23rd August 2007 - 08:17 PM
this is an advertisement for a toy, not an article about cutting edge science. Most disappointing.
23rd August 2007 - 09:31 PM
An over-priced over-hyped toy.
23rd August 2007 - 11:26 PM
24th August 2007 - 12:28 AM
Its an example of superb user interface implementation and is worth a mention.
24th August 2007 - 04:33 PM
I will take a Windows mobile capable phone over an iphone any day of the week. All the 3rd party Apps plus WiFi... No brainer
24th August 2007 - 04:53 PM
Must agree about phone menus. Many are way too complicated to navigate for the average adult. Fine if you're a kid with time on your hands to learn every trick of the phone. I wasted 20 minutes the other day trying to send a text message but it kept rejecting my letters and making up it's own words. It took a phone call to someone to discover it had a dictionary option buried in the menu system that had somehow turned itself on.
24th August 2007 - 06:37 PM
I enjoyed this article. Sure, it doesn't fit the tone and hard-science topic of most PhysOrg articles, but I found the language engaging.
I'm not likely to afford an iPhone, but I've been dreaming and comparing similar devices anyhow. I found this article useful in case I should change my mind.
24th August 2007 - 06:43 PM
You can use cans and a steel thread instead.
That will work even without a battery.
"Life on a string" Kind of thing ::))
24th August 2007 - 09:28 PM
First, why is this in a newsletter related to science and technology? Even if this were an objective review of the iPhone (and it's not) it's about six weeks late to the party.
Second, it's a bad review. Any "review" which includes a line like "I could go on about the iPhone's flaws, but it doesn't really matter. When you're in love, you forgive the shortcomings of your loved one." is about as objective as a sermon on Sunday. It reads like it was written by an Apple fan blogger, not a serious reporter.
I hope this isn't the level of quality I'm going to be seeing on PhysOrg. I'm already creeped out by the ads for 'I Know The Secret to the Universe' and 'Does NASA have proof God created the Universe?'
If I want National Enquirer, I'll go to the grocery store, thanks.
25th August 2007 - 03:42 AM
Unfortunately it is the case that this article simply explains poorly (in my opinion) the market that the iPhone encounters and it is my opinion also that it does not belong. Articles can or have been written on products before here but they explore the technology behind the item not its basic interface and value compared to other similar products.
28th August 2007 - 01:00 AM
The device is called iPhone, with emphasis on two of its main functions: phone and internet. Based on the reviews, the browser rocks but the technology that delivers pages is archaic, meaning slow and unreliable while the phone company and the feds are milking you for every cent. As for the phone, it works, but then again for a very short time as the battery runs out quickly, enough to loose some important meeting, conversations, or cut off on you while performing some business transactions on the net (not that its meant for). Most phones even before iPhone had GPS available so that the device can be used with 911 calls and help the operator to determine where to find you in case of a real emergency - apparently if you give iPhone to someone close you can't rely on them being safe as you would with other devices. Apple, you should take this phone back to the drawing board and finish it up as it is only about 50% complete - kind of like a Porsche crippled with a Yugo engine.