MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I hope it makes a tasty Grilled Cheese, too!

First!

Mar 16, 09 - 04:49 pm Comment from: mike_in_helsinki

"Apple's phenomenally popular iPhone, which launched June 2007, has generated as much criticism as it has praise."

Pure journalist bullshit. Stupid jackasses ... who is the idiot that came up with that one?

Mar 16, 09 - 04:52 pm Comment from: zmarc

"In order to stay ahead of the curb, Apple must..."

Curb? Huh? Doesn't he mean curve?

Mar 16, 09 - 04:53 pm Comment from: mike_in_helsinki

"Kuittinen said the next iPhone's camera must feature at least a 3.5-megapixel resolution to compete with rivals"

Kuittinen is full of shit. Been bashing Apple and the iPhone since before it launched. Now this dumbass says iPhone can't compete with 1.5 more megapixels in its camera. This guy gets the assclown of the internet award for that one.

iPhone has been kicking everyones ass without a physical keyboard, without MMS, without a 3.5 megapixel camera, without background processes, without videoconferencing.

These things (sans the keyboard) will of course make it marginally better, but these dumbass journalists need to carry their clickwhore ass off the internet once and for all.

Mar 16, 09 - 04:54 pm Comment from: Demon

I see a different Hedge Fund is playing a different tact and a different fomenting take to try and create a short selling gain tomorrow. It's looking like tomorrow is going to be a very good day to buy some more AAPL.

Mar 16, 09 - 04:54 pm Comment from: kirkgray

And an FM radio. It HAS to have an FM radio if they wanna compete with ZunePhone!

Mar 16, 09 - 04:59 pm Comment from: Demon

I wonder if $85.00 will be the low for AAPL or should I wait for $80.00

A higher megapixel camera is a non-starter without additional storage. A 3.5 megapixel camera phone will need 32GB of storage. I'm a photographer and would like the 64GB option on the phone so that I could create mini portfolios of all my work and carry them with me...I want to transport more than mere camera phone photographs...

" The most controversial omissions from the handset are a video recording capability, a copy-and-paste function and the ability to send photos via text messages "

Video? Please, give me a break. My old cell had video, but it was useless. I suspect the video on the other smartphones is similar. I'd rather not have a feature than have a crappy version just to have it.

Until the iPhone gets a higher res camera, there is no need for video.

I hope it (the new software) corrects the phone's ability to access and maintain a wireless network, as mine doesn't.

Anyone else have this problem?

And I'll take my answer offline. Thank you. Though...

I'm really looking for a bigger megapixel camara, as I am applying for a job with National Geographic. People that use the camera for any real serious picture taking are kidding themselves. You need a better lens to match any increase in megapixels to make it useful. Only a marketing tool, but people aren't really that informed to know any better. More is better.

Mar 16, 09 - 05:05 pm Comment from: eMax

This article should read: "EVERYONE hopes iPhone 3.0 ushers in multitasking, copy-and-paste, search and more"

Will someone explain to me what happens if Apple decides that the Pre has violated some of it's patents. How does it work? Can Apple stop the sale of the Pre?

What about a tethering function for the iphone for mobile linking with my macbook pro? Ridiculous that ATT/Apple do not yet offer this option.

Mar 16, 09 - 05:20 pm Comment from: Crabs

HD Boy.

Um…why with 3.5 MP would you need that much storage? I have a 5 MP camera on my phone (only good thing about the stupid thing) and I have yet to even half fill up my 2 GB memory card. And I take quite a few pictures. Maybe not as much as a pro photographer, but if you're a pro photographer, 3.5 MP with a tiny lens isn't any better than 2 MP with a tiny lens.

I actually think that some new hardware might come out tomorrow. If no new hardware were going to be announced, then Apple would have most likely held their Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro refresh a week for an event. Since they didnt....

people dont realize that just because you added more megapixels to a camera, it doesnt mean better pictures. The camera as a whole needs to be upgraded, that includes the LENS. I've compared different phones with different pixel resolutions including the iPhone, and in my view the quality of the iPhone pics are superb to the most others. 2 megapixels means less compression and better quality, atleast for the hardware on the phone. Phones that have a 5 mp camera have to highly compress the images in order to not run out of memory. Until they upgrade the lens, 2 megapixels is the right choice for that phone.

Mar 16, 09 - 06:33 pm Comment from: enzos

@Crabs ... we agree again. Two MP is about one MP more than enough to see that - for inescapable physical/optical reasons - camera phones produce crappy photos compared to real cameras. Apple could 'improve' the camera - not by increasing the MP but - with optical focusing, zooming and with a flash but then you've got all these additional things to break down and cause the user, and Apple, a bucket load of grief. OTOH, I think video capture would indeed rapidly fill up memory on the phone, and overload the 3G network even more catastrophically than after last year's 3G iPhone launch.

Mar 16, 09 - 07:06 pm Comment from: Crabs

@stinky-

That's not always true. My camera phone can produce 5 MP RAW images, which are nearly as good quality as a standalone 5 MP digital camera. And the difference doesn't come from the compression, it comes from the fact that my phone uses a small, plastic (though still Karl Zeiss/Kodak; marketed as Kodak, but some reviewer looked at it, and it's actually Karl Zeiss) lens.

But definitely, the first thing that needs to change is the lens, and then once the lens is good enough to compete with a 5 MP camera, you can upgrade the sensor to 5 MP.

@crabs
I'm interested in what camera phone shoots 5 mp RAW?
I'd like to look into that more.
Thanks.

<< Kuittinen said the next iPhone's camera must feature at least a 3.5-megapixel resolution>>

Wow, that's rubbish. Anyone who writes "megapixel resolution" is an idiot. Megapixels DO NOT EQUAL resolution. The limiting factor in image quality in cellphones is not megapixels. It's the physical form factor of a cellphone. Cellphones are too thin to ever have good cameras. It's all optics.The distance between the lens and focal plane is too narrow, and the lens diameter is too small to let in enough light to ever cover the size of imaging chip that will allow for higher megapixels without them all creating noise from the heat of the electronics.

Kuittinen is a Finn. I suppose he's been overexposed to Nokia's marketing which sees cramming megapixels into cellphones as a selling point. He's bought Nokia's marketing hook, line and herring.

@crabs,
I can only assume you have a Motozine, which is a combination of a Motorola cellphone and a Kodak digital camera.

I think David Pogue flatteringly called it a phone camera and not a camera phone. And, as this relates to my previous post, the way Motozine gets around the optical issue is that it has a thicker part where the lens is located, so that the distance between lens and focal plane is greater than in your normal cellphone.

I'm a little bit shocked that it takes RAW format, as I did look at the Kodak website to check it out when it launched and I don't remember that at all. I'd guess a RAW 5mp image would be about 8MB easy. That adds up fast when the built-in storage isn't that high.

I vaguely remember reading David Pogue write that the images were comparable to a low-end digicam. If they are that good, which I doubt, then they've actually achieved something.

As far as Carl Zeiss lenses go, you pay your licensing fee, you get the name on the lens, doesn't make it a good piece of glass, or plastic. Speaking of which, Kodak usually uses Schneider-Kreuznach branded lenses, not Zeiss, I'm wondering if maybe it's not the Motozine but perhaps a Samsung or Nokia you have.

Mar 16, 09 - 07:59 pm Comment from: rahrens

stinky, I'd add the shutter speed to that too.

On my iPhone, I've taken birthday pictures along with my son-in-law, and when we take the picture together, his a one shot with a flash, & my iPhone, the picture on my iPhone comes out with the upper half of the scene lit by the flash and the lower half without.

Looks weird, and shows how damn SLOW the shutter speed is.

Mar 16, 09 - 08:37 pm Comment from: Crabs

@stinky and KenC

It is the Motozine ZN5 from T-Mobile. I don't really use the RAW format, because normal JPEG works fine for me. At full res on my MBP, there's little or no graininess, unless I turn off the flash and use it in low light.

And as for it being a phone camera, that's absolutely correct, but I'm not sure that it's a good thing. I absolutely love the camera, it's thin, and great for taking fast shots (it shoots WAY faster than most stand alone digital cameras I've used), but the phone itself is HORRIBLE. Laggy, buggy, and the keypad is the worst I've ever used.

So, yeah, the camera on it's great. But, stinky, unless you use your phone primarily as a camera, I wouldn't recommend buying it.

Mar 16, 09 - 08:38 pm Comment from: Crabs

Oh, and KenC

The lens is marketed as a Kodak, but one reviewer who took the phone apart looked at the lens and said it was actually a Karl Zeiss. Not sure why they would put a Zeiss lens in it and not market it as such, but at least according to the reviewer, that's what they're doing.

Mar 16, 09 - 08:40 pm Comment from: walk away Bill just walk away

First of all Kevin Rose said the new iPhone wouldn't have Video or Multitasking....... so there.
Second, More megapixels doesn't make a better camera, better hardware does.

Mar 16, 09 - 08:54 pm Comment from: Crabs

As for whether or not it takes photos as good as a low end stand alone, here's a slightly compressed version of a pic I've taken with mine-http://www.flickr.com/photos/36417609@N05/3360840715/

Personally I think it's as good as most 5 MP digital cameras I've seen, and the time it takes to take a photo beats the crap out of pretty much all of them.

Mar 17, 09 - 08:32 am Comment from: passde

C'mon guys ... we all want the above features ... some more some less... But that'd be like going backwards to copy competition

I would love to think like apple ... even without the features they've wowed us ... and are likely to do that again.

I would like to think that the way to go will be less physical connection to Mac/PC box. Iphone / ipod touch will come to be more and more independent as OS platform.

Go OSX

Mar 17, 09 - 09:13 am Comment from: jtc

I also do photography and there is no way you need 64GB on the phone for your photos... how about shrinking the photos? you can convert them to jpg from raw and reduce the size since they are only viewed on the iPhone screen. Sure more storage would rock but not needed.. even if the thing took RAW format.. its only 2MP.. I have a Nikon D80 that I shoot only in raw and that is 10MP and my shots are about 8MB each. So even dropping to a 2MP and assuming file size drops at the same ratio it would be less than 1MB per image. so just to be even... 1MB per image x 64,000 images = about 62GB....one huge portfolio of images that would take forever to go through on your iPhone.