MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

That is why Apple is Google's best friend, for now. I doubt people use mobile Safari to bring up Bing or MSN neither.

But I'm sure Zune Tang is waiting for the new Zune+WinMo combo

Jun 25, 09 - 04:19 pm Comment from: DD from Belgium

...I'm seeing plenty of ads around on the street, offering an HTC 'full touch' Idunnowhat now exclusively and at a specially reduced price for EUR 96.25 (the 3GS will cost 99.95 with the basic 2 year subscription here in NL), and some Nokia 'even more touch' with 100 free songs... and so on...

'But, but, our phone is cheaper'
'But, but, we give some extra goodies with our phone'

The fear really drips of off them...

Jun 25, 09 - 04:38 pm Comment from: Mr Numbers

The is Pre is still tryin' to launch the the "web" app... HTML/Java/CSS are slow languages you know...

Where are the loser apologists who said the iPhone didn't need a video camera because nobody uses phone cameras anyway?

Where are you jerks with thatidiotic "If you want a camera, go buy a real one" mantra?

Come forth so we can all laugh at you.

Bu--bu--but if Steve adds a video camera, it'll make the phone thicker.

@R2

The iPhone video and regular camera is crap compared to a real one.

Is it good enough to upload crap video in crap quality to go along with all the other crap videos? Apparently, yes.

Laugh away.

The videos recorded by the iPhone may not be perfect but they're far from crappy. With the tap to focus feature, its pictures and videos are very useful for day to day living. Nobody's looking to film a goddamn movie with it.

If you want to shoot video with your fancy Nikon then be my guest. But who the hell carries a camera with them at all times? You'll come across many situations where your camera's at home and the 3GS is in your pocket. How about the guy who took the photo of the Hudson plane crash with his iPhone? If he had a 3GS, we could've seen the whole thing on video.

The point is that it was pathetic that the iPhone couldn't record video at all no matter how marginal the quality, you moron.

MacDailyNews Take: That's B.S. It's all Palm Pres. Oh, wait, Palm Pres can't shoot video.

Neither does my iPhone 3G...

Jun 25, 09 - 06:05 pm Comment from: Big Al

@ MaximumOverdrive,

"Is there some sort of warning or something so the kids don't get out of control?"

While kids have been getting out of control since Dr Spock told every parent to spare the rod and spoil the child, about the same time, God, in His infinite wisdom, invented therapeutic abortions, so there's nothing to worry about.

"The point is that it was pathetic that the iPhone couldn't record video at all no matter how marginal the quality, you moron."

Hey, hey! Make your point but lay off the name-calling. Anonymity is not a license for bad manners.

Jun 25, 09 - 06:54 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

Now the iPhone 3GS is twice as fast as the 3G does this mean it is fast enough to run Flash?!

Jun 25, 09 - 07:16 pm Comment from: silverhawk

"Oh, wait, Palm Pres can't shoot video." But it multi-tasks I'm told.

The palm pre doesn't multitask. You can't use voice and data at the same time on the pre. This means you can't check your email or use GPS while you talk on the phone. The ability to do voice and data simultaneously is the most important type of multitasking for a phone. The iPhone can do it, the Pre can't.

"Now the iPhone 3GS is twice as fast as the 3G does this mean it is fast enough to run Flash?!"

When it comes to the Mobile Flash 10 that Adobe is working on, it sure can. Remember when Steve said we need that "in the middle" version of Flash between full Flash on a computer and Flash-lite for phones? Well apparently that's just what they did with Mobile Flash 10.

The question is whether or not Apple will allow it to run on the phone. Maybe they'll have to work together to find a solution. But the iPhone not being powerful enough is no longer a sufficient excuse.

Jun 25, 09 - 08:04 pm Comment from: Jubei

Yep the Palm Pee can multitask. You can do all sorts of stuff, and the case/screen will crack on its own. Now thats what you call Multitask. LOL

Jun 25, 09 - 08:16 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

For the revisionists out there, we didn't say the iPhone doesn't need a video camera, we said, the iPhone doesn't need a video camera to be a success. And, that was the case.

Just like the iPhone is the most popular camera on Flickr, it's no surprise that the iPhone would be driving huge amounts of video uploads to YouTube. Neither fact makes the iPhone better than cheap digicams or cheap videocams.

I always pointed out that when people asked for 5MP cameras like on a Nokia, that it's highly doubtful that Apple would go beyond 3MP, as the physics of the iPhone form factor make it silly to make the pixels smaller, since that would only increase noise in the image, wiping out any resolution gain from having more pixels. It's diminishing returns.

Who said Facebook was taking over? Go Youtube.

I don't think so, Anonymous.

Perhaps that was an idea posed by stupid analysts and anti-Apple fanboys on blogs, that the iPhone couldn't be successful without a video camera, but that wasn't the reasoning in the comments here on MDN. Nobody, certainly not me, questioned whether the iPhone could succeed without a video camera.

It was a matter of whether or not the iPhone should have it, period! When revolutionaries like me protested against Cupertino for failing to include video recording with the iPhone 3G, boneheads like you came to Steve's rescue with the excuses. You told us to pipe down. We were whiners and complainers (and astroturfers according to some) who had no business questioning Apple's motives. The same with many other features like copy & paste, MMS, etc.

YOU may have used success in your arguments. "The iPhone doesn't need that stuff, it's going to sell regardless" was the excuse from many of you. But not me. I only wanted it because I knew what the iPhone was capable of doing. It wasn't about sales (obviously since I owned one despite the shortcomings).

RE HolyMackerel: "Now the iPhone 3GS is twice as fast as the 3G does this mean it is fast enough to run Flash?!"

Why beat a dead horse!? Apple wants Flash to die, why support it? It's Adobe's fault for letting it languish on the Mac. Now they can watch the next revolution in computing ignore their technology and pass them by. The iPhone owns more than half of all mobile web traffic despite only having 10%-15% marketshare. Even Adobe were serious about their own technology, they would've put some kind of effort into making it more efficient on the Mac.

Flash, Air, SilverLight ... these are all proprietary runtimes that will eventually give way to WebKit.

Jun 26, 09 - 11:10 am Comment from: Predrag

R2:

There were some of us arguing that there was a VALID reason Apple didn't include video until 3GS: hardware performance. While all those Nokias, Samsungs, Sony-Ericssons and other $0-with-plan phones have video recording, that video is colossally crappy 3GP format (image worse than 8mm film, audio worse than analogue telephone), with extremely marginal practical use.

You STILL don't have video in pre- 3GS iPhones, because the hardware on those devices doesn't meet the standards of video quality that Apple would want to produce. 3GS has a focusing lens and a somewhat higher-megapixel imaging chip.

The complainers complained why there wasn't an Apple app for video capture; obviously, there WAS a camera on the damn thing, all it needed to do was capture some 15 images per second and put them together using some decent compression, wrapped in a QuickTime wrapper. As we all know, jailbreakers have developed a proof-of-concept app that did exactly that, and the resulting video was semi-decent; surely, much better than 3GP crap, but not nearly as good as what you get even from an ordinary compact digital still camera (not camcorder).

Videos taken from 3GS are far superior than those taken by ANY other cellphone. And therein lies the difference, and Apple's reason behind the non-availability of those video-capture apps on older hardware.

Jun 26, 09 - 12:26 pm Comment from: January 24, 1984

I'm waiting for better UFO movies now.