iPhone Ads released by Apple

Rollo Tamasi

The iPhone ads look pretty nifty. There are three in total. They're due out in the US on the 29th of June.

Creamy Goodness

ahahaha zoolander, it's almost as good as sold.

the UI looks very good i have to say. still doubtful how it would fare over here seeing as majority of the mobile operators income is from texting.

tinkerbell

It looks animal!!!

Zapp Brannigan

It looks fantastic, only thing that's not great is its camera. 2mp compared to my N73's 3.2mp

K.O.Kiki

Now you're just being a MP whore
Remember: it's the lens that counts.

Or something, I really don't know much about digicams beyond "ignore the MP rating".

Zapp Brannigan

K.O.Kiki wrote:

Or something, I really don't know much about digicams beyond "ignore the MP rating".

I didn't even know that! I just always thought the higher the better cos the pics are in better resolution.

mathias

Now you're just being a MP whore
Remember: it's the lens that counts

Sort of true , and not the lens, although thats important , but the sensor size is more important.

Most camera phones have tiny sensors , really tiny sensors , and packing pixels in there only works up to a point , once you hit 4-5 megapixels , which is optimum for this size of sensor , and you add more pixels , then the performance of the camera and the quality of the images drops dramatically.

So 2mp is bad , it should be better , 3.2mp is difinitely much better for this size of sensor , anything over 5 , and this goes for compact cameras as well as cameraphones , only takes away from the quality of the images , especially in low light. ( such as friends in a bar ).

The specs for these things say you can use ISO 1600 or even more , in practice this is totally unuseable and produces pictures that look like mangled pizzas , ISO 400 is the best they can do and even thats a pretty poor picture .

So once the megapixel count is 4 - 5 , packing any more pixels into the same size sensor is no improvement and can even be worse !

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/

The upshot of all this is , the camera on the iphone is going to be poor , and regardless of what phone you have , with sensor sizes that small , you will never produce pictures that will rival a proper camera.

Sad Professor

Great ads. Simple and to the point. It's such a rare thing to see a product so good it doesn't need to be hyped up in the advertising. Too bad Apple won't market Mac OS X like this, there'd be people switching in droves. I assume it's because of some agreement with Microsoft.

Rollo Tamasi

Sad Professor wrote:

Great ads. Simple and to the point. It's such a rare thing to see a product so good it doesn't need to be hyped up in the advertising. Too bad Apple won't market Mac OS X like this, there'd be people switching in droves. I assume it's because of some agreement with Microsoft.

What type of agreement?

ZENER

mathias wrote:

Sort of true , and not the lens, although thats important , but the sensor size is more important.

As I understand it, the more pixel elements you squeeze onto a given area (i.e. pixels get smaller) reduces the amount of light each pixel picks up. This means more amplification is required to give an acceptable output which means more noise introduced into the signal. So a phone camera with a 3.2MP camera (i.e. N73) would not produce as good a picture as an SLR (Canon D30 - 3MP) given the same lenses.

Until recently I owned a 3MP Canon D30 SLR. It had a 3/4 " CCD which produced nicer toned and clearer images than many 5 or 6 MP compacts of the time.

With the lens taken into account - a cheap lens = poor photos. The SE K750 had a nice lens which gave reasonable results for 2MP. The lens on the N73 is decent enough too and coupled with AF gives acceptable results for a 5 x 7" print. Anything bigger looks dreadful. It's all subjective of course and is dependent on what you're used too. Me I've always had good cameras and lenses - Olypmus OM4/OM1 - Canon D30 - and currently a Nikon D70s - so picture quality means a lot to me.

As for the iPhone . . . I WANT ONE NOW GODAMMITT !!!!!

I just pray that Vodafone don't get it. They'll ruin it's interface with their horrible branding.:(

ZEN

Sad Professor

Rollo Tamasi wrote:

What type of agreement?

I remember reading theories years ago that Apple had a deal with Microsoft which in exchange for continued development of Microsoft Office on the mac, Apple wouldn't advertise Mac OS on tv, etc. I believe there was a similar deal not to develop their own web browser and Microsoft ceased IE development shortly after Safari was introduced.

Cabaal

Sad Professor wrote:

I believe there was a similar deal not to develop their own web browser and Microsoft ceased IE development shortly after Safari was introduced.

Sounds like crap,
MS never gave a crap about IE on the Mac, Safari only gave them an excuse to drop IE Dev as they knew they wouldn't have a chance against it

As for not advertising OSX on TV, you've seen the apple adverts right?
Saying that Apple's run better then PC's (ala Windows), to be honest thats the best way to advertise OSX to the masses

Sad Professor

Cabaal wrote:

As for not advertising OSX on TV, you've seen the apple adverts right?
Saying that Apple's run better then PC's (ala Windows), to be honest thats the best way to advertise OSX to the masses

I'm not so sure. I think most mac users will agree that the best thing about a mac is the OS. There has to be some reason Apple holds back on advertising OSX. Many pc users don't like macs because they see the hardware as being inferior (lack of expandability, all-in-one, etc) but maybe if they knew more about Mac OS X that would change.

I did a google and what I said about Safari/IE is more or less true. There was a deal with Microsoft making IE the default browser on the mac, then (assumedly) as that deal expired they dropped support/development for the mac version. Had it been renewed we'd probably still have IE for the mac but obviously Apple were in much stronger position and thought they could improve on the sloppy ass job Microsoft were doing.

There was a time when the survival of the mac depended on certain applications being available for it so it wouldn't surprise me that Apple made deals to ensure their continued development. And what would Microsoft have wanted in return?

MS didn't get were they are today by making quality products.