This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > November 2007 > iPhone web browsing, first impressions
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
iPhone web browsing, first impressions
|
|
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| So, we've started putting a few test sites to use on iPhones... and wow.
These devices are... amazing. Okay so I'm a really geeky girl at the
best of times, but these are AMAZING. Justifiably.
The web browsing on them is just superb - the mobile version of Safari
easily beats any mobile web page rendering I've seen... Opera looks
NASTY by comparison. Is that important? Yes.
The look and feel, the user interaction and ease of use of these new
iPhones are revolutionary. They completely "de-tech" surfing of the
internet, which is exactly how it should be: No complicated buttons. No
complicated setup. No confusing options with technical names. Just big
beautiful animated icons and fast access to whatever web page you want.
And when you get to a web page, almost perfect rendering.
It all comes down to easy of use.
I really think Apple have helped push the industry in a new direction.
By super-simplifying access to the internet inside such a
consumer-desirable device will bring a lot of technically challenged
folks online. This is just the first step - no doubt the mobile device
market will now scramble to emulate or better the iPhone and this can
only be a really good thing for all of us.
So the next question would be, are there the web sites out there for
this new generation of web users? Can your web site be accessed on a
4.5" screen? Does your site take advantage of the user being able to
flip between landscape and portrait with a turn of a wrist?
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> So the next question would be, are there the web sites out there for
> this new generation of web users? Can your web site be accessed on a
> 4.5" screen? Does your site take advantage of the user being able to
> flip between landscape and portrait with a turn of a wrist?
Well, since I don't have an iPhone - how about you test it for me? :-)
Also, as I know you do a lot of Flash stuff: how does an all Flash
site do on the iPhone? If it rescales to fit the screen, is anything
still readable at all?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| 1001 Webs 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 11, 2:47 pm, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> So, we've started putting a few test sites to use on iPhones... and wow.
> These devices are... amazing. Okay so I'm a really geeky girl at the
> best of times, but these are AMAZING. Justifiably.
>
> The web browsing on them is just superb - the mobile version of Safari
> easily beats any mobile web page rendering I've seen... Opera looks
> NASTY by comparison. Is that important? Yes.
>
> The look and feel, the user interaction and ease of use of these new
> iPhones are revolutionary. They completely "de-tech" surfing of the
> internet, which is exactly how it should be: No complicated buttons. No
> complicated setup. No confusing options with technical names. Just big
> beautiful animated icons and fast access to whatever web page you want.
> And when you get to a web page, almost perfect rendering.
>
> It all comes down to easy of use.
>
> I really think Apple have helped push the industry in a new direction.
> By super-simplifying access to the internet inside such a
> consumer-desirable device will bring a lot of technically challenged
> folks online. This is just the first step - no doubt the mobile device
> market will now scramble to emulate or better the iPhone and this can
> only be a really good thing for all of us.
>
> So the next question would be, are there the web sites out there for
> this new generation of web users? Can your web site be accessed on a
> 4.5" screen? Does your site take advantage of the user being able to
> flip between landscape and portrait with a turn of a wrist?
You can Optimize your Web Site for Mobile Browsers:
http://www.digital-m.co.za/articles...e-browsers.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/
| |
| Tina Peters 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
|
"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:5pofepFrs3ieU1@mid.individual.net...
> So, we've started putting a few test sites to use on iPhones... and wow.
> These devices are... amazing. Okay so I'm a really geeky girl at the best
> of times, but these are AMAZING. Justifiably.
>
> The web browsing on them is just superb - the mobile version of Safari
> easily beats any mobile web page rendering I've seen... Opera looks NASTY
> by comparison. Is that important? Yes.
>
> The look and feel, the user interaction and ease of use of these new
> iPhones are revolutionary. They completely "de-tech" surfing of the
> internet, which is exactly how it should be: No complicated buttons. No
> complicated setup. No confusing options with technical names. Just big
> beautiful animated icons and fast access to whatever web page you want.
> And when you get to a web page, almost perfect rendering.
>
> It all comes down to easy of use.
>
> I really think Apple have helped push the industry in a new direction. By
> super-simplifying access to the internet inside such a consumer-desirable
> device will bring a lot of technically challenged folks online. This is
> just the first step - no doubt the mobile device market will now scramble
> to emulate or better the iPhone and this can only be a really good thing
> for all of us.
>
> So the next question would be, are there the web sites out there for this
> new generation of web users? Can your web site be accessed on a 4.5"
> screen? Does your site take advantage of the user being able to flip
> between landscape and portrait with a turn of a wrist?
I just signed a 2 year contract with ATT on Friday. They were trying to
tempt with with the iPhone and I came very close to getting one. Now, after
reading your review, I'm probably going to HAVE to get one now. ;-)
--Tina
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| > So the next question would be, are there the web sites out there for
> this new generation of web users? Can your web site be accessed on a
> 4.5" screen? Does your site take advantage of the user being able to
> flip between landscape and portrait with a turn of a wrist?
Yes, I've been working on mine for quite a long time.
http://www.isham-research.co.uk/handheld-friendly.html documents some
of it.
I've concentrated at first on the data pages I maintain for Audi ur-
quattro owners - http://www.isham-research.co.uk/quattro/torque.html
is useful for mechanics and gets aroun 80 downlaods every weekend - a
huge number considering the number of these cars left on the road.
I've been testing on a Nokia 9500 Communicator which, for my needs,
blows the iPhone into the weeds. And I've got most pages to display
properly on a Siemens S65 - only 132 pixels wide. Someone was on the
site a couple of days ago at 122 pixels wide - now THAT I would like
to see.
I've also stuck to relative addressing. This means I can put the
whole reference site on an MMC card and carry it with me.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/in...d=1107&blogid=4
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Els wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
> Well, since I don't have an iPhone - how about you test it for me? :-)
Haha. Working on it :D
> Also, as I know you do a lot of Flash stuff: how does an all Flash
> site do on the iPhone? If it rescales to fit the screen, is anything
> still readable at all?
No Flash support at all. You get a little object box symbol when you hit
something with Flash in it. Apple are rumored to be adding Flash.
As far as rescaling (generally) it seems that the iPhone renders the
whole page as a bitmap, letting you pan around quickly. By default it
shows you as much of the page as it can (zoomed out, barely readable)
but tap the screen on any block of content (say a headline, or an image)
and the page zooms and enlarges the area you tapped on. Keep double
tapping (any logical block, images, DIVs, spans, frames) and it zooms
you in again. Alternatively, place two fingers on the screen and pinch
inwards and it zooms with you movement, which has to be the most natural
panning/zooming interface I've ever seen or used. Zooming out, you just
move your fingers apart on the screen. To pan, just drag your finger
across the screen. You can hold 8 pages open and once with a nifty
visual page overview thing (this is where _blank pages are sent).
I've not seen any serious rendering issues yet - everything appears
exactly the same as regular desktop Safari. The pages are NOT
reformatted to fit the tiny screen, so this could either be good or bad
- fixed width pages are still fixed width, so that means lots of zooming
in and out and panning around. There are a handful of amazing pages that
are designed specifically for this screen, such as
http://iphone.facebook.com which are just amazing to use. They make use
of the powerful AJAX support to give you sliding tab views of the whole
of Facebook... frankly I think it's better than their regular page!
Pages with embedded Quicktime videos still work (the video will play),
and iPod fomatted videos work, but there's no other multimedia content
(no Flash :(). But you do get .PDF, .DOC and .XL support as well as all
the usual image formats (plus TIFF, for some reason!).
Tested with a few sites I use a lot: news.bbc.co.uk and theregister.com
both work perfectly.
If anyone would like me to test their site, I can try it and post a
photo of the result. Most of my own sites, being Flash based, fail
miserably :(
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
|
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Tina Peters wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:5pofepFrs3ieU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> I just signed a 2 year contract with ATT on Friday. They were trying to
> tempt with with the iPhone and I came very close to getting one. Now,
> after reading your review, I'm probably going to HAVE to get one now. ;-)
>
> --Tina
Ah sorry! :)
Oh they are VERY worth it, if you do a lot of casual surfing and want a
really good email device.
Now I can have Facebook anywhere :P
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Phil Payne wrote:
>
> Yes, I've been working on mine for quite a long time.
>
> http://www.isham-research.co.uk/handheld-friendly.html documents some
> of it.
>
> I've concentrated at first on the data pages I maintain for Audi ur-
> quattro owners - http://www.isham-research.co.uk/quattro/torque.html
> is useful for mechanics and gets aroun 80 downlaods every weekend - a
> huge number considering the number of these cars left on the road.
>
> I've been testing on a Nokia 9500 Communicator which, for my needs,
> blows the iPhone into the weeds. And I've got most pages to display
> properly on a Siemens S65 - only 132 pixels wide. Someone was on the
> site a couple of days ago at 122 pixels wide - now THAT I would like
> to see.
Most SmartPhones do own the iPhone, but I never saw the point in a
SmartPhone. That's what laptops are for. Do I need to be able to type
Word documents on my phone? Not really. Do I want to be able to check my
mail and read web pages? Yes very much. The iPhone is very focused - web
+ media. That's it. And it is very very very good at those things. And
really that's all I need! I won't even be using the iPod part of it
much, I dont want to give up my 80Gb iPod (I use it for file transfers etc)
>
> I've also stuck to relative addressing. This means I can put the
> whole reference site on an MMC card and carry it with me.
>
> http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/in...d=1107&blogid=4
Most of that list is misleading, probably written by a techie. Here are
a few choice ones:
11. Operation of interactive websites awkward
Blaming the phone for poor sites is silly?
12. Two-year commitment required for US activation - no word on the UK
18 months
13. No voice dialling; full hands-free operation impossible
You can dial anyone with two taps.
14. No VoIP support for Wi-Fi
Due soon
16. Battery not user-replaceable
Same for iPods. Who cares?
18. Quality of camera is comparatively poor; focus distance limited;
no digital zoom; cannot capture video
20. No TV out
Option in the menu, but not enabled yet.
21. Safari doesn't try to reformat web page for convenient viewing
(like Windows Mobile IE's one-column view)
You mean it's working the way it should!? The iPhone obeys the media
type. If the media is set to mobile, it reformats. Otherwise it does
exactly what a browser is supposed to do.
22. Device does not operate in landscape mode in all applications
This is true, but I'm sure future updates will change that. It's not a
big deal tho.
23. Battery drains rapidly with Wi-Fi use; no transmit power setting
I used mine for 4 hours almost continuous surfing yesterday, with the
odd break to make a call on it. Used 45% of the battery. So about 8 hours.
26. No external mute button
Yes there is. Top left of the phone. Instant mute (silent mode)
And so on...
It's easy to be negative. Having used my iPhone for 2 days solidly, yes
there are a few things I turn my nose up at. But the shear ease of use
just destroys my old phone (SonyEricsson).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Haha. Working on it :D
Eh.. didn't mean test the iPhone, but test my sites on your iPhone :-)
>
> No Flash support at all. You get a little object box symbol when you hit
> something with Flash in it. Apple are rumored to be adding Flash.
Well, that at least has no scaling problems then ;-)
> As far as rescaling (generally) it seems that the iPhone renders the
> whole page as a bitmap, letting you pan around quickly.
You're sure about the whole page being a bitmap? On my phone (Nokia
N73), the page itself is as wide as it has its minimum width set, but
the paragraphs are wrapped to fit inside the screen. (probably because
I didn't set them to a fixed or minimum width)
> By default it
> shows you as much of the page as it can (zoomed out, barely readable)
> but tap the screen on any block of content (say a headline, or an image)
> and the page zooms and enlarges the area you tapped on.
Almost what my phone's browser does, but then vice versa: be default
it shows a part of the page, and you can pan the page in any direction
with the 'joystick', while panning in one direction without stopping,
shows the whole page in miniature so you know where about on the page
you are.
> Keep double
> tapping (any logical block, images, DIVs, spans, frames) and it zooms
> you in again.
Okay, can't say I have that on my phone! :-)
It does zoom once, but after that you can only enlarge the text. (oh,
and of course, not by tapping)
> Alternatively, place two fingers on the screen and pinch
> inwards and it zooms with you movement, which has to be the most natural
> panning/zooming interface I've ever seen or used. Zooming out, you just
> move your fingers apart on the screen.
I think that's the other way round, right? Pinching makes whatever was
between your fingers smaller, hence, zooming out?
> To pan, just drag your finger
> across the screen. You can hold 8 pages open and once with a nifty
> visual page overview thing (this is where _blank pages are sent).
> I've not seen any serious rendering issues yet - everything appears
> exactly the same as regular desktop Safari. The pages are NOT
> reformatted to fit the tiny screen, so this could either be good or bad
> - fixed width pages are still fixed width, so that means lots of zooming
> in and out and panning around.
Doesn't it do what I described above, wrap text in paragraphs while
the page layout remains fixed width?
> There are a handful of amazing pages that
> are designed specifically for this screen, such as
> http://iphone.facebook.com which are just amazing to use. They make use
> of the powerful AJAX support to give you sliding tab views of the whole
> of Facebook... frankly I think it's better than their regular page!
:-)
> Pages with embedded Quicktime videos still work (the video will play),
> and iPod fomatted videos work, but there's no other multimedia content
> (no Flash :(). But you do get .PDF, .DOC and .XL support as well as all
> the usual image formats (plus TIFF, for some reason!).
Tiff could be for faxes?
> Tested with a few sites I use a lot: news.bbc.co.uk and theregister.com
> both work perfectly.
>
> If anyone would like me to test their site, I can try it and post a
> photo of the result.
Photo? No screenshot?
(my N73 does screenshots :P )
> Most of my own sites, being Flash based, fail
> miserably :(
Maybe you should start thinking about an HTML alternative on your
Flash sites ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| > Most SmartPhones do own the iPhone, but I never saw the point in a
> SmartPhone. That's what laptops are for. Do I need to be able to type
> Word documents on my phone? Not really. Do I want to be able to check my
> mail and read web pages? Yes very much. The iPhone is very focused - web
> + media. That's it. And it is very very very good at those things. And
> really that's all I need! I won't even be using the iPod part of it
> much, I dont want to give up my 80Gb iPod (I use it for file transfers etc)
There may yet be an unexpected downside of the media capability - HMCR
is rumoured to be considering it a "benefit in kind" because it's
entertainment focus exceeds the depth of its business focus.
The battery issue is actually the one that worries me the most. Not
because I can't carry and swap in a spare - I don't do that with the
Communicator anyway - but because I don't want to be wandering around
sharing a battery between my music player and my mobile office. I use
a 6GB iPod Mini and I think Apple got that package _right_. I find
iTunes extremely capable and easy to use - it works just great. But
every now and then, when I'm out and about, the battery goes dead.
With an iPhone, I'd be cut off from my business.
And if the Communicator battery does start to slide, I get buy another
one. Not for a great deal less than Apple charge - high end original-
manufacturer batteries are never cheap - but I won't be without the
phone for more than seconds.
I can now pick up spare 9500s at CEX in Sheffield for around a hundred
quid, unlocked for alll networks, no contract required. I've been
emailing on the move for twelve years - I started with a Palmpilot
500, Option (Ducth company) modem and a Nokia 9110i. Browsing the web
didn't happen until the 9110i for me - about eight years ago.
In 1999 I was in Budapest and a client had a real problem - late in
the night I logged on to my PoP3 account using the Communicator from a
hotel fire escape and downloaded a dongle key from the USA - I moved
that to my Transnote using iRDA and thence to a floppy that I mounted
on a SCO UNIX system to get the customer going. Apple is five years
behind at least.
> You can dial anyone with two taps.
I have 1,200 phone numbers in the Communicator. Please tell me how I
could dial any of them with "two taps".
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Phil Payne wrote:
>
> There may yet be an unexpected downside of the media capability - HMCR
> is rumoured to be considering it a "benefit in kind" because it's
> entertainment focus exceeds the depth of its business focus.
??
> The battery issue is actually the one that worries me the most. Not
> because I can't carry and swap in a spare - I don't do that with the
> Communicator anyway - but because I don't want to be wandering around
> sharing a battery between my music player and my mobile office. I use
> a 6GB iPod Mini and I think Apple got that package _right_. I find
> iTunes extremely capable and easy to use - it works just great. But
> every now and then, when I'm out and about, the battery goes dead.
> With an iPhone, I'd be cut off from my business.
I've never had that issue with my iPod (80gb), but then I've only had it
since the summer.
> And if the Communicator battery does start to slide, I get buy another
> one. Not for a great deal less than Apple charge - high end original-
> manufacturer batteries are never cheap - but I won't be without the
> phone for more than seconds.
This is a concern -- I guess we'll see what happens. I've not run down
my first charge yet.
> I can now pick up spare 9500s at CEX in Sheffield for around a hundred
> quid, unlocked for alll networks, no contract required. I've been
> emailing on the move for twelve years - I started with a Palmpilot
> 500, Option (Ducth company) modem and a Nokia 9110i. Browsing the web
> didn't happen until the 9110i for me - about eight years ago.
I've been emailing on the go for a long time too, but I prefer text
messages. I think this will change now - HTML email can contain photos
and formatting so it's much nicer. Plus typing long mails on the iPhone
is bliss. By far the easiest of any mobile device. I don't like tiny
buttons... I think the iPhone on-screen keys must be 4-5 times larger
than any current mobile phone, plus the UI of typing is so simple. I
love the predictive text system they've used - so much better than my
only Sony.
> In 1999 I was in Budapest and a client had a real problem - late in
> the night I logged on to my PoP3 account using the Communicator from a
> hotel fire escape and downloaded a dongle key from the USA - I moved
> that to my Transnote using iRDA and thence to a floppy that I mounted
> on a SCO UNIX system to get the customer going. Apple is five years
> behind at least.
How so? Replace iRDA with BlueTooth and you have the same thing (well
almost, it's not enabled til the next update in December).
>
> I have 1,200 phone numbers in the Communicator. Please tell me how I
> could dial any of them with "two taps".
>
Well, that may be a a little excessive, but 3 taps plus one stroke would
get you to anyone :)
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Els wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> Eh.. didn't mean test the iPhone, but test my sites on your iPhone :-)
LOL duh... sorry.
Mail me with URLs :)
>
> You're sure about the whole page being a bitmap? On my phone (Nokia
> N73), the page itself is as wide as it has its minimum width set, but
> the paragraphs are wrapped to fit inside the screen. (probably because
> I didn't set them to a fixed or minimum width)
It'll wrap the content to whatever space there is if there is no size
set. I'm experimenting tomorrow with exactly what rules it uses, I'm not
sure yet.
>
> Almost what my phone's browser does, but then vice versa: be default
> it shows a part of the page, and you can pan the page in any direction
> with the 'joystick', while panning in one direction without stopping,
> shows the whole page in miniature so you know where about on the page
> you are.
True. I think it just feels so much more natural because you slide the
page around with your finger.
>
> Okay, can't say I have that on my phone! :-)
> It does zoom once, but after that you can only enlarge the text. (oh,
> and of course, not by tapping)
Plus, rotate the screen to get a better fit with whatever the graphic is :)
>
> I think that's the other way round, right? Pinching makes whatever was
> between your fingers smaller, hence, zooming out?
Yes!!!! I know!!! Miranda is stupid!!! :P
>
> Tiff could be for faxes?
Maybe? Emailed faxes I suppose.
>
> Photo? No screenshot?
> (my N73 does screenshots :P )
lol no.
>
> Maybe you should start thinking about an HTML alternative on your
> Flash sites ;-)
uh yes... :P
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> Yes you can, but this is no normal mobile browser. It looks and behaves
> the same as desktop Safari.
>
You're kidding right??? Try going somewhere that uses flash...
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| > >> Pages with embedded Quicktime videos still work (the video will play),
>
>
> Maybe? Emailed faxes I suppose.
There are two ways to receive faxes on a Communicator:
a) Each GSM phone number has a reserved second number which you can
activate on request. It behaves like a fax machine and stores
whatever arrives as a TIFF file.
b) You can have inbound faxes received and converted by Vodafone -
they then send them on as a TIFF attachment to an email.
Both Vodafone and Onetel (a reseller) will also send voicemails as
emails.
| |
| Red E. Kilowatt 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
5pofepFrs3ieU1@mid.individual.net,
> So, we've started putting a few test sites to use on iPhones... and
> wow. These devices are... amazing. Okay so I'm a really geeky girl at
> the best of times, but these are AMAZING. Justifiably.
>
> The web browsing on them is just superb -
I thought the web browsing on iPhones sucked because AT&T service sucks?
That's why many people were hacking their phones so that they could use
another service.
And then Apple released a software upgrade that rendered those hacked
phones useless. Apple's solution: Buy a new phone.
--
Red
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-11, 6:17 pm |
| Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
> 5pofepFrs3ieU1@mid.individual.net,
>
>
> I thought the web browsing on iPhones sucked because AT&T service sucks?
> That's why many people were hacking their phones so that they could use
> another service.
>
> And then Apple released a software upgrade that rendered those hacked
> phones useless. Apple's solution: Buy a new phone.
I'm in Scotland. O2 network, which is a good network.
If you hack your phone that's just to bad. If you DVD players firmware,
do you expect to take it back if it breaks? In the T&Cs for the iPhone
it says that you agree not to modify it... No wonder Apple says buy a
new phone... it's nothing to do with them. These people broke their own
phones soon as they tried to hack them.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> LOL duh... sorry.
>
> Mail me with URLs :)
Done.
> It'll wrap the content to whatever space there is if there is no size
> set. I'm experimenting tomorrow with exactly what rules it uses, I'm not
> sure yet.
Okay, that sounds good then. Even with full panning options it isn't
really easy reading if lines are wider than the screen.
[panning]
> True. I think it just feels so much more natural because you slide the
> page around with your finger.
I can imagine - but to pay that much for more natural feel.. ;-)
> Plus, rotate the screen to get a better fit with whatever the graphic is :)
And that's what I don't get. It should be easy to do the same for
regular smart phones. I mean, my image gallery on my phone can go
sideways, why not my webbrowsing? They have games where you need to
manouvre the phone so that a little ball rolls through a maze in the
right direction (using 'gravity'), so why not automatic flipping of
anything else on the phone - it's not like it's impossible to
implement, I guess they just didn't think of it.
>
> Yes!!!! I know!!! Miranda is stupid!!! :P
lol!
(no you're not stupid! :-))
>
> Maybe? Emailed faxes I suppose.
Dunno - it's a long time ago I used fax on my pc at all, but I
remember they were in tiff format always. Those were really faxes,
with the accompanying modem screeches and all.
>
> lol no.
Can you download and install 3rd party stuff on an iPhone actually?
If yes, someone should probably come up with a screenshot plugin soon.
My phone uses the Symbian OS, which I think is somewhat connected to
Apple, being that access_logs show it as 'AppleWebKit'. Here's the
screenshot prog I use, maybe it would work on an iPhone too? Or am I
just being naive now..
<http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/soft...S_Series_60.php>
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 11, 9:25 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You're kidding right??? Try going somewhere that uses flash...
Yes it has no Flash player yet, but it will do soon, and I'm looking
forwards to that (seeing as I'm pretty much a Flash designer these
days!).
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| Any idea what the screen resolution would be reported as in Analytics?
I haven't seen any 480x320 devices show up yet. And does it report
320x480 in portrait modes?
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 12, 2:00 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> Any idea what the screen resolution would be reported as in Analytics?
>
> I haven't seen any 480x320 devices show up yet. And does it report
> 320x480 in portrait modes?
No idea. Gimme an URL and I'll hit it, and you can see what GA
reports. I've only *just* started playing with this so I'm not sure
what info the browser gives up about itself.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 12, 12:54 pm, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
> Done.
Let you know when you get back home :)
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| > No idea. Gimme an URL and I'll hit it, and you can see what GA
> reports. I've only *just* started playing with this so I'm not sure
> what info the browser gives up about itself.
http://ww.isham-research.co.uk
I've had no "small screen" devices so far today, and only three Safari
visits.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 12, 2:42 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>
> http://ww.isham-research.co.uk
>
> I've had no "small screen" devices so far today, and only three Safari
> visits.
Okay, I hit the site twice, once in portrait and once in landscape.
Let me know what your server sees :)
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| > Okay, I hit the site twice, once in portrait and once in landscape.
> Let me know what your server sees :)
Browser "Safari / iPhone".
320x396 both times.
| |
| Red E. Kilowatt 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
5ppgq4Fsl9rfU1@mid.individual.net,
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
> I'm in Scotland. O2 network, which is a good network.
>
> If you hack your phone that's just to bad. If you DVD players
> firmware, do you expect to take it back if it breaks? In the T&Cs for
> the iPhone it says that you agree not to modify it... No wonder Apple
> says buy a new phone... it's nothing to do with them. These people
> broke their own phones soon as they tried to hack them.
Apple does not have the right to dictate that their phones cannot be
modified. They can write whatever terms they want into their T&Cs but
that doesn't make them enforceable
http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/991-1.htm
"Thanks to a new copyright rule, cell phone owners can unlock the
software on their phones. Cell phone owners will now have the ability to
take their phone with them from wireless carrier to wireless carrier.
Under new copyright rules approved by the Library of Congress Wednesday,
cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their
handsets in order to use them with competing carriers."
Apple designed the first update to break the phones that were hacked.
I'd love to see that tested in court, but that won't be necessary
because:
<http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...9C-D51E776E2B1C>
"Apple released a new update to the iPhone's operating system late last
week, just in time for the device's debut in the UK and Germany. Within
hours, however, the update was cracked - that is, opened up to
unauthorized applications from parties other than Apple."
Experience has shown that there is no protection scheme that can stand
up to determined hackers, and many of the Apple geeks are quite
determined to do as they please. I applaud them for totally undermining
Apple's attempts to screw their customers.
--
Red
| |
|
|
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
> 5ppgq4Fsl9rfU1@mid.individual.net,
>
>
> Apple does not have the right to dictate that their phones cannot be
> modified. They can write whatever terms they want into their T&Cs but
> that doesn't make them enforceable
>
> http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/991-1.htm
> "Thanks to a new copyright rule, cell phone owners can unlock the
> software on their phones. Cell phone owners will now have the ability to
> take their phone with them from wireless carrier to wireless carrier.
> Under new copyright rules approved by the Library of Congress Wednesday,
> cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their
> handsets in order to use them with competing carriers."
>
> Apple designed the first update to break the phones that were hacked.
> I'd love to see that tested in court, but that won't be necessary
> because:
>
> <http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...9C-D51E776E2B1C>
> "Apple released a new update to the iPhone's operating system late last
> week, just in time for the device's debut in the UK and Germany. Within
> hours, however, the update was cracked - that is, opened up to
> unauthorized applications from parties other than Apple."
>
> Experience has shown that there is no protection scheme that can stand
> up to determined hackers, and many of the Apple geeks are quite
> determined to do as they please. I applaud them for totally undermining
> Apple's attempts to screw their customers.
>
I love it, Red! Serves them right.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
=================
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
> 5pofepFrs3ieU1@mid.individual.net,
>
>
> I thought the web browsing on iPhones sucked because AT&T service sucks?
> That's why many people were hacking their phones so that they could use
> another service.
>
> And then Apple released a software upgrade that rendered those hacked
> phones useless. Apple's solution: Buy a new phone.
Well where I am the Cingular service is as good or bad as any other
service. The browsing (IMHO) sucks because the browser is totally
inadequate, no flash, no Java, etc. As far as the hacks go, that has
already been re-addressed, if you know what I mean. :oP www.modmyifone.com
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
> I'm in Scotland. O2 network, which is a good network.
>
> If you hack your phone that's just to bad. If you DVD players firmware,
> do you expect to take it back if it breaks? In the T&Cs for the iPhone
> it says that you agree not to modify it... No wonder Apple says buy a
> new phone... it's nothing to do with them. These people broke their own
> phones soon as they tried to hack them.
>
>
I also think that enforcing terms is different that purposly
alienatign your customers.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> Yes it has no Flash player yet, but it will do soon, and I'm looking
> forwards to that (seeing as I'm pretty much a Flash designer these
> days!).
>
It *had* everything you could possibly want, including Firefox and a
video camera until Apple purposely broke it. I think the modders have
gotten past that already but wht's to say Apple won't do it again? They
should be smart enough to go out and look at the modifications and
hacking being done to Moto and Nokia phones and surmise that the iPhone
would be ripe for the same thing. I'm actually considering changing to
the N95.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-12, 6:17 pm |
| Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
> 5ppgq4Fsl9rfU1@mid.individual.net,
>
>
> Apple does not have the right to dictate that their phones cannot be
> modified. They can write whatever terms they want into their T&Cs but
> that doesn't make them enforceable
>
> http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/991-1.htm
> "Thanks to a new copyright rule, cell phone owners can unlock the
> software on their phones. Cell phone owners will now have the ability to
> take their phone with them from wireless carrier to wireless carrier.
> Under new copyright rules approved by the Library of Congress Wednesday,
> cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their
> handsets in order to use them with competing carriers."
>
> Apple designed the first update to break the phones that were hacked.
> I'd love to see that tested in court, but that won't be necessary
> because:
>
> <http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...9C-D51E776E2B1C>
> "Apple released a new update to the iPhone's operating system late last
> week, just in time for the device's debut in the UK and Germany. Within
> hours, however, the update was cracked - that is, opened up to
> unauthorized applications from parties other than Apple."
>
> Experience has shown that there is no protection scheme that can stand
> up to determined hackers, and many of the Apple geeks are quite
> determined to do as they please. I applaud them for totally undermining
> Apple's attempts to screw their customers.
>
[aol] me too! [/aol]
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
|
|
| Phil Payne 2007-11-12, 10:16 pm |
| > I'm actually considering changing to the N95.
Having been a Communicator user since dot, I'm rather dependent on
some of the features so I'll probably be switching to an E90.
http://europe.nokia.com/A4346043
Expand ever button, print it, and lay it next to an iPhone
specification.
I'm having a bit of trouble positioning the iPhone. OK - there's a
"gee whiz" GUI. No tactile feedback for the disabled, but whatever.
Is it meant to be a business phone? It is _woefully_ down even on my
Nokia 9500, and against the E90 it's downright laughable. If it has
an automatically scaling browser, whyy does it claim only 320 pixels
screen width? That will trigger a lot of server-side munging that
will defeat Apple's efforts. The E90 sends a screen width of 800
pixels.
Is it meant to be an entertainment device? With EIGHT GIGABYTES AND
NO CARD SLOT?
I don't know what it is, apart from expensive.
P T Barnum was out by an order of magnitude. At least.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-13, 6:17 am |
| On Nov 12, 10:23 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
> It *had* everything you could possibly want, including Firefox and a
> video camera until Apple purposely broke it.
"Broke it"? How about you step back and try and be objective for a
moment. "Broke" is a throw away techie term. You think end users care
that it has/doesn't have FireFox? Safari is a great browser (actually,
the fastest browser on the market right now) and it makes more sense
for Apple to support their own browser. If they offered more than one
browser right away you're complicating the device for no benefit at
all. Yeah a techie may like more than one browser, but everyone else
doesn't care at all.
> I think the modders have
> gotten past that already but wht's to say Apple won't do it again?
Do what? Apple have promised to continue improving the software that
is on the iPhone. If people choose to hack their phones that's down to
them, but you can't expect Apple to support it. It's clearly against
the vision of the device; as simple as possible to use.
> They
> should be smart enough to go out and look at the modifications and
> hacking being done to Moto and Nokia phones and surmise that the iPhone
> would be ripe for the same thing. I'm actually considering changing to
> the N95.
Why? It's a consumer device. Stop thinking like a techie for one
minute and actually look at how people use their phones.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-13, 6:17 am |
| On Nov 12, 11:59 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Having been a Communicator user since dot, I'm rather dependent on
> some of the features so I'll probably be switching to an E90.
>
> http://europe.nokia.com/A4346043
>
> Expand ever button, print it, and lay it next to an iPhone
> specification.
>
> I'm having a bit of trouble positioning the iPhone. OK - there's a
> "gee whiz" GUI.
Gee whiz GUI? You mean a very natural UI, easily the most simple to
use out of any mobile device.
> No tactile feedback for the disabled, but whatever.
So what?
> Is it meant to be a business phone? It is _woefully_ down even on my
Nope. It's a consumer phone, it's not really designed for business.
> Nokia 9500, and against the E90 it's downright laughable. If it has
> an automatically scaling browser, whyy does it claim only 320 pixels
> screen width? That will trigger a lot of server-side munging that
> will defeat Apple's efforts. The E90 sends a screen width of 800
> pixels.
It's reporting the dimensions of the screen, which is exactly what the
screen size properties are supposed to do. You'd rather it lied? If
you feed it a page that is fixed width, or detect the browser (Safari/
iPhone) you can feed it whatever screen size you choose. This is the
way it should be, rather than the browser lying about the device it's
on so that broken web sites work.
> Is it meant to be an entertainment device? With EIGHT GIGABYTES AND
> NO CARD SLOT?
It's an internet media device. 8Gb is 8 times the capacity of an iPod
nano.
> I don't know what it is, apart from expensive.
>
> P T Barnum was out by an order of magnitude. At least.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-13, 6:17 am |
| On Nov 12, 7:36 pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <redkilowattREM...@aww-faq.org>
wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote in message:
>
> 5ppgq4Fsl9r...@mid.individual.net,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apple does not have the right to dictate that their phones cannot be
> modified. They can write whatever terms they want into their T&Cs but
> that doesn't make them enforceable
>
> http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/991-1.htm
> "Thanks to a new copyright rule, cell phone owners can unlock the
> software on their phones. Cell phone owners will now have the ability to
> take their phone with them from wireless carrier to wireless carrier.
> Under new copyright rules approved by the Library of Congress Wednesday,
> cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their
> handsets in order to use them with competing carriers."
>
> Apple designed the first update to break the phones that were hacked.
No, the added new features. They do not have to support hacked phones.
Sure you have the right to do what you want to a bit of hardware you
bought (and own). But the software company that makes the software for
it does not have to support it.
> I'd love to see that tested in court, but that won't be necessary
> because:
>
> <http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...7CF-4375-A79...>
> "Apple released a new update to the iPhone's operating system late last
> week, just in time for the device's debut in the UK and Germany. Within
> hours, however, the update was cracked - that is, opened up to
> unauthorized applications from parties other than Apple."
The 1.1.2 updated added features and improvements, some of which to
support the O2 network in the UK and other networks.
> Experience has shown that there is no protection scheme that can stand
> up to determined hackers, and many of the Apple geeks are quite
> determined to do as they please. I applaud them for totally undermining
> Apple's attempts to screw their customers.
Oh rubbish Red. Nobody is screwing anyone. If you buy a device that
clearly states it's abilities on the box, you can't then turn around
and XXXXX because it won't work in a different way. That's just
stupid :)
I'm tired of this stupid language. "Apple geeks" blah. I really wish
people would open their eyes. Sometimes I hate working in IT. Some of
the most short-sighed bigoted people in the world seem to work in it :
(
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-13, 6:17 am |
| On Nov 12, 10:15 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Well where I am the Cingular service is as good or bad as any other
> service. The browsing (IMHO) sucks because the browser is totally
> inadequate, no flash, no Java, etc. As far as the hacks go, that has
> already been re-addressed, if you know what I mean. :oP www.modmyifone.com
Flash is coming. And nobody needs Java. What are the etcs? Or is this
another throw away comment?
*Think* about users. Ordinary folks on the street. Do they really care
there is no Java? You think they will cry until Flash is added? No.
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-13, 6:17 pm |
| > > I'm having a bit of trouble positioning the iPhone. OK - there's a
>
> Gee whiz GUI? You mean a very natural UI, easily the most simple to
> use out of any mobile device.
You've tried them all?
>
> So what?
Hmmm.
>
> Nope. It's a consumer phone, it's not really designed for business.
True. Can't even edit and return a Word document.
[color=darkred]
> It's reporting the dimensions of the screen, which is exactly what the
> screen size properties are supposed to do. You'd rather it lied? If
> you feed it a page that is fixed width, or detect the browser (Safari/
> iPhone) you can feed it whatever screen size you choose. This is the
> way it should be, rather than the browser lying about the device it's
> on so that broken web sites work.
I thought it was supposed to scale automatically and let you wander
over a full size page? That seems to be what the television advert
illustrates on a BBC web page. I don't think it's accessing BBC
mobile in that video.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-13, 6:17 pm |
| On Nov 13, 12:42 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> You've tried them all?
>
>
>
> Hmmm.
Come on, give me a reason why it should be? Should PSPs be accessible
to the disabled? Is an N95 accessible to those with sight problems?
This is what I find really frustrating... suddenly it's popular to
kick something, so people either kick it or love it. So busy hating
and loving that they miss just how unique this thing is.
>
>
> True. Can't even edit and return a Word document.
Why would I want to? I have a laptop for that. I'm pretty sure my
mother will never want to edit a Word document, period.
It's an Internet device... probably the first ultra-simple device
dedicated to webby things. It's a PDA in a literal sense, but not in
the "office" sense.
> I thought it was supposed to scale automatically and let you wander
> over a full size page? That seems to be what the television advert
> illustrates on a BBC web page.
Yep that's how it works.
If you ask the browser what size the screen is, it tells you, as it
should, the pixel dimensions of the viewport. If you ask the browser
what size the canvas is? Well that's as big as you like (so long as
it's under 10mb).
>I don't think it's accessing BBC
> mobile in that video.
Regular BBC site. But then the BBC site is fixed width :)
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-14, 3:16 am |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:23 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
>
> "Broke it"? How about you step back and try and be objective for a
> moment. "Broke" is a throw away techie term. You think end users care
> that it has/doesn't have FireFox? Safari is a great browser (actually,
> the fastest browser on the market right now) and it makes more sense
> for Apple to support their own browser. If they offered more than one
> browser right away you're complicating the device for no benefit at
> all. Yeah a techie may like more than one browser, but everyone else
> doesn't care at all.
>
We *want* Flash, Java and a choice.
>
> Do what? Apple have promised to continue improving the software that
> is on the iPhone. If people choose to hack their phones that's down to
> them, but you can't expect Apple to support it. It's clearly against
> the vision of the device; as simple as possible to use.
Break it again. I'm not asking them to support modders, but don't
go out of your way to purposly screw them over either.
>
>
> Why? It's a consumer device. Stop thinking like a techie for one
> minute and actually look at how people use their phones.
>
Which is why Apple was shocked when *we* had the very nerve to
start modding it. If you can't do a seem edit, what's the point?? :oD
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-14, 3:16 am |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:15 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
>
> Flash is coming. And nobody needs Java. What are the etcs? Or is this
> another throw away comment?
>
> *Think* about users. Ordinary folks on the street. Do they really care
> there is no Java? You think they will cry until Flash is added? No.
>
WTF do you mean throw away comment? Etc. means video, Java, Flash
Google Earth and other third party apps like other devices. Which is
what was promised or alluded to and what many of us want who bought it
because it would be moddable.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-14, 3:16 am |
| Phil Payne wrote:
>
> Having been a Communicator user since dot, I'm rather dependent on
> some of the features so I'll probably be switching to an E90.
>
> http://europe.nokia.com/A4346043
>
> Expand ever button, print it, and lay it next to an iPhone
> specification.
>
> I'm having a bit of trouble positioning the iPhone. OK - there's a
> "gee whiz" GUI. No tactile feedback for the disabled, but whatever.
>
> Is it meant to be a business phone? It is _woefully_ down even on my
> Nokia 9500, and against the E90 it's downright laughable. If it has
> an automatically scaling browser, whyy does it claim only 320 pixels
> screen width? That will trigger a lot of server-side munging that
> will defeat Apple's efforts. The E90 sends a screen width of 800
> pixels.
>
> Is it meant to be an entertainment device? With EIGHT GIGABYTES AND
> NO CARD SLOT?
>
> I don't know what it is, apart from expensive.
>
> P T Barnum was out by an order of magnitude. At least.
>
Yeah exactly. No card slot. Totally stupid. I think it's meant to
be business phone in the way a Mac is a business computer. Business
in jeans and a t-shirt. I also firmly believe the person on the
commercial who says "OMG! I can do things I could never have done with
any phone before" is some dolt who has never seen a real Smart Phone.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-14, 6:18 am |
| On Nov 14, 4:41 am, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> Phil Payne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah exactly. No card slot. Totally stupid.
It doesn't need one. Do iPods have card slots? Nope. Are they
multimedia devices? Yep.
> I think it's meant to
> be business phone in the way a Mac is a business computer. Business
> in jeans and a t-shirt.
You're trying to label iPhones. They are new. They aren't business
phones. They aren't traditional media devices either.
> I also firmly believe the person on the
> commercial who says "OMG! I can do things I could never have done with
> any phone before" is some dolt who has never seen a real Smart Phone.
*sigh*. But iPhones DO do something that's never been done before.
They make very specific functionality VERY VERY VERY easy to use. No
other phone (or media device) on the market even comes close. That is
where the iPhone shines.
When iPods came out, do you think they actually did anything that
couldn't be done before? No, they were just another MP3 player -
except they were REALLY easy to use. No complicated tiny buttons, no
complicated way to transfer your songs to them. And they ate the
market alive because of easy of use. There is a good chance that the
iPhone will have the same effect eventually.
See, most folks are initially impressed by fancy new technology, but
will soon get bored and move onto something that is easier to use.
Then there are all those folks who are scared by anything with more
buttons than they have fingers. This is why ultimately iPhones will
succeed, and why iPods have succeeded.
If you ask me most smart phones may be loaded with capabilities, but
aren't really that smart because they fail to engage the user and make
access to that functionality as simple as pressing a play button.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-14, 6:21 pm |
| On Nov 14, 4:01 am, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
> WTF do you mean throw away comment? Etc. means video, Java,
Because "etc" is a lazy way to argue.
> Flash
> Google Earth and other third party apps like other devices.
There are no other devices like the iPhone. Apples and oranges :)
> Which is
> what was promised or alluded to and what many of us want who bought it
> because it would be moddable.
Apple never promised any of these things. Techies like you assumed
that it would be moddable without understanding the technology, or its
target market.
While I suspect some of these technologies will come along, I really
hope we DONT see Word on it. Stop thinking of the iPhone as a
smartphone or a fancy iPod, start thinking of it as the first
"internet phone", and that is where the functionality should be
focused. As an Internet device it's almost perfect (+3G, please!),
especially when Flash comes along for it.
Soon as you start adding other non-WWW things to it, it stops being
that ultra-simple device that anyone can use. There is currently
NOTHING complicated on the iPhone at all, despite already being
stuffed full with some excellent capabilities.
As for Java... blah. I can't think of any technology I'd like to see
die more than Java. It's horrible, bloated and slow. I'm glad the
iPhone doesn't rely on it!
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-14, 6:21 pm |
| On Nov 14, 11:45 am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> All I want my phone to do is make a bloody telephone call. Sometimes [...] I
> even have trouble with that :-(
As a phone it's pretty good too. The dial button are extra large
(about 4 times the size of my old phone, larger than any mobile I've
seen) and things like conference calls etc all done very visually...
something I never really figured out on any other phone!
| |
| Ed Jay 2007-11-14, 6:21 pm |
| SpaceGirl scribed:
>On Nov 14, 11:45 am, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>As a phone it's pretty good too. The dial button are extra large
>(about 4 times the size of my old phone, larger than any mobile I've
>seen) and things like conference calls etc all done very visually...
>something I never really figured out on any other phone!
Does it work with Skype?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-14, 6:21 pm |
| On Nov 14, 3:42 pm, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
> Does it work with Skype?
No, or rather not yet. There seems to be a few people trying to write
apps to allow it to be used. That would be a good feature to add, but
I'm not sure the network operators would like it.
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-14, 6:21 pm |
| > When iPods came out, do you think they actually did anything that
> couldn't be done before? No, they were just another MP3 player -
> except they were REALLY easy to use. No complicated tiny buttons, no
> complicated way to transfer your songs to them. And they ate the
> market alive because of easy of use. There is a good chance that the
> iPhone will have the same effect eventually.
We will see. I had an MP3 player before my iPod Mini - the iPod is
just VASTLY better made and I get along real well with iTunes - it
does pretty much exactly what I want to do with no fuss. I have a
couple of niggles with the slightly idiosyncratic way it does some
things, but basically it does the job with no fuss.
> See, most folks are initially impressed by fancy new technology, but
> will soon get bored and move onto something that is easier to use.
> Then there are all those folks who are scared by anything with more
> buttons than they have fingers. This is why ultimately iPhones will
> succeed, and why iPods have succeeded.
> If you ask me most smart phones may be loaded with capabilities, but
> aren't really that smart because they fail to engage the user and make
> access to that functionality as simple as pressing a play button.
Well, perhaps I'm just used to the Communicators. As a business
phone, I've not found any limitations yet. Can you assign a different
ringtone to each contact? Can you store as many numbers as you want
for each contact? Can you receive faxes?
Adn as for simple - http://www.usercentric.com/news.asp?ID=391
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-14, 10:16 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:01 am, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
>
>
> Because "etc" is a lazy way to argue.
>
>
> There are no other devices like the iPhone. Apples and oranges :)
>
You're obviously seeing this gadget as something other than a
smart phone. That's all it is, another smart phone, like an N95
without a pencil.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-15, 3:16 am |
| WindsorFox wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> You're obviously seeing this gadget as something other than a smart
> phone. That's all it is, another smart phone, like an N95 without a pencil.
>
No it's not. That's like calling an iPod "just a storage device".
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| Mark Goodge 2007-11-15, 6:18 pm |
| WindsorFox wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> You're obviously seeing this gadget as something other than a smart
> phone. That's all it is, another smart phone, like an N95 without a pencil.
I think the point is that it *isn't* a smart phone, though, Unlike the
majority of phones on the market, which are phones first and foremost
and have had other capabilities added to them, the iPhone is designed
from the other perspective - it's essentially a video iPod with phone
functionality added on.
Given that many people these days tend to use their phones primarily for
things other than simply making phone calls, that could be a very good
move. After all, the fact that the iPhone's phone capabiities are below
those of most other phones on the market is only relevant if you really
care about phone functionality itself - and a lot of people don't. The
iPhone isn't aimed at serious phone-freaks, it's aimed at gadget-heads
who want the latest and coolest multimedia device.
The idea of adding phone functionality to an entertainment device is a
genuinely innovative concept and, if Apple succeed with the iPhone, then
I'd expect to see genuine competitors emerging later from the likes of
Sony, Zen and Iriver, for example (and Sony would be an obvious
competitor as they have the potential to merge functionality from their
own Walkman products with products from their phone partnership with
Ericsson). But the reason there are currently no direct competitors to
the iPhone isn't because no other company can make them, it's because
they're all happy for Apple to take the risk of establishing a new
market sector. If the iPhone flops in the long term, then the other
phone manufacturers will say "I told you so". If it thrives, then it
will be ripe for other manufacturers to attack its market by offering
better products built on the experience of iPhone users.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
| |
| WindsorFox 2007-11-15, 6:18 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>
> No it's not. That's like calling an iPod "just a storage device".
>
Actually it is. But AFAIC an iPod is just another MP3 player, and
a poor one at that since you can not (again AFAIK) use it without the
use of iTunes, which I might add I had no idea how much I hated until
I was actually forced to use it.
--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills
"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-15, 10:16 pm |
| > I think the point is that it *isn't* a smart phone, though, Unlike the
> majority of phones on the market, which are phones first and foremost
> and have had other capabilities added to them, the iPhone is designed
> from the other perspective - it's essentially a video iPod with phone
> functionality added on.
A "video iPod"?
With 8GB and no extensibility?
| |
| Tina Peters 2007-11-19, 3:17 am |
|
"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:5pouq0FselhgU3@mid.individual.net...
> Tina Peters wrote:
>
>
> Ah sorry! :)
>
> Oh they are VERY worth it, if you do a lot of casual surfing and want a
> really good email device.
Alright. You've convinced me. Mine should be here on Tuesday! :-)
--Tina
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-19, 6:19 pm |
| On Nov 19, 3:57 am, "Tina Peters" <t...@axishost.com> wrote:
> Alright. You've convinced me. Mine should be here on Tuesday! :-)
>
> --Tina
Let me know what you think, Tina! Takes a few days to get used to
typing on it, but I still adore mine after a week :) The battery died
on my powerbook ahead of a meeting today, so I typed notes on my phone
instead. It was great!
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-20, 6:18 pm |
| > Let me know what you think, Tina! Takes a few days to get used to
> typing on it, but I still adore mine after a week :) The battery died
> on my powerbook ahead of a meeting today, so I typed notes on my phone
> instead. It was great!
HA! GOTCHA!
DIdn't you post a while back that my ability to receive, edit and
resend Word documents on my Nokia Communicator was moot because you
would use a laptop for that?
And here you are, with a dead laptop, using a handheld to take notes.
How much BETTER it would be if your iPhone integrated into an MS
Office-based environment.
(Slopes off, giggling.)
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-20, 6:18 pm |
| On Nov 20, 3:54 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>
> HA! GOTCHA!
>
> DIdn't you post a while back that my ability to receive, edit and
> resend Word documents on my Nokia Communicator was moot because you
> would use a laptop for that?
>
> And here you are, with a dead laptop, using a handheld to take notes.
>
> How much BETTER it would be if your iPhone integrated into an MS
> Office-based environment.
>
> (Slopes off, giggling.)
:)
I tend to take my laptop as I'm a multimedia designer. Generally not
ideal to show off video, animation or pretty artwork on a 3" screen.
Just doesn't work well. In the event my laptop isn't available (or
required), my iPhone (or a notepad and pen!) will do just fine. I
don't need a full-blown PDA.
So anyway when I got back to my Mac.... I uh... mailed myself the note
and erm... copied and pasted it into Word... Oh well! :D
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-20, 6:18 pm |
| It looks like my first response - a couple of hours ago - didn't make
it. If it subsequently turns up, I grovel.
> I tend to take my laptop as I'm a multimedia designer. Generally not
> ideal to show off video, animation or pretty artwork on a 3" screen.
That would depend on whether you were presuming exclusion for such
users.. Which - as you know - I don't. The Siemens S65 has a 1.25"
screen (132 pixels) and the Nokia 9500 Communicator around 4.5" (640
pixels). I usually demonstrate both.
> Just doesn't work well.
Does with the Communicator's Powerpoint viewer, Opera browser, and
Excel spreadsheet graphics support. I can walk around the room using
iRDA to the projector simulating all manner of browser experiences.
"This guy's in the office at 1280x1024. This guy's at a bus stop in
the rain at 132x176."
I like to make it interactive. "Get that thing out of your pocket -
I'll show you what your site looks like on it.":
http://www.isham-research.co.uk/handheld-friendly.html
> In the event my laptop isn't available (or
> required), my iPhone (or a notepad and pen!) will do just fine. I
> don't need a full-blown PDA.
I also have a Hitachi Digital Voice Recorder. I chose it because it
was flat (think credit card) and so I could be sure of finding the
controls without having to orient the device. It syncs with my
Windows systems.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-20, 10:16 pm |
| Phil Payne wrote:
> It looks like my first response - a couple of hours ago - didn't make
> it. If it subsequently turns up, I grovel.
>
>
> That would depend on whether you were presuming exclusion for such
> users.. Which - as you know - I don't. The Siemens S65 has a 1.25"
> screen (132 pixels) and the Nokia 9500 Communicator around 4.5" (640
> pixels). I usually demonstrate both.
I work mostly for record labels. While their minions and managers seem
to adore Blackberrys (yuck), they don't care what then end user has so
long as the product is "cool". Now, while I don't think "coolness" is a
legitimate measure of a good web site, bands and their management go by
looks first, and what income it can generate them second... and then
what it offers fans of their music lastly (sadly). So when presenting
anything, it has to be slick. I do like to throw in "and by the way, it
works on cellphones" things with some clients, but mostly they don't
care at all.
>
> Does with the Communicator's Powerpoint viewer, Opera browser, and
> Excel spreadsheet graphics support. I can walk around the room using
> iRDA to the projector simulating all manner of browser experiences.
Not really practical. Most of these folks use Macs anyway.
> "This guy's in the office at 1280x1024. This guy's at a bus stop in
> the rain at 132x176."
Yep. No argument from me in supporting all these things for final
products, but for presentations and meetings it's not really viable. I
wouldn't try it from ANY phone, not even a fancy Apple one.
> I like to make it interactive. "Get that thing out of your pocket -
> I'll show you what your site looks like on it.":
Clients don't care - or at least mine mostly don't :) I care though, so
I always try make sites that work everywhere. But for presentations?
Nah. I either render my stuff as high-rez video and/or use Flash,
PhotoShop or whatever is applicable. Quite often I take prints too :)
Clients like big glossy full colour prints they can take away.
> http://www.isham-research.co.uk/handheld-friendly.html
>
>
> I also have a Hitachi Digital Voice Recorder. I chose it because it
> was flat (think credit card) and so I could be sure of finding the
> controls without having to orient the device. It syncs with my
> Windows systems.
Cool. iPhone gains dictation controls soon. My bag doesn't have infinite
capacity, despite my best efforts to prove otherwise :P
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| Tina Peters 2007-11-21, 6:17 pm |
|
"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c283e355-2abb-400e-873e-a794c68b9cca@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 3:57 am, "Tina Peters" <t...@axishost.com> wrote:
>
>
> Let me know what you think, Tina! Takes a few days to get used to
> typing on it, but I still adore mine after a week :) The battery died
> on my powerbook ahead of a meeting today, so I typed notes on my phone
> instead. It was great!
>
Pretty sweet! I've been grabbing webapps like crazy since it arrived about
6 hours ago. This is going to be so nice. I'm used to dragging my laptop
with me whenever I leave the house.
--Tina
>
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-11-23, 3:28 am |
| > Pretty sweet! I've been grabbing webapps like crazy since it arrived about
> 6 hours ago. This is going to be so nice. I'm used to dragging my laptop
> with me whenever I leave the house.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/1...ile_experience/
| |
| Tina Peters 2007-11-23, 3:29 am |
|
"Phil Payne" <phil@isham-research.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5c2c37a-987e-4156-bb91-3c088a0b9151@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/1...ile_experience/
I've had it for about 24 hours now and I love it. I've not had any issue
with the battery running low and I used it quite a bit for audio/video as
well as general internet browsing and...oh yeah...phone related things. It
beeped at me about 1/2 hour ago to tell me that it was at 20% life left.
So, its happily recharging now and should be ready to go by the time I leave
for my daughter's for Thanksgiving dinner in 3 hours. :-)
It is taking me a bit to get used to typing on it, for web browsing and
such, but my 15 yr old can type about 60 wpm on it with no trouble at all.
Tina
--
Tina Peters
AxisHOST.com | BuyAVPS.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-11-23, 6:16 am |
| On Nov 22, 7:11 pm, "Tina Peters" <t...@axishost.com> wrote:
> I've had it for about 24 hours now and I love it. I've not had any issue
> with the battery running low and I used it quite a bit for audio/video as
> well as general internet browsing and...oh yeah...phone related things. It
> beeped at me about 1/2 hour ago to tell me that it was at 20% life left.
> So, its happily recharging now and should be ready to go by the time I leave
> for my daughter's for Thanksgiving dinner in 3 hours. :-)
>
> It is taking me a bit to get used to typing on it, for web browsing and
> such, but my 15 yr old can type about 60 wpm on it with no trouble at all.
>
> Tina
Really glad you like it Tina. Still really enjoying using mine. It's
taken me a few weeks to get used to typing fast on it, but I think I
can manage about about 50 wpm now, which is much much faster than on
my old Sony!
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|