MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
Popeye206
Apr 25, 10:33 AM
There's a black Escalade parked outside with a guy in a suit and sunglasses. I think there's an Apple sticker on the rear window? :eek:
Someone, please call Jesse Ventura! Help!
:rolleyes:
Someone, please call Jesse Ventura! Help!
:rolleyes:
mabaker
Mar 27, 06:57 AM
For the first time since the introduction of the iPhone Apple Computer is concentrating on the COMPUTER more than the iPhone. I for one hope they will nail Lion. :)
Jape
Dec 4, 03:35 PM
Hey guys I just called BLT and they said that they do not have an updated ETA on when they will be receiving a shipment. It almost makes me want to just go to the apple store and pick one up, it is just so hard to give up on 30% off... sigh.
aswitcher
Aug 6, 07:03 AM
If new monitors are introduced with built in isights, does this mean Apple will discontinue the standalone isight as all macs will now come with built in isights ? (presuming you buy Apples monitor)
Its certainly possible. I hope though that they upgrade the isight to higher res for pros and include an IR receiver in it. That way I can mount it anywhere around my big TV and dont need my mac visible to use it.
Another possiblity is that they will put out a smaller model designed to be used with an iPod as well turning the ipod into a camera/video camera.
Its certainly possible. I hope though that they upgrade the isight to higher res for pros and include an IR receiver in it. That way I can mount it anywhere around my big TV and dont need my mac visible to use it.
Another possiblity is that they will put out a smaller model designed to be used with an iPod as well turning the ipod into a camera/video camera.
Thunderhawks
Apr 20, 07:11 AM
This model promises to be one that many will pass on.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
It isn't even out yet, no confirmed specs and you are already done?
You know that when ever you ass u me something you make an ass out of U and me :-)
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
It isn't even out yet, no confirmed specs and you are already done?
You know that when ever you ass u me something you make an ass out of U and me :-)
Arcus
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
Jobs is right - big difference with your phone remembering locations, as opposed to Apple actively gathering it.
I totally agree. Just give users a way to kill the database and issue is over. What I would like to know is what was the original purpose?
I totally agree. Just give users a way to kill the database and issue is over. What I would like to know is what was the original purpose?
AppleAmerican
Mar 29, 04:49 PM
The cost for final assembly is minor.
For example, the cost to make an iPhone may be 200 dollars. It probably costs $1 for the final assembly (or by your calculation, $7 if the assembly is done in US). However, if you manufacture all the parts in US, it will cost $1400.
A major portion of these components were American made. In 2000, American EXPORTED more high tech components than it imported. Here is the .gov source (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html#2000). How did you come up with $1400, my figures are fact based. Assembly is certainly more than $1 per unit. Typically assembly is a large portion of manufacturing costs. We competed and still can today.
For example, the cost to make an iPhone may be 200 dollars. It probably costs $1 for the final assembly (or by your calculation, $7 if the assembly is done in US). However, if you manufacture all the parts in US, it will cost $1400.
A major portion of these components were American made. In 2000, American EXPORTED more high tech components than it imported. Here is the .gov source (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html#2000). How did you come up with $1400, my figures are fact based. Assembly is certainly more than $1 per unit. Typically assembly is a large portion of manufacturing costs. We competed and still can today.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 26, 04:04 PM
Are we going to be alerted every time one of these companies comes out with something new and surpasses the other? Is this really news anymore? Is it really a rumor about things we care about? I wonder.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 27, 12:19 AM
If true...sounds like iPhone 3GS and iPad 1 owners are going to be shown the door.
Based on history the 3GS will still be in for updates along with the iPad. Performance on the other hand...
Based on history the 3GS will still be in for updates along with the iPad. Performance on the other hand...
Thunderhawks
Apr 24, 09:13 PM
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
This is for a development in the future and the cost may not go up.
Apple usually outwaits developments until the cost fall into their range.
BTW: I do find it funny that you want to fault Apple for "gaming" a field that they clearly did not want to be in.
BTW2: The iMac for the masses is a clever space saving design. Their sales success shows it!
The Pro type tower boxes with separate monitor are just big clunky boxes.
They take up desk space or are usually hidden under the desk.
Also, in any good design Form follows Function. Apple follows that principle well and then some.
The secret of excellent design is actually what is not there:-)
VicMacs
Apr 25, 09:21 AM
Genius, I say.
paradox00
May 4, 03:16 PM
Here's my problem with this distribution method for an OS:
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
doctor-don
Apr 25, 10:44 AM
"In the meantime, government agencies in a number of countries have launched investigations into the situation, seeking explanations from Apple and details on how users can protect their privacy."
Don't lend your phone and don't LOSE it.
DUH!
Don't lend your phone and don't LOSE it.
DUH!
Small White Car
May 4, 03:04 PM
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times!
I can copy iPhone apps from one computer to another just fine. As long as they're logged into the same account they work.
Shouldn't this work the same way?
I mean, obviously we don't know, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
If you're using AT&T mobile internet as the primary connection for your Macs then you probably need to re-examine your life somewhat.
I can copy iPhone apps from one computer to another just fine. As long as they're logged into the same account they work.
Shouldn't this work the same way?
I mean, obviously we don't know, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
If you're using AT&T mobile internet as the primary connection for your Macs then you probably need to re-examine your life somewhat.
dagomike
Nov 4, 12:15 PM
It's remarkable how far TomTom's goodwill swung from enthusiasm in early summer to spite. I see a lot of hate on TomTom not on the merits of the kit itself.
It appears to be a quality mount, BT hands-free kit, built in speaker, and car charger. Add that up and it can get pricey, then top it off with the GPS assistance. If that value doesn't make sense to you, don't buy it. To complain they won't sell it to you for $19.95 is just petty.
It appears to be a quality mount, BT hands-free kit, built in speaker, and car charger. Add that up and it can get pricey, then top it off with the GPS assistance. If that value doesn't make sense to you, don't buy it. To complain they won't sell it to you for $19.95 is just petty.
mikeapple
Apr 25, 10:03 AM
Hilarious that the email sender said a DROID won't track him...hahahah so funny... as if a "GOOGLE" phone doesn't track their Android user's every move... This isn't really a iPhone matter, its a matter of all smartphones, with maybe a little exception for blackberry's. It's really nothing new... Google even has a stored database for random screen-caps it takes on all its Android users at any time.
Erwin-Br
Apr 23, 07:41 PM
Having extra resolution would probably look awesome on the GUI, but I'm afraid everything else is going to look like crap.
The graphics used on websites, for example, would become a pixel counting fest. Unless the entire web updates their graphics, of course. But that would mean slow loading times. Imagine all the smileys used on this forum would have a resolution of 512x512 pixels, or more. Yikes!
The graphics used on websites, for example, would become a pixel counting fest. Unless the entire web updates their graphics, of course. But that would mean slow loading times. Imagine all the smileys used on this forum would have a resolution of 512x512 pixels, or more. Yikes!
tgdbowler
Mar 28, 10:37 AM
If Apple waits till September, this would put the Verizon iPhone 6-7 months old and possibly release both NEW versions at the same time.
If Apple waits till Febraury, this would put the Verizon iPhone at 1 year old and release both NEW versions at the same time.
In Apple’s view, this is how the release schedule should be: releasing both versions at the same time so it's competition can't update their phones before the iPhone hits the Verizon network 6 months later.
Say what you want about hardware issues, etc... They are trying to sync up the release schedules for both iPhone versions.
If Apple waits till Febraury, this would put the Verizon iPhone at 1 year old and release both NEW versions at the same time.
In Apple’s view, this is how the release schedule should be: releasing both versions at the same time so it's competition can't update their phones before the iPhone hits the Verizon network 6 months later.
Say what you want about hardware issues, etc... They are trying to sync up the release schedules for both iPhone versions.
ChazUK
Apr 18, 03:39 PM
Apple scared of the competition and trying to sue them.
No. They're protecting their IP.
No. They're protecting their IP.
mdlooker
Apr 7, 12:13 PM
Though competition is a desired aspect in any market, from a buyers standpoint, there is still that demand variable.
I believe that even if Apple takes total market consumption, because it seems to be going that way, the price will dictate how sturdy the dominance will be. So long as they keep the prices affordable, they will have no problems.
Same applies with with their Macs. If they were to lower the prices, the profit margin would take a big hit but a slow market saturation would occur.
We need innovation and great experiences, but price moves that demand curve.
I believe that even if Apple takes total market consumption, because it seems to be going that way, the price will dictate how sturdy the dominance will be. So long as they keep the prices affordable, they will have no problems.
Same applies with with their Macs. If they were to lower the prices, the profit margin would take a big hit but a slow market saturation would occur.
We need innovation and great experiences, but price moves that demand curve.
NebulaClash
May 4, 03:44 PM
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
Absolutely. Send 'em right over and I'll know precisely what to do with 'em.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would object. This is merely another option for getting OS X. It adds to our choices. This is not right for you? Use the traditional method. Nobody loses.
:rolleyes:
Absolutely. Send 'em right over and I'll know precisely what to do with 'em.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would object. This is merely another option for getting OS X. It adds to our choices. This is not right for you? Use the traditional method. Nobody loses.
maclaptop
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
Who cares? I thought this was macrumors not android news...
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
jesteraver
Nov 24, 09:55 PM
Hopefully the iPhone will a handy cell phone...
Software::
- Mac OS X (mobile version)
- iTunes
- iPhoto
- Quicktime
- iChat
- Safari
- Skype (downloadable)
Hardware::
- 3 - 5 megapixel camera w/auto-focus (photo taking)
- VGA (front of phone for video conferencing ... similar too the ones found in iMac / Mac Book / Mac Book Pro)
- Touchscreen
- WiFi
- Bluetooth
- GSM / HSPDA (3.5 G)
- 8 Gb NAND Flash
- 3" Colour Display
Would be nice to be able to have a Mac Book / Mac Book Pro of sorts too fit in your pocket?! Or is that just me?
I would throw away my Nokia N80 and get that.
One thing hopefully it be similar to a Nokia N61. If so plus with the stuff I posted, it would destroy any multimedia phone on the market. Plus would be smaller than an OQO.
*Crosses-fingers*
Software::
- Mac OS X (mobile version)
- iTunes
- iPhoto
- Quicktime
- iChat
- Safari
- Skype (downloadable)
Hardware::
- 3 - 5 megapixel camera w/auto-focus (photo taking)
- VGA (front of phone for video conferencing ... similar too the ones found in iMac / Mac Book / Mac Book Pro)
- Touchscreen
- WiFi
- Bluetooth
- GSM / HSPDA (3.5 G)
- 8 Gb NAND Flash
- 3" Colour Display
Would be nice to be able to have a Mac Book / Mac Book Pro of sorts too fit in your pocket?! Or is that just me?
I would throw away my Nokia N80 and get that.
One thing hopefully it be similar to a Nokia N61. If so plus with the stuff I posted, it would destroy any multimedia phone on the market. Plus would be smaller than an OQO.
*Crosses-fingers*