ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
you have to buy the app for that, silly.What the He!!, it can't teach you to fly!
What the He!!, it can't teach you to fly!
That's in the iPhone 5G
And for those who enjoy soaring, the 5Gs
That's the MSRP, right?And for those who enjoy soaring, the 5Gs
Oddly enough, Apple does not go putting tons of features in their phones simply so they can check a box - It's their competitors that do that!
Uhhm you do realize that this is a joke, right????
I seem to recall that the first iteration of iPhone could barely do enterprise email. Something that blackberry had been doing for a few years as well as Windows Mobile. The iPhone could not even claim the first touch screen as there had been phones from years prior that had those (Motorola Ming), no bluetooth either. What feature was that they had? Oh yeah, hype.Yeah, but it was funnier 3 years ago when the iPhone seemingly did everything compared to other phones of the day - Now, it'd be a better joke for Android 3.0 or something.
Now, if they showed that it came with a free case resembling a black turtleneck and jeans... THAT would be funny.
I seem to recall that the first iteration of iPhone could barely do enterprise email. Something that blackberry had been doing for a few years as well as Windows Mobile. The iPhone could not even claim the first touch screen as there had been phones from years prior that had those (Motorola Ming), no bluetooth either. What feature was that they had? Oh yeah, hype.
The sum of all of it parts was that it was a not great phone, without many standard phone features but did have a good user interface. It was a lot of hype. The radio in the iPhone still stinks even in the 3GS versions. The receiver sensitivity is well below other smart phones and the battery life, well those who live in glass houses , but even Moto had better battery life!The iPhone is a case where the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.
I agree. The whole 'we need a touchscreen' thing was even more funny when seeing Moto handset execs ,not even realizing that Moto already had touch screen products out in the field, decrying that was what was needed to recapture market share.I kinda laughed when everyone suddenly came out with "NEW!!!! TOUCHSCREEN PHONE!" after the iPhone came out. The iPhone wasn't better because it had a touchscreen, it was better because it had an excellent user interface.
Like for antenna design?They also pay a lot of attention to detail -
They also pay a lot of attention to detail - One of my favorite iPhone features is that if your headphones come unplugged for any reason, whatever you were listening to is paused. That's not something you'll see on any list of checkboxes, but it sure is nice that I don't have to rewind the podcast I was listening to when it happens. There are many other tiny details that really make me love the iPhone.
The sum of all of it parts was that it was a not great phone, without many standard phone features
The radio in the iPhone still stinks even in the 3GS versions. The receiver sensitivity is well below other smart phones
and the battery life, well those who live in glass houses , but even Moto had better battery life!
I agree. The whole 'we need a touchscreen' thing was even more funny when seeing Moto handset execs ,not even realizing that Moto already had touch screen products out in the field, decrying that was what was needed to recapture market share.
Like for antenna design?
Like exactly what I said in the sentences you cut out from post above.Like what, exactly?
I am sure you did not do much in the way of serious bench testing and comparison drive testing. I am also sure that you do not have access to system statistics that show a difference in performance of the iPhone compared to other phones. But that does not mean that nobody else has that data. It also appears that you were comparing different operators. I you have a brand A phone on operator A you cannot make valid performance observations of brand B phone performance on operator B's systems. By simple observation. You need to see a lot more about the link robustness and you would only get that if you had access to both system 'switch' stats.I have a 3Gs and it's slightly better than the original iPhone which was noticeably better than the Sony Ericsson, which was noticeably better than the Nokia that preceded it (though that was also accompanied by a switch from VZW with the Nokia to ATT with the SE). I expect to see that as technology improves, but I don't see how the iPhone's radio is significantly better or worse than anyone else's, if they all work properly.
Well the lack of battery life certainly gave aftermarket accessory sales a boost. Lots of little jacket battery packs. The iPhone 4 battery is pretty darn good. Lasts a lot longer than my Droid, which I have to charge daily.The only time I've had any problem with either of my iPhones' battery life was right when I got the 1st-gen iPhone and it was new and cool and I used it practically every waking hour for the first few days. New-toy syndrome, ya know. Other than that, it's always been fine, and it's a LOT better than a lot of other smartphones - Nokia N-series or HTC Evo for example. I don't think battery life has been a particular strength of the iPhone until the iPhone 4, but it certainly hasn't been a weakness either.
Which Moto interface exactly? There have been at least five different ones.And for Moto, the user interface has always been a particular weakness IME, so I'm not too surprised that the execs were so clueless.
BTW I have been doing side by side comparisons on the iPhone 4 and a Droid that is on AT&T. The IP4 has a plastic cover that I sometimes take off. I have yet to see significant differences in sensitivity. I would love to get my hands on a data logger for a week or two. But with Moto being split into two companies and me leaving Moto in the next couple of months that just is not going to happen.Yeah, oops. I think part of the problem there was that A) they have an AT&T tower on the Apple campus so they probably didn't have too much trouble with the iPhone 4 in their non-lab on-campus testing, and B) all of their off-campus iPhone 4's were in a case that disguised them as iPhone 3Gs' and thus... Well, ya know... CASE... Oops. Frankly, the iPhone 4's antenna design is a good idea, and works quite well, WHEN you don't give it the death grip.
I am interested in what that would be? Seriously I thought the whole thing was over blown.Maybe everyone at Apple is right-handed. Word is that there'll be iPhone 4's out this month that have some sort of fix for the antenna issue that doesn't require a case. We'll see what happens.
I seem to recall that the first iteration of iPhone could barely do enterprise email. Something that blackberry had been doing for a few years as well as Windows Mobile. The iPhone could not even claim the first touch screen as there had been phones from years prior that had those (Motorola Ming), no bluetooth either. What feature was that they had? Oh yeah, hype.
Like exactly what I said in the sentences you cut out from post above.
I am sure you did not do much in the way of serious bench testing and comparison drive testing. I am also sure that you do not have access to system statistics that show a difference in performance of the iPhone compared to other phones. But that does not mean that nobody else has that data.
It also appears that you were comparing different operators. I you have a brand A phone on operator A you cannot make valid performance observations of brand B phone performance on operator B's systems.
Which Moto interface exactly? There have been at least five different ones.
I am interested in what that would be? Seriously I thought the whole thing was over blown.
See post 15.Um, no really. What "standard phone features" were missing from the original iPhone? Nothing that I cut out is something I'd consider a "standard phone feature."
Exactly. Being able to make and receive calls is important. And when you do real testing on the iPhone, one finds out that the iPhone dropped more calls and had more access failures than other phones. IOW it has a crappy radio. Which I also think causes some, but not all, of the early complaints about the AT&T network.No, I didn't have any of that - And I don't care. What I'm saying is, the phone was perfectly usable, and that's what really matters. Usability. I don't care what it does on the bench, or what the network thinks of it. I care whether I can make and hold calls.
Yes that is what I have been saying. Glad to see you finally agree, that the iPhone was actually not a good phone when it came to radio performance.I had a Sony Ericsson phone on AT&T before the iPhone... It was the prior switch where I switched networks. Over time, I've had phones from Qualcomm, Nokia, Moto, Sony Ericsson, and Apple on Sprint, PrimeCo/VZW, Nextel, and Cingular/AT&T. I've had both VZW and AT&T as a nationwide over-the-road driver as well as pilot, so I've poked and prodded at those networks extensively. As much crap as people give AT&T, I really think their network problems come from the iPhone
The Nextel or as we called the system iDen, had some interesting development history. It was not even designed by the cellular groups. It came out of the public safety truck radio people. The user interfaces reflected that as well.I forget the exact model number of the only Moto phone I actually owned, but it was one of the ones that Nextel had back when they were the only ones with PTT. It was Cub yellow and built to be the indestructo-phone. Hard plastic with lots of rubber, felt really nice in the hand, made you think "Wow, this is a nice phone" right up until the first time you wanted to change the ringer volume, when you had to pull out the manual to find that you had to hold * and # and then press 7, then 9 to get to the volume adjustment menu. Serious WTF there.
I thought about that clear coat as a solution too. My concern would be that the clear coat could rub off. I am thinking that maybe a small bumper at the antenna gap that would prevent a finger from 'shorting' across that gap?Yeah, "antennagate" was at least as much a PR problem as it was a technical problem. Nobody knows what the fix is going to be yet, exactly - I was envisioning some sort of invisible clear-coat around the sides (antennae) but who knows.
Operators all want to control the user experience. They are the ones the are really f'ing up the whole cell phone market too. Lest you ever think that you are the customer of Nokia, Samsung. LG, Apple, Motorola, etc. because you are not. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Vodaphone, KDDI, DoCoMo, etc. THEY ARE THE CUSTOMERS and dictate designs.LOL. Stuff like this is probably why there's no Verizon iPhone yet.
http://gizmodo.com/5632186/samsung-...eview-when-greedy-carriers-ruin-decent-phones
Verizon, unfortunately, is also what ruins the phone. Or, rather, what it's forced Samsung to do to the phone, which you could sum up in a word: Bing. Bing is the default—and only—search engine on the Fascinate. A Google Android phone. In the search widget, in the browser, when you press the search button. Bing. No, you can't change it. There's no setting for it, and the Google Search widget that you can snag from the Market is blocked (or at least very carefully hidden). Being unwittingly forced into Verizon and Bing's conjugal relationship is infuriating on its own, but the implementation also feels like the sloppy hack that it is. The co-branded Bing/Verizon portal that an in-browser search takes you to is ripped from the circa-2005 dumbphone-approved "internet," while the Bing Maps app that it pushes you toward is vastly inferior to Google Maps (no multitouch, Latitude, etc.). To be clear, Bing itself is fine. This implementation of it is not.
Operators all want to control the user experience so they can extract the most $ out of them. They are the ones the are really f'ing up the whole cell phone market too. Lest you ever think that you are the customer of Nokia, Samsung. LG, Apple, Motorola, etc. because you are not. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Vodaphone, KDDI, DoCoMo, etc. THEY ARE THE CUSTOMERS and dictate designs.
Operators all want to control the user experience. They are the ones the are really f'ing up the whole cell phone market too. Lest you ever think that you are the customer of Nokia, Samsung. LG, Apple, Motorola, etc. because you are not. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Vodaphone, KDDI, DoCoMo, etc. THEY ARE THE CUSTOMERS and dictate designs.
Me too. It was absolutely ridiculous how much crap Verizon did to try and stop you from enjoying the features that CAME with the phone.Why do you think the Apple/Verizon talks fizzled so quickly when they were originally working on the iPhone? There's been a lot of rumors about the "Verizon iPhone" but frankly, it's a CDMA iPhone and I would not be at all surprised to see it available everywhere BUT Verizon. And if Verizon continues to screw up the user experience, they're going to lose more and more customers. Heck, that's why they lost me in the first place.