Iphone

ktm97

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2005
51
0
0
Visit site
I think the battery is a big concern, not being able to change it out and then having to send it in for replacement would not work for me.
 

Snowman81

Active member
Feb 13, 2007
37
0
0
Visit site
I have to agree that not having a user replaceable battery is very disconcerting....and could be a deal breaker for many people. The lack of a true qwerty keyboard is also a disappointment.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
I can't believe that people still fail to grasp the engineering feat that Apple has accomplished here in regards to power management and engineering.

Let's consider the iPhone's size. The iPhone is literally half the size of a Treo (11mm thickness compared to 23mm thickness). Even smaller when compared to the older models.

Now, what would you imagine the overall space would be that the battery occupies in the new iPhone. Considering the entire size of the phone and the components involved:

8GB of RAM
A huge 320 by 480 multi-touch screen
Quad-band (MHz: 850, 900, 1800, 1900) radio
Wi-fi
Bluetooth
Camera
Antenna
Speakerphone
Headphone jack
iPod interconnect
SIM card
Main processor
DSP processor
Multitude of circuit boards

What kind of room can they possibly have left for a phone. Based on the size of the iPhone, a person would have to imagine that half of it would be dedicated solely to the battery to get 5 hours from it.

Yet, this is impossible. Look at the list of stuff they have shoved in there (in addition to the bits of electronics I know nothing of that are required for such a device).

My point is that the battery is quite small and to engineer the ability to allow the user to swap batteries in and out would impact the resulting size to a much greater degree than if for example Palm were to make this same change given the Treos existing size.

Do you get it? The iPhone's battery would lose a greater overall percentage of its mass to engineer an iPhone design that would allow for a swappable battery because the space to hold the battery is so small to begin with. The iPhone would end up with 2-3 hours of battery life.

I am glad Apple chose to engineer a built in (non-swapable) battery.

Besides; the whole idea of making these "smartphones" like a Treo or a Blackberry or the iPhone is to give the advantage of convergence. I will be able to just grab my iPhone and go - not worrying about also unplugging that extra battery pack and carrying that around with me too.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
surur,

Remember how you went off on your rant about how "wrong, wrong, wrong" I was in saying Apple was ahead of the curve in battery technologies and you claimed Compaq actually used a particular bettery technology before Apple.

Well, look at what a friend of mine sent me. A friend who apparently reads TreoCentral.

http://www.ipaqrepair.co.uk/guides/Battery White Paper.pdf

So in reading this document, you will discover that the Battery that came with the Compaq iPaqs (like the 3100 you mention) actually required a switch - located on the battery itself - that would turn the battery on and off. The battery would need this switch moved to the on position when installing and then moved to the off position when removed. It was also recommended that it be moved to the off position if not being used for a week or more.

The battery you mention also only held up to 80% of capacity (assuming the battery's separate on and off switch was used when required - which requires removing the battery from the case design) after a mere 300 charge cycles.

Then they project from this that the battery, if used 1 hour a day, would last 3 years. This is deplorable performance.

If this iPaq with the Polymer Lithium battery shuts down due to low battery power, the device still has to be rebooted. Additionally, if this iPaq with the Polymer Lithium battery shuts down due to low battery power, you have a mere 36 hours to charge before you loose everything. That is paltry.

So to address this battery's actual life I also must say: paltry and utterly incomparable to what Apple uses.

In referencing the charts in this document, you will find that with the audio disabled and the screen brightness turned down to medium and no wireless technologies being powered, it says the device will get 3:30-4:00 hours.


Now I ask you surur, how can you say this is the same kind (or anywhere even approaching being near the same kind) of battery as what Apple uses in their devices.




I'd also like to thank the other few people that wrote to me with your words of understanding.
 

Iceman6

Active member
Jun 5, 2003
34
0
0
Visit site
Archie, you are posting on a Treo website and you have the chutzpah to say that you are glad Apple chose to engineer a built in (non-swappable) battery. Let me be the first to tell you that you are alone in that opinion. The Treo 600 drove everyone NUTS with its non-swappable battery.
 

vinman

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2004
138
0
0
Visit site
Archie, you are posting on a Treo website and you have the chutzpah to say that you are glad Apple chose to engineer a built in (non-swappable) battery. Let me be the first to tell you that you are alone in that opinion. The Treo 600 drove everyone NUTS with its non-swappable battery.

No, actually he's not. His assertion that engineering a battery compartment in the iPhone that accomodates a removable battery would use enough space to either make the phone larger or require a substantially smaller battery is spot on. Common sense.

Look at the reality of the type devices we are talking about here - smart phones (please, just assume for the sake of argument the iPhone can be called a smart phone). How often do we replace our devices - really - as the "power user" sect of the overall population, how often? About every product cycle. Simple. It's unlikely that, even in a worst case scenario, the iPhone's battery will last less than a year with avereage charge/discharge cycles. You'll know within the 30 day trial period whether or not the device has adequate battery life for your particular needs. If it doesn't, take it back. If the battery is substandard to the point of a short product life, well, we'll all be getting new ones when they start dropping like flies. Probably "improved" ones. Sign me up...

I've had two Treo 600s, three Treo 650s (still have one of each), I'm on my second 8125 (need to replace it due to a few intolerable glitches) - I have NEVER ONCE had to replace my battery or carry a spare. I have a car charger for those rare occurances when the battery doesn't outlast me - and that's with BT on 90% of the time and WiFi on probably 30% of the time. The fact that the iPhone doesn't have a battery cover is an absolute NON-ISSUE for me and it will not be an issue for 95% of all consumers who are contemplating one. The iPod is a good measuring stick for this prediction.

As far as this being a Treo forum; THIS is actually the iPhone forum on a Treo related website. It says so clearly on the header. It's not called the BASH THE iPhone FORUM. That being said, it's also not called the SPECULATE WILDLY ABOUT THE iPhone AND TAKE ALL STATEMENTS AS FACT FORUM.

If the potential for battery issues and lack of a removable one is that disturbing to you, clearly this is not a device that YOU should consider. That doesn't make it a faulty design or anything less than what it is - a device that a large customer base will upgrade every year or so when the newer version is released. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that it'll well exceed all your worst case scenarios and actually be usable...
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
surur,
Now I ask you surur, how can you say this is the same kind (or anywhere even approaching being near the same kind) of battery as what Apple uses in their devices.

Yes Archie, we know NOTHING changes in 6 years. Saying its the same kind of battery, and saying its the same battery is far from the same thing.

Again, Archie, I am starting to worry about you. Debating you is like you coming to a gun fight with a knife..... :rolleyes: Even I may be moved to send you a PM of pity :cry:

Surur
 

MacUser

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2004
271
0
0
Visit site
battery

A removable battery would be nice but not at the expense of making the iPhone a brick. When you're in the car, use your iPod adapter--I do it with my iPod all the time.
 

Certs

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2005
239
0
0
www.myspace.com
, it's also not called the SPECULATE WILDLY ABOUT THE iPhone AND TAKE ALL STATEMENTS AS FACT FORUM.

- a device that a large customer base will upgrade every year or so when the newer version is released. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that it'll well exceed all your worst case scenarios and actually be usable...

Funny that you are "SPECULATING WILDLY ABOUT THE IPHONE" in the same post :)

Seriously, speculation is all there is, because no one has seen/heard/looked at an iPhone yet. It's all you do, it's all I do, it's all everyone does right now. If you're gonna criticize, be fair about it.

I will reitierate, you assuming that the iPhone battery will last all day is VERY optimistic of you. I have a hard time believing that I will be able to watch video's, listen to music, surf the web, read and send emails, and make phone calls ALL DAY in one charge cycle every day. Of course there are days that I hardly use my phone, but there are also plenty of days where I use it a lot.

BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT, to make a long story short...
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
I can't believe that people still fail to grasp the engineering feat that Apple has accomplished here in regards to power management and engineering.
Yes Archie, we all fail to be amazed at the "engineering feat that Apple has accomplished" :rolleyes: They really bucked the trend of making cell phones thinner and lighter then things that came out a year ago (adding 0.1 mm to the thickness of the Moto Q while using old radio technology is light years ahead of the competition).

The hardware of the iPhone? It's the least Apple could have done to enter the high-end cell phone market and expect to be competitive. And I can all but guarantee that their hardware will be out-innovated within maybe 3-6 months, probably less.

And that would have happened regardless if Apple released the iPhone since (gasp) the trend has been to make smartphones thinner and lighter than last year while adding more technology.

The battery thing was a choice they made and it'll be interesting to see how people react to it. But it is not a remarkable feat of engineering. It was simply a choice. I pointed out in another thread how the Helio Ocean (while much thicker due to the dual slider) gets 5.1 hours of talk time and 15 hours of music playback, will be out before the iPhone and has much more technology in it.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
You fail to grasp the extent to which Apple has gone in designing (AND innovating) the iPhone. I have a few more for you.

• Zirconia body to allow for superior radio reception with the antenna enclosed — also giving it a durable shell.

No one has thought to do this and the fact that Apple has and you choose to ignore it reveals much.


• Visual expansion technologies. The OS can expand an area of the touch screen display proximate the location of the touch. This includes any portion of the graphical information like windows, fields, text, dialog boxes, menus, icons, buttons, cursors, UI controls, etc.

So say for example, when your finger is placed over a particular window, field, dialog box, menu, icon, button, tool bar, user interface element, scroll bar, scroll wheel, slider bar, dial, control box, or footnote (all of which have been listed in Apple patents), all of the element or only part of it, as appropriate, is expanded so that they can be easily used by your finger. I have spoken before of this ability in editing text for example; holding your finger over the portion of text you wish to edit to get a blow up/expansion bubble to precisely place the cursor to backspace or insert text or whatever.

I have seen all of these aspects in action and can tell you that there is no speculation in their inclusion of the iPhone.

I mention these additions not because I feel it necessary to prop the iPhone but more so to see how you will discount them as you have with other things that I mention like Apple's use of proximity detection, WHICH, no one else has thought to do.

I am really quite amused by your failure to acknowledge Apple's accomplishments with your sarcastic tones.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Archie, as always jumping to conclusions. Just because Apple has a patent for the radiotransparent material does not mean they used it. Your awe and faith in Apple is really endearing. Do you pray to them regularly?

Radio reception is solved problem. How about Apple work on upping the specs of the device, e.g. a flash, auto-focus camera, GPS, 3G, you know, the things that matter to people who spend $600 on a phone. I notice this device, which is smaller and only 4mm thicker, has all this and a higher resolution screen, removable storage and removable battery to boot.

sc001.jpg

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/handhelds/0,39001703,40261740p,00.htm?

Surur
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
Yes Archie, we all fail to be amazed at the "engineering feat that Apple has accomplished" :rolleyes:
You would think the "miracle workers" in Apples' engineering department could figure out a way to include a removable battery without "losing a greater overall percentage of its mass," wouldn't you? Even the mediocre engineers at Motorola figured that part out. ;) Moore's Law would lead most people to believe Apple's design is at best evolutionary (given the 2 years newer status it has over the Moto Q design or the 6 year advantage over the seemingly unchanging Treo design) - if not a step backwards. Where's the GPS? Where's the removable storage? Were they even trying to be anything more than "pretty?"
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Well... if you have ever looked at the device you will be able to note that it IS Zirconia!!

appleiphonebacknewcx2.jpg

Wow!!! Its ... white!!!111One!111 How could I have missed that!!! Zirconia!!!

Archie, dont you think Steve would have touted this wonderful innovation as he did with all the other insignificant touches?

Surur
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
You fail to grasp the extent to which Apple has gone in designing (AND innovating) the iPhone. I have a few more for you.

• Zirconia body to allow for superior radio reception with the antenna enclosed — also giving it a durable shell.

No one has thought to do this and the fact that Apple has and you choose to ignore it reveals much.


• Visual expansion technologies. The OS can expand an area of the touch screen display proximate the location of the touch. This includes any portion of the graphical information like windows, fields, text, dialog boxes, menus, icons, buttons, cursors, UI controls, etc.

So say for example, when your finger is placed over a particular window, field, dialog box, menu, icon, button, tool bar, user interface element, scroll bar, scroll wheel, slider bar, dial, control box, or footnote (all of which have been listed in Apple patents), all of the element or only part of it, as appropriate, is expanded so that they can be easily used by your finger. I have spoken before of this ability in editing text for example; holding your finger over the portion of text you wish to edit to get a blow up/expansion bubble to precisely place the cursor to backspace or insert text or whatever.

I have seen all of these aspects in action and can tell you that there is no speculation in their inclusion of the iPhone.

I mention these additions not because I feel it necessary to prop the iPhone but more so to see how you will discount them as you have with other things that I mention like Apple's use of proximity detection, WHICH, no one else has thought to do.

I am really quite amused by your failure to acknowledge Apple's accomplishments with your sarcastic tones.
See, besides the Zirconia body thing you mentioned (which while nice, companies attempting to improve reception is also not a new advancement, they just have yet-another-method) you're just jumping back into the UI features while I was discussing hardware and Apple's supposed amazing engineering which you proclaimed.

As has been said by me and others, Apple's UI will probably be very good. No argument there (though I still fail to see the need for a full-desktop OS in a cell phone that takes a 1/2 gb of space). But as far as hardware it's very basic. Yes, they added some sensors but if they were going to do a full touchscreen phone, it was a good thing they improved up the old model.

I think Kupe above raises some good points about the hardware: if it were truly an "amazing feat of engineering" adding GPS, removable battery, 3g (or at least upgradeable) while keeping it as thin as it's current competition would have been a remarkable feat.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
Archie, dont you think Steve would have touted this wonderful innovation as he did with all the other insignificant touches?
No.

You clearly do not see why Apple is making this phone.

You just don't get it and there is nothing I can say that will make you understand or admit it.
 

vinman

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2004
138
0
0
Visit site
Funny that you are "SPECULATING WILDLY ABOUT THE IPHONE" in the same post :)

Seriously, speculation is all there is, because no one has seen/heard/looked at an iPhone yet. It's all you do, it's all I do, it's all everyone does right now. If you're gonna criticize, be fair about it.

I will reitierate, you assuming that the iPhone battery will last all day is VERY optimistic of you. I have a hard time believing that I will be able to watch video's, listen to music, surf the web, read and send emails, and make phone calls ALL DAY in one charge cycle every day. Of course there are days that I hardly use my phone, but there are also plenty of days where I use it a lot.

BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT, to make a long story short...

Actually, I made a prediction, not a speculation :D
And, I certainly don't claim it to be fact, nor will I defend it as anything other than prognostication.

As far as it lasting as long as YOU need it to; well, that may be very different from lasting as long as I need it to. If there are times when it can't last as long as I need, I'll plug it in. I'll know in the first month whether that is a trend or an occasional issue. Certainly, if it's a trend, it'll go back to Cingular.

By the way, I agree that this device is lacking features that seem obvious - 3G is at the TOP of that list. Then again, with Cingular slowing their 3G rollout to an absolute CRAWL, it won't be an issue for me until at least the end of this year. By then, maybe an "upgraded" release with 3G, more memory, and the ability to communicate with the Space Shuttle will be announced...

:cheers:
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
You clearly do not see why Apple is making this phone.

To cure cancer... no, doesn't sound right. To end world hunger.... no.. not good either. World peace, mmm world peace... Apple....... ...

Now I know!!! It was to make money!!! yes, thats the reason. It was eluding me all along. What was I thinking? Isn't that where you sell as many units as possible with the biggest profit margin possible, and laugh all the way to the bank? Yes, that sounds just like the Apple modus operandi, doesn't it?

Surur
 

daThomas

Active member
Feb 4, 2004
26
0
0
AskTheCouch.com
No.

You clearly do not see why Apple is making this phone.

You just don't get it and there is nothing I can say that will make you understand or admit it.

I know why! Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!
.
.
.
It's because for the past three years, all those people on my bus commute with the white buds in their ears have watched me not only listen to my music on my phone but watch video as well. They're tired of being behind the curve. :D