PDA

View Full Version : iPhone 3rd gen to have OLED screens



mwot
20th May 2009, 04:43 PM
Specs up on Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/19/next-iphone-to-launch-july-17-with-oled-display-and-glowing-appl/):

* 32GB and 16GB storage (up from the current 16GB and 8GB models)
* $199 and $299 price points to be maintained
* 3.2-megapixel camera (up from the current 2-megapixel camera)
* Video-recording and editing capabilities
* Ability to send a picture & video via MMS
* Discontinuation of the metal band surrounding the edge of the device
* OLED screen
* 1.5 times the battery life of the current models
* Double the RAM and processing power
* Built-in FM transmitter
* Apple logo on back will glow
* Rubber-tread backing
* Sleeker design
* Built-in compass
* The camera, GPS, compass and Google map combined will identify photo and inform about photo locations
* Turn-by-turn directions

i'd line up for that!:cool:

NeoRicen
20th May 2009, 04:47 PM
Would be so believable if they didn't stick that FM transmitter thing in there. There's no reason for it.

leon
20th May 2009, 04:54 PM
Would be so believable if they didn't stick that FM transmitter thing in there. There's no reason for it.

FM transmitter for Nike+?

If it were for radio they would have called it a receiver.

samuelowens
20th May 2009, 04:55 PM
Maybe the FM 'transmitter' is actually an FM 'receiver'. Most iPods can have FM radio functionality if the iPod radio remote is added. Perhaps there may be support for it in the third gen iPhone...

decryption
20th May 2009, 05:00 PM
Hurry up and bring it out already - me no like the waiting.

mitty
20th May 2009, 05:04 PM
Unless the Glowing Apple Logo get's it's light from the back of the screen, this particular "feature" seems like a total waste of space and battery. Having said that nothing would surprise me. Also, rubber tread backing?

cjuiz
20th May 2009, 05:09 PM
Optus better let us upgrade...

tcn33
20th May 2009, 05:17 PM
Optus better let us upgrade...

Or what?

Anyone who took out a two-year contract with any provider last year has just about paid half of their agreed handset repayments (and Optus is widely reported to have actually lost money on the handsets at the original repayment levels) so there will probably be a significant charge for anyone who wants to upgrade. You're effectively cancelling your contract and taking up another, so it's probably fair to guess that the upgrade cost will be similar to cancelling. From memory, early upgrades (i.e at no charge) are usually only approved when you're within 2-3 months of the contract ending.

NeoRicen
20th May 2009, 05:19 PM
The problem is where these rumours came from, if they were just from looking at the raw hardware an FM transmitter could make sense if it were just a feature of the hardware that had some other use or is just part of the chipset that Apple won't use, but there's no way Apple would be enabling FM radio on the iPhone or the ability to transmit to a car radio or something. It's just not their style.

So if this FM transmitter isn't based on a software feature, but a look at the raw hardware, it would be more believable.

Either way, Apple isn't putting a radio in the iPhone or adding the ability to transmit iPod content to a radio.

Optus better let us upgrade...
Why? You signed a contract to get a phone and you got the phone, what more do you want. They don't offer an upgrade every time there's a new Nokia or Sony Ericsson.

The only reason 1st Gen iphone customers overseas got an upgrade is because the phone wasn't subsidised.

melbmac
20th May 2009, 05:32 PM
WOO Glowing logo!

You can all act like you think it's a wank, but we all know everyone here loves it!

melbmac
20th May 2009, 05:32 PM
Optus better let us upgrade...

They will, but it will most likley be at significant cost.

will
20th May 2009, 05:37 PM
glowing like me beating apple inspried heart!

NeoRicen
20th May 2009, 05:39 PM
That's another thing, there's no way the logo can glow. The only reason they can on the MacBooks is because there's nothing between the logo and the screen's backlight. That's not the case on the iPhone. They'd have to add another light, and that's just a massive waste of battery for no reason.

Lutze
20th May 2009, 06:03 PM
It might just be me, but I have to say that your total negativity towards a particular feature (for example the FM Transmitter) really gets on my goat.

You don't know. You are guessing. Just as "they" are guessing that it will be there.

It's one of the things that really fuck me off about speculation.

Example:
Person 1.: If feature x is not included I'll take my business elsewhere, so it better be there!

Person 2.: Why would they include that feature? It's such a stupid thing for them to do, they have never done it before....

This does not make either one a fact. I'd really like it if people stopped posting like it was.

semaja2
20th May 2009, 06:13 PM
Ill give you the problem with the built in FM.... the phone signals will screw up the FM signals and give feedback on the radio wont they?

PS. Id like this feature still, as for the back logo it could be done through a thin piece of plastic to redirect light through a tiny hole or around the boards (fibre optics anyone?)

arkenstone
20th May 2009, 06:20 PM
Or what?

Anyone who took out a two-year contract with any provider last year has just about paid half of their agreed handset repayments (and Optus is widely reported to have actually lost money on the handsets at the original repayment levels) so there will probably be a significant charge for anyone who wants to upgrade. You're effectively cancelling your contract and taking up another, so it's probably fair to guess that the upgrade cost will be similar to cancelling. From memory, early upgrades (i.e at no charge) are usually only approved when you're within 2-3 months of the contract ending.

When I was with 3 I was on a 24 month contract and just upgraded the handset and extended the contract every 12 months (for 12 months).

I'm hoping OPtus do something similar but they're such fucking pricks about everything else who knows how they'll behave.

If they're nice about it I'll stick around and see what the ONE MILLION DOLLARS err. ONE POINT ONE BILLION DOLLARS they're pumping into their network does but otherwise I'll be going out of my way to (publicly) break contract and go elsewhere.

Fuck Optus.

wolfie
20th May 2009, 06:30 PM
I'm glad I went 12 months with optus because their network have shitted me to tears, and I hope the new iPhone is a winner.
Going telstra next.

foxy
20th May 2009, 07:22 PM
I agree with NeoRicen, theres no reason for an FM transmitter or such, it goes against Apples philosophy of allowing its iPhone and iPod users accessing free content that they dont control. They wouldnt put in a FM transmitter because they want you to download it as a podcast on the go, then you can say, wow I love you Apple, YOU have such great content!

Chief911
20th May 2009, 08:40 PM
I agree with NeoRicen, theres no reason for an FM transmitter or such, it goes against Apples philosophy of allowing its iPhone and iPod users accessing free content that they dont control. They wouldnt put in a FM transmitter because they want you to download it as a podcast on the go, then you can say, wow I love you Apple, YOU have such great content!

im sure there is some reasion if it did go in that no one on the forums has thought of.

cjuiz
20th May 2009, 08:42 PM
I agree with NeoRicen, theres no reason for an FM transmitter or such, it goes against Apples philosophy of allowing its iPhone and iPod users accessing free content that they dont control. They wouldnt put in a FM transmitter because they want you to download it as a podcast on the go, then you can say, wow I love you Apple, YOU have such great content!

It's an FM "transmitter", not "receiver".

Keving
20th May 2009, 08:46 PM
I'm looking forward to the FM transmitter, can finally play wirelessly in car without the need for third-party junk!

kevinnugent
20th May 2009, 09:23 PM
I'm looking forward to the FM transmitter, can finally play wirelessly in car without the need for third-party junk!

Ah, so you think the FM transmitter does what those Belkin/Griffin things do, huh? Cool, if so.

Gio
20th May 2009, 09:30 PM
Yes- transmitter makes sense. Save all the crappy adaptors to play through the car stez and out in the bush on the turps- in the pocket, pull out and BOOM- instant DJ sausage fingers.

***And on a side note... is it just me or whenever a rumor comes up Neoricen is there to knock it down?
Before I even read the OP I am expecting Neoricen there to negate whatever the OP suggests.. Is it just me?
Does Neoricen need some lovin?

MotherGoose
20th May 2009, 09:51 PM
Does Neoricen need some lovin?

No, I am sure He gets his share,He's just not a naive as the rest of you.

macaholic
20th May 2009, 10:11 PM
Hurry up and bring it out already - me no like the waiting.

I agree.

And what to call it?
The "3G iPhone 3G", maybe?

foxy
21st May 2009, 10:25 AM
It's an FM "transmitter", not "receiver".

I did say "FM transmitter or such", Im sorry I should have made it clearer I meant transmitter OR receiver.

Antonino Giglio
21st May 2009, 11:18 AM
That's another thing, there's no way the logo can glow. The only reason they can on the MacBooks is because there's nothing between the logo and the screen's backlight. That's not the case on the iPhone. They'd have to add another light, and that's just a massive waste of battery for no reason.

I do not agree with you mate...
One or two LED and you have the glow with no consumption at all.

Exocet
21st May 2009, 11:27 AM
I agree.

And what to call it?
The "3G iPhone 3G", maybe?

The new iPhone 3G...just like the new iPod Nano/Touch/Classic.

Geoff3DMN
21st May 2009, 11:33 AM
One or two LED and you have the glow with no consumption at all.

That's simply impossible.

LED's use electricity and consume power in order to create light, sure they use less than most other light emmitting devices but they still use it.

The only way not to consume battery power would be if they used Phosphorescent technology (somthing like Brightec Vinyl maybe).

Chief911
21st May 2009, 11:42 AM
im sure there will be some battery improvements and if is 1.5 times current which is what it predicted then im sure they could allocate less than 1% to a glowing apple logo on the back....

Lutze
21st May 2009, 11:44 AM
Having the logo on the back of the iPhone light up would be sweet - however they would have so much abuse from safety folks because nothing says "Rob Me Now" more than a big glowing Apple logo.

I like the idea of a tactile / tread like back - I've seen SO many dropped / smashed iPhones that happen because they are just so darn smooth. Though I'm sure Apple's partners probably like this because it means they are able to charge for a replacement.

forno
21st May 2009, 12:59 PM
Apple have said in the past they dont want anything to do with radio broadcasts

dotnet
21st May 2009, 01:19 PM
Pfft, FM receiver... How about a toothpick and a can opener?

Cheers
Steffen.

mwot
21st May 2009, 02:17 PM
Pfft, FM receiver... How about a toothpick and a can opener?

Cheers
Steffen.

you mean an iPick and an iCanopener? thumbs up from me ;)

decryption
21st May 2009, 03:27 PM
When I was with 3 I was on a 24 month contract and just upgraded the handset and extended the contract every 12 months (for 12 months).

I'm hoping OPtus do something similar but they're such fucking pricks about everything else who knows how they'll behave.

If they're nice about it I'll stick around and see what the ONE MILLION DOLLARS err. ONE POINT ONE BILLION DOLLARS they're pumping into their network does but otherwise I'll be going out of my way to (publicly) break contract and go elsewhere.

Fuck Optus.

Same thing happened to me on 3 - Optus will just make you sign a new 24 month contract and some sort of up front fee.

I don't want to stay with Optus, but if they can offer a decent way to get the new phone, chances are I'll stick with them.

Mecha
21st May 2009, 03:54 PM
Optus are not stupid. They are going to offer something decent to make sure you stick with em for another 12 months.

Poor service but they are one of the smartest when it comes to sucking you in for a good deal. (hence the great pricing on the first iPhone release)

~Coxy
21st May 2009, 04:11 PM
I agree.

And what to call it?
The "3G iPhone 3G", maybe?

Nah, it should be called the iPhone 3G 2G.

Lutze
21st May 2009, 04:13 PM
I agree with the earlier post... New iPhone

or at a push New iPhone 3G

Anthonyw
21st May 2009, 05:19 PM
Nah, it should be called the iPhone 3G 2G.

or the iPhone 3G 2G 32GB!

(i'd say just back to iPhone then like the rest of their products?)

chrome
21st May 2009, 06:56 PM
I don't think the FM transmitter is that far fetched. There are third party chipsets doing 3G, Bluetooth, GPS and FM transmit AND receive (ie, transcievers) [1].

I expect Apple have an in-house chip that does all that plus wifi? Shrug.

I don't think the specs posted on Engaget are far fetched at all. The rubberised back makes a lot of sense considering how many people worry about the scratching on the old glossy plastic. I know I do.

I'll definitely upgrade :)

[1] Source: CSR launches low cost chipset with integrated GPS, Bluetooth and FM transceiver - SlashPhone (http://www.slashphone.com/csr-launches-low-cost-chipset-with-integrated-gps-bluetooth-and-fm-transceiver-284259)

timmytomtam
21st May 2009, 09:52 PM
* Apple logo on back will glow


Fuck Yeh..

I have told myself that I'm not gonna spend the money on the new one..

But if the Apple logo glows, I will buy it.. that sounds awesome.

arkenstone
22nd May 2009, 08:45 AM
That's simply impossible.

LED's use electricity and consume power in order to create light, sure they use less than most other light emmitting devices but they still use it.

The only way not to consume battery power would be if they used Phosphorescent technology (somthing like Brightec Vinyl maybe).

What?

impossible?

You can get pretty fucking small LEDs.

I've had some high powered ones clipped onto some 25cent coin batteries for about two weeks now and they're still going.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/3552014943_ccbc69bc36.jpg

LEDs suck a trivially small amount of power.

While I'm not particuarly fussed either way, having a light up logo on the back wouldn't be difficult at all and wouldn't have any noticable effect on battery life.

Hell, most Blackberrys have standby LEDs that flash to indicate standby/email/etc. Some of the phones I used while I was with three had three or four colour changing LEDs.

This isn't impossible. I wouldn't even rule it unlikely. It's a fairly Apple thing to do.

decryption
22nd May 2009, 08:48 AM
Perhaps even the glowing Apple could be a status indicator.
But I just want it for the bling.

Geoff3DMN
22nd May 2009, 09:03 AM
What?

impossible?

<SNIP>

LEDs suck a trivially small amount of power.



I said "That's simply impossible" in response to the comment Originally Posted by Antonino Giglio saying "One or two LED and you have the glow with no consumption at all".

I never said that they weren't available in types that consumed very little power, nor did I imply it.

You are quoting me out of context.

arkenstone
22nd May 2009, 10:12 AM
I said "That's simply impossible" in response to the comment Originally Posted by Antonino Giglio saying "One or two LED and you have the glow with no consumption at all".

I never said that they weren't available in types that consumed very little power, nor did I imply it.

You are quoting me out of context.

Forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET WAS WRONG!!


:)

Geoff3DMN
22nd May 2009, 04:50 PM
Forgive me for jumping to the conclusion that SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET WAS WRONG!! :)

You're forgiven :p

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

morn
22nd May 2009, 08:36 PM
FM transmitter? Those things never work.
Just get a aux cable. Jesus christ.

LithgowLights
24th May 2009, 10:56 AM
FM transmitter? Those things never work.
Just get a aux cable. Jesus christ.


Not all sound systems in cars have an Aux input. Mine does not, but the wifes does. My only choice is FM

Ecto1
24th May 2009, 12:49 PM
I'm just happy that the iphone is going to have 32gb of space. I only have 20mb of space left on my 16gb.

Keving
24th May 2009, 12:56 PM
Not all sound systems in cars have an Aux input. Mine does not, but the wifes does. My only choice is FM

Same.

Not to mention the ability to use the iPhone through ANY radio that you can find, this would be truly awesome :D.

Chief911
24th May 2009, 02:15 PM
You're forgiven :p

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

ahahhahaha...nice!

morn
24th May 2009, 03:40 PM
Yes the capacity is too small.
If I had a much greater download cap though, I could use the simplify media app. It let's you stream your whole iTunes library off your mac to your iPhone.
I really won't be happy until there is a 128GB iPhone. But this way could work now.

forno
25th May 2009, 08:10 AM
Same.

Not to mention the ability to use the iPhone through ANY radio that you can find, this would be truly awesome :D.


I never had any success with a Griffin iTrip, even after exposing the antenna. just to many stations out there to get a clear frequency whilst on the move.

I cant see apple exposing themselves to that, unless ofcourse the FM module is for an entirely different purpose

mwot
25th May 2009, 10:12 AM
I never had any success with a Griffin iTrip, even after exposing the antenna. just to many stations out there to get a clear frequency whilst on the move.

I cant see apple exposing themselves to that, unless of course the FM module is for an entirely different purpose

i tend to agree with this. the iTrip was ok, but it was far from being fantastic for when you were on the move. it was incredibly annoying tuning the iTrip to one frequency on one side of side, only to drive through to the other side of town to have to find another clear frequency because of some small local, community radio broadcast.

cross country trips were a hoot. you'd be boppin along to your favourite tunes then hit a small town and be assaulted by Barry Manilow or something.

morn
25th May 2009, 10:20 AM
You know. You could just use your headphones. ;) This FM transmitter thing is total fail.

Lutze
25th May 2009, 10:43 AM
i tend to agree with this. the iTrip was ok, but it was far from being fantastic for when you were on the move. it was incredibly annoying tuning the iTrip to one frequency on one side of side, only to drive through to the other side of town to have to find another clear frequency because of some small local, community radio broadcast.

cross country trips were a hoot. you'd be boppin along to your favourite tunes then hit a small town and be assaulted by Barry Manilow or something.

I think that using Bluetooth would make more sense. Enable car stereo to use bluetooth with the iPhone enabling in the new hardware / 3G upgrade to 3.0 s/w would wipe out that transmitter market for newer cars.

macaholic
25th May 2009, 10:44 AM
... you'd be boppin along to your favourite tunes then hit a small town and be assaulted by Barry Manilow or something.

Ha. Yes, so true.
That's why I gave up on using the iTrip.

mab
25th May 2009, 10:51 AM
Hopefully it'll have a 900Mhz radio.

arkenstone
26th May 2009, 08:40 AM
You know. You could just use your headphones. ;) This FM transmitter thing is total fail.

I have safety concerns regarding headphones in cars...

blobster
26th May 2009, 09:28 AM
So, what's with the 'tyre tread' pattern on the back?
Would that be 'knobbly' like an off-roader or 'slick' like a road bike?
Or maybe even 'retread' like a truck tyre?
I'm confused

Exocet
26th May 2009, 09:57 AM
So, what's with the 'tyre tread' pattern on the back?
Would that be 'knobbly' like an off-roader or 'slick' like a road bike?
Or maybe even 'retread' like a truck tyre?
I'm confused

What tyre tread pattern are you talking about? I can't see it mentioned in the thread except by yourself.

mwot
26th May 2009, 11:27 AM
What tyre tread pattern are you talking about? I can't see it mentioned in the thread except by yourself.

the specs on Engadget specify a "rubber-tread backing".

nothing about patterns, though. suspect, if true, the backing would be a matte finished rubber surface for non-slip, hand-held action.

personally, i don't much like the idea of that "feature" myself. sounds gooey.

SilverJ
26th May 2009, 12:32 PM
The specs sound cool,
I'm not a fan of the rubber backing though, can't see that happening.
Nor can I see the FM transmitter. More and more cars have iPod aux in points now.
Not to mention plenty of after market stereos have had the inputs for years now too.
The glowing Apple sounds similar to the 'I am rich' app hahah.

Rant
26th May 2009, 02:36 PM
I'm just hoping the OLED screen bit is true. The rest is crap. Which unfortunately makes the whole rumour crap.

There must be enough/cheap enough OLED screens out there by now, Apple.

310
26th May 2009, 10:16 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/phlat4/Picture2-2.png

please Apple.

Rant
27th May 2009, 12:33 AM
Just give me the camera, the video, the CPU/RAM & 32GB, the OLED screen and all the flavours…

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3527491673_68d709df8d.jpg?v=0

BALLR
27th May 2009, 12:04 PM
I went 12 month contract with Optus on it, thinking about changing carriers due to the signal coverage i get...but ive been with Optus for 8 years and when i wanna upgrade, they let me!

NeoRicen
27th May 2009, 04:41 PM
Well Microsoft has announced the Zune HD with a multi-touch OLED screen, add that to a couple of Samsung (I think) phones and OLEDs are starting to make their way onto the market, would make sense for Apple to adopt them.

My only concern is that if Apple had ordered such a large quantity of OLED screens, I'm sure we would have heard about it. After all, we've heard about the screens they're ordering for the tablet, as well as all the memory for the iPhone, but the lack of news regarding OLED makes me suspect Apple will stick with the exact same screens. Shame.

Dare
28th May 2009, 12:31 PM
Sony's latest Walkman phone also has oled, i think it is hard to see Apple not going that way....

i hope

lazydesi
28th May 2009, 12:47 PM
it seems we are not getting OLED this time

Apple iPhone 3Gen 2009 Bezel Frame Original - iPhone 4G Spare Parts - Apple (http://www.chinaontrade.com/apple-iphone-4g-bezel-frame-original-p-262.html)

Lutze
28th May 2009, 12:57 PM
My question has to be - why OLED?

What are the features / advantages of using OLED over the "normal" screen?

NeoRicen
28th May 2009, 01:23 PM
My question has to be - why OLED?

What are the features / advantages of using OLED over the "normal" screen?
Better contrast/brightness and more importantly, reduced power consumption.

Doobsy
28th May 2009, 01:32 PM
Sweet! My contract's up next month and my screen is so shattered after the second drop onto tiles last week...

Lutze
28th May 2009, 01:33 PM
Better contrast/brightness and more importantly, reduced power consumption.

Okay - that makes sense... next question is - how much better consumption as a % and how much more does it cost as a %?

I'm trying to look at this the same way as Apple would. Better battery good... but does that outweigh the extra cost that either you or the consumer will have to pay?

forno
28th May 2009, 01:36 PM
So that bezel (if it is true) shows a different form to the curren iPhone, with the speaker slot being part of the bezel and the bezel not being continuous around the perimeter of the phone.

I call fake!

NeoRicen
28th May 2009, 01:45 PM
So that bezel (if it is true) shows a different form to the curren iPhone, with the speaker slot being part of the bezel and the bezel not being continuous around the perimeter of the phone.

I call fake!
So it's different, therefore it's fake? I don't see your logic.

matthewk
28th May 2009, 01:57 PM
Better contrast/brightness and more importantly, reduced power consumption.

And don't forget much thinner too.

OLEDs are likely to eventually be cheaper to produce than LCD screens. Alas I don't think we are there yet though.

forno
28th May 2009, 02:05 PM
So it's different, therefore it's fake? I don't see your logic.

Strange conclusion?

The reaosn I call fake isnt just because its different but the design detail of the split bezel just doesnt gell with apple IMO, it would have an ugly joint.

To me its a backward step in design from the sleek bezel of the current gen & previous gen.

Plus I dont see how the home button would intergrate, IIRC all the pics of of dis-assembled iPhones I have seen the bezel isnt much more than you see externaly

NeoRicen
28th May 2009, 02:16 PM
Strange conclusion?

The reaosn I call fake isnt just because its different but the design detail of the split bezel just doesnt gell with apple IMO, it would have an ugly joint.

To me its a backward step in design from the sleek bezel of the current gen & previous gen.

Plus I dont see how the home button would intergrate, IIRC all the pics of of dis-assembled iPhones I have seen the bezel isnt much more than you see externaly
There's the problem, every time a leaked pic of an Apple product is released, true or not, people always say "it's ugly" it's "not Apple's style" and point out loads of problems, but then a couple of months/weeks later Apple announces the product and it looks exactly the same as the photos everyone criticises. Needless to say, those opinions don't last long. Of course they shrug it off saying "well it looks better in person" or "the leaks were in a bad light" or some such BS, but they don't look different, people just change their opinions because they think criticising them when they think they're fake makes them look smart. Now I'm not accusing you of this particular point, since we're looking at one very small part and have no idea how it will fit in with the final product, and I agree that having a seam on the front of the device isn't in Apple's current style, but we can't use those to predict what is coming, especially since we aren't looking at the whole device.

The exact same thing happened when we saw the leaked pics if the iPhone 3G. They turned out to be 100% real, but everyone hated them, now they don't.

My point is, don't judge leaked pics on the basis that they don't look like Apple's style, because as we've seen many times in the past, they're often true.

On the topic of the actual pics, they clearly exist, so this is a bezel for some kind of phone, no factory is going to produce these if they aren't being used for something, and faking it isn't trivial. What we need to see is if this part perfectly matches a part for another phone. However, the fact that this part is the perfect size for an iPhone puts one tick in the 'true' column. If they don't match any other product, then I think it's relatively safe to assume these are probably real.

Case in point:
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/31/43144-3g-iphone-new-pics.html

Those pics were real, and look at the comments:

I hope it doesn't look like that... it's fugly as hell.... better have a brushed aluminium back or i'll be pissed...



To me these photos look fake, especially the last one.


Agreed - that thing looks like something Microsoft would make it they were to do a ZunePhone.


it's totally fake.
It's a hacked up iPod touch case with a spray painted back, wow!


I agree - I think it looks really bad. Don't loose the aluminum!!!


Yuck. If that's the new iPhone, I'm gonna go get myself a Nokia.


Its just a spray painted iPhone with a glossy finish. Looks shit in my opinion

I should also point out, that this time of year is exactly around the time all the accurate iPhone 3G pics were leaked.

Lutze
28th May 2009, 02:38 PM
There's the problem, every time a leaked pic of an Apple product is released, true or not, people always say "it's ugly" it's "not Apple's style" and point out loads of problems, but then a couple of months/weeks later Apple announces the product and it looks exactly the same as the photos everyone criticises. Needless to say, those opinions don't last long. Of course they shrug it off saying "well it looks better in person" or "the leaks were in a bad light" or some such BS, but they don't look different, people just change their opinions because they think criticising them when they think they're fake makes them look smart. Now I'm not accusing you of this particular point, since we're looking at one very small part and have no idea how it will fit in with the final product, and I agree that having a seam on the front of the device isn't in Apple's current style, but we can't use those to predict what is coming, especially since we aren't looking at the whole device.

The exact same thing happened when we saw the leaked pics if the iPhone 3G. They turned out to be 100% real, but everyone hated them, now they don't.

My point is, don't judge leaked pics on the basis that they don't look like Apple's style, because as we've seen many times in the past, they're often true.

On the topic of the actual pics, they clearly exist, so this is a bezel for some kind of phone, no factory is going to produce these if they aren't being used for something, and faking it isn't trivial. What we need to see is if this part perfectly matches a part for another phone. However, the fact that this part is the perfect size for an iPhone puts one tick in the 'true' column. If they don't match any other product, then I think it's relatively safe to assume these are probably real.

Case in point:
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/31/43144-3g-iphone-new-pics.html

Those pics were real, and look at the comments:


I should also point out, that this time of year is exactly around the time all the accurate iPhone 3G pics were leaked.

You've made a good, valid point - apart from 1 thing:

Photoshop CS4 and it's ability to image manipulate without squashing it... But then I am just nit picking. ;)

forno
28th May 2009, 02:43 PM
Fake, probably not, part for another phone? Highly likely.

And also something to get traffic to a website

NeoRicen
28th May 2009, 03:00 PM
Fake, probably not, part for another phone? Highly likely.

And also something to get traffic to a website
The original source was a Hong Kong seller of replacement parts. Not a website looking for hits. Obviously they could be doing it for the money, but since they otherwise appear to be a legitimate business, it seems more likely they got their hands on parts from Chinese manufacturers ahead of time. After all, leaks from the vast majority of previous Apple products have come from China.

iPhone 4G Spare Parts - China Wholesale Electronics eStore - (http://www.chinaontrade.com/iphone-4g-spare-parts-c-69.html)

forno
28th May 2009, 03:47 PM
Bottom line is I dont see anything about that bezel that rings true as to it being part of an iPhone

mwot
28th May 2009, 04:24 PM
I'm just hoping the OLED screen bit is true. The rest is crap. Which unfortunately makes the whole rumour crap.

There must be enough/cheap enough OLED screens out there by now, Apple.

sounds like the Zune HD (http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/05/26/ms.confirms.zune.hd/)will beat the iPhone to have an OLED screen ... and a radio tuner (albeit the Zune HD is touted to compete against the iPod Touch).

ZacDavies
28th May 2009, 05:47 PM
the chip thats rumoured to be used on the next iphone already has fm capability, thus the rumour.. its not so silly if the capability is already in the tech

every podcast that says the rumour is utterly impossible is starting to agravate me... *glares at the twits on twit

NeoRicen
29th May 2009, 02:21 PM
MacRumors has posted a mockup (NO ONE IS SAYING IT'S REAL) of what the next iPhone would look like if the bezel were real.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/05/28/113719-10262202.jpg.jpeg

I like it.

AppleInsider also suggests that this black bordered model is actually the iPhone 3,1, and the iPhone 2,1 is merely a repackaged iPhone 3G, hence why the images in the SDK look the same.

Additionally, TechCrunch is reporting that a source has seen the new iPhone and that it has a matte finish on the back, illuminated Apple logo and a black bezel. They seem pretty confident about it.

All this is pointing towards the new iPhone matching the rumours in the OP pretty closely. When rumours are reported by multiple independent sources, and are consistent, they tend to turn out to be true.

dotnet
29th May 2009, 04:10 PM
Is that a camera where the speaker used to be?

Cheers
Steffen.

NeoRicen
29th May 2009, 04:57 PM
Is that a camera where the speaker used to be?

Cheers
Steffen.
It's a mockup, so I'd say it's just an artifact from removing the speaker from what was obviously an iPhone 3G/original iPhone modified to produce the mockup.

Even if it was intended to be a camera, that's completely irrelevant because it's just a mockup produced by someone who doesn't claim to have seen the new iPhone and is only producing the mockup based on the rumours we've all heard.

Spr0gs
29th May 2009, 10:35 PM
this is only little, but relevant.

just going on the t00bz, surfin nets, myspace etc.

found this ad, basically saying you can take a video, (shown in .mov format)
and uploaded it directly to myspace.

myspace gayness aside, here is the photo,
there is also an animated .gif

http://i40.tinypic.com/15d9ibp.png

EDIT: it has a larger bezel too, judging from the picture.

nothing huge, just saying.

ZacDavies
30th May 2009, 01:36 AM
^ that's just a bad designer tracing a current photo.. "zomg, future iMacs have no Apple logos!"

Abaddon
1st June 2009, 01:08 PM
With regards to the OLED screen, if Sony are selling their 11 inch OLED TV for $6000 plus, can Apple really produce iPhone size screens for a viable price? I'm sure it's coming but it would seem that the cost/benefit tipping point for the technology is still 12 months away.

Dare
1st June 2009, 01:25 PM
samsungs and sony's already have OLED's in their latest phones..

NeoRicen
1st June 2009, 01:28 PM
With regards to the OLED screen, if Sony are selling their 11 inch OLED TV for $6000 plus, can Apple really produce iPhone size screens for a viable price? I'm sure it's coming but it would seem that the cost/benefit tipping point for the technology is still 12 months away.
Microsoft's Zune HD has a 3.3inch OLED screen, and the Samsung OmniaHD has a 3.7inch OLED screen.

I don't know the price of either of those devices, but you can be pretty sure the Zune HD will competitively priced against the iPod touch.

Rant
1st June 2009, 02:23 PM
Curious thing about the Gizmodo Zune HD video (http://vimeo.com/4889455) (besides being entirely out of focus) is that it wasn't demoed playing video. The pictures looked pathetic and I wonder if the video was even worse.

OLEDs have been around for quite a while in phones, initially as those little screens on the backs of the phones, and gradually getting bigger. We have two questions here.

Firstly, is the OLED screen Microsoft are using as good as (say) the Touch or iPhone for video as well as menus and icons? The Gizmodo demo avoiding showing video suggests not.
Secondly, is there an OLED Touch screen as responsive as the screens Apple uses. Again, the demo has some miscues, but it's hard to tell if that's the fault of the operator or the software itself (which seems to be typical Microsoft - looks neat until you try to use it, then you realise it's shite).


Has anybody used the Samsung (http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/samsung-yp-p3-touch-pmp.jpg) that the Zune HD seems to be based on? (Did Microsoft give up on Gigabeat?)

I'm still hoping for an OLED iPhone and any competition (even from Zune) is good if it pushes Apple to use OLEDs sooner.

edit: Gizmodo says that the screen was "stunning" and the Zune HD will be out later in the year. So iPhone could beat it, or Apple could use the excuse that the Zune won't be out in, say June, so they don't need to do OLED yet. Nuts!

eddieaus
2nd June 2009, 12:32 AM
With regards to the OLED screen, if Sony are selling their 11 inch OLED TV for $6000 plus, can Apple really produce iPhone size screens for a viable price? I'm sure it's coming but it would seem that the cost/benefit tipping point for the technology is still 12 months away.

Sony's EL screen and Samsung's AMOLED are different stuff. Sony's EL screen is larger and has higher resolution. iPhone would be using Samsung's AMOLED screen, it's cheaper and have been used on many phone/mp3 players for quite a while.

whitemacbook
2nd June 2009, 01:52 AM
* 32GB and 16GB storage (up from the current 16GB and 8GB models)
* 3.2-megapixel camera (up from the current 2-megapixel camera)
* Discontinuation of the metal band surrounding the edge of the device
* 1.5 times the battery life of the current models
* Double the RAM and processing power
* Rubber-tread backing


ok now I'm officially interested in the new one.
shopping for new lawn chair + raincoat tomorrow

whitemacbook
2nd June 2009, 01:58 AM
Perhaps even the glowing Apple could be a status indicator.
But I just want it for the bling.

if the logo glows only when making a call then that's really gonna put a crimp on that old "pretend to be talking on the mobile" ploy that unashamedly i put into effect on an almost daily basis!

Abaddon
2nd June 2009, 01:03 PM
samsungs and sony's already have OLED's in their latest phones..


Microsoft's Zune HD has a 3.3inch OLED screen, and the Samsung OmniaHD has a 3.7inch OLED screen.

I don't know the price of either of those devices, but you can be pretty sure the Zune HD will competitively priced against the iPod touch.


Sony's EL screen and Samsung's AMOLED are different stuff. Sony's EL screen is larger and has higher resolution. iPhone would be using Samsung's AMOLED screen, it's cheaper and have been used on many phone/mp3 players for quite a while.

Well you learn something new every day! I stand corrected. :o

Be interesting to see if Apple adopts it then.

NeoRicen
2nd June 2009, 02:01 PM
I hope they do go OLED, but I'm pretty sure we'd know by now if they were. We know it has a compass, because we heard about their supplier for them, we know they've have a ton of memory because we know they ordered it, we know they'll have better cameras, because we know they've ordered them, but we haven't heard a single thing about a large order of OLED screens.

Lutze
2nd June 2009, 02:13 PM
I hope they do go OLED, but I'm pretty sure we'd know by now if they were. We know it has a compass, because we heard about their supplier for them, we know they've have a ton of memory because we know they ordered it, we know they'll have better cameras, because we know they've ordered them, but we haven't heard a single thing about a large order of OLED screens.

We have heard that their screen supplier has been having problems with it's slaves / drones / workers.

The one other thing we know is that Apple have changed things at the last moment before. The original iPhone had a plastic screen that got upgraded to Optical glass right at the end on feedback from users.

mwot
2nd June 2009, 02:18 PM
if the logo glows only when making a call then that's really gonna put a crimp on that old "pretend to be talking on the mobile" ploy that unashamedly i put into effect on an almost daily basis!

at least until the developers of Fake Call et al update their apps to utilise the Apple Logo when "receiving a call". then you'll be back to ignoring everyone without peril! ;)

NeoRicen
2nd June 2009, 02:41 PM
We have heard that their screen supplier has been having problems with it's slaves / drones / workers.

The one other thing we know is that Apple have changed things at the last moment before. The original iPhone had a plastic screen that got upgraded to Optical glass right at the end on feedback from users.
The screen was announced to be glass 2 weeks before release, but since it was announced 6 months earlier, it could have been changed much earlier.

Anyway, all I'm saying is don't get your hopes up.

mwot
2nd June 2009, 03:02 PM
looks like a US$99 4GB iPhone (http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/06/01/fidos-2009-roadmap-leaked/)may be on the cards as well, with video capability (for video calling, at least, implying front-facing camera).

tcn33
2nd June 2009, 03:11 PM
US$99 4GB iPhone

That would be CAN$99, and that's with a 3(!) year agreement.

mwot
2nd June 2009, 03:46 PM
That would be CAN$99, and that's with a 3(!) year agreement.

i stand corrected.

Phase
6th June 2009, 03:06 PM
http://img.skitch.com/20090606-gwb1kj6w1r58xujikcfd3gpjft.jpg

I wonder, I wonder.

timmytomtam
6th June 2009, 03:12 PM
http://img.skitch.com/20090606-gwb1kj6w1r58xujikcfd3gpjft.jpg

I wonder, I wonder.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/06/iPhone_Device_Support.jpg

From Gizmodo.. Remainders - Things We Didn't Post - Gizmodo Australia (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/06/remainders__things_we_didnt_post-14.html#more)

NeoRicen
6th June 2009, 03:22 PM
Well the Apple logo sure as shit ain't glowing.
http://9to5mac.com/files/image/00000/Picture%2031(4).png
http://9to5mac.com/files/image/00000/Picture%2031(4).png
To quote 9to5mac.com: "Oh, and if that Apple logo is supposed to light up, it's going to have to go through some pretty heavy black plastic.".
More new iPhone parts shots? Back cover | 9 to 5 Mac (http://9to5mac.com/back-of-iphone-)

timmytomtam
6th June 2009, 03:33 PM
^ It had better bloody glow! otherwise I'm not buying it

NathR32
6th June 2009, 03:41 PM
Still loving the matte black back. I'll grab one in a heartbeat if it is(or if it isn't...)

Don't want a glowing logo either :)

NeoRicen
6th June 2009, 03:53 PM
^ It had better bloody glow! otherwise I'm not buying it
Why would you want it too, you'd never see it.

timmytomtam
6th June 2009, 06:38 PM
Why would you want it too, you'd never see it.

Do you ever see your MacBook's?

NeoRicen
6th June 2009, 06:41 PM
Do you ever see your MacBook's?
Did I say I wouldn't buy a MacBook if it didn't? :p

Meh 626
6th June 2009, 06:59 PM
Those matte black backs look like they will scratch easily. If it's the material I am thinking of, running your fingernail across it will scratch it easily.

I really hope not.