13 ms·

That says more about Apple than it does Gruber.

by cremnob 13y ago

bronson 13y ago
What does it say about Apple? That they can do no wrong?
- cremnob 13y ago
  Not that they can do no wrong, they just don't do it very often.
- rednukleus 13y ago
  They promote the idea that they can do no wrong, and that everything they do is carefully thought out perfection (eg. screen sizes)
  - simonh 13y ago
    Carefully thought out yes, but often when there is imperfection that's carefully thought out too. For example the cameras in the early iPhones were very deliberately below par specifically so that they could ramp up the camera quality with each new model as an incentive for owners to upgrade. Imperfect by specification, but perfect business execution. I say this as someone who bought into iPhones with the 3G and never regretted it, but it's the truth. With screen sizes, I would prefer a slightly larger screen size on my current iPhone 5. I do think Apple will eventually go to a greater screen size, but if so they will do it because they need it as a differentiating factor for a new model. I was half expecting them to do it this time because I couldn't think of a compelling new feature that the next model would need, but I didn't know about the move to 64bit, TouchID and M7. This time they had enough new features that they didn't need to move to a bigger screen. Yet.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      > [T]he cameras in the early iPhones were very deliberately below par specifically so that they could ramp up the camera quality with each new model as an incentive for owners to upgrade. That’s quite an accusation you’re making. Do you have any sources to back that up? I read a lot of tech news and I’ve never come across anything like it.
      - simonh 13y ago
        IIRC it was widely discussed at the time. I don't remember ever seeing any other reason tendered as to why the early cameras were so far below the specs of other contemporary phones. Do you have an alternative theory?
        Samuel_Michon 13y ago
        > the early cameras were so far below the specs of other contemporary phones. I don’t think that was the case at all. The original iPhone had a better camera than my high-end SonyEricsson smartphone did at the time. Also, the camera on the iPhone 3G was exactly the same as the camera on the original iPhone, so it couldn’t have been used as a way to people to upgrade their phones. Apple tries to get people to upgrade every two years, not every year. The difference in photo quality between an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4S or an iPhone 4 and an iPhone 5 is immense. However, all of those models were among the top camera phones when they were new.
        simonh 13y ago
        Here's what Engadget's review of the original iPhone had to say about the camera that, as you say, wasn't upgraded for another two years: "..it's still a lousy sensor by even ultra low-end dedicated camera standards, so we'd recommend this not be used in the field for anything but the occasional candid shot" Ars Technica compared it semi-favourably to low end camera phones, but: "..Another glaring omission is the lack of video capabilities in the iPhone's camera: something that many very basic (and much cheaper) handsets can do" It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't anything special, lacked many features found on much cheaper phones and again wasn't upgraded for two full years. By that time it's camera capabilities were woefully behind even the most basic camera phones. Here's what Macworld said about the 3G: "For a product as on the cutting edge as the iPhone, its built-in camera is an embarrassment" IMHO the reason they didn't upgrade the camera on the 3G was that they didn't have to. They were selling as many of them as they could make and being in a class of their own had essentially no competition. As I said, they kept improving this feature in reserve for when they needed it. This isn't really a criticism, I loved my 3G, but this is Apple's modus opperandi. http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/03/iphone-review-part-3-apps-and-settings-camera-itunes-wrapup/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/03/iphone-review-part-3-apps... http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/07/iphone-review/11/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/07/iphone-review/11/ http://www.macworld.com/article/1134482/iphone3g_review.html?page=2 http://www.macworld.com/article/1134482/iphone3g_review.html...
yaeger 13y ago
Agreed. You can see that he criticizes Apples cloud offerings. iCloud, Siri. They still have to mature and improve. But the rest, I agree with Gruber 100% that it is apparent that Apple does not play the specs game like other companies simply to have a nice spec sheet you can read off like a Baseball trading card. They put in their devices things that are "fast enough" to achieve what they want to achieve. And it is apparent they are very good at that seeing as what kind of performance and thus resulting user experience they can get out of the hardware they use. I still remember the times Android fans were raving just how much faster their phones were compared to iPhones just because it said so in the spec sheets. But when you actually used them, you would have a hard time not to laugh at just how jittery and overall unpleasant it was navigating through the Android UI. It was no contest compared to the iPhones back then.

That says more about Apple than it does Gruber.

by cremnob 13y ago

That says more about Apple than it does Gruber.

bronson 13y ago

What does it say about Apple? That they can do no wrong?

cremnob 13y ago
Not that they can do no wrong, they just don't do it very often.
rednukleus 13y ago
They promote the idea that they can do no wrong, and that everything they do is carefully thought out perfection (eg. screen sizes)
- simonh 13y ago
  Carefully thought out yes, but often when there is imperfection that's carefully thought out too. For example the cameras in the early iPhones were very deliberately below par specifically so that they could ramp up the camera quality with each new model as an incentive for owners to upgrade. Imperfect by specification, but perfect business execution. I say this as someone who bought into iPhones with the 3G and never regretted it, but it's the truth. With screen sizes, I would prefer a slightly larger screen size on my current iPhone 5. I do think Apple will eventually go to a greater screen size, but if so they will do it because they need it as a differentiating factor for a new model. I was half expecting them to do it this time because I couldn't think of a compelling new feature that the next model would need, but I didn't know about the move to 64bit, TouchID and M7. This time they had enough new features that they didn't need to move to a bigger screen. Yet.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    > [T]he cameras in the early iPhones were very deliberately below par specifically so that they could ramp up the camera quality with each new model as an incentive for owners to upgrade. That’s quite an accusation you’re making. Do you have any sources to back that up? I read a lot of tech news and I’ve never come across anything like it.
    - simonh 13y ago
      IIRC it was widely discussed at the time. I don't remember ever seeing any other reason tendered as to why the early cameras were so far below the specs of other contemporary phones. Do you have an alternative theory?
      - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
        > the early cameras were so far below the specs of other contemporary phones. I don’t think that was the case at all. The original iPhone had a better camera than my high-end SonyEricsson smartphone did at the time. Also, the camera on the iPhone 3G was exactly the same as the camera on the original iPhone, so it couldn’t have been used as a way to people to upgrade their phones. Apple tries to get people to upgrade every two years, not every year. The difference in photo quality between an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4S or an iPhone 4 and an iPhone 5 is immense. However, all of those models were among the top camera phones when they were new.
        simonh 13y ago
        Here's what Engadget's review of the original iPhone had to say about the camera that, as you say, wasn't upgraded for another two years: "..it's still a lousy sensor by even ultra low-end dedicated camera standards, so we'd recommend this not be used in the field for anything but the occasional candid shot" Ars Technica compared it semi-favourably to low end camera phones, but: "..Another glaring omission is the lack of video capabilities in the iPhone's camera: something that many very basic (and much cheaper) handsets can do" It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't anything special, lacked many features found on much cheaper phones and again wasn't upgraded for two full years. By that time it's camera capabilities were woefully behind even the most basic camera phones. Here's what Macworld said about the 3G: "For a product as on the cutting edge as the iPhone, its built-in camera is an embarrassment" IMHO the reason they didn't upgrade the camera on the 3G was that they didn't have to. They were selling as many of them as they could make and being in a class of their own had essentially no competition. As I said, they kept improving this feature in reserve for when they needed it. This isn't really a criticism, I loved my 3G, but this is Apple's modus opperandi. http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/03/iphone-review-part-3-apps-and-settings-camera-itunes-wrapup/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/03/iphone-review-part-3-apps... http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/07/iphone-review/11/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/07/iphone-review/11/ http://www.macworld.com/article/1134482/iphone3g_review.html?page=2 http://www.macworld.com/article/1134482/iphone3g_review.html...

yaeger 13y ago

Agreed. You can see that he criticizes Apples cloud offerings. iCloud, Siri. They still have to mature and improve. But the rest, I agree with Gruber 100% that it is apparent that Apple does not play the specs game like other companies simply to have a nice spec sheet you can read off like a Baseball trading card. They put in their devices things that are "fast enough" to achieve what they want to achieve. And it is apparent they are very good at that seeing as what kind of performance and thus resulting user experience they can get out of the hardware they use. I still remember the times Android fans were raving just how much faster their phones were compared to iPhones just because it said so in the spec sheets. But when you actually used them, you would have a hard time not to laugh at just how jittery and overall unpleasant it was navigating through the Android UI. It was no contest compared to the iPhones back then.