BreadWithSpam@fractious.net

I find the whole "oh Apple didn't introduce an iPhone 5"
thing baffling.

In almost every way, the iPhone 4S is a whole new phone -
except, I guess, the name and the case. Had they introduced
precisely the same phone, but in a case with a plastic
curved back and called it an iPhone 5, would we have had
the same reaction?

It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
and with all that, more battery life. And it's got more
memory for the same money as the previous model.

The only reason I can figure that they didn't actually
call it the iPhone 5 is because they didn't modify the
case design (well, just barely).

And, frankly, it seems to me that it's an *advantage*
that they didn't modify the case. As long as they actually
have improved the antennas - connectivity was the biggest
complaint as far as I know about the iPhone 4, though it
was blamed on case design - it's *good* that everyone can
still use accessories designed for the iPhone 4.

I think a lot of us were surprised at what a huge difference
it made going from an iPhone 3g to a 3gs. This is a much
bigger difference.

What were folks expecting? Bigger screens? Wimax? I
don't know that this new model exceeds expectations -
neither did the iPad 2 - but it certainly meets any
reasonable expectations and there's no reason to think
it's not going to sell like hotcakes. I know I'll be
thinking about one (though fwiw, I didn't get an iPhone 4
until a few months after they came out, too, and even then
it was mainly because a certain person in the household
submerged an existing iPhone...)


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.

nospam

In article <yobwrcjxykl.fsf@panix2.panix.com>,
<BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote:

> I find the whole "oh Apple didn't introduce an iPhone 5"
> thing baffling.
>
> In almost every way, the iPhone 4S is a whole new phone -
> except, I guess, the name and the case. Had they introduced
> precisely the same phone, but in a case with a plastic
> curved back and called it an iPhone 5, would we have had
> the same reaction?

no kidding. it's just a name.

> It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> and with all that, more battery life. And it's got more
> memory for the same money as the previous model.
>
> The only reason I can figure that they didn't actually
> call it the iPhone 5 is because they didn't modify the
> case design (well, just barely).
>
> And, frankly, it seems to me that it's an *advantage*
> that they didn't modify the case. As long as they actually
> have improved the antennas - connectivity was the biggest
> complaint as far as I know about the iPhone 4, though it
> was blamed on case design - it's *good* that everyone can
> still use accessories designed for the iPhone 4.

some cases may not fit since they moved the side buttons between the
at&t and verizon version and this version may possibly have minor
changes as well.

jc

On Oct 5, 10:11*am, BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
> I find the whole "oh Apple didn't introduce an iPhone 5"
> thing baffling.
>
> In almost every way, the iPhone 4S is a whole new phone -
> except, I guess, the name and the case. *Had they introduced
> precisely the same phone, but in a case with a plastic
> curved back and called it an iPhone 5, would we have had
> the same reaction?
>

Yes, on both sides; people paying attention would express
disappointment, and Apple-philes would rush to
defend it.

> It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> and with all that, more battery life. *And it's got more
> memory for the same money as the previous model.
>

5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved". Counting megapixels
is just a marketing thing. By the time you get to 5 or so, you
need to introduce an optical zoom to be a real
improvement. Even a 2x optical zoom would have been
much better (equivalent of going from 5->20 MP).

When it comes to cameras, the iPhone played the
game of putting terrible cameras (with
no video!) in early models, so everything looked
like an improvement.

I was amazed how much worse my 3G camera was
than the piece-of-junk-free-with-the-contract phone
my son got at the same time. ALL other camera
phones had video, and some were already introducing
flashes.

I'm pretty happy with the iPhone 4 camera, and you're
not going to do much better without optical zoom.

When it comes to cameras, Apple is still well behind
the curve compared to other high end smartphones,
and if I *really* cared about the camera, I wouldn't
consider one.

> The only reason I can figure that they didn't actually
> call it the iPhone 5 is because they didn't modify the
> case design (well, just barely).
>
> And, frankly, it seems to me that it's an *advantage*
> that they didn't modify the case. *As long as they actually
> have improved the antennas - connectivity was the biggest
> complaint as far as I know about the iPhone 4, though it
> was blamed on case design - it's *good* that everyone can
> still use accessories designed for the iPhone 4.
>
> I think a lot of us were surprised at what a huge difference
> it made going from an iPhone 3g to a 3gs. *This is a much
> bigger difference.
>
> What were folks expecting? *Bigger screens? *Wimax? *I

When I upgraded from my hockey puck of a 3G to
an iPhone 4 a while back, everyone advised me to
just wait for the "iPhone 5".

If the new phone (whatever you call it) had come out
with an optical zoom and 4G, I might have
regretted my decision.

As it is, I'm glad I didn't wait.


-jc

> don't know that this new model exceeds expectations -
> neither did the iPad 2 - but it certainly meets any
> reasonable expectations and there's no reason to think
> it's not going to sell like hotcakes. *I know I'll be
> thinking about one (though fwiw, I didn't get an iPhone 4
> until a few months after they came out, too, and even then
> it was mainly because a certain person in the household
> submerged an existing iPhone...)
>
> --
> Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. *The rest gets trashed.

nospam

In article
<97aed537-e2b0-4737-89f5-ef63cca5f8e7@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jc
<cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> > camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> > and with all that, more battery life. *And it's got more
> > memory for the same money as the previous model.
> >
> 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved". Counting megapixels
> is just a marketing thing. By the time you get to 5 or so, you
> need to introduce an optical zoom to be a real
> improvement. Even a 2x optical zoom would have been
> much better (equivalent of going from 5->20 MP).

while it's true that megapixels is not the sole determining factor of
image quality, it does make a difference and you certainly don't need a
zoom lens to see it, especially since most zoom lenses are not as good
as fixed focal length lenses. there are a few notable exceptions to
that, but those lenses cost 10x what the iphone does (for just the
lens) and are a *lot* bigger and heavier.

> When it comes to cameras, Apple is still well behind
> the curve compared to other high end smartphones,
> and if I *really* cared about the camera, I wouldn't
> consider one.

which other smartphones have a backside illuminated sensor with a 5
element f/2.4 lens, negligible shutter lag, face detection and image
stabilization for video? specifics please, with sample photos that show
the other cameras as being 'well ahead' of the iphone.

Doug Anderson

jc <cirejcon@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Oct 5, 10:11*am, BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
> > I find the whole "oh Apple didn't introduce an iPhone 5"
> > thing baffling.
> >
> > In almost every way, the iPhone 4S is a whole new phone -
> > except, I guess, the name and the case. *Had they introduced
> > precisely the same phone, but in a case with a plastic
> > curved back and called it an iPhone 5, would we have had
> > the same reaction?
> >
>
> Yes, on both sides; people paying attention would express
> disappointment, and Apple-philes would rush to
> defend it.
>
> > It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> > camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> > and with all that, more battery life. *And it's got more
> > memory for the same money as the previous model.
> >
>
> 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved".

5MP to 8MP is not necessarily an improvement at all.

Apple is claiming a whole raft of significant camera improvements.
The pixel count is probably the least important. Whether it turns out
to be vastly improved probably has to wait for an answer until it is
released, but it seems possible based on Apple's claims.

jc

On Oct 5, 12:37*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <97aed537-e2b0-4737-89f5-ef63cca5f...@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jc
>
> <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> > > camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> > > and with all that, more battery life. And it's got more
> > > memory for the same money as the previous model.
>
> > 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved". *Counting megapixels
> > is just a marketing thing. *By the time you get to 5 or so, you
> > need to introduce an optical zoom to be a real
> > improvement. *Even a 2x optical zoom would have been
> > much better (equivalent of going from 5->20 MP).
>
> while it's true that megapixels is not the sole determining factor of
> image quality, it does make a difference and you certainly don't need a
> zoom lens to see it, especially since most zoom lenses are not as good
> as fixed focal length lenses. there are a few notable exceptions to
> that, but those lenses cost 10x what the iphone does (for just the
> lens) and are a *lot* bigger and heavier.
>

Resolution goes like the square root of the number of pixels, so
5->8MP gives you a whopping 25% finer resolution. That's
*totally negligible* compared to a whole list of other things, the
optical zoom being the most important.

> > When it comes to cameras, Apple is still well behind
> > the curve compared to other high end smartphones,
> > and if I *really* cared about the camera, I wouldn't
> > consider one.
>
> which other smartphones have a backside illuminated sensor with a 5
> element f/2.4 lens, negligible shutter lag, face detection and image
> stabilization for video? specifics please, with sample photos that show
> the other cameras as being 'well ahead' of the iphone.

I stand corrected. The reviews (not written by Apple) seem to agree
that the iPhone 4S is now "keeping pace" with other phones, eg
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-...review-1031457

That's a big improvement over previous models, but still the camera
is one place where they could have aimed to make a big splash,
and they were content to play catch up with some of the
other manufacturers.

-jc

salgud

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT), jc wrote:

> On Oct 5, 10:11*am, BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:

> 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved". Counting megapixels
> is just a marketing thing. By the time you get to 5 or so, you
> need to introduce an optical zoom to be a real
> improvement. Even a 2x optical zoom would have been
> much better (equivalent of going from 5->20 MP).
>
Actually, in that range it is "vastly improved". According to the experts,
there's a noticeable difference in quality in a normal sized photo up to
around 10-15 MP, where it begins to exceed the capabilities of the human
eye and doesn't matter much anymore.


> I'm pretty happy with the iPhone 4 camera, and you're
> not going to do much better without optical zoom.
>
> When it comes to cameras, Apple is still well behind
> the curve compared to other high end smartphones,
> and if I *really* cared about the camera, I wouldn't
> consider one.
>
I've read every article I can find comparing the iPhone to other camera
phones since the iPhone 4 came out, and all of them agreed that the iPhone
4 is visibly better. Most had pics to compare, and the iPhone 4 was
noticeabley better, even to my untrained eye. Apple is not only not behind
the curve with their camera, they are in fact, ahead of it. These
improvements will keep them ahead, at least for a while.

Michelle Steiner

In article
<19212ed5-7c35-4c6e-9fab-6c9cd8c65ed4@d28g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
jc <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Resolution goes like the square root of the number of pixels, so
> 5->8MP gives you a whopping 25% finer resolution. That's
> *totally negligible* compared to a whole list of other things, the
> optical zoom being the most important.

Most serious photographers don't use zoom lenses in the first place, so
zoom is actually a low priority. The improved lens itself, and the wider
aperture, are much more important.

> That's a big improvement over previous models, but still the camera
> is one place where they could have aimed to make a big splash,
> and they were content to play catch up with some of the
> other manufacturers.

They would probably have had to redesign the entire phone to fit a zoom
lens in it.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Your Name

In article <ajsjn7l3b7.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> jc <cirejcon@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Oct 5, 10:11*am, BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
> > > I find the whole "oh Apple didn't introduce an iPhone 5"
> > > thing baffling.
> > >
> > > In almost every way, the iPhone 4S is a whole new phone -
> > > except, I guess, the name and the case. *Had they introduced
> > > precisely the same phone, but in a case with a plastic
> > > curved back and called it an iPhone 5, would we have had
> > > the same reaction?
> >
> > Yes, on both sides; people paying attention would express
> > disappointment, and Apple-philes would rush to
> > defend it.
> >
> > > It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> > > camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> > > and with all that, more battery life. *And it's got more
> > > memory for the same money as the previous model.
> > >
> >
> > 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved".
>
> 5MP to 8MP is not necessarily an improvement at all.
>
> Apple is claiming a whole raft of significant camera improvements.
> The pixel count is probably the least important. Whether it turns out
> to be vastly improved probably has to wait for an answer until it is
> released, but it seems possible based on Apple's claims.

A 5MP camera is more than enough for a decent photo print. Since most
photos these days are never printed anyway, device makers could easily
revert back to a 3MP camera and most people wouldn't notice any difference
- a 5MP image on a 4" screen ("normal" resloution screen that is) simply
doesn't have any benefit at all.

Your Name

In article <051020111037152729%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <97aed537-e2b0-4737-89f5-ef63cca5f8e7@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, jc
> <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's got a very much faster processor, a vastly improved
> > > camera, new antenna design with much faster network speeds,
> > > and with all that, more battery life. *And it's got more
> > > memory for the same money as the previous model.
> > >
> > 5MP ->. 8MP is not "vastly improved". Counting megapixels
> > is just a marketing thing. By the time you get to 5 or so, you
> > need to introduce an optical zoom to be a real
> > improvement. Even a 2x optical zoom would have been
> > much better (equivalent of going from 5->20 MP).
>
> while it's true that megapixels is not the sole determining factor of
> image quality, it does make a difference and you certainly don't need a
> zoom lens to see it, especially since most zoom lenses are not as good
> as fixed focal length lenses. there are a few notable exceptions to
> that, but those lenses cost 10x what the iphone does (for just the
> lens) and are a *lot* bigger and heavier.

You can buy add-on lenses for the iPhone / iPod Touch. They simply stick
on over the in-built camera lens, so are no doubt not that great a
quality.




> > When it comes to cameras, Apple is still well behind
> > the curve compared to other high end smartphones,
> > and if I *really* cared about the camera, I wouldn't
> > consider one.
>
> which other smartphones have a backside illuminated sensor with a 5
> element f/2.4 lens, negligible shutter lag, face detection and image
> stabilization for video? specifics please, with sample photos that show
> the other cameras as being 'well ahead' of the iphone.

People who "really cared about the camera" wouldn't be using a silly
mobile phone in the first place. They'll be buying a proper SLR camera
with multitudes of lenses.