Unregistered wrote:Sheesh, I didn't realize we are still living in 2004. I can't believe we're still bringing up the myth that Wifi-based features on the phone screws operators over. It's like saying ppl using the PC screw mobile operators over. If the carrier isn't ready to handle video traffic, then limiting the video call feature to Wifi only and still make ppl lock in on the carrier is GOOD for them, not bad!!-Gene
True. But the ideal would be to allow the actual phone user, or the network, decide what can and can't be done with the phone. If an iPhone user is prepared to pay to make video calls and his/her network is happy to charge for the privilege, it's downright stupid of the OS to prevent this.
Actually I think video calling is one area where I think Nokia will compete/win for one reason...
On the Nokia N900 with the PR1.2 firmware you can now video talk over Skype and gtalk. Natively. Just by making a skype or gtalk call. No fuss.
So my friends do not have to have a FaceTime application or an iphone to video chat.
This alone will kill FaceTime as Skype is sure to release a similar app for the iphone, symbian or android.
Lark
No doubt Apple will ban Skype from selling/giving away their app through the App Store, if they haven't already....
buster wrote:Not true. Each Symbian app can be designed to do what the programmers chooses when sent to the background. If it is convenient for the app to continue doing what it was doing when in the foreground, then that's just what it does, without being prevented from doing so by the OS. I agree that the iOS4 approach is an improvement on no multi-tasking at all, but it still fails to do something that Symbian has been doing for, well, forever really.I'm sure that there will be numerous use cases where the iOS4 approach is still too limited; this is not being a zealot, it's being realistic....
Have you read the fact sheet on iOS4 and how it will handle multi-tasking? By your answers it does not appear you know exactly what you are talking about in this regard.
buster wrote:No doubt Apple will ban Skype from selling/giving away their app through the App Store, if they haven't already....
Fact. Prove this and stop talking out your ass........
Now you are just making crap up to increase you post count. You haven't posted one shred of evidence on anything you stated.
buster wrote:True. But the ideal would be to allow the actual phone user, or the network, decide what can and can't be done with the phone. If an iPhone user is prepared to pay to make video calls and his/her network is happy to charge for the privilege, it's downright stupid of the OS to prevent this.
First, I believe the original argument was not hypothesis for Wifi benefits for the phone user, but for the lack of feature on 3g network as a detriment for the carrier. Second, how do we know the Wifi only limitation was not agreed upon by the carriers and Apple? I thought apple said themselves that they're trying to work this out btw carriers, and I don't hear a single carrier complaining about it's lack of 3G support. So, no I don't support carriers, but this argument is more about phone user benefits, disguised as carrier detriment. This sort of argument is like saying Apple "wanted" carrier exclusive availability, when it's so obvious that it's AT&T that imposed this restriction. God, bash apple for their actual faults, like crappy dev policies, not for these idiotic theories.
-Gene
Unregistered wrote:First, I believe the original argument was not hypothesis for Wifi benefits for the phone user, but for the lack of feature on 3g network as a detriment for the carrier. Second, how do we know the Wifi only limitation was not agreed upon by the carriers and Apple? I thought apple said themselves that they're trying to work this out btw carriers, and I don't hear a single carrier complaining about it's lack of 3G support. So, no I don't support carriers, but this argument is more about phone user benefits, disguised as carrier detriment. This sort of argument is like saying Apple "wanted" carrier exclusive availability, when it's so obvious that it's AT&T that imposed this restriction. God, bash apple for their actual faults, like crappy dev policies, not for these idiotic theories.-Gene
BTW, I also truly hate Apple's reality distortion field marketing, but this clearly not one of those times!
-Gene
Unregistered wrote:Fact. Prove this and stop talking out your ass........Now you are just making crap up to increase you post count. You haven't posted one shred of evidence on anything you stated.
I wasn't aware that I had to post "evidence" to satisfy one self-important prick; I was simply commenting on Apple's well-known and much reviled App vetting policy, no more, no less.
Unregistered wrote:First, I believe the original argument was not hypothesis for Wifi benefits for the phone user, but for the lack of feature on 3g network as a detriment for the carrier. Second, how do we know the Wifi only limitation was not agreed upon by the carriers and Apple? I thought apple said themselves that they're trying to work this out btw carriers, and I don't hear a single carrier complaining about it's lack of 3G support. So, no I don't support carriers, but this argument is more about phone user benefits, disguised as carrier detriment. This sort of argument is like saying Apple "wanted" carrier exclusive availability, when it's so obvious that it's AT&T that imposed this restriction. God, bash apple for their actual faults, like crappy dev policies, not for these idiotic theories.-Gene
I've no idea how the limitation came about, and don't particularly care. In my opinion, it IS a limitation, and a strange one at that, no matter who appears to benefit (or be adversely affected, depending on your point of view).
buster wrote:I've no idea how the limitation came about, and don't particularly care. In my opinion, it IS a limitation, and a strange one at that, no matter who appears to benefit (or be adversely affected, depending on your point of view).
I never thought I'm self-important, but have you ever heard of the term "You're barking up the wrong tree?" :P Of course, if you prefer to do that, go right ahead :P
Unregistered wrote:Have you read the fact sheet on iOS4 and how it will handle multi-tasking? By your answers it does not appear you know exactly what you are talking about in this regard.
Have you read it? Do you know EXACTLY how it works?
I know what I have heard, and it is obvious (well, to most people anyway) that iOS4 does not multi-task in the same way that Symbian does. Many will feel that this is not a problem, but from what I have heard, there are inevitable limitations with Apple's implementation, which may or may not be a problem for users and/or developers. While it's clearly an improvement, time will tell if what Apple has implemented is sufficient to satisfy the doubters....
buster wrote:I wasn't aware that I had to post "evidence" to satisfy one self-important prick; I was simply commenting on Apple's well-known and much reviled App vetting policy, no more, no less.
Btw, name calling doesn't prove your point, but certainly makes you also look like the prick you're calling other ppl.
Unregistered wrote:I never thought I'm self-important, but have you ever heard of the term "You're barking up the wrong tree?" :P Of course, if you prefer to do that, go right ahead :P
What on earth are you on about?
Unregistered wrote:Btw, name calling doesn't prove your point, but certainly makes you also look like the prick you're calling other ppl.
I suggest you read the post that I replied to before making any judgement, unless you consider "talking out of your ass" suitably polite...?
buster wrote:I suggest you read the post that I replied to before making any judgement, unless you consider "talking out of your ass" suitably polite...?
Well it fits if you are an ass-face....
However, I digress. Time will tell how the FaceTime app works and if its open standards gain traction. Besides your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across.
Unregistered wrote:Well it fits if you are an ass-face....However, I digress. Time will tell how the FaceTime app works and if its open standards gain traction. Besides your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across.
Place nicely children.
Anyway, iPhone OS4 multi-tasking is way behind Symbian:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/16307/iphone_4_multitasking_will_be_disappointing
UnInterested wrote:Place nicely children.Anyway, iPhone OS4 multi-tasking is way behind Symbian:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/16307/iphone_4_multitasking_will_be_disappointing
Good point. At the end of the day. Apple will sell even a bazillion more iPhones with limited multi-tasking and ZERO FLASH while Nokia tries to get their software right.
Unregistered wrote:Good point. At the end of the day. Apple will sell even a bazillion more iPhones with limited multi-tasking and ZERO FLASH while Nokia tries to get their software right.
Way more Symbian phones are sold than any other, in fact the figures have Nokia/Symbian in the lead selling more phones than the vendors in 2nd, 3rd and 4th combined.
Unregistered wrote:Good point. At the end of the day. Apple will sell even a bazillion more iPhones with limited multi-tasking and ZERO FLASH while Nokia tries to get their software right.
Did you read the article? It's basically saying that iPhone OS4 multi-tasking is not very good because the Iphone struggles with battery life.
And Apple could do with getting some of their software right, as an iPhone owner, there are a lot of things about it that just piss me off.
Unregistered wrote:Well it fits if you are an ass-face....However, I digress. Time will tell how the FaceTime app works and if its open standards gain traction. Besides your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across.
How very mature. And what the hell does "They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across" actually mean?
Unregistered wrote:Well it fits if you are an ass-face....However, I digress. Time will tell how the FaceTime app works and if its open standards gain traction. Besides your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across.
How very mature. And anyway, I NEVER said my opinion was more important than anyone else's; if I did, please show me where!!
And what the hell does "They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across" actually mean? I presume it's some kind of insult, but I'm not really sure...
Unregistered wrote:Did you read the article? It's basically saying that iPhone OS4 multi-tasking is not very good because the Iphone struggles with battery life. And Apple could do with getting some of their software right, as an iPhone owner, there are a lot of things about it that just piss me off.
I think what he/she was trying to say that it does not matter and I agree. Without multitasking Apple sold a ton of phones. Without Flash Apple sold a ton of phones. Now with quasi-mulittasking (happy Nokia fans) Apple will still sell a ton of phones and still make quite a bit of money.
On the other hand if Nokia didn't have their bottom basement phones that appeal to the developing countries and had to compete against Android and Apple with the likes of the N97 and some of the other semi flops, Nokia would be in deep kempchi.
As for the iPhone. It does have a few problems but on par it offers a better user experience out of the box than Nokia.
Unregistered wrote:I think what he/she was trying to say that it does not matter and I agree. Without multitasking Apple sold a ton of phones. Without Flash Apple sold a ton of phones. Now with quasi-mulittasking (happy Nokia fans) Apple will still sell a ton of phones and still make quite a bit of money. On the other hand if Nokia didn't have their bottom basement phones that appeal to the developing countries and had to compete against Android and Apple with the likes of the N97 and some of the other semi flops, Nokia would be in deep kempchi.
As for the iPhone. It does have a few problems but on par it offers a better user experience out of the box than Nokia.
And Nokia/Symbian sold a ton of phones more despite their inferior user experience out of the box and their buggy early version firmware. And RIM sold more Blackberries than Apple sold iPhones despite the BB browser javascript problem.
And it doesn't matter where the phones were sold and how much they cost, fact is they are still selling them and still making quite a lot of money. No deep kempchi ahoy for Nokia.
buster wrote:How very mature. And anyway, I NEVER said my opinion was more important than anyone else's; if I did, please show me where!!And what the hell does "They just a more non-prick stain way of getting theirs across" actually mean? I presume it's some kind of insult, but I'm not really sure...
Buster, your best move would be to step away from this one. The bloke is obviously a class A twat and he is dragging you down to his level.
Unregistered wrote:As for the iPhone. It does have a few problems but on par it offers a better user experience out of the box than Nokia.
I need to go and put my bastard iPhone back on charge again now, because it's crap reception means that it has been struggling to hold a signal for the last 4 or 5 hours and shafted its battery charge.
I could always follow the Apple advice and switch off 3G, location, bluetooth etc. Even now the f*****g thing is showing no signal, whilst other phones on the same network are showing 3 or 4 bars of 3G.
What a magical user experience this is!
But it's OK. It's an Apple.
F*****g shit.
Unregistered wrote:I think what he/she was trying to say that it does not matter and I agree. Without multitasking Apple sold a ton of phones. Without Flash Apple sold a ton of phones. Now with quasi-mulittasking (happy Nokia fans) Apple will still sell a ton of phones and still make quite a bit of money. On the other hand if Nokia didn't have their bottom basement phones that appeal to the developing countries and had to compete against Android and Apple with the likes of the N97 and some of the other semi flops, Nokia would be in deep kempchi.
As for the iPhone. It does have a few problems but on par it offers a better user experience out of the box than Nokia.
By all accounts. iPhone sales have stagnated while Android and Symbian sales have increased. Of course, this may change with the launch of the iPhone 4. And I do agree that Nokia need to seriously buck their ideas up with the N8, after the N97 debacle; my personal feeling is that Nokia have too many models with too many different firmware versions to keep track of, with the inevitable problems of stability and reliability. Sure, the devices are nice to use after the 3rd or 4th firmware iteration, but that's just woeful, and is often too little, too late.
Unregistered wrote:And Nokia/Symbian sold a ton of phones more despite their inferior user experience out of the box and their buggy early version firmware. And RIM sold more Blackberries than Apple sold iPhones despite the BB browser javascript problem. And it doesn't matter where the phones were sold and how much they cost, fact is they are still selling them and still making quite a lot of money. No deep kempchi ahoy for Nokia.
Good point right up until the point you missed the bottom basement phones. Take out the developing world phones and leave only the smartphones and Nokia is serious trouble. Hell, the fact that you sell crap as well as smart phone crap still means that you sell crap regardless. Nokia would not be able to compete against Android, Apple, RIM or HTC if Nokia had to rely on phones like the N97.
buster wrote:By all accounts. iPhone sales have stagnated while Android and Symbian sales have increased. Of course, this may change with the launch of the iPhone 4. And I do agree that Nokia need to seriously buck their ideas up with the N8, after the N97 debacle; my personal feeling is that Nokia have too many models with too many different firmware versions to keep track of, with the inevitable problems of stability and reliability. Sure, the devices are nice to use after the 3rd or 4th firmware iteration, but that's just woeful, and is often too little, too late.
True. Only a serious iPhone have to have customer would have bought an iPhone within the last few months. They are practically giving them away in some places. I am sure we will see a surge once they start selling. Regardless, Apple is going to be around a very long time as will Nokia and this debate will continue as well.
Unregistered wrote:I need to go and put my bastard iPhone back on charge again now, because it's crap reception means that it has been struggling to hold a signal for the last 4 or 5 hours and shafted its battery charge. I could always follow the Apple advice and switch off 3G, location, bluetooth etc. Even now the f*****g thing is showing no signal, whilst other phones on the same network are showing 3 or 4 bars of 3G.
What a magical user experience this is!
But it's OK. It's an Apple.
F*****g shit.
Maybe your phone is defective. That's a thought. If you are having so much trouble and still have the iPhone then you have no one to blame but yourself. Get rid of it and get a life after iPhone.