Changes in Apple policy?

Henning

Henning

Taxi to Parking
Gone West
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
39,463
Location
Ft Lauderdale FL
Display Name
Display name:
iHenning
So apparently now you can buy an unlocked iPhone from Apple. Does that mean I can get my 3GS unbricked and independently supported again? I paid full price unlocked when I bought it and used it for years travelling using local PAYGO sims; then one day...:rolleyes: Of course Apple treated me as a ginger stepchild of the corn...:rolleyes2: Heck, All I want it any more for is as an iPod Touch w/ GPS, but I have an iPad2, so meh.

So, what are the bets? Will the Geniuses at Apple now support my 3GS? I have to make an appointment to meet a Genius now apparently so I figure since I need to take my crashing as- iPad in I'll see if I can do a two-fer.
 
Henning: you must be delusional, because Apple products do not fail, nor do they fail to satisfy.
 
SCCutler said:
Henning: you must be delusional, because Apple products do not fail, nor do they fail to satisfy.
Click to expand...

Heh.

You typed that from a starbucks, while wearing a turtleneck sweater, vintage jeans, and while having strong opinions regarding fonts.

I'm telling the 10-gallon-hat mafia.
 
Oh now I'm dying. I typed mine from a Starbucks but I was in an Oshkosh t-shirt and jeans that have seen better days.

I had a gift card. Free caffeine after picking up my new glasses. Otherwise the coffee at home is fine. ;)

aefdbb1e-b19e-5cbd.jpg


Sorry about the overly orange photo. The front-facing camera on the iPhone doesn't like the light fixture in my hallway apparently.
 
denverpilot said:
Oh now I'm dying. I typed mine from a Starbucks but I was in an Oshkosh t-shirt and jeans that have seen better days.

I had a gift card. Free caffeine after picking up my new glasses. Otherwise the coffee at home is fine. ;)

aefdbb1e-b19e-5cbd.jpg


Sorry about the overly orange photo. The front-facing camera on the iPhone doesn't like the light fixture in my hallway apparently.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... My humble BlackBerry seems to get the white balance right every time, automatically. I don't even know where the setting for it is. Never had a need to touch it.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Hmmm... My humble BlackBerry seems to get the white balance right every time, automatically. I don't even know where the setting for it is. Never had a need to touch it.

-Rich
Click to expand...
Does your Blackberry have two cameras? Nate took that picture with the front facing one which is primarily used for video chat. It makes for a horrible camera. Had he used the rear facing camera it would have looked better then any blackberry photo I've seen.
 
Picture might have been better if it was a rear-facing pose. :rofl:
jesse said:
Does your Blackberry have two cameras? Nate took that picture with the front facing one which is primarily used for video chat. It makes for a horrible camera. Had he used the rear facing camera it would have looked better then any blackberry photo I've seen.
Click to expand...
 
I have a helluva time rendering photographs on a Diablo printer...
 
LOL. The front facing camera is garbage but the last time I took a Laviator style photo of myself with the forward facing camera and a mirror, all the geeks jumped me saying "You have another camera on that thing dooood!"
 
SCCutler said:
I have a helluva time rendering photographs on a Diablo printer...
Click to expand...

I've got a picture of my father taken by some shop in Europe in 1985. It looks like all ascii characters, but, alas, it was some form of dot-matrix and not a Diablo.
 
jesse said:
Does your Blackberry have two cameras? Nate took that picture with the front facing one which is primarily used for video chat. It makes for a horrible camera. Had he used the rear facing camera it would have looked better then any blackberry photo I've seen.
Click to expand...
Blackberries have horrible cameras. They'd do almost as good to chuck the lens and just use a pinhole.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Blackberries have horrible cameras. They'd do almost as good to chuck the lens and just use a pinhole.
Click to expand...

What??? The fine picture to the left was taken with a BlackBerry (and not a very new one at that), and it's lovely.

Of course, the handsomeness of the subject helped quite a bit...

-Rich
 
I find it rich to see people slamming on Blackberry cameras and saying the iPhone's camera is better....

Well, that is true....but compared to the Android Camera, the iPhone camera might as well be a JamCam.
 
SkyHog said:
I find it rich to see people slamming on Blackberry cameras and saying the iPhone's camera is better....

Well, that is true....but compared to the Android Camera, the iPhone camera might as well be a JamCam.
Click to expand...
...that really depends on the phone nick. Plenty of junk android phones with junk cameras.
 
RJM62 said:
What??? The fine picture to the left was taken with a BlackBerry (and not a very new one at that), and it's lovely.

Of course, the handsomeness of the subject helped quite a bit...

-Rich
Click to expand...
It was undoubtedly the subject matter. My experience is that the camera is practically useless. It's a Blackberry Curve (company supplied). In good light, yeah, it works. Subject near by- OK. Shots of TLC plates- no good. Shots 8 AM- no good.

SkyHog said:
I find it rich to see people slamming on Blackberry cameras and saying the iPhone's camera is better....

Well, that is true....but compared to the Android Camera, the iPhone camera might as well be a JamCam.
Click to expand...
For my purposes, the iPhone camera is better. An iPhone camera got shots of some TLC plates illuminated with UV lights- worked suprisingly well. The BB camera failed miserably. I usually use a Nikon CoolPix Point & Shoot for this. The camera phones are a little easier as I can e-mail the shots to myself rather than pulling the card & transferring the shots to the computer.

Android phone camera- works Ok (the one on my phone). As Jesse noted, there are probably different cameras used. Blackberry & Apple control their hardware.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It was undoubtedly the subject matter. My experience is that the camera is practically useless. It's a Blackberry Curve (company supplied). In good light, yeah, it works. Subject near by- OK. Shots of TLC plates- no good. Shots 8 AM- no good.


For my purposes, the iPhone camera is better. An iPhone camera got shots of some TLC plates illuminated with UV lights- worked suprisingly well. The BB camera failed miserably. I usually use a Nikon CoolPix Point & Shoot for this. The camera phones are a little easier as I can e-mail the shots to myself rather than pulling the card & transferring the shots to the computer.

Android phone camera- works Ok (the one on my phone). As Jesse noted, there are probably different cameras used. Blackberry & Apple control their hardware.
Click to expand...
This picture was taken with an iPhone camera. Pretty impressive IMO considering how the ferry was in motion as was that bird:
189954_1649299673778_1275540023_31423532_1101749_n.jpg
 
Jf1450 said:
Ansel Adams could take beautiful photos with a Kodak Brownie. The camera (or phone) is just a tool.
Click to expand...
True. but a Brownie is still better than a Blackberry phone camera ;)

The Blackberry camera is sorta like fixing cars with a tool set from Toys 'R Us.
 
> You are orange. Apple cameras take perfectly exposed and color-corrected images.

When I was in Middle School, (my girlfriend and) I signed-up for the Photography
class. Something about time away from adult supervision and a Dark Room motivated
us. But THAT's another story.

Anyway ... the (sales)man from Kodak did his schtik one day. He was bragging about
how Kodak would spend serious time and money to "rescue" picture (film) that was
waaay out of date. He had photos of standard Poodle that was various shades of
lavender. Kodak worked HARD, worked a minor miracle to rescue this poor pooch's
pics. They finally came up with a blend that had the poodle as a light tan ... and the
rest of the room wasn't quite right either, but it was kind'a believable. BUT, Kodak Hq
was certain that it was close enough. They returned the pics to Wilma with a brief
note apologizing for the colors being "off" and explaining the important of not leaving
film in a camera for nine(?) years ... and here's a coupon for free film.

Then he showed us Wilma's reply to Kodak. She appreciated their work and
personalized reply ... inspite of the fact that they couldn't reproduce the original
PURPLE poodle.

Thank gawd this was 1970 and not 2012. What we did then, would probably get us
both on a CSC registry today. Thankfully, we were never "caught."
 
Last edited:
Some of the photofinishing computers color corrected stuff annoyingly and sometimes it came out interesting. Many years ago, I had a special architects tour of the US Capitol building. Climbing up the dome I managed to brace a shot of George Washington in the Apotheosis picture from just under it. To my surprise it came out without being blurry. But the combination of tungsten illumination on daylight film and the fact that the varnish on the painting should have it very yellow, the photo print came out looking quite vividly color corrected.
 
rainsux said:
Then he showed us Wilma's reply to Kodak. She appreciated their work and
personalized reply ... inspite of the fact that they couldn't reproduce the original
PURPLE poodle.
Click to expand...

Then there's the story of the filming of the original Star Trek pilot. the make-up artists would cover Susan Oliver in green makeup and they would shoot the scene. When the film came back from processing, she had normal skin tones. They tried darker green makeup and re-shot the scene. It still came back natural. They finally asked the film processing guy if he had any ideas on how to make the green skin tones show up. He replied "You mean she was SUPPOSED to be green?"
 
Steve Foley said:
Then there's the story of the filming of the original Star Trek pilot. the make-up artists would cover Susan Oliver in green makeup and they would shoot the scene. When the film came back from processing, she had normal skin tones. They tried darker green makeup and re-shot the scene. It still came back natural. They finally asked the film processing guy if he had any ideas on how to make the green skin tones show up. He replied "You mean she was SUPPOSED to be green?"
Click to expand...

That's classic. In the interest of promoting thread drift, here's another Star Trek story.

Creator and producer Gene Roddenberry wanted "alien-looking plants" for an episode of the show (maybe the pilot, I don't know). He told the props department, but they kept sending plants which, while certainly lush and interesting, nonetheless didn't look "alien" enough for Roddenberry's liking.

Finally, in frustration, he grabbed a potted tree, yanked it out of the pot by the roots, and stuck it back in the pot upside-down with it's roots exposed.

"There," he said. "That's what an alien plant looks like!"

-Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top