[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

In all honesty, I have never seen anyone swap a battery, let alone even have a spare battery on hand. And I'm constantly around people calling their loved ones for hours at a time. Some of you are just being nutty.

People with Nextel have very sucky batteries. But that's the only brand I know of with REALLY bad battery issues.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, Rogers has been saying that for over a week.

Sorry, must have missed the news due to the excess of battery complaints.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... I know several people with multiple batteries.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Just like I thought Apple tried to deal with Verizon but they couldn't come to terms:
Verizon passed up Apple iPhone deal - Engadget Mobile

[Eug]

I would have been shocked if they had intended to be completely exclusive to Verizon, considering they are CDMA.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Just like I thought Apple tried to deal with Verizon but they couldn't come to terms:
Verizon passed up Apple iPhone deal - Engadget Mobile

Cingular is the largest mobile provider in the USA.. I can't imagine how Cingular is second choice. Makes no sense. Not to mention that Cingular supports GSM and Verizon CDMA.

The second choice was the largest US mobile provider which supports the GSM world standard... right.

How did that happen?

V

[Gossamer]

"They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat ... on hardware and service support," says [verizon exec].

On NOES!!1

Apple, a leader in customer support, wants to assist in support the hardware of the iPhone?? No way! That was the dealbreaker for verizon.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Cingular is the largest mobile provider in the USA.. I can't imagine how Cingular is second choice. Makes no sense. Not to mention that Cingular supports GSM and Verizon CDMA.

The second choice was the largest US mobile provider which supports the GSM world standard... right.

How did that happen?

V

Verizon has the best network and most coverage. (IIRC)

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Verizon has the best network and most coverage. (IIRC)

I've never used it, but all of my friends love it. They say they hate the phones, but the network is head and shoulders over the others.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

So in other words it is the carrier and not the technology.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I've never used it, but all of my friends love it. They say they hate the phones, but the network is head and shoulders over the others.

The phones are rather "boring" but the coverage and signal strength can't be beat around here. I can often make calls in from people's basements when other people don't have any signal with other carriers.

"It just works."

[Velocity211]

But if the iPhone was released for verizon, won't it use the really bad interface that verizon phones use?

[::maroma::]

And the Chinese don't let us down:

VR-Zone : Technology Beats - China Made iPhone Look A-Like Surfaced

Took em long enough.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And the Chinese don't let us down:

VR-Zone : Technology Beats - China Made iPhone Look A-Like Surfaced

Took em long enough.

ScreeN; 720 by 480 ?

Those specs can't be right.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And the Chinese don't let us down:

VR-Zone : Technology Beats - China Made iPhone Look A-Like Surfaced

Took em long enough.

That's actually pretty impressive, at least specs-wise:

GSM + 3G (vs. GSM-only in the iPhone)
720x480 touch screen (vs. the 480x320 iPhone screen)
ARM11 CPU (like the iPhone)
3 + 0.3 MP cameras (vs. one 2 MP camera in the iPhone)
TV out (vs. none in the iPhone)
Smaller and thinner than the iPhone

Too bad it runs Windows CE.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

ScreeN; 720 by 480 ?

Those specs can't be right.

Why not? There are already 640x480 screens of that ballpark size in the wild.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Why not? There are already 640x480 screens of that ballpark size in the wild.

262 dpi ? O'Rly ?

Show me that screen.

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Cingular is the largest mobile provider in the USA.. I can't imagine how Cingular is second choice. Makes no sense. Not to mention that Cingular supports GSM and Verizon CDMA.

The second choice was the largest US mobile provider which supports the GSM world standard... right.

Sounds pretty simple to me -

1. Apple is extremely US-based, as anyone living anywhere can tell you with regards to the iTunes Store, ordering photos through iPhoto, and so on. Apple stuff always happens in the US first, other places later.

2. Cingular is the largest US provider right now. But Verizon is gaining customers much faster than Cingular is. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall - Verizon was probably still the largest when Apple began these talks, and Cingular only gained a temporary lead through buying out AT&T Wireless, which put them ahead for a while, but Verizon is gaining on them and will probably be the largest again before long.

I have little doubts that Apple will come out with a CDMA version of the iPhone sooner or later. If the GSM version is successful, Verizon, Sprint, etc. will warm up to the idea and want in on the action.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

So in other words it is the carrier and not the technology.

Well, not exactly, because CDMA is known to have better range than GSM, partially because of the ability to amplify the signal in low-coverage situations which leads to that lower battery life that GSM fanboys complain about. This is part of the reason for the coverage being better on carriers like Verizon and Alltel.

Originally Posted by Velocity211 

But if the iPhone was released for verizon, won't it use the really bad interface that verizon phones use?

We're talking about Steve Jobs here. I think we can all agree that any agreement with Apple regarding a phone is going to involve Apple writing the software and designing the interface.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's actually pretty impressive, at least specs-wise:

GSM + 3G
720x480 touch screen (vs. the 480x320 iPhone screen)
ARM11 CPU (like the iPhone)
3 + 0.3 MP cameras
TV out
Smaller and thinner than the iPhone

Yep, and there are a lot of iPod knock-offs that have really impressive specs. But we all know why those suck, right?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

262 dpi ? O'Rly ?

Show me that screen.

Hell, I can even do better than that.

Samsung squeezes 640x480 pixels on 1.98" display



"The manufacturer said that the LCD is capable of running at a pixel density of 400 pixels per inch (ppi)"

However, if you want something closer to the Chinese phone, Samsung makes a 3" VGA screen:

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Yep, and there are a lot of iPod knock-offs that have really impressive specs. But we all know why those suck, right?

Yes, most do, but a nice OS isn't everything either. Ideally, one would have both.

[turtle777]

And that's available for a cheap price ?

And, minor detail: "Samsung did not say when it will be ready to mass-produce its mini VGA panel."

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And that's available for a cheap price ?

And, minor detail: "Samsung did not say when it will be ready to mass-produce its mini VGA panel."

Who said anything about a 1.98" VGA screen being cheap?

And I don't expect the 1.98" VGA to be out anytime soon. In fact, I think a 1.98" VGA screen is pointless for most situations.

However, the screens in the iPhone and that Chinese phone are bigger than 3", and like I said Samsung makes a 3" VGA screen too. Commercial production for the 3" 640x480 screen is in the next couple of months, perfect timing for a summer release.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Who said anything about a 1.98" VGA screen being cheap?

And I don't expect the 1.98" VGA to be out anytime soon. In fact, I think a 1.98" VGA screen is pointless for most situations.

However, the screens in the iPhone and that Chinese phone are bigger than 3", and like I said Samsung makes a 3" VGA screen too. Commercial production for the 3" 640x480 screen is in the next couple of months, perfect timing for a summer release.

No, this doesn't make sense.

If the Chinese knock-off is supposed to be cheaper, they can not afford to put in a high-tech panel like that. It's either FUD or vaporware.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, this doesn't make sense.

If the Chinese knock-off is supposed to be cheaper, they can not afford to put in a high-tech panel like that. It's either FUD or vaporware.

Nowhere in that article does it say the Chinese phone is supposed to be cheaper. It could be though, if it uses only flash cards and has no internal memory.

BTW, phones in China often are way better (with a lot more selection at the higher end) than what we have in North America. It's a much bigger market, and people seem more willing to spend $$$$ on phones.

[turtle777]

Well, it would be a first that China copies an Apple product, to sell it more expensive.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, it would be a first that China copies an Apple product, to sell it more expensive.

No it wouldn't. There are a lot of Chinese MP3 players for example that cost just as much or more than a comparable Apple iPod. Presumably it's because they don't have the same economies of scale, and don't have the access to the uber cheap flash prices Apple has.

Now, I wouldn't want one of those, but nonetheless, they exist.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes, most do, but a nice OS isn't everything either. Ideally, one would have both.

Well, of course. Ideally we'd all have the perfect portable digital device in our hands already, and it would be free.

The fact of the matter is, I don't care what specs you put up against the iPhone. Until its on the market, and we've all had a chance to experience it, there is no reason to compare which phone is better on paper. Of course a nice OS isn't everything, but its a major part of the user experience. Much much more so than any chips that go inside the thing.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that? This is pretty much the same battle Mac users fought for years over the "MHz Myth". We all argued that numbers weren't everything, in fact they were a very minor part of what makes a computer better or worse. It was all about the Mac experience, and how much better it was than Windows. And almost everyone who tries a Mac, coming from Windows, figures it out almost immediately.

Yet here we are again. People keep putting up numbers, specs, prices, etc. claiming that something is better or worse than the iPhone based on those things alone. I can almost guarantee that when these same people get an iPhone in their hands and use it for a while, they'll quickly forget all these assumptions they threw out. It happened with the iPod, it will happen with the iPhone.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

No it wouldn't. There are a lot of Chinese MP3 players for example that cost just as much or more than a comparable Apple iPod.

But are these clearly iPod knock-offs ? White, with "scroll wheel" ?

And they cost MORE ? Who the fark would buy that ? Blind idiots ?

-t

[fhoubi]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And the Chinese don't let us down:

VR-Zone : Technology Beats - China Made iPhone Look A-Like Surfaced

Took em long enough.

Wauw... It's either a hoax or insider information.. prepare for a law suit right soon...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But are these clearly iPod knock-offs ? White, with "scroll wheel" ?

And they cost MORE ? Who the fark would buy that ? Blind idiots ?

Some no, not always clearly iPod knock-offs.

However, I have seen some with iPod style click "squares" which cost about as much as an iPod.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Well, of course. Ideally we'd all have the perfect portable digital device in our hands already, and it would be free.

The fact of the matter is, I don't care what specs you put up against the iPhone. Until its on the market, and we've all had a chance to experience it, there is no reason to compare which phone is better on paper. Of course a nice OS isn't everything, but its a major part of the user experience. Much much more so than any chips that go inside the thing.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that? This is pretty much the same battle Mac users fought for years over the "MHz Myth". We all argued that numbers weren't everything, in fact they were a very minor part of what makes a computer better or worse. It was all about the Mac experience, and how much better it was than Windows. And almost everyone who tries a Mac, coming from Windows, figures it out almost immediately.

Yet here we are again. People keep putting up numbers, specs, prices, etc. claiming that something is better or worse than the iPhone based on those things alone. I can almost guarantee that when these same people get an iPhone in their hands and use it for a while, they'll quickly forget all these assumptions they threw out. It happened with the iPod, it will happen with the iPhone.

This is the same argument that was made when some people here complained about PowerBook CPU speeds. The response was always "Yeah Windows PCs may be faster, but they're fugly, and XP sucks, etc." And now we have dual-core Intel Mac laptops that are just as stylish, and people FINALLY realize just what kind of speeds they were missing. My MacBook is sooooooooooo much faster than my 9-month old iBook was, it's just criminal.

I'm not saying it's the exact situation here, but nonetheless, specs exist for a reason.

Originally Posted by fhoubi 

Wauw... It's either a hoax or insider information.. prepare for a law suit right soon...

I doubt it. It runs Windows CE and looks like a touch-screen Windows PDA.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's actually pretty impressive, at least specs-wise

Probably because it only exists on a piece of paper right now. When it actually ships then we can talk.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Until its on the market, and we've all had a chance to experience it, there is no reason to compare which phone is better on paper. Of course a nice OS isn't everything, but its a major part of the user experience. Much much more so than any chips that go inside the thing.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

Well, like it or not many people don't seem to care about the user experience. To them, iPods or Macs will always be "overpriced crap" because you can get a cheap knock-off or a bargain-basement Windows box for a little cheaper.

I read a blog entry earlier today that reminded me of this. An excerpt:

The new phone is stylish, (but hardly ground breaking or unique), well thought out, (but just a flawed as every other current offering) and trendy (but no more so than a number of others), and it has already got people looking to sell off their Mothers into slavery to get one. There are better phones, better designs, and more unique products out there. It’s just that they are not Apple.

Basically he's saying that while Apple does make good products, they aren't any better than lots of other companies' products. According to him, it's the Apple name that sells the product, more so than any intrinsic qualities of the products themselves.

Now I suppose there is a section of the public (think teenagers) who may buy iPods because they're "cool" but I personally don't know anyone who is a Mac user (or iPod owner) for that reason. People who care about things like good design and good UI will naturally gravitate to Apple products because they're good. In that sense, it is the Apple name that sells the products to some degree, but not because of some mystique that Apple has, but simply because their track record in producing quality products is very good.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker 

Probably because it only exists on a piece of paper right now. When it actually ships then we can talk.

Assuming it does get released (in a timely fashion), I have no doubt it will be expensive, and the OS navigation will suck. It also probably doesn't support multi-touch either.

However, it will still be good to have out there, to keep Apple on its toes.

Originally Posted by icruise 

Basically he's saying that while Apple does make good products, they aren't any better than lots of other companies' products. According to him, it's the Apple name that sells the product, more so than any intrinsic qualities of the products themselves.

I'm still of the opinion that the 3rd generation iPod just wasn't that great of a design. OK, the OS was nice, but the hardware interface wasn't. Along with the OS, it kept in the running by the existince of iTunes IMO.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

This is the same argument that was made when some people here complained about PowerBook CPU speeds. The response was always "Yeah Windows PCs may be faster, but they're fugly, and XP sucks, etc." And now we have dual-core Intel Mac laptops that are just as stylish, and people FINALLY realize just what kind of speeds they were missing. My MacBook is sooooooooooo much faster than my 9-month old iBook was, it's just criminal.

True, but I'd still take OS X on an iBook over Windows on just about anything.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, it will still be good to have out there, to keep Apple Legal on its toes.

Fixinated.

-t

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Eug 

This is the same argument that was made when some people here complained about PowerBook CPU speeds. The response was always "Yeah Windows PCs may be faster, but they're fugly, and XP sucks, etc." And now we have dual-core Intel Mac laptops that are just as fast, and people FINALLY realize just what they were missing. My MacBook was sooooooooooo much faster than my 9-month old iBook was, it's just criminal.

I'm not saying it's the exact situation here, but nonetheless, specs exist for a reason.

Yes but the experience of the Mac hasn't changed with the MHz increase. Yes, it may be a bit nicer to use now that you've eaked out a few more seconds render time, or whatever, but that has nothing to do with how you use a Mac (or any Apple product).

And I never said specs are meaningless. I said that people put way too much weight on specs when comparing an Apple products to other products. If specs were so damn important, Apple would have gone out of business 15 years ago.

Specs are fun to mull over, fun to talk about and all, but the bottom line is what its like to use the product. You could show me specs on a phone that is faster than any supercomputer out there, has a screen so vivid it evokes a religious experience every time I see it, has internet speed too fast for words, and would pay me money to own one, but I wouldn't even consider getting one until I knew what it was like to use it. Because the second it gives me a headache trying to do a simple task I would forget about all those fancy numbers as my vision would turn red with rage.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Yes but the experience of the Mac hasn't changed with the MHz increase. Yes, it may be a bit nicer to use now that you've eaked out a few more seconds render time, or whatever, but that has nothing to do with how you use a Mac (or any Apple product).

My experience has changed tremendously.

While I still prefered my Macs over Windows laptops, the speed of my iBooks often made me want to rip my hair out. It was fine for surfing, but doing anything CPU intensive was painful.

The MacBook flies.

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Now I suppose there is a section of the public (think teenagers) who may buy iPods because they're "cool" but I personally don't know anyone who is a Mac user (or iPod owner) for that reason. People who care about things like good design and good UI will naturally gravitate to Apple products because they're good. In that sense, it is the Apple name that sells the products to some degree, but not because of some mystique that Apple has, but simply because their track record in producing quality products is very good.

Well, track record of quality is disputable, at least for me and my peers. My memories of Mac OS Classic aren't very fond. All I remember of that involves the computers at school. While I was in elementary school, we went through three generations of Macs-- an LC, then the all-in-ones, and then iMacs. And I hated the old Mac OS (we had a Mac Classic at home, too). But OS X, on the other hand, changed my perception. Because of the old Mac OS, a lot of people at the school I go to don't really associate Apple with quality products (this was the Windows 3.1 and 95 era, too) and aren't willing to change that perception.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'm still of the opinion that the 3rd generation iPod just wasn't that great of a design. OK, the OS was nice, but the hardware interface wasn't.

I had it and it was horrible. Definitely the worst idea ever on an iPod but to be fair it wasn't a touchscreen so it will act very different.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

Well, track record of quality is disputable, at least for me and my peers. My memories of Mac OS Classic aren't very fond. All I remember of that involves the computers at school. While I was in elementary school, we went through three generations of Macs-- an LC, then the all-in-ones, and then iMacs. And I hated the old Mac OS (we had a Mac Classic at home, too). But OS X, on the other hand, changed my perception. Because of the old Mac OS, a lot of people at the school I go to don't really associate Apple with quality products (this was the Windows 3.1 and 95 era, too) and aren't willing to change that perception.

While the classic OS has some issues with stability, it was fantastic in most respects. True, it was getting long in the tooth right toward the end. Now, I wouldn't want to go back to the classic OS (Mac OS X is of course clearly superior in most respects) but allow me to respectfully suggest that making judgments like these based on your experience in a computer lab is not particularly fair (especially since many computer labs ran simplified interfaces like "At Ease" which didn't give the user a taste of the OS at all).

[Eug]

New iPod tomorrow? AI is claiming so, but sez it probably won't be the widescreen touchscreen iPod everyone wants. OTOH, TS is claiming it may be new displays, if not tomorrow, then next week.

P.S. Off topic, but I absolutely hated OS 8 and OS 9. It was that Classic OS which kept me away from Apple.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

You could show me specs on a phone that is faster than any supercomputer out there, has a screen so vivid it evokes a religious experience every time I see it, has internet speed too fast for words, and would pay me money to own one, but I wouldn't even consider getting one until I knew what it was like to use it.

Hey now, if someone was paying me money to own one, I know that I'd sure consider it even if I hated the thing. After all, if I didn't like it, I could just stick it on my shelf and buy some other phone with the money they paid me. Besides, with specs like you listed, the thing would probably go for a lot of money on eBay. On top of the money they paid me to take it, that sounds like a win.

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by icruise 

While the classic OS has some issues with stability, it was fantastic in most respects. True, it was getting long in the tooth right toward the end. Now, I wouldn't want to go back to the classic OS (Mac OS X is of course clearly superior in most respects) but allow me to respectfully suggest that making judgments like these based on your experience in a computer lab is not particularly fair (especially since many computer labs ran simplified interfaces like "At Ease" which didn't give the user a taste of the OS at all).

Well, of course I know those judgments are probably unfair for Mac OS Classic, but like I said, my family had Macs at home, and even at that time, Windows 95 seemed better.

But at this point, I've gone back to the Mac platform, with OS X having changed my perception (and Windows XP was helpful, too).

[icruise]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

Well, of course I know those judgments are probably unfair for Mac OS Classic, but like I said, my family had Macs at home, and even at that time, Windows 95 seemed better.

I know this is off topic, but what exactly about WIndows 95 is better than the Classic Mac OS? (And you can't say games.)

[CharlesS]

It had a preemptive multitasking scheme which wasn't very good, but was better than the Mac's cooperative multitasking. Of course, it made up for that with the Registry IMO.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I know this is off topic, but what exactly about WIndows 95 is better than the Classic Mac OS? (And you can't say games.)

This could lead to a derailment, but I'll bite. Classic, towards the end of its life (OS 8 and 9) was terribly unstable. Web browsing alone would cause my Mac to crash several times a day. Networking was out of the question (at least based on my experience). Multi-tasking seemed to be non-existent. It just felt ancient, ya know? Yes, it was snappy, but that's about all.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I have little doubts that Apple will come out with a CDMA version of the iPhone sooner or later.

It looks like it'll be later:

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Cingular reps refused to provide the details of their agreement, but according to the report, the exclusive deal is a FIVE YEAR contract. This is contrary to previous reports that the Cingular's exclusive contract was only through 2008.

[CharlesS]

But is the agreement exclusive for Apple releasing any phones, or just that particular one? Look how Moto has about eleventy billion different versions of the RAZR, most of them being "exclusive" to some provider or other.

[Salty]

I think Apple fully intends to keep their iPhone line on AT&T exclusively. I imagine they'll use the next five years to go global with their reach, and then work on going with more than one carrier in each country that they're in.

That said, OS 9 was significantly better than Win 95 and 98. The thing was that it may have had it's stability problems, ever browse with many windows open under 98? CRASH! OS 8.6 and 9 weren't the most stable OSes ever released, but they were still better than Windows at the time. Mine was typically fairly stable since I knew what to do to keep it stable, and I made sure to shut it down and restart every night which I think helped things regularly get put back into working order.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, this doesn't make sense.

If the Chinese knock-off is supposed to be cheaper, they can not afford to put in a high-tech panel like that. It's either FUD or vaporware.

I guess you missed the iSuppli report showing that the hardware+software+manufacturing cost of the iPhone is about $250?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Ok so again has anyone found a current or near future phone that has 90% of what the iPhone offers for the same price or even higher? I haven't.

Plus I still want to see what the Japanese are bragging about with their iPhone killers as they all look clunky to me.