iPhone 3G firmware has FM radio support, FOTA

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:apony-B5C0CC.18122520062008@n003-
000-000-000.static.ge.com:

> you obviously haven't learned the term "PodCast"... since it makes ALL
> FM Radio, poor sounding streaming... obsolete. Podcasts are the way all
> news and information will be distributed, there is no stopping it at
> this point.
>

So, tell us oh cheeky one, why is Iphone 2.0 coming out with an obsolete FM
radio?

It isn't even digital for our British friends.....

---

› See More: iPhone 3G firmware has FM radio support, FOTA

Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> > you obviously haven't learned the term "PodCast"... since it makes ALL
> > FM Radio, poor sounding streaming... obsolete. Podcasts are the way all
> > news and information will be distributed, there is no stopping it at
> > this point.
> >
>
> So, tell us oh cheeky one, why is Iphone 2.0 coming out with an obsolete FM
> radio?

there will be no fm radio, nor tv on any shipping apple product.

it wouldn't make any sense from a "quality" point of view.

if you lead a backwards, hillbilly life, you can add it later...

At 20 Jun 2008 18:15:26 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> Too bad the N800 never caught on...


Depends on your POV, I guess. It's the best selling example of a web
tablet yet produced, but the web tablet category never really took off.
Like standalone PDAs, I assume "pure" web tablets will give way to
integrated cellphone/web tablets.

In many ways, that's what the iPhone is at it's core- a combo
phone/iPod/web tablet.
Sure, the Nokia tablets also function as Linux computers, but essentially
web tablets were envisioned to be network computers- connecting to the
internet (or intranet), rather than store files or run programs locally.
And doesn't that exactly describe iPhone 1.0? No accessable file system,
no installable apps- everything is done "in the clouds" via Safari or a
webapp. You want to see the "original" iPhone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Com_Audrey
That's essentially the mother of all web-tablet "cloud" computing devices
to follow, like both the Nokia N-series tablets and your iPhone.


> Now, it's nothing more than a paperweight.

How so? It continues to receive upgrades from Nokia, there's an active
development community, and it's successor, the N810, continues to sell in
reasonably good numbers. If Nokia would only stick a phone in it, it'd be
the one device I'd switch from WinMo for, but I'm not willing to play the
separate phone/PDA game again- I did that for far too many years. (Oh, the
irony that the world's best-selling mobile phone manufacturer also builds
the world's only successful line of web tablets but doesn't stick a PHONE
in any of them! It'd be like Logitech selling a PC that didn't come with a
mouse!)

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:g3hvti$msn
[email protected]:

> If Nokia would only stick a phone in it, it

That would certainly be the end of it. There would be no developers,
no software, no bluetooth, features would all be crippled and it
would be another carrier-controlled web appliance......just like
iPhone, controlled by "them", not us. I wouldn't have bought one. I
don't want a WebTV appliance I'm not allowed to use the way I see
fit, and that's exactly what it would become........another iphone.

At 21 Jun 2008 13:49:13 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > If Nokia would only stick a phone in it, it
>
> That would certainly be the end of it. There would be no developers,
> no software, no bluetooth, features would all be crippled and it
> would be another carrier-controlled web appliance......just like
> iPhone, controlled by "them", not us.

I'm talking about an unlocked GSM device. Look up Nokia's "N95" Larry. Or
Communicator series, or S60 series. Nokia sells plenty of unlocked,
uncrippled carrier branded handsets. A radio is a radio. With WiFi and
bluetooth, a cellular (GSM) radio is all that's missing.


> I wouldn't have bought one.

Honestly, that's not my concern! ;-) As I said, it should be an option-
i.e. an N801 or 811 with cellular, 800 or 810 without.


> I
> don't want a WebTV appliance I'm not allowed to use the way I see
> fit, and that's exactly what it would become........another iphone.

No, it wouldn't- Nokia sells both carrier-branded and non-branded devices.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Todd Allcock posted:
> I'm talking about an unlocked GSM device. Look up Nokia's "N95" Larry. Or
> Communicator series, or S60 series. Nokia sells plenty of unlocked,
> uncrippled carrier branded handsets. A radio is a radio. With WiFi and
> bluetooth, a cellular (GSM) radio is all that's missing.

The problem with that is that you're then stuck with whatever radio was
built in to the device.

That's the problem with iPhone: no GSM means no service. The 3G iPhone
means that it can work in Japan (which is 3G only) but that doesn't help
in CDMA only areas. This is especially a problem for people who travel a
lot.

Now, our mindless little Oxford will say "Wi-Fi is everywhere, use that".
If that were actually true, then the the N800 is fully satisfactory for
every purpose. It provides a much better browsing experience than iPhone
(pixels do count) and with Firefox has a much more standard browser than
Safari. You can even make calls on it using Skype for much less than what
AT&T charges to use an iPhone.

Of course, ubiquitous free Wi-Fi is a pipe dream, so you actually do need
wide-area wireless.

Barring the advent of standardized detachable radio modules (no, not the
PCMCIA or USB bricks used for laptops) that can be interchanged with
multiple devices, a good compromise seems to be Bluetooth to an el cheapo
RAZR.

And yes, that's what I'd like to see; a detachable radio module, with a
form factor similar to a battery, that could be inserted into any phone or
other mobile device. No more need to have a collection of mobile phones
for different areas; instead, you have one phone and a collection of radio
modules as needed.

Nobody offers that now. But I rather strongly suspect that Nokia et al
will do so long before Apple does.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Oxford posted:
> there will be no fm radio, nor tv on any shipping apple product.

Apple's attempt to enter the TV market was quite embarassing, wasn't it.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

At 21 Jun 2008 08:28:59 -0700 Mark Crispin wrote:
> > A radio is a radio. With WiFi and
> > bluetooth, a cellular (GSM) radio is all that's missing.
>
> The problem with that is that you're then stuck with whatever radio was
> built in to the device.


True, but again, I'm really talking about a different model- Nokia's bread
and butter is the GSM phone, and that would cover 3/4's of the planet. For
anything else, the current model (with bluetooth connectivity) would suffice.



> That's the problem with iPhone: no GSM means no service. The 3G
> iPhone means that it can work in Japan (which is 3G only) but that
> doesn't help in CDMA only areas. This is especially a problem for
> people who travel a lot.

But if the iPhone's bluetooth wasn't crippled, you could hook it through
your rental/prepaid phone. When T-Mo's GPRS went down on me for a short
period on a recent trip to Rhode Island, I tethered my WinMo PDA phone via
IR to an ancient Verizon prepaid phone (over 14.4kbps QNC!) I carry as a
backup, to get my email. Simiarly, a GSM-based "N801" could rely on
GSM/GPRS/3G when/where available, and fall back on BT to a prepaid/rental
phone elsewhere.



> Barring the advent of standardized detachable radio modules (no,
> not the PCMCIA or USB bricks used for laptops) that can be interchanged
> with multiple devices, a good compromise seems to be Bluetooth to
> an el cheapo RAZR.

For data, yes, but having the device itself be the phone is more convenient-
one device to carry, one charger to pack traveling, etc.

> And yes, that's what I'd like to see; a detachable radio module, with
> a form factor similar to a battery, that could be inserted into any
> phone or other mobile device. No more need to have a collection of
mobile phones for different areas; instead,
> you have one phone and a collection of radio modules as needed.


That would be cool in the short term, but I suspect technology will
eventually make it unnecessary- I assume radio modules will eventually go
the way of the DSP chip (those programmable all purpose chips that do
sound, modem, fax, etc.) Someday we'll probably see a flashable radio chip
that can adapt to whatever frequencies are needed, and whatever protocol
(within reason.) The various firmware upgrades could be sold to end users
to cover the appropriate licensing fees for the protocol flashed.

> Nobody offers that now. But I rather strongly suspect that Nokia et al
> will do so long before Apple does.

Agreed.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> For data, yes, but having the device itself be the phone is more
> convenient-
> one device to carry, one charger to pack traveling, etc.
>
>

I disagree. If I'm working, I don't want to HAVE to carry around and
talk into a fragile tablet with fragile touchscreen. The slide or
folding tiny phone is much more convenient. Also, many times it is
crazy to have to carry a tablet, just to have a phone. All dressed
up for some occasion and carrying ANY tablet phone to the wedding
looks and is, stupid.

When I do carry the tablet, I leave my phone in my watch
pocket....after all, it's just a BT aircard. I'm very afraid one of
these days I'm going to forget it's there and put it in the
washer...not good.

I'm not sure what you said about an uncrippled phone/N800. As soon
as you plug the carrier's SIM into any device, doesn't it take
control of what the device is and is not allowed to do?

No thanks. I don't want "them" anywhere near my tablet's memory and
operating system. Everyone here on sellular knows why....

Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Apple's attempt to enter the TV market was quite embarassing,
wasn't it.
>
>

Apple already has a TV that works quite well on wifi and will work on
Sellphone data as soon as Apple and ATT join the 20th century...

http://corp.orb.com/

Of course, ATT forbids streaming and Apple won't like you running
your own cable to your iPhone without paying per view to use it....
(c

At 21 Jun 2008 23:54:30 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > For data, yes, but having the device itself be the phone is more
> > convenient-
> > one device to carry, one charger to pack traveling, etc.
>
>
> I disagree. If I'm working, I don't want to HAVE to carry around and
> talk into a fragile tablet with fragile touchscreen. The slide or
> folding tiny phone is much more convenient. Also, many times it is
> crazy to have to carry a tablet, just to have a phone. All dressed
> up for some occasion and carrying ANY tablet phone to the wedding
> looks and is, stupid.


Ahh, bu that's the beatuy of GSM. Those times I need to "slim down", my SIM
goes into a smaller, more styish phone. In phone-hostile environments (the
beach) it goes into my ancient but tiny Nokia 8290. The SIM card is the
"phone jack" of the cellular era- any handset pluged into it is MY phone on
MY account.


> When I do carry the tablet, I leave my phone in my watch
> pocket....after all, it's just a BT aircard. I'm very afraid one of
> these days I'm going to forget it's there and put it in the
> washer...not good.
>
> I'm not sure what you said about an uncrippled phone/N800. As soon
> as you plug the carrier's SIM into any device, doesn't it take
> control of what the device is and is not allowed to do?


Of course not- the cellular provider might block some types of data access,
but that's no different than when connecting to the same provider via a
bluetooth phone. The SIM is just a dumb 32k or 64k chip containing your
account ID number, some carrier lookup tables (i.e. "the name of system
'310-260' is 'T-Mobile' or 'your voicemail number is +18056377243', etc.)
and some user-accessible memory to store your phone book and received texts
(mostly a holdover from the ancient times when phones had little or no
memory of their own)- it doesn't "program" or control your phone in any way.

> No thanks. I don't want "them" anywhere near my tablet's memory and
> operating system. Everyone here on sellular knows why....

Again, the SIM is essentially the GSM version of an ESN- it tells the
system who you are- period. If the device is unbranded (no carrier-
specific software) and unlocked, the carrier doesn't "control" it. They CAN,
of course, control access to their network (block ports, etc.) but that's
no different from what a locked-down WiFi network can do.

This is a common misconception in the GSM world- that the SIM somehow has
magical phone-controlling properties. It's no more magical than the
NAM/ESN chip built into analog phones that identified the phone to the
carrier, and stored the home system ID so the phone knew when to light up
the roaming indicator.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:g3kick$d7c$1
@aioe.org:

> This is a common misconception in the GSM world- that the SIM somehow has
> magical phone-controlling properties. It's no more magical than the
> NAM/ESN chip built into analog phones that identified the phone to the
> carrier, and stored the home system ID so the phone knew when to light up
> the roaming indicator.
>

Sellular carriers must be complete fools to allow their customers to have
phones on their systems they don't have total control over. I find this
revelation simply amazing. It's like a cable company with modems they
cannot cap with IPs they cannot control.

I find it hard to believe sellphone carriers are so stupid as not to design
in total feature control like CDMA phones all have with their carrier
kluged up crapware-in-ROM.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Oxford posted:
> > there will be no fm radio, nor tv on any shipping apple product.
>
> Apple's attempt to enter the TV market was quite embarassing, wasn't it.

What are you talking about? Apple doesn't even have a TV product. They
have an excellent wireless streaming to large TV Screen device, but they
haven't had a TV product since the mid 90's.

Some good reading here:

Seldom, if ever, do I write a column recommending a single product. But
today? Well, today I'm breaking that rule.

I've often asked the question, "Where should we display our photos so
others can view them?" Publishing is getting more and more competitive,
but now with the Internet, there are so many new ways to share our
photos. Cool!

The question I've been asking recently is, "Yes, but where do I view my
photos?" My answers, though multiple, were ultimately a bit depressing.
I view them first on the back of my camera as soon as I take them--great.
I gaze at them on my computer in my office as I work them in
Photoshop--amazing. I, and the rest of the world, can see them on my .Mac
or PBase sites--off the charts. With my inkjet printer, I can make
fabulous prints--but my walls are full, and my wife says a larger house
isn't an option.

I'm lucky enough to own a digital projector, which I purchased a few
years ago for a rather hefty sum. (They're less expensive now, but still
not cheap.) I use the projector when I teach but, truth be told, I just
don't set it up in my living room for personal viewing anymore than I'd
set up my slide projector in the days of film.

I really didn't have a good way to view my images in a large size at
optimal quality in a place that wasn't a workroom. (I'm guessing that
folks reading this column have their heads bobbing up and down in
agreement.)

Then, a few months ago, I was at the house of my Photoshop guru/friend,
Jack Davis. There, in his living room, on his flat-screen TV, was a
glorious montage of his images, all in high definition. Hundreds of
images moving at different speeds on different planes, twirling in
space--unreal!

"What is this?" I demanded.

"It's Apple TV," said Jack. "It's essentially a hard drive that attaches
to your television and plays your images in HD."

Fast-forward a few weeks, and here I am sitting in my living room
viewing hundreds of my own images on my flat-screen TV. Indeed, Apple TV
has turned the black hole that was my TV into a 24-hour art piece. All
day long, when I'm not viewing shows on the TV itself, Apple TV takes
over and runs my images at 20-second intervals, softly dissolving from
one to another.

I can break the images into separate folders if I want to view a
specific place or subject, change all kinds of parameters on how I view
them, including a "Ken Burns" effect to zoom and move on the photos.

Often, when Lynette and I sit down to watch a little TV in the evening,
we don't even get to the actual TV show. We just get lost for an hour
viewing images we love (or perhaps ones we had forgotten we even took).

Bottom line: For $229, you can buy a 40 GB Apple TV ($329 for 160 GB).
Plug in one HD cable, and it will show you all of your images in HD on
your flat-screen TV in a large size (mine is a 37-inch flat-screen), day
or night, in the privacy of your living room! And it's not just for Mac
folks; Apple TV will sync with almost any computer.

In my opinion, there's not a photographer on the planet who shouldn't
invest in one of these (okay, a bit of hyperbole, but I'm excited).
Apple TV has become my "final frame," if you will. This is where most of
my images will end up for my personal delight and enjoyment.

Not only can you view your own images on Apple TV (you upload them
through iTunes), but, if you have WiFi, you can access both the .Mac and
Flickr sites and view galleries from friends and family.

Now here's the final kicker. Apple didn't design Apple TV for
photographers. No, Apple designed it as a way to access tons of video
content. Personally, I think the whole photo side of Apple TV was
probably an afterthought. But what this means for you is that, besides
showing all your photos, Apple TV allows you to download hundreds of
movies, songs, podcasts and TV shows, as well as everything on YouTube.

Okay, there's my pitch. You won't see an ad for Apple TV in Outdoor
Photographer or any other photo magazine (as I said, I think the photo
part of it was an afterthought), but you can check it out on the Apple
website, www.apple.com/appletv/

It's an incredible product, and it has given me a wonderful new way to
delight in my images. Check it out.

Visit Dewitt Jones' website at www.dewittjones.com.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/c...jones.shtml?sr
=hotnews

At 22 Jun 2008 04:14:28 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > This is a common misconception in the GSM world- that the SIM somehow
has
> > magical phone-controlling properties. It's no more magical than the
> > NAM/ESN chip built into analog phones that identified the phone to the
> > carrier, and stored the home system ID so the phone knew when to light
up
> > the roaming indicator.
> >
>
> Sellular carriers must be complete fools to allow their customers to have
> phones on their systems they don't have total control over. I find this
> revelation simply amazing. It's like a cable company with modems they
> cannot cap with IPs they cannot control.

Cellular carriers have control of the network- they don't need to control
devices.


> I find it hard to believe sellphone carriers are so stupid as not to
design
> in total feature control like CDMA phones all have with their carrier
> kluged up crapware-in-ROM.

Certainly crippled carrier-branded GSM handsets exist, but you don't have
to buy them- you're free to buy, and use, unbranded units.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:g3l39o$4pi$2
@aioe.org:

> Cellular carriers have control of the network- they don't need to control
> devices.
>

You're, obviously, not looking at it from THEIR side of the tower. They
always want full control of everything, making damned sure whatever is left
running on the phone DOESN'T USE BANDWIDTH and does SELL PRODUCTS and
advertising.

Why do you think there's still BREW and its ****ty DOS-like browser?!