×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

327 comments

And this is different from the 10000 other rumors (5, Insightful)

fulgan (116418) | about 4 years ago | (#31669868)

...because ?

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (4, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | about 4 years ago | (#31669912)

And this is different from the 10000 other rumors...because ?

Cause it's rumors that are occurring less than a week before the iPad - DUH!

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (-1, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670124)

And this is different from the 10000 other rumors...because ?

Cause it's rumors that are occurring less than a week before the iPad - DUH!

Which is kind of like shooting yourself in the leg. Not only will the new iPhone have same resolution than iPad, it will allow you to multitask while iPad doesn't. What kind of sick thinking is to allow multitasking on a phone but not on a tablet computer . Basically you get less by buying iPad, and it doesn't even have phone capabilities.

And other points of interests from the article:

multitasking support

Oh it seems Apple finally got to 90's computing. Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better? And that it made things simpler? Are you still having that opinion, or do you just follow what Steve Jobs says again?

a front facing camera

Revolutionary. My HTC phones have had such since like early 2000.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670204)

What kind of sick thinking is to allow multitasking on a phone but not on a tablet computer .

By doing so Apple can later release iPad version 2.0. It will have same features otherwise but you can finally multitask. $$$ for Apple when every fanboy buys the "improved" device again.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (0, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31670414)

Oh it seems Apple finally got to 90's computing.

Except that the iPhone already supported multitasking and all of Apple's own apps were able to run in the background. The change is only for third-party apps.

Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better?

In many cases, yes, it is better that third-party apps couldn't run in the background. Considering how poor of quality many third-party iPhone apps are, it's a great thing that they couldn't sit around in the background eating up battery.

And that it made things simpler?

How does it not make things simpler?

Revolutionary. My HTC phones have had such since like early 2000.

Because it's being marketed as being revolutionary? Oh wait....

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (-1, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670548)

Considering how poor of quality many third-party iPhone apps are, it's a great thing that they couldn't sit around in the background eating up battery.

App Store is a seriously controlled environment and they already impose strict guidelines for developers. How does an idle application even eat up more battery? It's not like your RAM needs more power if it's used a little bit more. The background app doesn't need to do any drawing and is usually on pause (unless it needs to do certain tasks in the background, and then it makes sense).

How does it not make things simpler?

Because you have to travel the menus to locate your app you just switched out from and load up whatever you were doing, and even to perform a quick copy-paste you need to:
1) save your document
2) close app 1
3) locate app 2
4) open app 2
5) copy
6) close app 2
7) locate app 1
8) load up the document you were working with
9) scroll to the point you wanted to paste to
10) paste
11) do the same again because your copypaste missed something

Yeah, seems really convenient and simple.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 4 years ago | (#31670758)

Not that the non-Apple-prohibition on multitasking is really useful, but that sequence of steps can be shortened - the apps save state when the home button is pressed (or really should - the apple ones like sms, email etc do), so step 1 and 2 are the same. Locate app and open app can be combined - if it's on the same screen then you just need to touch, else swipe and touch.

8 and 9 are not needed - the app opens to where it was when you pressed the home button in step 1.

Paste.

Step 11 can be removed with careful copying - you just added it to pad the list.

I want the ability to enable multitasking for non-Apple apps as much as the next person, but the iPhone UI was designed from the outset to not need it - it would just be useful to have. Sort of like the one button mouse on OS X - you can do everything in the OS with the left mouse button *only*, but adding the context click with the right mouse button adds usefulness. It's not a requirement. (and yes, I have a Microsoft 2 button mouse with scrollwheel on my iMac, the computer police can come and arrest me any time).

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670768)

Oh it seems Apple finally got to 90's computing. Didn't all the Apple fanboys say that not having multitasking to eat out battery life was better? And that it made things simpler? Are you still having that opinion, or do you just follow what Steve Jobs says again?

Ah, more psychotic frothing from TripMasterFucktard. Tell me, what is one of the most popular apps on multi tasking phones? Memory cleanup programs. But wait, isn't multi tasking the epitome, the nirvana of smartphone users?

Don't let facts get in the way of your senseless blather. Carry on. Fucktard.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31669920)

Don't worry, the other 10000 rumors will all get their own Slashdot articles too.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670054)

To which, fanbois will have to menstruate as many times?

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670438)

And as always the hatebois have arrived before the fanbois, and are more annoying and unpleasant, and add even less to the discussion. What kind of a person rushes in even before the fans, just to spread nastiness? Jesus.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670544)

Boy, what have we got here? Oh.. just another menstruating fanboi.

Re:And this is different from the 10000 other rumo (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31670094)

And then, 24 hours later, they will all get their dupe too. And then another 24 hours later half of those will get a second dupe because the posters don't even read Slashdot themselves.

Not so HD ? (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | about 4 years ago | (#31669882)

How HD can you get on an iPhone ?

Re:Not so HD ? (3, Interesting)

Jack Zombie (637548) | about 4 years ago | (#31670044)

The video camera could be HD and shoot at 720p.

Re:Not so HD ? (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | about 4 years ago | (#31670398)

Considering your average camera phone lens can barely resolve a barcode, I'm not quite sure what the point of HD shooting would be.

Re:Not so HD ? (4, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | about 4 years ago | (#31670462)

Considering your average camera phone lens can barely resolve a barcode, I'm not quite sure what the point of HD shooting would be.

HD Barcodes?

Re:Not so HD ? (2, Interesting)

Sandbags (964742) | about 4 years ago | (#31670058)

Internally, 420p is completely plausible. however, that's not the idea... With NFC, and an appropriate receiver (or a simple dock and cable) 1080p connection to a TV is completely within reason. Further, a tiny adjustment to the mini displayport on upcoming mac notebooks (and PCs as well, since it's part of the standard), and video in to a notebook through playback on an iPod/iPhone is completely plausible.

Re:Not so HD ? (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670142)

And do you seriously think iPhone has the CPU capability to crunch 1080p H.264 video?

Re:Not so HD ? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#31670378)

The cpu is irrelevant. The hardware video decoder is what matters. A lot of the arm cortex A8 devices can output 720p at reasonable framerates if the video is in the right format.

first post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31669884)

Should be good for fags

Flash? Unlocked? (1)

BVis (267028) | about 4 years ago | (#31669886)

But will it include minor expectations like a choice in carriers, or a bloody Flash plugin? Fix those before you add gadgets.

Hopefully Not (5, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 4 years ago | (#31669990)

The iPhone's refusal to adopt Flash, coupled with its huge popularity, is among the greatest forces driving development away from Flash and towards alternate platforms. This is a good thing.

Re:Hopefully Not (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 4 years ago | (#31670148)

This is a good thing.

Since you've been modded to "Interesting" I think it is fair to ask "Why?"

Re:Hopefully Not (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | about 4 years ago | (#31670276)

The general view is that flash is a relatively closed format (yeah, it's an open spec, but let's face it, no one else has a player comparable to Adobe's implementation), based on a patented codec, wrapped up with a rather annoying DRM layer.

Personally, my view is that flash is simply annoying... it's slow, clunky, sucks up CPU time, interacts poorly with the mouse and keyboard, is only barely cross-platform (let's face it, Linux gets the short end of the Flash stick) and is generally less elegant than an integrated browser solution. Well, at least for video (I never play flash games, so if it sticks around in that niche, hey, so be it).

Re:Hopefully Not (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 4 years ago | (#31670432)

to bad i like hulu, pandora, last.fm, bbc's iPlayer, the ocasional crappy flash game. Now i know things like the games, and iplayer should be easy to port to html5+JS+svg, things like hulu are less likely, as that layer of DRM is required for them to exist. So while i hate flash as much of the next guy, it's here, and to use parts of the web i like, i need it on my MID.

Re:Hopefully Not (2, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | about 4 years ago | (#31670486)

Yup, you're almost certainly right. But I wouldn't be averse to Flash being pushed more into the margins, and if the iPhone and iPad help that happen, great! Meanwhile, for some of those niche applications, like Hulu, a custom-written app for the device is probably a better solution than an embedded flash player, anyway.

Re:Hopefully Not (2, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | about 4 years ago | (#31670786)

iPlayer already works on the iPhone - they specifically added H.264 streams to support it - just one of the developments away from Flash that people are looking for.

Re:Hopefully Not (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 4 years ago | (#31670318)

For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.

Re:Hopefully Not (4, Informative)

diskofish (1037768) | about 4 years ago | (#31670484)

Wrong. Why do people here always pull shit out of their asses? You can download the Flex SDK and compiler for free from Adobe, and if you like, you can buy the IDE from Adobe for about $250.

Re:Hopefully Not (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670648)

And even more so, theres also freeware Flash IDE's. Sure they're not as good as Adobe's, but it's still better than what easy IDE's there are for HTML5 Canvas (0 to be exact)

Re:Hopefully Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670642)

For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.

And for developing iPhone OS apps, you need to pay $100 a year and use an SDK that only runs on Mac OS X.

Re:Hopefully Not (2, Funny)

Abcd1234 (188840) | about 4 years ago | (#31670704)

For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.

And a few stress balls, and eventually a toupee after you're done tearing all your hair out...

Re:Hopefully Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670712)

For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.

bah! When I was younger, I used to develop in HTML using just a 9-volt battery, some copper wire, and a 300-baud modem. whippersnappers...get off my lawne

Re:Hopefully Not (2, Interesting)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#31670626)

just to add what other responses have left out: Flash also poses a significant security problem. These days most exploits target either the browser directly, or flash/pdf.

As others have said, Adobe wouldnt be able to code themselves out of a wet paper bag, yet their software runs on 99.9% of internet connected computers, which poses a threat in terms of security.

Not to mention the fact that flash adds are off course, the devil

Retarded Apple Fanboy Fantasy World (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670160)

Maybe all your hipster douchebag Apple fanboys at the local Starbucks believe the crap you just posted, but here in REALITY...

Re:Hopefully Not (4, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 4 years ago | (#31670274)

Here here. There is no need for Flash on a touch phone for starters (it just doesn't work), it kills the battery on pretty much any non-ac powered device, and HTML 5 looks far more promising to me.

As to the rumored phone features, I'm 'meh' about the higher resolution (pixel density is already good for that size screen) although it would make converting DVD's a bit easier as I wouldn't have to resize from the stock resolutions. The front facing camera will make self portraits a bit easier. I don't have any plans to utilize video chat. I never use it on my PC's, and I doubt I would ever use it on a phone.

Most of these selling points just seem like must haves just because someone thought they sounded like a good idea and not because they really add a 'must have' feature. I dont' know how much real world value they will bring but I'll reserve judgement until I see one. I also don't use any apps that require multi-tasking outside of the core apps, although I suppose listening to streaming radio might be a nice change from my own tunes at the gym. I think the only multi-tasking I would find handy is answering a text message without having to exit what I'm currently in. Happens at the gym fairly often. Minor inconvenience.

I'm also satisfied with the speed on the 3GS, so I don't know what the A4 will bring to the table. Possibly to better handle video chat? I suppose the only item of interest for me are the rumors of 4G support, and hopefully 'N' wireless.

What alternatives? (2, Insightful)

Comboman (895500) | about 4 years ago | (#31670734)

The iPhone's refusal to adopt Flash ... is among the greatest forces driving development away from Flash and towards alternate platforms.

That's a bit of stretch, especially since the iPhone currently doesn't support any of the alternatives to Flash either (Silverlight, Java, HTML5).

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 4 years ago | (#31670008)

or a bloody Flash plugin

Adobe can't code their way out of a wet paper bag unless it's x86 Windows. So honest to $deity I hope not.

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#31670660)

Adobe can't code their way out of a wet paper bag unless it's x86 Windows. So honest to $deity I hope not.

What? Adobe can't code on Windows, either. There was a time when they could do it on the Mac, but that ended about the time System 7 came out.

If you look at what flash does, and compare it to some other similar system, you'll find it doesn't do much and it's horribly inefficient at what it does. There are loads of game engines which have been melded with a scripting engine which do the same kind of stuff at much higher levels of performance, probably mostly because they're not reinventing wheels. They're using standard libraries for drawing and they're using existing scripting engines like Lua and Python, meaning they don't have to try to make an efficient, optimized scripting engine either. If Adobe had gone with one of these languages instead of inventing their own, the world would be a better place today. Or at least, the web would.

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 4 years ago | (#31670090)

But will it include minor expectations like a choice in carriers, or a bloody Flash plugin? Fix those before you add gadgets.

I've seen rumors [mobilecrunch.com] that a Verizon iPhone is on the way...

But, as far as Flash goes, I'd rather they didn't support it.

Sure, Flash has its place... But it's been horribly abused and overused for years. Platforms like the iPhone, and the advent of HTML5, have the opportunity to push Flash back where it belongs. I'd love to see that happen.

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31670144)

Flash needs to die, and Apple is pushing web standards as the alternative (as opposed to Microsoft who would also like to see Flash die but only to replace it with Silverlight).

No Flash on extremely popular devices is a good thin. It forces people to stop using Flash where there's no reason to use it, such as navigation and video.

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 4 years ago | (#31670362)

And makes it a royal pain in the ass for people when there is a reason to use it, like live streaming video.

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (2, Interesting)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#31670766)

No Flash on extremely popular devices is a good thin. It forces people to stop using Flash where there's no reason to use it, such as navigation and video.

you dont even need an iphone type device for that. A year and a half back i worked on a webshop, and the program manager had me make a jpg/javascript fall back for the flash menu because google analytics showed that 1% of the visitors didnt have flash. When the main goal of your website is getting people in, and getting them to spend money, management will have programmers bending over backwards to support even IE 5.0 if they think they will make an extra buck.

Granted, the only reason the navigation on that site was simple, and flash was only used to make things flashy...

Re:Flash? Unlocked? (1)

teg (97890) | about 4 years ago | (#31670184)

But will it include minor expectations like a choice in carriers,

It does have a choice in carriers outside the US. The US is special, with much more carrier lock-in - a big reason being that the carriers use different standards. So I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to choose Verizon is far off - the mobile phone market just doesn't work as well in the US as elsewhere.

Remarkable, though... (5, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 4 years ago | (#31669908)

.... how Apple always manages to thrive upon rumors instead of upon "classical" ads. You may call such rumors "hypes", and they prolly are. Still, they do constitute remarkable publicity feats.

Re:Remarkable, though... (1)

AnotherShep (599837) | about 4 years ago | (#31670020)

But they *do* have classical ads. My in-laws won't stop talking about them. (Yes, I have one, but please. I don't want to talk about commercials.)

Front facing camera? (0)

Drethon (1445051) | about 4 years ago | (#31669918)

So taking pictures of yourself is more important than having a prevew of what you are taking a picture of so it will come out level and properly framed? I fear for the future of photos...

Re:Front facing camera? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31669958)

Exactly. A front facing camera on any cellphone is simply redonculous.

Re:Front facing camera? (4, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 4 years ago | (#31670002)

Exactly, god forbid someone wants to use Skype for video conferencing!

Re:Front facing camera? (0)

Drethon (1445051) | about 4 years ago | (#31670082)

Then don't advertise it as a camera (you know, for taking pictures?). Advertise it as a webcam or something similar...

Re:Front facing camera? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670306)

What is a webcam? It's... a camera...

Stop being such an idiot.

Re:Front facing camera? (1)

soilheart (1081051) | about 4 years ago | (#31670092)

Or use the video call function that was one of the most hyped new things when Sweden launched their 3G networks. Which naturally youngsters and deaf people just love (in no special order/grouping). God forbid.

Re:Front facing camera? (-1, Redundant)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 years ago | (#31670370)

Um, in a fricking phone over 3G? no thanks.

If you want to videoconference over skype at Least use your laptop and a real net connection. I cant stand the idiots that try and skype into a conference call on their 3g internet in their laptop, all choppy and dropouts. we usually simply tell them to call back on a real connection. Most of the time we cant stand people using wifi for longer calls because of the cyloning and video problems that even a faster 802.11g connection has.

If you want to have a useless choppy blocky videocall? it would be perfect.

Re:Front facing camera? (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670732)

3G elsewhere in the world isn't as bad as in US. Here you can get unlimited 5Mbit/s 3G for $30 a month and its stable connection. Hell, we already have 4G in largest cities (128 Mbit/s downlink and 56 Mbit/s uplink)

Re:Front facing camera? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 4 years ago | (#31670010)

I don't think they'd remove the other camera.

Oh, and editors: If I wanted idle speculation on the next Apple product, I'd go to MacRumors or any of a dozen other sites. Can we focus a bit more on stuff that... matters?

Re:Front facing camera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670582)

They gotta keep the Mac fanboys' erections up. Just like they keep up the Linux and Windows fanboys' erections up. Makes sense. It's still stupid. But it makes sense.

Re:Front facing camera? (3, Informative)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | about 4 years ago | (#31670042)

The front facing camera would be in addition to the higher resolution camera at the rear. It would be used for video conferencing.

Re:Front facing camera? (5, Informative)

teg (97890) | about 4 years ago | (#31670268)

So taking pictures of yourself is more important than having a prevew of what you are taking a picture of so it will come out level and properly framed? I fear for the future of photos...

A front facing camera - in addition to the normal one on the back - has been common on other phones for many years. They were part of one of the launching features of 3G - video calls. Unfortunately for the phone companies hoping that this would increase traffic and revenue, noone liked holding their phones half a meter in front of them to do a call and the technology is still unused.

Personally, I hope Apple doesn't add one. It's pointless, and takes space/cost that could be used for other things. I had one on my Nokia N95, and used it once.

Re:Front facing camera? (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 4 years ago | (#31670286)

I've got phones with both a back facing camera and a front facing camera since 2003. One is for taking pictures, the other one is for video calls or skype. I probably made no more than a couple of such calls in seven years but manufacturers keep insisting to put two cameras in 3G phones here in Europe. I remember that the iPhone was a big departure from this standard when it launched. "Wow, no front facing camera? No MMS? Will it sell?" Maybe this new iPhone version will bring video calls to the masses at last.

More speculating? (4, Informative)

Bicx (1042846) | about 4 years ago | (#31669936)

Is Apple product speculation really that interesting to people? Maybe it's fun to have that initial thought on what emerging tech could be, but Apple speculation quickly escalates into a never-ending stream of annoyance that builds expectations up to an unachievable level.

Multi-tasking : do not want (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31669964)

Multi-tasking is a bad idea. Most users are not computer professionals.

Re:Multi-tasking : do not want (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31670334)

Multi-tasking is a bad idea. Most users are not computer professionals.

Yeah, because multi-tasking in Windows definitely requires you to be computer professional. Everyone I know, also girls, are also perfectly capable of multitasking on phone.

Re:Multi-tasking : do not want (5, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 4 years ago | (#31670598)

Ever use a Windows Mobile device? Background tasks on mobile hardware should be avoided whenever possible. Not because it's hard to multi-task, mind you—it's just hard to enjoy a smartphone when you have to constantly hunt for random process that are killing your battery life and/or slowing your phone to a crawl.

Recurring lesson about Apple (5, Insightful)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | about 4 years ago | (#31670012)

If there's one thing history teaches about rumors regarding upcoming Apple products, it's that nobody talking knows anything. If anyone gets any Apple-product prediction right it's because enough monkeys pounding on typewriters will eventually write Shakespeare.

Remember how the iPad was supposed to have a front-facing camera, an awesome chess game, full 1080p HD video, solar charging, biometric security, etc. - and wasn't going to just be a fat iPod Touch? Yeah.

Sure the next iPhone will be an improvement. Duh. Anything more than that is pure rampant rabid speculation.

Re:Recurring lesson about Apple (1)

Altus (1034) | about 4 years ago | (#31670154)

Some of the rumors might be informed, its not like apple is perfect at stopping leaks.

good luck figuring out which ones are real leaks and which are just speculation though.

Re:Recurring lesson about Apple (1)

alobar72 (974422) | about 4 years ago | (#31670182)

totally agree - I am still bored because of the many "prediction" regarding the iPad.
I really dont want to start this all over with the next iPhone - flodding every techforum there is.
I am not that into hardware-"facts" anyway - since the magic will be in the software - or nowhere.

Re:Recurring lesson about Apple (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#31670210)

If anyone gets any Apple-product prediction right it's because enough monkeys pounding on typewriters will eventually write Shakespeare.

If someone could finally give the monkeys modern computers with word processors, the error and typo rate would go down and they could write Shakespeare a lot faster.

Apple Media Fans In Panic Mode Over Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670300)

With Android selling at a rate of 22 million phones a year and doubling its marketshare every quarter the Apple fans in the media and blog world are in full scale panic mode that Apple will come up something that can compete with the entire cellphone industry putting out incredible after incredible new Android phone.

They should be scared. My old iPhone looks like a cheap tacky piece of junk next to my incredible Nexus One.

Re:Recurring lesson about Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#31670478)

Depends on the source of the rumor. Some sites got the iPad right when they predicted a large iPod Touch with 3G capabilities. But generally the rule is to wait til Apple makes an announcement.

I so wish I'd bought stock (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#31670028)

Back just before the iPhone launch. Unfortunately my friend in 'the city' informed me that the analysts at his place didn't think it would take off and I didn't invest.

Dumbass!

I hope they were fired.

The way things are going the holy steve could wipe his butt on each iPad and still they'd sell like holy relics and the stock would rocket.

Source Article (4, Insightful)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 years ago | (#31670080)

Good Grief. I have a first-gen iPhone, and will consider upgrading when the next version comes out. So you can expect that I'm excited about the possible specs on. But, really, the linked article is a ridiculous i-gasm. If you are going to report this stuff, stick to the original sources, rather than linking to second-hand articles that lace their copy with unabashed fanboy-ism. If you want color commentary along with your tech news, check out the relevant post [engadget.com] on Engadget.

What actually kicked off this latest wave of speculation was an an article [wsj.com] from the Wall Street Journal, stating that Apple is developing a CDMA version of the iphone for Verizon. The WSJ is a fairly reputable source that wouldn't print unless they had some solid evidence, so this should be interpreted as a bit more than a typical rumor.

front facing, rear facing (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#31670100)

is there some reason why a camera cannot be flexible to face whatever direction the user wants?

A rotating camera inside a transparent sphere or maybe a system of mirrors and a software switch between directions?

Not that I care about an iphone or a camera on a mobile, it's just a strange 'improvement'.

Re:front facing, rear facing (4, Insightful)

Marcika (1003625) | about 4 years ago | (#31670316)

is there some reason why a camera cannot be flexible to face whatever direction the user wants?

Moving parts, hinges, even rotating mirrors, are failure-prone and take a lot of space. Most phone with front-facing cameras use two smaller lenses instead and leave out any moving parts -- my 4-year-old Sony Ericsson K610 has a VGA front camera for videoconferencing and a 2MP rear-facing camera for proper pictures. I am pretty sure that the iPhone will use the same concept.

Re:front facing, rear facing (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 4 years ago | (#31670594)

Moving parts, hinges, even rotating mirrors, are failure-prone and take a lot of space. Most phone with front-facing cameras use two smaller lenses instead and leave out any moving parts -- my 4-year-old Sony Ericsson K610 has a VGA front camera for videoconferencing and a 2MP rear-facing camera for proper pictures. I am pretty sure that the iPhone will use the same concept.

"proper pictures" with a 2MP cam, with a tiny tiny tiny sensor, with a shit lens, right.... I have found very little use for my camera on my phone, anything i want to take pictures of gets the SLR camera, and things like if the car gets hit, are better off on a disposable, as photos on film are much harder to manipulate. Any US carriers allow video conferencing on their networks? or do i need to pay $20 a month for that feature? Then again i like my phones phones, and my computers computers, and my cameras cameras, and an all in one device seems to do a shitty job at all of them. Just let me teather devices to my phone, and then i can have a small phone and a pda/tablet that just has internet.

Re:front facing, rear facing (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#31670354)

It's cheaper and easier to have a lower resolution front-facing camera as it removes the need for moving, easily breakable parts. Other camera have had this for about 3 years, the technology (and precedence) is well established. The question is are they going to allow Skype to be used over 3G?

Re:front facing, rear facing (1)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#31670636)

is there some reason why a camera cannot be flexible to face whatever direction the user wants?

I had a camera flip phone in the mid 00s that mounted the cam on the "flip". So close the phone and the cam faces you, for self portraits, and open the phone and the cam faces outward, for taking pictures of other people. Camera "shutter" button on side, using "trigger finger".

I found the whole concept of a cam phone useless, and the blurry fuzzy low res pix to be worthless, but it was a good design.

How will affect old stuff (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#31670152)

Perhaps it is because the phones are changing so much, but Apple does not seem to be keeping to their traditional 3 years of useful life policy. I had to replace my first gen iPhone because the 3.0 software, released only two years after the iPhone, ran like a dog. Unlike a general purpose computer, the new OS get pushed through the synch process so there is little hope of keeping it off.

With the iPad and probably a new iPhone leveraging much more computing power, I can imagine an iPhone 4.0 software that will also make the current iPhones run like dogs, and I would not be surprised to see such an OS by the end of this year. This would not be so much of an issue but most of us sign two year contracts, but the OS seems to make hardware obsolete in 18 months. I sure wish that Apple would let us pay 50 dollars for to reduce the contract terms to one year. That is what I used to with phones.

Screen resolution (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about 4 years ago | (#31670188)

If this is true then it's really no suprise, particularly regarding the screen resolution.

Many pointed out the issue of having to cater to different screen sizes with Android and touted the iPhone as a superior platform for development because it's hardware is static.

I've long said that it's not realistically going to stay that way, with the iPhone you already have differences between existing models that you must cater too in terms of performance and certain features. It's not suprising that resolution is now something you will also have to deal with, because the iPhone was already running at half the resolution of the likes of the Nexus One.

Of course, you might say that Apple will automatically scale apps, which is an option, but that just means the apps wont be making any use of the higher resolution.

It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles this, and with the iPad coming too, developers for Apple's platform are going to have to cater to differences just as with Android, and just as developers of desktop apps have always had to.

Realistically it could only ever be a pipe dream to keep the hardware static, else the phone would simply get dated and no other platforms based on the technology (i.e. the iPad) could ever be released. If this is true it's really a vindication of the fact that if you want your platform to advance, and stay relevant, there's no hiding behind the supposed advantage of having a static hardware platform for the sake of easier development. Developers are going to have to work and deal with differences over time regardless whether they're developing for Windows, Android or the iPhone.

Do any iPhone developers here know whether this means existing applications might have to be updated to support different resolutions? It'll be a massive job if so, so I'm guessing by default the new iPhone will indeed just scale graphics or something to start with unless an application specifically handles differing resolutions?

I have heard this many times before (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 4 years ago | (#31670194)

I have had an iphone for some time and it was one of the worst purchases I ever made. Regardless, I am sure most of us have heard great rumors surrounding new iPhone generations in the past. The reality is that Apple is too consumed with the "Sony Process"(i.e. small incremental improvements). Really, anyone with an iPhone 3G or 3G S should wait another generation or two before they upgrade. Chances are we might see a better camera, with an extremely low chance of a flash for said camera, along with a slightly faster processor and a slightly better display.

As with any of us Technophiles, I really enjoy being on the "bleeding edge"(which the iPhone is not on), but I also like to tinker with any currently used technology. After playing with the iPhone for a while, I am ready to run back to the edge.

Why would nerds want this? (2, Insightful)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | about 4 years ago | (#31670266)

Can I install my software without Apple's permission yet?

Can I assign my songs directly as ringtones yet?

Can I add my own audio and video codecs yet?

Can I take my phone to another carrier without Apple trying to brick my phone with a firmware update yet?

Can I multitask yet?

Can I use Flash (and watch Hulu) yet?



Yep, I think my n900 is still the phone for nerds. I have a philosophical issue with Apple telling me what i can and can't do with hardware I purchased, when there is no technical reason I cannot do it. I sacrifice a little convenience (the huge app store, Apple's admittedly-slick interface) for my freedom.

Re:Why would nerds want this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670674)

This. IMHO the iPhone is your grandmother's phone, a useful little toy that has plenty of fun stuff to do but actively discourages any real sense of adventure in application development, and it shows.

Re:Why would nerds want this? (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 years ago | (#31670690)

and you N900 is also dog slow., herky jerky and has phone problems. I loved my N900, but I need a phone first and a pocket PC second. I had cell tower hand-off problems, Bluetooth connectivity with my car sucked (have to reboot N900 after EVERY call to make another call through the car's hands free bluetooth, Damn Ford and BMW and their non standard Bluetooth that works with all other phones INCLUDING older Nokias!) The interface get's slow at times making you wait, AND I experienced lockups at times.

I had to have a phone that worked with my bluetooth and worked as a phone 100% of the time. the N900 is not useable for that. Sadly my friends iPhone did not have problems with using the car's bluetooth integration, and he does not have lockups or loss of cellphone reception in many places. Yes I checked... my kichen, N900 = no signal his iphone 2 bars. walk to living room 5 bars, N900 still no signal for 30-60 seconds..... OH there it is! I get 3 bars! WOOOO!

I'm seriously thinking of selling my N900 on ebay and getting an iPhone or a Nexus 1

A4 processor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670288)

I wonder what an A4 processor is...

In the rest of the world, A4 is the standard size of a sheet of paper for printing
In chess A4 is the square that white would move his Kings Rooks Pawn to if he moved it two squres forward.
THe A4 Skyhawk was a small fighter bomger designed for the navy in the 1950's.It was still in service during the Vietnam war.
The A4 is a highway in the UK.

4x not 2x (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31670320)

Its not double resolution it is quadruple resolution. Double the pixels in each direction is 4x the number of pixels total.

Ponies (1)

confused one (671304) | about 4 years ago | (#31670372)

Will it have little kittens and ponies too?! Oh yeah, ponies! I want ponies! Black ones and polka-dotted ones, and pink ones too!

Does no-one remember the past? (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 4 years ago | (#31670440)

Given that they've barely changed the hardware in the last couple of iterations, I see no reason to suspect that they'll do anything different.

Before the 3GS came out, everyone went mad imagining what kind of new stuff it had and ended up being disappointed. Yet, if they'd looked at past performance, they should have realised they were being hopelessly optimistic.

My prediction is that there will obviously be new software but the hardware will remain largely unchanged with the exception being that they'll change to HSDPA (or maybe even HSUPA).

And nothing else.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...