You do realize that UMTS videocalling is available for better part of the last decade, right? With hundreds millions of devices already out there by this point.
Oh, and it's as simple as making a phone call...because it is just a phonecall (you call somebody, and if videocall can be established, the option of switching to it during the call will be there)
UMTS videocalling is as easy as voice calling - you initiate normal voicecall, and if there's a possibility of establishing videcall with the other party, the option will be there (just like Apple does it, apparently)
If you think not many mobile phones, even in the US, had UMTS videocalling then you probably didn't look for it much (well, those front facing cameras are hard to notice actually; and largely useless BTW, the only semi-common usage scenario of videocalling turned out to be...showing your surroundings to the other party, and back camera is better for that)
That's actually quite close already to the only semi-common way in which people sometimes do use videocalling - showing their surroundings to the other party. But that not only doesn't require front camera - it's worse with it (if the phone doesn't allow for using back camera for videocalls)
The camera on the front might prove mostly useless even to those rare people who videocall.
See, the most popular usage of that feature seems to be...showing somebody your surroundings. Front camera is actually horrible for that (and it's even worse if given phone can't switch to using backside camera for videocall)
I guess that's why Opera Mini is the #1 mobile browser by web traffic?... (despite it being used, in large part, by people who are careful not to browse too many websites due to high costs of their data connection)
Plus you are simply totally unaware how 3G video calling works (hint: exactly like what you describe as "a huge improvement"). And is available on hundreds millions of devices already, assuring easy interoperability; but hardly anybody cares, probably partly due to some inherent issues with the idea (mobile use has another - can't coexist with a very typical method of using mobile phone while on the move, etc.) The only moderately popular usage of 3G video calling seems to be sharing the view of your surroundings with somebody; but that doesn't even need front camera (and is in fact worse when videocall can use only the front one)
Fewer changeable parts = less to worry about breaking Seriously, WTF? How one manages to write that with a straight face? (SIM must be replaceable anyway; if battery dies, it's good to be able to replace it easily - that actually lowers the chances of something breaking in the process; and as for SD card - something which is not there cannot brake, great!)
Or the SIM card, battery and microSD could be under one common cover, something which is a standard solution to the problem... (it doesn't even have to be that easily opened; a screw would be fine)
Also... you must know that, for some time already, the typical "Mp3 players" out there, wordlwide, are in the form of so called feature phones, which quite succesfully manage "making room for crap like antenna's and other crap of the like."
In case of mobile phones it might be still hugely limited by lens size? On the other end of the spectrum you have of course DSLRs, which don't need it that much...but I guess consumer compact digicams will get a really nice boost.
That muddles the situation. The reason why the car is moving faster than the wind is because the working surfaces of rotating sail are moving slower than the wind.
They do not both work, not even close; "pressure explanations" of the wing can account for just a small part of total lift. Heck, they are one of the reasons why some phycisists claimed near the end of XIX century that powered flight won't be possible for a long time (because the calculations showed it required much higher speeds, etc.)
Of course it is sailing in the fully conventional sense (well, not how the "folk imagination" perceives sail & wind, like just some kind of a pusher); boats exploit the difference in speed between water and the wind (keel...)
The propeller does not turn the shaft...so what?! It pushes the vehicle forwards, and from that the energy of the rotating shaft is extracted. When you look at a boat, the wind pushes it forward and from that the energy maintaining heading of the sail (here it maintains heading of the rotating sail) in given configuration is extracted by the keel, essentialy.
Not really; a difference boiling down to "remember how boats tack downwind using the resistance from the keel and therefore increase the windspeed perceived by their sail? Now, how to do that just for the sail, with the vehicle moving in a bit more arbitrary fashion?..."
Sure, they tack downwind, via movement to the "side", with the help of resistance from their keel. The sail of vehicle from TFA tacks downwind via rotation, with the help of resistance from its wheels.
But the rotating sail of this car doesn't go directly downwind; it effectively tacks, not by going to the side and getting resistance to do it from keel, but by rotating and getting resistance to do it from wheels.
Just look at the propeller as a sail that tacks not by going "sideways", but by rotating. And resistance allowing that comes not from some keel, but from the wheels.
Oh no, not "pressure explanation"... (the same error used to "explain" how wings supposedly work). It's just extracting the energy by redirecting the mass of incoming air; and the air is incoming relative to the rotating sail (instead of tacking one), kept in such state by the resistance of the wheels (instead of keel while a boat tacks downwind)
Slashdot Mirror
We already have a widely deployed mobile standard, and one working better than this Apple solution in search of a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone#Current_usage
You do realize that UMTS videocalling is available for better part of the last decade, right? With hundreds millions of devices already out there by this point.
Oh, and it's as simple as making a phone call...because it is just a phonecall (you call somebody, and if videocall can be established, the option of switching to it during the call will be there)
UMTS videocalling is as easy as voice calling - you initiate normal voicecall, and if there's a possibility of establishing videcall with the other party, the option will be there (just like Apple does it, apparently)
If you think not many mobile phones, even in the US, had UMTS videocalling then you probably didn't look for it much (well, those front facing cameras are hard to notice actually; and largely useless BTW, the only semi-common usage scenario of videocalling turned out to be...showing your surroundings to the other party, and back camera is better for that)
That's actually quite close already to the only semi-common way in which people sometimes do use videocalling - showing their surroundings to the other party. But that not only doesn't require front camera - it's worse with it (if the phone doesn't allow for using back camera for videocalls)
The camera on the front might prove mostly useless even to those rare people who videocall.
See, the most popular usage of that feature seems to be...showing somebody your surroundings. Front camera is actually horrible for that (and it's even worse if given phone can't switch to using backside camera for videocall)
I guess that's why Opera Mini is the #1 mobile browser by web traffic?... (despite it being used, in large part, by people who are careful not to browse too many websites due to high costs of their data connection)
Plus you are simply totally unaware how 3G video calling works (hint: exactly like what you describe as "a huge improvement"). And is available on hundreds millions of devices already, assuring easy interoperability; but hardly anybody cares, probably partly due to some inherent issues with the idea (mobile use has another - can't coexist with a very typical method of using mobile phone while on the move, etc.)
The only moderately popular usage of 3G video calling seems to be sharing the view of your surroundings with somebody; but that doesn't even need front camera (and is in fact worse when videocall can use only the front one)
And why would that make anyone feel guilty?...
Though your phone depends, at the least, much less on such factories; its manufacturer owning all its fabs et al... (most of them not in China anyway)
Sales numbers like 2%, so this year 3% probably, overall "tiny percent of the market"?
Fewer changeable parts = less to worry about breaking
Seriously, WTF? How one manages to write that with a straight face? (SIM must be replaceable anyway; if battery dies, it's good to be able to replace it easily - that actually lowers the chances of something breaking in the process; and as for SD card - something which is not there cannot brake, great!)
Or the SIM card, battery and microSD could be under one common cover, something which is a standard solution to the problem... (it doesn't even have to be that easily opened; a screw would be fine)
Also... you must know that, for some time already, the typical "Mp3 players" out there, wordlwide, are in the form of so called feature phones, which quite succesfully manage "making room for crap like antenna's and other crap of the like."
In case of mobile phones it might be still hugely limited by lens size? On the other end of the spectrum you have of course DSLRs, which don't need it that much...but I guess consumer compact digicams will get a really nice boost.
A surpise awaiting in few of the most dynamically growing markets
Hm, looking at the worldwide map, much of the US doesn't have electricity (much less healthcare?) either...
All things considered, it's good to have the biggest threat to one of your regional economic competitors on your side.
Or his demise could suddenly be "guaranteed" to be an act of assasination...
That muddles the situation. The reason why the car is moving faster than the wind is because the working surfaces of rotating sail are moving slower than the wind.
They do not both work, not even close; "pressure explanations" of the wing can account for just a small part of total lift. Heck, they are one of the reasons why some phycisists claimed near the end of XIX century that powered flight won't be possible for a long time (because the calculations showed it required much higher speeds, etc.)
Of course it is sailing in the fully conventional sense (well, not how the "folk imagination" perceives sail & wind, like just some kind of a pusher); boats exploit the difference in speed between water and the wind (keel...)
The propeller does not turn the shaft...so what?! It pushes the vehicle forwards, and from that the energy of the rotating shaft is extracted. When you look at a boat, the wind pushes it forward and from that the energy maintaining heading of the sail (here it maintains heading of the rotating sail) in given configuration is extracted by the keel, essentialy.
Not really; a difference boiling down to "remember how boats tack downwind using the resistance from the keel and therefore increase the windspeed perceived by their sail? Now, how to do that just for the sail, with the vehicle moving in a bit more arbitrary fashion?..."
Sure, they tack downwind, via movement to the "side", with the help of resistance from their keel. The sail of vehicle from TFA tacks downwind via rotation, with the help of resistance from its wheels.
Strictly speaking, the sail of this vehice doesn't do that either. It tacks (by rotating, bot by moving whole vehicle to the "side")
But the rotating sail of this car doesn't go directly downwind; it effectively tacks, not by going to the side and getting resistance to do it from keel, but by rotating and getting resistance to do it from wheels.
That car still tacks, strictly speaking. At least its rotating sail does.
Just look at the propeller as a sail that tacks not by going "sideways", but by rotating. And resistance allowing that comes not from some keel, but from the wheels.
Oh no, not "pressure explanation"... (the same error used to "explain" how wings supposedly work). It's just extracting the energy by redirecting the mass of incoming air; and the air is incoming relative to the rotating sail (instead of tacking one), kept in such state by the resistance of the wheels (instead of keel while a boat tacks downwind)