• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I want iPhone 4

Everytime I see "magical" assigned to stuff I can buy at Walmart and everytime I see a "Convince me to do something!! LOL!!!1" post I throw up a little in my mouth. Disgusting. You people are why the internet is bad.
 
androidtoy said:
...The glass casing technology amazes me...
Click to expand...
The glass rear has me puzzled, I'm assuming that glass has been used for better reception? has that been given as a reason?

If not then why glass, even fancy specialist glass? surely aluminium would've been better/easier to engineer than glass?

When it was announced I half expected it to be the 'one more thing' that the rear had been given some sort of touch sensitivity too!

If they've used glass just because it's pretty, then I think it'll be a (further) shame.
 
mpw said:
The glass rear has me puzzled, I'm assuming that glass has been used for better reception? has that been given as a reason?

If not then why glass, even fancy specialist glass? surely aluminium would've been better/easier to engineer than glass?

When it was announced I half expected it to be the 'one more thing' that the rear had been given some sort of touch sensitivity too!

If they've used glass just because it's pretty, then I think it'll be a (further) shame.
Click to expand...

Better reception? Could be. When making my antenna mod for my Droid,

http://androidforums.com/motorola-d...rough-3g-1x-switching.html?highlight=homemade

...I noticed a 3-5dBm gain in signal strength when removing the metal battery cover. While the glass could have been used to give a clean/shiny look, eliminating the need for "screen protectors" was a determining factor I'm sure. Also the fact that the base of the frame being part of the antenna, glass would provide less signal interference.

I wonder if its Corning's "Gorilla glass"? I knew I should have bought that stock at $16.
 
mpw said:
The glass rear has me puzzled, I'm assuming that glass has been used for better reception? has that been given as a reason?

If not then why glass, even fancy specialist glass? surely aluminium would've been better/easier to engineer than glass?

When it was announced I half expected it to be the 'one more thing' that the rear had been given some sort of touch sensitivity too!

If they've used glass just because it's pretty, then I think it'll be a (further) shame.
Click to expand...

There are a few reasons. The most obvious is that it looks pretty. Next is continuitywith the previous generations. They probably wanted a glossy back and plastic is too weak for that since this iPhone has a flat back. The third reason is that alluminum scratches fairly easily. This glass is more scratch resistant than plastic and aluminum and stronger than plastic.
 
mkeath said:
...pretty... ...This glass is more scratch resistant than plastic and aluminum and stronger than plastic.
Click to expand...
You may well be right, but I think it's a poor solution to go so obviously for form over function. Personally I think a metal alloy would've worked better as an enclosure (like the iPad/Mac), but who am I to second guess Messers Jobs & Ive.
 
mkeath said:
There are a few reasons. The most obvious is that it looks pretty. Next is continuitywith the previous generations. They probably wanted a glossy back and plastic is too weak for that since this iPhone has a flat back. The third reason is that alluminum scratches fairly easily. This glass is more scratch resistant than plastic and aluminum and stronger than plastic.
Click to expand...

iP4's frame is supposedly a steel alloy...not aluminum.
 
mpw said:
You may well be right, but I think it's a poor solution to go so obviously for form over function. Personally I think a metal alloy would've worked better as an enclosure (like the iPad/Mac), but who am I to second guess Messers Jobs & Ive.
Click to expand...


How is using a damage resistant material, with limited affect on signals, choosing "form" over "function"? If a metal backing was used, it would interfere with the signal. Try covering your phone with a piece of sheet metal and then check your signal.
 
SeattleYanksFan said:
iPhone 4 will be a great phone. It is still on a terrible carrier and is locked down by Apple. If you either get great AT&T service in your area or don't care about your coverage, you can't go wrong either way -- Incredible or iPhone 4. If the iPhone 4 was 4G (which it's not), then it's a whole different ballgame.

The only way this becomes an actual question is if iPhone 4 came to Verizon. Thankfully, it won't.
Click to expand...

I hate the whole branding of Wimax and LTE as 4G, as neither of those meet the specifications for a 4G data network.
 
colnago said:
How is using a damage resistant material, with limited affect on signals, choosing "form" over "function"?...
Click to expand...
If another material functions better, but you've chosen a less functional material for it's looks.

colnago said:
...If a metal backing was used, it would interfere with the signal...
Click to expand...
That is not the reason that I've seen given by Apple, and not the reason given that my post above was addressing.

I would be interested to hear how you've confirmed that the signal would be detrimentally effected by the use of a metal alloy enclosure in the iPhone4.
 
mpw said:
You may well be right, but I think it's a poor solution to go so obviously for form over function. Personally I think a metal alloy would've worked better as an enclosure (like the iPad/Mac), but who am I to second guess Messers Jobs & Ive.
Click to expand...

Metal would have interfered with the reception of the frame. That would have detracted from function.
 
mpw said:
If another material functions better, but you've chosen a less functional material for it's looks.


That is not the reason that I've seen given by Apple, and not the reason given that my post above was addressing.

I would be interested to hear how you've confirmed that the signal would be detrimentally effected by the use of a metal alloy enclosure in the iPhone4.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why there is a plastic strip across the 3g radio on the ipad.
 
mpw said:
If another material functions better, but you've chosen a less functional material for it's looks..
Click to expand...

CEO of Corning was just on CNBC...Gorilla glass demand is growing exponentially and being implemented in laptops, phones, as well as monitors/TVs, for both asthetics and durability. He was made aware of a phone using Gorrila glass which was run over by a delivery truck, and the screen survived, but the phone was destroyed. If it was purely for "form" why not use "regular glass"? What is your suggestion for alternative materials?


mpw said:
That is not the reason that I've seen given by Apple, and not the reason given that my post above was addressing.

I would be interested to hear how you've confirmed that the signal would be detrimentally effected by the use of a metal alloy enclosure in the iPhone4.
Click to expand...

In my thread regarding my antenna mod I was consistently able to alter the Droid's signal, simply by removing the "metal" battery cover, and moving it about the phone. Given that you think there is no differentiation in glass manufacturing, there is no point discussing antenna design/testing and signal interference. I'll just accept your views and leave it at that.
 
How awkward would it be using that in public? Holding a phone in front of your face and talking lol.

Sent from my Liquid using Tapatalk
 
ari-free said:
A 3.5" screen isn't revolutionary. Apple might have the best 3.5" screen but it is still very small compared to everything else out there. They are stuck at that size because they have to, not because they want to. All their apps would break if they decided to come out with a 3.7" or larger screen. There's no reason why Android can't have a larger screen and even higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the iPad is running the same OS on a much larger screen?
 
mrspeedmaster said:
I use a Cisco VPN at work. All my emails go thru a IPSEC vpn. I need to SSH, VNC into my work workstation when I am away.

As of today, this is the number #3 requested feature for Android on Google's bug fix site:
Issues - android - Project Hosting on Google Code
Click to expand...

I need it as well. I could root (whenever Inc root comes) my phone to get it but I would prefer they go ahead and add it standard. However once I have access to this data (already do since our email is not through VPN) I need it presented in a usable manner. Its great for a device to have access to something but if it can't present the data in a usable way its useless and definitely not "magical".

mrspeedmaster said:
Like you said, what matters is what it does for "you."
I feel the same way, people here often the whole notion of choice, choice, open-ness,etc... flexibility. Thats is fine and in the real world, sometimes you want things done easy.

I've given this example a few times and let me explain it again:
I have thousands of photos all over the place. I have 4-6 dozen albums of events. I go to a wedding (which is the 434th pict in a set), I may want the shot of the ring to be the cover of my album. I may want all the photos at the end to be my highlight images and have them show 1st in a slideshow.

If I have DSN1000.jpg to DSN4000.jpg, I may want DSN20014.jpg to come 1st, DSN3999.jpg to come next. So for each photo I have, in Android, I have to go in an manually re-name, renumber my photos because there is simply no App in the market place that can organize the photos they way I want it. They all assume you want to see the photos based on the alphabetical naming conventions. So, I have to go in an rename DSN20014.jpg as 001_DSN20014.jpg, 002_DSN3999.jpg, etc..
I also have to run a cron job to resize 18-20 megabyte files to fit on the phone. I then have to go find the album cover and make a copy of it called .folder jpg so I can get a visual representation of it on some Gallery apps.


So if a piece of software "for simpleton" can do these simple tasks, it is indeed magical. With the iPhone, iTunes, the example I just gave are just a matter of clicks. Consumers, buy this kind of so-called "simplicity" and "ease-of-use." In my example, I don't care what platform I use. I just want to do what I just outlined in a simple fashion. I am willing to pay for it.

I'm willing to pay $30 for a good Photo management app on Android.
I am willing to pay $50 for an iMovie clone on Android.
Heck, I am willing to spend $350 for a Cisco VPN client for Android (I paid that much for a WM version few years ago).


Unlike some people, I don't expect everything for free. So to they guy expecting something like iMovie for free is being a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This sounds much like the normal Linux FUD arguments I see all the time. Find some feature or function thats VERY specific to someone thats skilled in a particular field and then say see a simpleton can do it. The problem is that the average joe often has no use for this while the things the average joe does need are lacking. In fact I'm working with a home remodeler that shows off his work on his iPhone and he has no clue about any of this. I guess either the phone actually doesn't do this, its not intuitive, or as I figure...not even a professional cares about trying to order photos with this amount of detail on a phone. So apparently he didn't buy it for this simplicity. Actually his poor experience with showing off photos from his iPhone landed me a website gig. It looks like another "magical" feature that not many are going to use. Like I said before...its becoming just like the Microsoft Kin phone...very nice in some very specific aspects but lacking overall substance.

Also why are you resizing the photos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom