31–40 of 40 posts
I'm impressed with 24% thinner. After holding an iPod touch for the first time I always wished my iPhone was less bulky.
To be honest, I would much rather see a thicker phone with a longer battery. My current iPhone (the 3g) feels unnecessarily thin to me. What I would really like to see would be the option for a larger battery.
(1) Makes it thicker (2) Gives it longer battery life.
Problem solved ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve said (in the keynote) that the Golden Master download should be available today.
They said "master candidate done today, so out soon". Also that the phone is available on the 24th, so iOS needs to be finished enough before that to be built in and shipped off on time. But I'm guessing they wont allow us to have iOS 4 in wide circulation before iPhone 4 itself is out, so 24th or after is my guess.
It depends on if you have to switch to the tiered plan on upgrade. It's a foolish purchase if you do, or if this is your first iPhone. 2Gb is nothing, particularly when they're pushing ads at you, and don't forget the game network is coming. I'm installing an in dash GPS receive this week that will let me stream Pandora in my car, that's next to useless without unlimited. Hell a poorly written app could blow through…
ATT has been pretty clear that you don't (i.e. you can upgrade and retain the unlimited data plan).
Is there any good, sound, technical reason why iOS4 won't run on 1st-gen hardware (iPod and iPhones)? I understand some hardware may be missing (bluetooth on 1st-gen iPods and 3G on 1st-gen iPhones) but the computer that runs the show is pretty much the same as the 2nd-gen ones.
Presumably it's lower amount of memory wouldn't work well with features like multitasking.
Is there any good, sound, technical reason why iOS4 won't run on 1st-gen hardware (iPod and iPhones)? I understand some hardware may be missing (bluetooth on 1st-gen iPods and 3G on 1st-gen iPhones) but the computer that runs the show is pretty much the same as the 2nd-gen ones.
It seems that Apple has historically concentrated more on pushing towards the future instead of dragging legacy support with them. In the long run this means that users who don't make the investment to stay current hardware-wise often lose out on being able to take advantage of the latest features. This certainly creates a good cash flow situation for Apple, but my guess is that the cost-avoidance side is equally luc…
The reason I asked is because, as far as I know, the processor and the amount of memory is the same for 1st generation and 2nd generation hardware. I wonder if Apple is artificially limiting the availability of their software just to force fashion victims to buy new hardware.
And calling the hardware base iOS has to support "massive" is quite an overstatement. That's the enormity of 7 models.
The front camera is the most important innovation to me. I think this will really bring video calling to the masses, for the first time. Many people have been doing that with laptops, but the increased mobility will make a huge difference. (edit: also, I was mystefied why the iPad doesn't have one. Surely the first update will?!)
I also like the gyroscope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technical reason is they want you to upgrade.
I think that's a bit cynical. Apple's all about the user experience, and I think they have rightly judged that enough of the new features won't perform adequately to be a satisfying user experience. You can quibble about the call, but how many other phone OS vendors would support 2-year-old phones for a free upgrade? How many other phone OSes even do upgrades on old phones? (Android does, a little, but I think most o…
What feature a 1st-gen iPod lacks that makes it satisfactory on a second-generation unit? IIRC, the only change is the addition of Bluetooth, processor and memory being the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that Apple has historically concentrated more on pushing towards the future instead of dragging legacy support with them. In the long run this means that users who don't make the investment to stay current hardware-wise often lose out on being able to take advantage of the latest features. This certainly creates a good cash flow situation for Apple, but my guess is that the cost-avoidance side is equally luc…
This is not even close to a good, sound or technical reason. The reason I asked is because, as far as I know, the processor and the amount of memory is the same for 1st generation and 2nd generation hardware. I wonder if Apple is artificially limiting the availability of their software just to force fashion victims to buy new hardware. And calling the hardware base iOS has to support "massive" is quite an overstateme…
Well, "good" is a little subjective. I am purely speculating here, but I doubt that Apple compiled something into the code to make it simply not run on first gen hardware. IE: there must be something about that hardware platform that makes it different enough from current-gen hardware that supporting it adds some amount of back-end effort. Perhaps the reason has to do with one of the other factors I mentioned, a "mistake" or shortcoming in the first-gen hardware that requires more internal hacks and work-arounds in the code than they are willing to support.
It's not like this sort of thing is unique to Apple. Some of the first-gen Droid phones are not going to see the 2.2 update. Yes, there may be more hardware variants and changes among the Droid phones, but it is still a relatively new platform abandoning not-that-old hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not even close to a good, sound or technical reason. The reason I asked is because, as far as I know, the processor and the amount of memory is the same for 1st generation and 2nd generation hardware. I wonder if Apple is artificially limiting the availability of their software just to force fashion victims to buy new hardware. And calling the hardware base iOS has to support "massive" is quite an overstateme…
This is not even close to a good, sound or technical reason Well, "good" is a little subjective. I am purely speculating here, but I doubt that Apple compiled something into the code to make it simply not run on first gen hardware. IE: there must be something about that hardware platform that makes it different enough from current-gen hardware that supporting it adds some amount of back-end effort. Perhaps the reason…
It would not be the first time - the first iMacs are capable of running up to MacOS X 10.4, provided they have enough memory. I have successfully ran 10.4 on a beige G3. The installer, however, checks the hardware against a list of "forbidden" (if I remember the term used in the .plist file) machine types.
Here is a similar story, regarding 10.5:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710260837463...