iPhone

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 11 months ago
Joined: Jun 1 2004 - 20:50
Posts: 58
iPhone

I'm sure many of you have seen it already, but if not heres a link.
http://www.apple.com/iphone
Anyone plan on picking one up?
I certainly do.

Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 52
any word on how much it costs

any word on how much it costs?

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 4 months ago
Joined: Apr 21 2006 - 20:58
Posts: 339
To bad its only with Cingular

To bad its only with Cingular. I'm not fond of Cingular. I wish it would have a SIM slot and someone would hack it to work with Nextel, I get a good deal with Nextel.

Offline
Last seen: 11 years 11 months ago
Joined: Jun 1 2004 - 20:50
Posts: 58
Pricing

The pricing is $499 for a 4GB model and $599 for an 8GB model.

Offline
Last seen: 11 years 11 months ago
Joined: Jun 1 2004 - 20:50
Posts: 58
User installable applications

This stinks.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/09/iphone-will-not-allow-user-installable-applications/
I suppose this means that there will most likely be no Skype for the iPhone.

Jon
Jon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 2804
Maybe. It's still got months

Maybe. It's still got months to go before it's to be released, and that's assuming FCC validation goes through on time. In that time many more rumors will surface about what it does and doesn't do. I'd wait for the rumors mills to mention some sort of Xcode setting to allow compilation of apps for mobile CPUs or something. The iPhone certainly doesn't run a regular x86 CPU, but it might run a small low power derivative like one of the ULV chips Intel has in their timelines, or even an ARM or something. Maybe even an embedded PPC of some flavor. We don't really know. And everyone seems to think that running OS X == it will run regular apps. It might run a stripped OS X, as there are many things the iPhone doesn't need to do that a desktop does. One thing is that it doesn't need all sorts of various drivers in storage. They can just drop in what it takes to run the iPhone hardware. That will generate some savings. Then they trim some of the functionality f OS X out and limit what it can do, cut out a lot of the included apps and many of the features of the ones they leave. Massive savings. I'm not sure what OS X currently can slim down to, but my Ubuntu machine boots up to using about 80-90MBs of RAM (some of that is buffer space, and 5-12MB is kernel and drivers) with a full GUI and accelerated video hardware and Gnome etc. With the right trimming I'm sure they can fit a memory miserly OS X in under 64MB of RAM, and a few hundred MB of flash space.

Skype might work, as it would be easy enough to code up a simple API for it as an alternative interface for the regular phone functions of the iPhone and provide some sort of pref setting for which to use.

There are many barriers to running full apps on the iPhone, not the least of which is screen size. Gesture zooming for a full sized app expecting a 1024x768 screen will get really frustrating really quick. Ands don't forget that the UI != Aqua, AFAICT. How would one control a regualr app that's expecting a pointer/keyboard style of input on this? It's a massive change in how to interact with a GUI.Take a look at how people are reacting to the Sugar UI of the OLPC laptop. That's still pointer and keyboard driven, and some people think it's gonna fail fail because it's too different. And it *does* run regular apps. Imagine trying to do iPhone navigation to _insert generic app_ on a regular screen. Then drop it to 640x480, which is the minimum for most machines ability to display. It gets hard. Then cut that in half for 320x480, the iPhone resolution, and it gets really hard.

doug-doug the mighty's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Apr 14 2004 - 17:52
Posts: 1366
Newton rebirth??
Dr. Webster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 53 min ago
Joined: Dec 19 2003 - 17:34
Posts: 1691
Re: To bad its only with Cingular

protocol6v wrote:
To bad its only with Cingular. I'm not fond of Cingular. I wish it would have a SIM slot and someone would hack it to work with Nextel, I get a good deal with Nextel.

It *does* have a SIM card slot, as all GSM phones do. Assuming the phone is/can be unlocked, you could pop any SIM in there and the phone should work on any GSM network. (Some of the fancy Web features may not work correctly, depending on the network.)

Nextel/Sprint/Verizon won't work, though, as they're CDMA. Apple would have to release a different version of the iPhone to work with those networks.

davintosh's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 554
Dang...

and to think I got a Razr just before Christmas. They're not due out for another six months or so, but still...

Just goes to show that if you wait until the latest, greatest next best thing comes out, you'll be waiting forever and never buy anything.

Eudimorphodon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 21 2003 - 14:14
Posts: 1204
Feh.

I'm sure IT administrators across the nation are already quaking in fear, knowing that their most spoiled users will be demanding that they support iPhone access to their work email. On top of already having to support Bl(cr)ackberries, Goodlink, Activesync...

It actually is a pretty major hole in its functionality (from a corporate standpoint) if it only supports IMAP and POP. Even Palm has a (cruddy) version of WebDAV ActiveSync for email and calendar appointments. Presumably this thing is going to insist you use .Mac if you intend to sync your calendar? Yuck.

--Peace

Dr. Webster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 53 min ago
Joined: Dec 19 2003 - 17:34
Posts: 1691
Bah

http://consumerist.com/consumer/iphone/cingular-confirms-iphone-will-require-2-year-contract-227684.php

Well, there's no way I'm buying an iPhone now. I knew Apple would pull this kinda stunt.

(Condensed version: Cingular is only selling the iPhone with 2-year contract -- you can't buy one outright.)

Reverend Darkness's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 502
Keep in mind...

... this will be the Gen 1 iPhone. I've not had good experiences with Apple's Gen 1 hardware, or "point-oh" software (i.e. 10.3.0, 10.4.0, etc.)

I'll wait until the iPhone 20GB, or for Mac OS X iPhone Edition 2.4

iantm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Apr 2 2005 - 14:01
Posts: 709
Holding out

The iPhone looks pretty, promising, and nice. However, I think I'll pass on it for a good while. I'm a long time Newton user (7 years so far), so I am a little demanding of anything with pda functionality. The Palms are crap, and microsoft's efforts have been less than impressive to me. The lack of handwriting recognition is the deal breaker for me. For that kind of money, it better have some kind of hwr, especially since it's running a variant of os x, has a touch screen, and has some pda functions.

I'll stick with my razr for a while longer. When the iPhone has an 80gb capacity in it, has hwr, and sells for $299 with a two year contract with Cingular, I'll consider it.

catmistake's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 1098
yup yup, but

that technology! I, too, am disapponted with everything lost in the battle for phone marketshare... I wouldn't expect Apple to open the OS on this thing; they want to call it a phone. But the technology is way cool. They've shown that they have the tech to make the "true video ipod" that everyone wants... uh... is this it? Why would I want a phone on my portable video player? But if the next iPod has touchscreen (maybe even that new 640 x 480 3.5" lcd technology being developed), and runs OS X, and its open, even if limited, then it becomes the fabled tablet mac, um, er... really a handheld server...

Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 16 2004 - 02:44
Posts: 274
I don't think I would buy the

I don't think I would buy the iphone now in its current revision. I think if there was a 10-20 gb version that was also available on cingular prepaid rather than 2 year I may consider it. Also I'm surprised they called it the iphone considering they have gotten away from the "i(mac)" naming convention and moved onto the "mac(product)"system. "macphone?" Especially considering they are being sued by cisco over this.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 354
All that fancy pantented touc

All that fancy pantented touch-sensitive tech better work *great* right out of the box. The way Jobs was talking it's like the phone will be able to read your mind. Which is good only if it's right all of the time. Don't want this to be a re-run of Newton's handwriting recognition problems.

And there better be enough horsepower and a non-crippled ("pocket") safari for decent web browsing. All the PDA/Smartphone browsers out there suck or are too slow. A superior internet experience is what will sell this thing to me. Well, that, and a lower price.

iantm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Apr 2 2005 - 14:01
Posts: 709
Re: All that fancy pantented touc

dead_elvis wrote:
All that fancy pantented touch-sensitive tech better work *great* right out of the box. The way Jobs was talking it's like the phone will be able to read your mind. Which is good only if it's right all of the time. Don't want this to be a re-run of Newton's handwriting recognition problems.

Hey, Newton OS 2.0 made a world of difference in that area. Of course it wasn't as ambitious as 1.0 or 1.3 to read your mind, but it worked a whole lot more reliably. Getting Newton OS 1.0 or 1.3's hwr to read your handwriting properly was like taming a stray cat. Not easy, but very very rewarding when you get there.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 354
Re: All that fancy pantented touc

iantm wrote:
dead_elvis wrote:
All that fancy pantented touch-sensitive tech better work *great* right out of the box. The way Jobs was talking it's like the phone will be able to read your mind. Which is good only if it's right all of the time. Don't want this to be a re-run of Newton's handwriting recognition problems.

Hey, Newton OS 2.0 made a world of difference in that area.

Of course what I'm referring to is the notion that even after Apple fixed the problem, the Newton wasn't able to recover from that early reputation.

My point is that that aspect of the phone, which from what I can tell would be leaps above other touch screen technology, better be perfect from the get go. It better be able to tell an intentional from an unintentional touch 101, not 99, percent of the time, or it's going to be miserable to use, and at that price people aren't likely to give it a second chance.

I just think about how the Cube's power button never even could tell whether it was being touched *at all*, and I cringe.

coius's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2004 - 13:56
Posts: 1975
iPhone's name in trouble

CNN wrote:
Linksys, a division of Cisco Systems Inc. that makes networking equipment for the home and small businesses, unveiled its new iPhone line of Internet-enabled phones last month.

Cisco has owned the trademark on the name "iPhone" since 2000. Although Cisco is agitating for Apple to make a public statement clarifying use of the name, Apple executives say their cellular phone doesn't compete with Cisco's Internet phone

Tom Owad's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 22 min ago
Joined: Dec 16 2003 - 15:14
Posts: 2964
Re: All that fancy pantented touc

dead_elvis wrote:
All that fancy pantented touch-sensitive tech better work *great* right out of the box.

It's probably based on Fingerworks' technology, which Apple bought the other year. If so, it works very well.

iantm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: Apr 2 2005 - 14:01
Posts: 709
Re: All that fancy pantented touc

dead_elvis wrote:
iantm wrote:
dead_elvis wrote:
All that fancy pantented touch-sensitive tech better work *great* right out of the box. The way Jobs was talking it's like the phone will be able to read your mind. Which is good only if it's right all of the time. Don't want this to be a re-run of Newton's handwriting recognition problems.

Hey, Newton OS 2.0 made a world of difference in that area.

Of course what I'm referring to is the notion that even after Apple fixed the problem, the Newton wasn't able to recover from that early reputation.

My point is that that aspect of the phone, which from what I can tell would be leaps above other touch screen technology, better be perfect from the get go. It better be able to tell an intentional from an unintentional touch 101, not 99, percent of the time, or it's going to be miserable to use, and at that price people aren't likely to give it a second chance.

I just think about how the Cube's power button never even could tell whether it was being touched *at all*, and I cringe.

Hey, I resemble that remark. I won't even bother defending the cube, the power button on mine is kind of wonky, though 90% of the time it works. Yes, I'm a big fan of the oddball Apple stuff. No, I don't have a clamshell iBook or iMac G4 ... anymore. (those were sold to pay for my wedding)

catmistake's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 1098
no Inkwell

I think Apple is forcing this thing to be a phone (now closed like most phones). There'll be no surprise if they get their 1%. But there's a gaping hardware hole. Apple's smart phone isn't the handheld/slate/true video ipod device we all want, exactly... not yet. Its a phone. It's an insane phone. Its in the form-factor ballpark of what we want, perhaps, but we'd probably like OS X to be the way we expect it to be... to interact with it, explore, tinker with, customize. We'd like to use that cool screen technology on a larger, better quality screen. We'd like to store a lot more than 8GB worth of 720p HD video.

There's got to be some other new hardware a-commin', right? Even if Apple's going after that 1% of $950 billion... now... so... even 100% of the handheld or mp3 player market looks like peanuts?

But the iPhone has reached a new video standard (for iPods), 720p, no iPod can do that... coming soon is the 720p iPod. It runs OS X (even if its closed like the phone), and has full wifi functionality, and 100GB of storage, costs $700 (!!!).... I'll take it. I'll trust the hackers will eventually give me the functionality I want from it, and call that the iSlate, or iServer, whatever, and be more pleased.

My guess is this 720p iPod ships before June 1st.

Jon
Jon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 2804
720p? (wikipedia link)

720p? Where does that fit? The iPhone does 320x480, which would be half 640x480 resolution.

MacTrash_1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 7 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 318
I doubt it............

I won't buy one for several reasons. The least of which is I really dislike cell phones !

It can't really do anything my $50 G4 and a $10 land-line phone can't do except annoy me when I'm at the grocery store.

But it it a cool little toy. Maybe I'm too old and my eyesight is too poor but how can anybody do anything with such a tiny screen ? I grew up post-Gameboy so maybe I'm just not used to the micro screens.

As screens get smaller my eyes get worse.....

catmistake's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 1098
oops

mixed up what I was reading I guess... Apple TV is 720p... no mention of the output from iPhone to an external display or what the video specs are

---
well... been a few days, and here's an edit...
a few things occured to me...

Open or not, the iPhone is a Mac (with tiny and cool display, and a nice built-in cell phone). If they don't get the iPhone name, they should call it the "iMac nano," to drive home the point. I put it at least as powerful as a c.2000 iMac DV, likely more.

Now I hear the Apple TV is 1GHz intel (underclocked to .7GHz), w/ 256MB RAM & 40GB HD, and for $300 that's not too bad. Sounds like it might be as powerful as the c.2002 flatpanel iMac. I think Apple should have fought for iTV, and for every iAnything since the late 90's. The i thing became a facet of the brand Apple worked to create and most of the iStuff available is a direct or indirect rip off of Apple's pioneering effort to put a vowel in front of a word, in particular, the i (IBM took the e). Anyway, the Apple TV is a Mac too, I bet. I have zero doubts it could run Leopard Server, though maybe not as good as whatever the new XServe is, but... its 1/10th the cost. I'm anxious to hear about the possibilities.

doug-doug the mighty's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Apr 14 2004 - 17:52
Posts: 1366
Re: I doubt it............

MacTrash_1 wrote:
...so maybe I'm just not used to the micro screens.

As screens get smaller my eyes get worse.....

[eyes 42" plasma screen TV hanging on wall]

AMEN BROTHER!!!

[/eyes 42" plasma screen TV hanging on wall]

Anything smaller than my Newton MP 2100 is to small.

Log in or register to post comments