Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mobile Phones / Entertainment' started by Hanson, Sep 28, 2012.
Jobs was great, but not perfect.
I think you greatly overestimate how people approach camera usage. My mom takes all pictures of her granddaughters with her iPhone . All my vacation photos are iPhone. My wife, a photo enthusiast, no longer carries her camera except for when she *really* cares about the photo. Almost are her shots, daily, vacation, and fun, are iPhone.
Just my anecdotes, but I take more photos now that I've got a good camera-phone than I did ever before with a point and shoot.
I may have new gadget influence but so far I have taken more pictures with my iPhive than I did in 2 years as an iPhone 4 owner, and rarely ever used my 3GS. And I never go anywhere without my Nex-5n or DSLR.
The bigger point you're missing here is that MobileMe and Ping and other Jobs failures were new services that did not pan out. In the case of Maps, the existing working service that everyone liked and depended on was removed and replaced by an inferior and unreliable service. For people who rely heavily on mapping software, this was a complete fiasco and loss of services. For people in Europe, it was a disaster. It's not just that Maps isn't good -- it's that it replaced something that worked well with something that didn't work well. Now Apple is floating the notion that Jobs wanted Google Maps out at any cost and they're just following orders. Nice to pin your failures on a dead man. Classy, that.
Ihnatko thinks that Maps is already an embarrassment. Further, if Maps isn't fixed by the end of October (that is to say, it's reliable and doesn't direct people to cul de sacs like it did to Pogue), it's a failure. If it's not fixed by the end of the year, it's a fatality.
I have had numerous iOS6 users, without prompting, mind you (that is, I wasn't chumming up the waters fishing for horror stories), tell me that Apple Maps are awful and unusable. In fact, one of my neighbors just told me that tonight. Previous conversations about phones or technology? Zero. He just wanted to vent.
'Except for the big blunders under Jobs, would he have allowed such a blunder?"
When put like that, no.
(My wife thinks "apple maps" is worse and unreliable and misses "google maps".)
I don't jump on new gadgets regularly, but I too have no real problems w/ lugging my DSLR just about anywhere I go. So yes, if I really want a good shot (and am not in a rush to post it on FB), I'll very likely default to the DSLR anyway. But that won't help my wife nor most regular folks I know though....
Comparing a "point & shoot" to a FTb or a DSLR is a moot point.
Falls under the category of "don't know the difference".
I to have a P&S...
I specifically bought it to take to Africa when I went on a Safari. I took 4 cameras. I bought this particular one for its ability to do sweep panorama. Even though I have that camera. It sits at home most of the time. Out of the 2000+ pictures I took in Africa...100 were on this camera...all of them in sweep.
It's all about use-case. I don't think I could get used to lugging around a DSLR. My cousin is a huge photo nerd, and even he stopped bringing his DSLR around for family gatherings in lieu of a point & shoot. My friend's wife is (was) a photo nerd, and her DSLR kit is collecting dust now while she shoots pictures of her baby with her iPhone.
I know it's kind of old school, but 99% of my pictures are of people and faces (95% are just my daughters). That's why these samples I see in reviews are moot -- stationary buildings and landscapes without any faces. I wish these reviewers would concentrate on taking pictures of faces in typical indoor lighting conditions instead of a row of parked cars. The latter really has no bearing on my photographic needs.
One thing that *might* explain in favor of Sam's point though (and might also jive w/ Hanson's observation just now) is maybe the issue only happens if the extreme contrasting area of the image falls into the shot's DoF (depth-of-field). In certain such previously reported similar problems w/ sensor blooming (on other cameras), I noticed that the problem isn't as likely to be triggered (beyond just a tiny bit of purple fringing, etc.) when the extreme contrast area falls well outside of the shot's DoF. That could explain why you might not see this problem w/ typical people snapshots.
On the old Nikon D70, people had sensor blooming problems shooting sunrise/sunsets for instance, but IIRC, you can workaround that in part by not having the sunrise/sunset fall w/in the DoF (or simply not choose a very small aperture to try to place everything w/in DoF) -- part of the blame was placed on the weak anti-alias filter used for the camera, IIRC. On the old Nikon D200 (that I still use), sensor blooming can cause some sort of banding/streaking -- and IIRC, the problem is thought to be partially caused by the double datapath (of alternating rows) of that particular sensor used for the camera. That issue can again be minimized by keeping the troublesome area well outside of the DoF near as I can tell.
IF that is indeed the case, then yes, it's probably not hard to avoid the problem 99% of the time -- and most people shots will naturally avoid it w/out significant effort.
But I'm just trying to make a moderately educated guess here, so...
Andy Ihnatko in this weeks MBW comments that he didn't observe purple fringe during his camera comparo process. After being told about it, he tried to recreate it on purpose. He said the lens flare is seen in GS3 and all other camera phones he's tested: the iPhone is not any worse. But the iPhone 5 can show more purple in the flare.
Not sure what Ihnatko's talking about, but the phenomenon is not lens flare AFAIK.
Apparently, Apple knew that Maps sucked. They just didn't care:
"I posted at least one doomsayer rant after each (developer) beta, and I wasn’t alone, … The mood amongst the developers seemed to be that the maps were so shockingly bad that reporting individual problems was futile. What was needed wasn’t so much an interface for reporting a single point as incorrect, but for selecting an entire region and saying ‘all of this — it’s wrong."
You could say the same thing about every Radar, ever.
Apple does what Apple does. Radars get fixed but they have to align with what Apple thinks is important at the time.
I've now seen specific, practical case where Apple's map was worse than Google and TomTom's. They're missing roads near a local church we visited last weekend. And they're still missing metro stops in DC. So, it's clearly worse than the previous map app, from our perspective. And turn-by-turn is so limited as to be useless for practical use right now (can't replace TomTom on the iPhone 4).
From a user perspective, Apple released an inferior software feature, and is taking some risk.
it's not a killer thing for me. But I hope the maps get better, fast.
Not too sure what this has to do w/ Radar(?).
But sounds like you're just saying you don't care that Apple blew it on these issues. You're just gonna stand by them just because it's Apple even though this might no longer be quite the same company that produced great, reliable products in the previous decade or so.
Radar is the bug submittal tool for developers. Think Bugzilla, Git or Sourceforge kind of thing, not the RADAR technology for tracking airplanes.
I'm saying that Developers submitting Radars that get ignored prior to software updates is par for the course, especially in this case where those specific developers have specific issues with the underlying functionality of that app that consumers don't see. Saying that Apple is aware of a problem because you submitted a Radar is like saying the mayor is aware of inner city crime cause you wrote him a letter.
Putting aside all of the "is this a bug" or "is this a problem" the biggest non-problem problem with the iPhone5 is this: there is NO compelling, monumental advance over an of it's competitors.
In regards to the camera: In bright light, it gets purple haze, in low light, it can't compete against the likes of a Nokia 920 or the upcoming Samsungs:
It's image stabilization sucks.
It has a lower pixel density (RETINA!) remember when that was the most important thing? then numerous phones on the market:
Galaxy S3: 303ppi
Nokia 920: 332ppi
Galaxy Mini: 332ppi
Google has far superior maps then Apple, so Apple can't claim anything there. Apple even sites Nokia's maps as a better alternative to theirs (in a press release FROM Apple) so they admit they aren't even close to a leader here.
Google has more phones in the field more activations, and more developer interest... they will more then double the iPhone's global circulation by the end of the year.
I mean, do we have any key, major feature that Apple has that you say "wow, no one else is even close?" Add to this the change in the dock connector which kicks people in the ass who have boomboxes, accessories, etc... and you give less reason for upgraders, and you don't have a really compelling case for those against another phone.
It's not about "the problems" it's about the fact there isn't an exceptional feature here that makes it stand out from the crowd so that you say: well, this is the must have phone! Apple's crow about "it's the apps" helps them for now, but a huge slice of the market doesn't care about that as much as apple does. Give those people facebook, email and a phone + web browser and that's all they want.
I agree with you Matt, the iPhone 5 isn't compelling on a feature level. Then again, the software has been merely playing catch-up with Android since iOS5.
I was very surprised they didn't push Facetime over 3G/4G and include the ability to do a three-way call. I thought this would be the kind of feature that isn't all that useful but makes for great ads. Perhaps the carriers didn't want to push the Facetime over data, but 3 way conferencing with a mother, daughter, and grandmother video chatting together seems like something right up Apple's alley. Passbook seems like another feature they could push hard. Father and son going to a baseball game is a staple they could have recycled.
If you can get past the sunk cost fallacy, it would probably cost you less in money for apps to set yourself up in the Android ecosystem than it would be to rebuy all the Lightning accessories for your iPhone 5. MicroUSB cables and chargers are not only ubiquitous, they next to nothing compared to the Lightning counterparts.
Considering most carriers no longer do unlimited data (and both Verizon and AT&T are pushing their new unlimited talk/text plans w/ shared data), why wouldn't they want Apple to promote Facetime over 3G/4G though... unless they simply can't handle the network traffic?
There's a big difference between scrapping unlimited plans and actually converting everyone over from unlimited plans. So even though the new plans were unveiled in August, most AT&T and Verizon users are on the older "unlimited" plans (I use the quotes because they topped out at 2GB or 5GB before throttling or a tap on your shoulder and were never truly unlimited). Network traffic costs the carriers money, and iPhone users use more traffic than Android users. To then have Facetime traffic on top would be upsetting.
Carrier data plans are priced the same way as "All You Can Eat" buffets -- they expect lower data users to make up for the higher data users. Verizon would like you to buy a 4GB plan and then use