the keyboard is software.. you have to touch the screen to dial and type, which in my experience is always sucky. I've seen various implementations of the idea of a ‘virtual keyboard’ and ‘virtual dial pad’, and it never works. It always feels wrong and you miss the keys you try to hit etc….. I suppose it's possible that due to the multi touch screen they can better figure out where you meant to press by comparing various touch points and maybe splitting the difference or something… But that's easily the biggest downside IMO.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:43PM
isukun at 12:29PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I would think a bigger downside would be how fragile the product will likely be. Apple doesn't have the best track record with their i-line of products with recalls, bad customer service, and refusal to address issues with durability (to the point where one could accuse them of designing their products to break in a year or two). Combine that with a technology that's known to wear out quickly (i.e. touch screens). I'd recommend everyone wait a few years before buying into a product like this from a company like Apple.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
Volte6 at 12:43PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 949
joined: 1-1-2006
To the average consumer fragility might be an issue… especially with a product that is 95% LCD… this isn't a big concern of mine personally, though. Hands down my biggest concern is my interface with the device… and a device with a heavy emphesis on internet capability and multimedia and application interaction is highly concerning since it's all via a touch screen… In and of itself that's reason enough not to use it. I try using my Smart Phone as it is without the stylus and forget about it. Hell, sometimes even WITH the stylus. If they can somehow perfect the touch interaction I'd be into it for video and audio purposes mainly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:43PM
SpANG at 1:13PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Well, trust me, I wasn't going to go out and buy the first version of this. I wait a couple months down the line after most of the bugs are worked out.

As for the touch screen, Jobs claims that the techniology is about 5 year ahead of anyone else. Not sure if I believe that one though. ;)
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Volte6 at 2:31PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 949
joined: 1-1-2006
He is using a more expensive technology, but it's not new. Multi point touch screens have been around for a while… but they are more expensive than the single point screens and since many applications for touch screens involve some kind of stylus only one point is needed.. They are effectively throwing out the stylus (i assume) and are going for the facier option.. I doubt it will be that much better of a difference, though… fat fingers on a tiny screen just don't match up well :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:43PM
ozoneocean at 2:39PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Hmm, reading a bit more on it it seems slightly less impressive. I thought it'd at least have the capacity of one of those 80 gig ipods. What it actually seems to be is just a small Treo or Blackberry. Oh jeebus, big deal Apple. :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Volte6 at 3:20PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 949
joined: 1-1-2006
I think it's more like a LARGE treo… the screen is giant which I think almost makes it double as a cool video device ( that's only a minor selling point… We all saw how UMD did haha ).

But yeah, i think the plan is somewhere around 8 gig capacity… that's nothing to sneeze at though, and can probably be expanded by a memory card addition like a treo.

But hell, my Treo DOES do video, it DOES do mp3 and it DOES do internet. What it does horribly is run well (it freezes daily). So Apple is really just applying their fanbase and shine to a rehash, true enough. A damn pretty rehash, but they are just reinventing the wheel.

If I had to pay for it… I wouldn't. I'd probably select it over a Treo though if my work was willing to pay for it ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:43PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 3:41PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
How long do you think it is before they make an iDesk? or an iChair? What about an iFreezer or an iDoor? Hell, I wouldn't mind getting a pair of iSocks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
Zac at 4:11PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,309
joined: 10-14-2006
I think I'd save the extra 600 dollars and buy a Macintosh.
Really, I kind of find SUPER phones pointless, when all I need a phone for is to call people. If I want to check the internet, I want to do it on a computer with a monitor and keyboard. If I wanted to listen to MP3s, I could do that on a computer, or you know get a semi cheaper MP3 player. If I wanted to watch movies, I'd do it on a TV or Computer.

Etc etc.

It is a fancy piece of technology, and I'm sure that it has its perks, it just seems like all SUPER phones seem more like a hot gimick, then something useful and essential to life.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:53PM
ozoneocean at 5:00PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Zac
It is a fancy piece of technology, and I'm sure that it has its perks, it just seems like all SUPER phones seem more like a hot gimick, then something useful and essential to life.
You're right.

They make smaller Treos now? Ah well. I thought they'd just turn one of their snazzy 80 gig video ipods into a phone and make it a bit more durable, it'd be a winner! Sure fire! Instead they're doing a Blackberry Palm-pilot Treo thingy… That's it Apple, tread that well worn path…

You know what? iphones will be to Blackberry type things what Zunes are to ipods.

There was some pressure on them to make a tablet Mac, especially for the medical industry… They could really have had a good go at that idea, -Tablet PCs are a great notion that just hasn't been fully developed yet and they're really in demand in the medical industry apparently- but Apple decided it would have do to much work and couldn't exploit the idea quickly enough. Under all the hype they're not really that innovative and visionary so much as a smaller fish in a big pond that can't really afford to do anything too risky. Ah well, reality hurts.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:10PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I can't say anything bad about i-items strength. My ipod nano (2nd gen) has lived threw tons of abuse and still works perfectly.

THe i-phone does look like a nice little peice of technology. But i wont be buying one. I don't need or want one of these “super” phones. I like my nextel, it lives threw anything you can throw at it. Would a 90% LCD phone live threw half the crap i do on any given day? With my experiance with LCD products it will be man handled and destroyed.

But hey i could be wrong.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
marine at 6:45PM, Jan. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
Looks like shit to me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:52PM
isukun at 12:05AM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I can't say anything bad about i-items strength.

I can. Before I got my Zen Vision (not the M, the good one), I had an iPod. It' a good thing I got the warranty on it since sure as clockwork it died after the first year. I ended up giving it to my mother after having it sent back to Apple to get the battery replaced. Of the three iPods my family has owned, all have had to receive some kind of maintenance over the past two years, even the video iPod.

Quite honestly, all Apple has going for it on its i-line is a brand name. Nothing they've done with it has been innovative with the exception of forcing proprietary media types on the consumer. That's hardly what I would consider a good thing, though. Microsoft is making the same mistake with the Zune, as well (although their wretchedly poor software adds a new dimension to the suckiness that is Zune).
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 8:42AM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Hmm… Turns out they've been very band people when it comes to trademark infringement; totally ignoring the fact that Cisco has the trademark for the “iPhone” name; which Apple did know about and Cisco has had for at least 5 years or so, but they went ahead and used it anyway? Wha? So I wonder if that means just any old mp3 player maker can go ahead and call their mp3 player an “ipod”, by Apple's rationale they should. It's a pretty generic term now…

I already knew that Cisco had the name and were going to use it on a phone they were making, so when I saw this new Apple thing I thought they must have come to an agreement! Turns out Apple is just going to try and bully the case like they did with the Beatles' rights to “Apple music”. And people say they're nicer than Microsoft? I can't see much difference really.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
SpANG at 11:21AM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozone
I already knew that Cisco had the name and were going to use it on a phone they were making,
Not quite what I heard. Cisco has been using the name already, for their Voice Over IP phone service, apparently.
From wat I hear, Cisco and Apple were in “negotiations” but had not yet signed over/released anything.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
ozoneocean at 11:45AM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
A couple of weeks ago I heard about an anouncement from them about actually releasing a phone that used the Voip system. It initially got the Apple watchers all excited because they heard the name “iphone” and jumped to conclusions, and then Cisco came out with their thing about the phone proposal.

Only now am I seeing anything about this fuzzy “deal” thing that was meant to be in the works… Sounds like last minute scrambling by Apple to get the name and it sounds like they **ucked up… It also sounds like Cisco were trying to ransom the name a bit too, but I say ‘good on ’em!' If they got there first.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
isukun at 11:50AM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
It's nothing new, really. Creative and Apple have been at odds several times over “borrowing.” I think the most recent lawsuit was over the interface Apple uses for their newer iPods which Creative thought functioned and looked a lot like the interface they used with the high capacity Zen players. People made a bit of a stink about Apple introducing the “Nano” several months after Creative released their own “Nano” as well.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
Hawk at 12:41PM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
It's an AWESOME-looking phone, but I can't see myself spending that kind of money. Right now I don't need an iPod OR a mobile phone. If somebody gave me $600 to spend on electronics, I'd build a new computer.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
Phantom Penguin at 1:41PM, Jan. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
ozoneocean
Hmm… Turns out they've been very band people when it comes to trademark infringement; totally ignoring the fact that Cisco has the trademark for the “iPhone” name; which Apple did know about and Cisco has had for at least 5 years or so, but they went ahead and used it anyway? Wha? So I wonder if that means just any old mp3 player maker can go ahead and call their mp3 player an “ipod”, by Apple's rationale they should. It's a pretty generic term now…

I already knew that Cisco had the name and were going to use it on a phone they were making, so when I saw this new Apple thing I thought they must have come to an agreement! Turns out Apple is just going to try and bully the case like they did with the Beatles' rights to “Apple music”. And people say they're nicer than Microsoft? I can't see much difference really.

Using the word “nice” for any large corperation is a farce.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
subcultured at 3:16PM, Jan. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
If I had the money I would buy it…it just looks so futuristic

more demos
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/YgW7or1TuFk
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:00PM
theleast at 6:00AM, Jan. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 54
joined: 5-22-2006
Hawk
It's an AWESOME-looking phone, but I can't see myself spending that kind of money. Right now I don't need an iPod OR a mobile phone. If somebody gave me $600 to spend on electronics, I'd build a new computer.
That's exactly where I'm at at the moment. It looks very sleek, and it'd be nice to have one, but I don't have a mobile phone nor an ipod, and I don't need them. I don't particularly want them either - when I'm on the train I just bring a good book to keep me entertained, and I *like* the fact that when I'm not home people can't get in touch with me.

I'm pleased to see the multi-touch display technology entering consumer products. I saw a demo movie of a large one in operation a year or so ago (maybe a metre or more square), where a guy was using both his hands to manipulate the screen - including a full-sized qwerty keyboard as part of the display (It was angled, like a drawing desk). When I started Crimson Dark, I decided that all computer displays would be Multi-Touch displays, it saves me the bother of modeling any keyboards :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:20PM
spambot at 1:27PM, Jan. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 273
joined: 1-2-2006
It does look pretty cool, but I will wait a year or three like I did with the iPod.
Though the talk that has already started about this also replacing the hand held game console clearly haven’t been paying attention.

I'm also doing that other comic "Space Waffles".
We now have a podcast called The Random Pirate Comics Show!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved