OMG iPhone 3G!

[Praxis]

But you and a lot of other people seem to treat the behavior of fanboys as an indicator of the quality of a product.

Durandal, don't be so quick to assume that he's right about my post. He completely skewed my statements and used that to generate the fanboy label.

That's not the point. The point is he said it's going to have graphics approaching the PSP. While explaining why the iPhone was better then another phone, he blatantly lied about it's capabilities. That's standard idiot fanboy behavior

You're accusing me of lying?

Please provide evidence that I am lying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psypKKu1WUY

That's a game with TWO WEEKS of development time. Fully 3D. It's definitely better than anything on the Nintendo DS, I'd say it's fair to say that approaches a first-gen PSP title. And I suggest comparing the iPhone and PSP's specs.

So you accuse me of being a fanboy, then when pressed for why I'm being a fanboy, you baselessly accuse me of lying.

Stop being an idiot.

And I have absolutely no doubt the game will actually look that good when it actually comes out. Just like Killzone 2, right?

Even if it looks that good, it was not "approaching PSP graphics." That's not even close to psp. It's arguable whether or not it's even better then the DS, which cost's about a third the price before the subsidy you get for signing a two year contract with AT&T.

This is what a first generation PSP game looks like. Notice how much better it looks then the "gameplay" video you posted? No, you probably don't because you're blinded by your fanboyness.

That game was demoed live on stage. Killzone 2 was not, which is why people doubted it. The iPhone game will likely improve before launch, while Killzone's trailer was a proof of concept of what they were aiming for.


And that link you sent me is NOT a first generation PSP game. It came out later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3RhL-Le5Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlRD4DO9yLI

are first gen PSP games.

This next bit'll be fun.

Now there's an excellent question. Out of the two of us, who's the bigger Pro-apple/Anti-apple fanboy? I don't own a single thing that competes against any Apple product, besides my PC and my MP3 player. I dual-boot Linux and Vista because neither of them do everything I want out of an operating system, and if I could, I'd go purchase a copy of OSX and start tri-booting my system, if only to see that all the fuss is about. My MP3 player cost $30, and if the Shuffle had been competitively priced, I probably would have bought that instead.

My desktop PC is a Hackintosh- not Apple branded, home built, but running OS X because I like OS X. It's dual booted with Windows Vista, and running Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux in a Virtual Machine. My secondary PC is a Sony VAIO. I do not own an Apple desktop, only a MacBook, which I felt was competitively priced.

I own an iPhone, but held off from buying it initially because I felt it was:
A) Too expensive
B) I was unwilling to switch to AT&T.

I finally bought an iPhone after a $200 price drop from Apple and after stable hacks allowed me to unlock it to T-Mobile.

You on the other hand own several Apple products and have expressed interest in buying the few that you don't, if only they weren't so expensive.

Isn't this the opposite of fanboyism? I said, "Hey, the AppleTV is nice, but I'm not willing to pay $300 for it." A fanboy would have blindly purchased it.

Even a fanboy isn't stupid enough to bankrupt himself.

Wow. What an utterly useless way to reply to my post. You don't argue with anything you say, you just sort of avoid the subject.

And most tellingly, when asked if the new iPhone's features put it on par with another brand of phone, your response was "Far, far above" because it "has similar enterprise features and is way ahead in the rest" despite not actually having used it

You do realize that the STANDARD work phone at my workplace is a Blackberry? I have used piles of it.

Further, your response has been nothing more than, "Well, I think the graphics aren't QUITE as good as you say, this you're lying and the Blackberry is better".

(which some people think is important to do before buying an apple product)

Indeed, I think it is very important. Which is why I have used blackberries extensively.

and having only seen what amounts to a commercial for it.

Blatant lie.

I was talking about the iPhone 3g. You haven't used it and have only seen a 5 day long advertisement for it.

...the iPhone 3G is a standard iPhone, just like mine, with GPS and faster download speeds. Same processor, and I have no intention of upgrading. It's just the software update I'm interested in.

Though my personal favorite reason you gave for why it was the best phone ever was " 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP." Really, there can only be one response to that:

Are you stupid or just a liar?
I posted:
"GPS, being able to open Word, Excel, and Powerpoints, a full desktop web browser with JavaScript and all that, 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP..."

I didn't even get into the superior video playback, ability to output to a TV, ability to purchase music legally online which can be burned to a CD when you get home, greater storage (at least compared to the Blackberries I've seen), etc, etc.

Yeah, the blackberry sucks pretty bad, especially compared to the iPhone. But you didn't have to make shit up about the iPhone's capabilities. It's only going to make people disappointed when it actually comes out.

Are you stupid? What capability did I make up?

[Colonel Olrik]

My Blackberry Pearl has a 4 GB micro SD card (that I bought), GPS, wireless, it opens at least Word and Excel documents (not that I feel the need for it), lots of games and their own browser and specially the opera mini browser is good enough for stuff like quick searches. The email system is naturally the best thing of the phone and is about perfect.

That said, after a couple of months of owning an ipod touch, I'm more than ready to change it for an iphone if I can get a decent deal (not very likely at the moment in Germany). The brower capabilities and easiness/fun of use are just surreal when compared to the Blackberry (excepting the email system, maybe) or any other phone I've ever had.

[Praxis]

The few people who use it now only use to make iPod compatible videos.

Now? MP4 is used in *everything*, often as the standard format. iPod and Zune use it, the XBox 360 and PS3 use it, the PSP uses it...

[Durandal]

I'm not going to lie, I've never written anything that can encode or decode or mux or demux, but I been posting on the Doom9 forums picking the brains of the people who actually have long enough to daresay I know more about the issue then you.

I must be fucking psychic. I was going to post something like "Posting on Doom9's forums doesn't magically grant you workable knowledge of video encoding matters" in my last post, but decided against it for some reason. Either way, if that's where all your vaunted knowledge of media encoding comes from, it explains a lot, like your belief that QuickTime is a video codec.

That's what I was talking about jackass. You claimed the Touch supported Mpeg-4. I told you it doesn't, it just supports the container format.

Oh, so it just plays h.264 video and AAC audio by pure coincidence then? It supports the mandatory parts of MPEG-4 but not all the optional parts. Jesus Christ, if the iPod touch didn't support MPEG-4, don't you think MPEG would sue Apple into the ground for improper use of their trademark? Apple helped define the MPEG-4 standard. The MPEG-4 container was based on the QuickTime file format. I think they'd know how to make a compliant codec.

If it did support Mpeg-4, it would be able to play Divx's implementation of it, Xvid's implementation of it, and Quicktime's implementation of it. Since it only supports Quicktime's implementation, it doesn't support mpeg-4 video.

Uh, there are open source encoders out there (like Handbrake) which can encode MPEG-4 video playable by iPods and iPhones. It's a matter of which features you encode the video stream with. DivX and XviD implement features not supported by Apple's decoder, so it doesn't handle them. Just like how the x264 encoder implements features not handled by Apple's AVC decoder, so you can't play streams encoded by it.

But those features are not mandatory parts of the spec, so they don't actually affect whether or not the decoder can be labeled as "compliant". If you turn off certain features in the DivX encoder, you'll generate a stream that can be played in QuickTime Player.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that MPEG-4 streams (MPEG-4 or AVC video with AAC audio in an MPEG-4 container) generated by QuickTime can be played in any MPEG-4-compliant player.

I wish you would go read the Wiki page instead of making shit up as you go along.

I'm not making anything up, you little shit. This is a simple matter of me being right and you being wrong.

But no, everything I've posted has come from the culmination of over a year spent discussing these things with the people who are trying to implement them, including technical specifications, problems, and comparisons. I'd be happy to explain to you why one of the biggest advancements for H.264 was support for non-square block sizes, which you won't find on the Wiki.

You mean you'd be happy to regurgitate a post from the Doom9 forums. I already had to set you straight about file formats and QuickTime; why the hell should I think you know anything useful about video encoding? Because you hang around people who do? Oooh impressive.

Before or after the iPod came out?

Before. The answer's the same. Matroska is less than a niche format.

When it first came out, it was almost completely unheard of. The few people who use it now only use to make iPod compatible videos.

You really do live in your own, tiny FSF universe, don't you? Let me clue you in on something. Of the two formats (MPEG-4 and Matroska), one is found on a Bluray discs.

If it had only supported the .mov container, .mp4 would still be non-existent, and the .mov container would be the format of choice for everyone using handbrake and iPod converters. If they had chosen Matroska, it probably would have created a new industry standard and completely eclipsed every other container by now.

MPEG-4 did not need the iPod touch to take off. Dear god you must be delusional.

[Praxis]

I'm not making anything up, you little shit. This is a simple matter of me being right and you being wrong.

He seems to like accusing people of having made stuff up. Don't take it personally. It's like he has a kind of automatic "Nuh-uh, you just made that up!" reaction to anything he doesn't like.

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm not going to lie, I've never written anything that can encode or decode or mux or demux, but I been posting on the Doom9 forums picking the brains of the people who actually have long enough to daresay I know more about the issue then you.

I must be fucking psychic. I was going to post something like "Posting on Doom9's forums doesn't magically grant you workable knowledge of video encoding matters" in my last post, but decided against it for some reason. Either way, if that's where all your vaunted knowledge of media encoding comes from, it explains a lot, like your belief that QuickTime is a video codec.

Yeah, because reading and even participating in discussions with experts on a subject doesn't usually lead to at least passable knowledge on a subject. I'm not an expert by any means on Star Wars vs Star Trek, but after posting on this site for so many years, I feel pretty confident on the subject. If I saw someone telling people an incorrect length for the Executor, I know enough to correct them. No, I haven't done any original research, and if pressed the only two sources I know of are this site and Wookiepedia. So does that mean I'm not qualified to discuss Star Wars? Then what are the qualifications?

That's what I was talking about jackass. You claimed the Touch supported Mpeg-4. I told you it doesn't, it just supports the container format.

Oh, so it just plays h.264 video and AAC audio by pure coincidence then? It supports the mandatory parts of MPEG-4 but not all the optional parts. Jesus Christ, if the iPod touch didn't support MPEG-4, don't you think MPEG would sue Apple into the ground for improper use of their trademark? Apple helped define the MPEG-4 standard. The MPEG-4 container was based on the QuickTime file format. I think they'd know how to make a compliant codec.

Apple doesn't claim to support Mpeg-4 on the iPhone, you goddamn fucking retard who can't even be bothered to google the things you're pulling out of your ass.

• Video formats supported:
• H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

It's the first result in Google for "iPhone specs" you fucking moron. Notice how it only claims to support Mpeg-4 in simple profile which on it's quicktime page Apple claims to have invented? It can't play any other profiles so it can't be called completely Mpeg-4 compatible.

Verify your fucking claims before posting dumbass. I can produce a source for every claim I've made. (though it may Doom9 if that's not good enough for you, you goalpost moving idiot)

If it did support Mpeg-4, it would be able to play Divx's implementation of it, Xvid's implementation of it, and Quicktime's implementation of it. Since it only supports Quicktime's implementation, it doesn't support mpeg-4 video.

Uh, there are open source encoders out there (like Handbrake) which can encode MPEG-4 video playable by iPods and iPhones.

Right, using H.264 or the simple profile.

It's a matter of which features you encode the video stream with. DivX and XviD implement features not supported by Apple's decoder, so it doesn't handle them. Just like how the x264 encoder implements features not handled by Apple's AVC decoder, so you can't play streams encoded by it.

But those features are not mandatory parts of the spec, so they don't actually affect whether or not the decoder can be labeled as "compliant". If you turn off certain features in the DivX encoder, you'll generate a stream that can be played in QuickTime Player.

The iPhone/Touch never claims to be complaint with all of the Mpeg-4 collection of standards. It lists very clearly what it's compatible with, and if you actually bother looking that up (I know you won't but just in case, I'm referring to the simple profile for mpeg-4 part 2 and the baseline profile for h.264) it lists all the features of the encoders it's capable of playing back.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that MPEG-4 streams (MPEG-4 or AVC video with AAC audio in an MPEG-4 container) generated by QuickTime can be played in any MPEG-4-compliant player.

What the hell are you making up now? I never claimed otherwise. I just said the iPhone/Touch is not an MPEG-4-compliant player. Stop putting words into my mouth.

I wish you would go read the Wiki page instead of making shit up as you go along.

I'm not making anything up, you little shit. This is a simple matter of me being right and you being wrong.[/quote]

No, this is a simple matter of you pulling things out of your ass, moving the goalposts, and not doing any goddamn research on the shit you're posting.

But no, everything I've posted has come from the culmination of over a year spent discussing these things with the people who are trying to implement them, including technical specifications, problems, and comparisons. I'd be happy to explain to you why one of the biggest advancements for H.264 was support for non-square block sizes, which you won't find on the Wiki.

You mean you'd be happy to regurgitate a post from the Doom9 forums. I already had to set you straight about file formats and QuickTime; why the hell should I think you know anything useful about video encoding? Because you hang around people who do? Oooh impressive.

And what exactly does constitute evidence now after you've moved the goalposts for the umpteenth time? If you won't except the words of experts if I'm not one of them, what do I have to do? I've seen this tactic before, used by creationists when they try to reject the research done by scientists as "appeals to authority." When they try to do that, we usually ban them.

Before or after the iPod came out?

Before. The answer's the same. Matroska is less than a niche format.

Both containers were completely unheard of at the time.

When it first came out, it was almost completely unheard of. The few people who use it now only use to make iPod compatible videos.

You really do live in your own, tiny FSF universe, don't you? Let me clue you in on something. Of the two formats (MPEG-4 and Matroska), one is found on a Bluray discs.

Stop twisting my words around you lying little shit. When comparing them to Matroska, I've only ever talked about two things: Divx and the .mp4 container format. Neither of those are found on blu-ray disks. Learn the goddamn difference between the .mp4 container and the mpeg-4 video codecs you fucking moron. I've explained it enough times.

If it had only supported the .mov container, .mp4 would still be non-existent, and the .mov container would be the format of choice for everyone using handbrake and iPod converters. If they had chosen Matroska, it probably would have created a new industry standard and completely eclipsed every other container by now.

MPEG-4 did not need the iPod touch to take off. Dear god you must be delusional.

Do you understand how to use google? Are you so fucking stupid you can't type any of the terms you keep using into it and read the first search result? At this point I honestly can't tell if you actually are that retarded or if you're just a pathological liar.

[Durandal]

Yeah, because reading and even participating in discussions with experts on a subject doesn't usually lead to at least passable knowledge on a subject. I'm not an expert by any means on Star Wars vs Star Trek, but after posting on this site for so many years, I feel pretty confident on the subject. If I saw someone telling people an incorrect length for the Executor, I know enough to correct them. No, I haven't done any original research, and if pressed the only two sources I know of are this site and Wookiepedia. So does that mean I'm not qualified to discuss Star Wars? Then what are the qualifications?

Good thing Star Wars is not a technical profession or skill. Your analogy fails.

Apple doesn't claim to support Mpeg-4 on the iPhone, you goddamn fucking retard who can't even be bothered to google the things you're pulling out of your ass.

• Video formats supported:
• H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

It's the first result in Google for "iPhone specs" you fucking moron. Notice how it only claims to support Mpeg-4 in simple profile which on it's quicktime page Apple claims to have invented? It can't play any other profiles so it can't be called completely Mpeg-4 compatible.

Verify your fucking claims before posting dumbass. I can produce a source for every claim I've made. (though it may Doom9 if that's not good enough for you, you goalpost moving idiot)

Um ... according to that, it supports MPEG-4. What weird-ass definition of "MPEG-4 support" are you using?

Right, using H.264 or the simple profile.

Yeah, and ...?

The iPhone/Touch never claims to be complaint with all of the Mpeg-4 collection of standards. It lists very clearly what it's compatible with, and if you actually bother looking that up (I know you won't but just in case, I'm referring to the simple profile for mpeg-4 part 2 and the baseline profile for h.264) it lists all the features of the encoders it's capable of playing back.

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

What the hell are you making up now? I never claimed otherwise. I just said the iPhone/Touch is not an MPEG-4-compliant player. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Which is incorrect.

No, this is a simple matter of you pulling things out of your ass, moving the goalposts, and not doing any goddamn research on the shit you're posting.

Sure buddy.

And what exactly does constitute evidence now after you've moved the goalposts for the umpteenth time? If you won't except the words of experts if I'm not one of them, what do I have to do? I've seen this tactic before, used by creationists when they try to reject the research done by scientists as "appeals to authority." When they try to do that, we usually ban them.

What goalposts did I move?

Both containers were completely unheard of at the time.

The MPEG-4 container was unheard of before the iPod touch, meaning "before 9 months ago"? Wow. I don't even know what to say to that.

Stop twisting my words around you lying little shit. When comparing them to Matroska, I've only ever talked about two things: Divx and the .mp4 container format. Neither of those are found on blu-ray disks. Learn the goddamn difference between the .mp4 container and the mpeg-4 video codecs you fucking moron. I've explained it enough times.

I'm sorry, they're VOB files (apparently), which are MPEG-2. Regardless, that's a nitpick. The MPEG-4 container was quite popular before the iPod touch came along.

[phongn]

Yeah, because reading and even participating in discussions with experts on a subject doesn't usually lead to at least passable knowledge on a subject. I'm not an expert by any means on Star Wars vs Star Trek, but after posting on this site for so many years, I feel pretty confident on the subject. If I saw someone telling people an incorrect length for the Executor, I know enough to correct them. No, I haven't done any original research, and if pressed the only two sources I know of are this site and Wookiepedia. So does that mean I'm not qualified to discuss Star Wars? Then what are the qualifications?

Bluntly, no, you aren't. Haven't you noticed that all the people who make interesting arguments in the STvSW argument are those with the primary source material? If you're just cribbing information from here, SWTC and Wookiepedia, I daresay that would make you rather unqualified.

And yes, that similarly applies to your arguments regarding video coding. The software developers and video coding theory guys on doom9 may be qualified: you are not.

[Dominus Atheos]

You're accusing me of lying?

Please provide evidence that I am lying.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psypKKu1WUY

That's a game with TWO WEEKS of development time. Fully 3D. It's definitely better than anything on the Nintendo DS, I'd say it's fair to say that approaches a first-gen PSP title. And I suggest comparing the iPhone and PSP's specs.

So you accuse me of being a fanboy, then when pressed for why I'm being a fanboy, you baselessly accuse me of lying.

Stop being an idiot.

And I have absolutely no doubt the game will actually look that good when it actually comes out. Just like Killzone 2, right?

Even if it looks that good, it was not "approaching PSP graphics." That's not even close to psp. It's arguable whether or not it's even better then the DS, which cost's about a third the price before the subsidy you get for signing a two year contract with AT&T.

This is what a first generation PSP game looks like. Notice how much better it looks then the "gameplay" video you posted? No, you probably don't because you're blinded by your fanboyness.

That game was demoed live on stage. Killzone 2 was not, which is why people doubted it. The iPhone game will likely improve before launch, while Killzone's trailer was a proof of concept of what they were aiming for.


And that link you sent me is NOT a first generation PSP game. It came out later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3RhL-Le5Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlRD4DO9yLI

are first gen PSP games.

Yeah, pretty much every launch title for the PSP sucked, which is one of the reasons it bombed so hard.

The first PSP game that was widely regarded not to completely suck is Grand Theft Auto Liberty City Stories.

This next bit'll be fun. My desktop PC is a Hackintosh- not Apple branded, home built, but running OS X because I like OS X. It's dual booted with Windows Vista, and running Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux in a Virtual Machine. My secondary PC is a Sony VAIO. I do not own an Apple desktop, only a MacBook, which I felt was competitively priced.

I own an iPhone, but held off from buying it initially because I felt it was:
A) Too expensive
B) I was unwilling to switch to AT&T.

I finally bought an iPhone after a $200 price drop from Apple and after stable hacks allowed me to unlock it to T-Mobile.
Isn't this the opposite of fanboyism? I said, "Hey, the AppleTV is nice, but I'm not willing to pay $300 for it." A fanboy would have blindly purchased it.

Even a fanboy isn't stupid enough to bankrupt himself.

Wow. What an utterly useless way to reply to my post. You don't argue with anything you say, you just sort of avoid the subject.

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read the last line in your post, and the first line in mine. They match up perfectly.

I was talking about the iPhone 3g. You haven't used it and have only seen a 5 day long advertisement for it.

...the iPhone 3G is a standard iPhone, just like mine, with GPS and faster download speeds. Same processor, and I have no intention of upgrading. It's just the software update I'm interested in.

Right, which you haven't used. This is Apple we're talking about, so the new features are probably going to be good and easy to use, but that's not the point. The point is you're actively recommending something based on the "probably." It's not too much to ask that you use the fucking thing first. I had the decency to look up the graphics specs for the device before saying it wasn't capable of PSP level graphics and I haven't said a thing about it's usability precisely because I haven't used it very much.

Are you stupid or just a liar?
I posted:
"GPS, being able to open Word, Excel, and Powerpoints, a full desktop web browser with JavaScript and all that, 3D games with graphics approaching a PSP..."

I didn't even get into the superior video playback, ability to output to a TV, ability to purchase music legally online which can be burned to a CD when you get home, greater storage (at least compared to the Blackberries I've seen), etc, etc.

Yeah, the blackberry sucks pretty bad, especially compared to the iPhone. But you didn't have to make shit up about the iPhone's capabilities. It's only going to make people disappointed when it actually comes out.

Are you stupid? What capability did I make up?

The PSP level graphics. You don't read very well do you? It's only the thing I've been hammering you for all thread.

The few people who use it now only use to make iPod compatible videos.

Now? MP4 is used in *everything*, often as the standard format. iPod and Zune use it, the XBox 360 and PS3 use it, the PSP uses it...

Yes, but only to maintain compatibility with videos created for iPods. If Apple had chose to support .vob instead of .mp4, all those those things you just listed would support vob and mp4 would be left in the dirt.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, because reading and even participating in discussions with experts on a subject doesn't usually lead to at least passable knowledge on a subject. I'm not an expert by any means on Star Wars vs Star Trek, but after posting on this site for so many years, I feel pretty confident on the subject. If I saw someone telling people an incorrect length for the Executor, I know enough to correct them. No, I haven't done any original research, and if pressed the only two sources I know of are this site and Wookiepedia. So does that mean I'm not qualified to discuss Star Wars? Then what are the qualifications?

Bluntly, no, you aren't. Haven't you noticed that all the people who make interesting arguments in the STvSW argument are those with the primary source material? If you're just cribbing information from here, SWTC and Wookiepedia, I daresay that would make you rather unqualified.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying if you haven't done the calcs yourself, you aren't qualified to discuss the length of the Executor? Then I ask once again, what are the qualifications?

And yes, that similarly applies to your arguments regarding video coding. The software developers and video coding theory guys on doom9 may be qualified: you are not.

What does it matter where I get my knowledge from? All that matters is the information is correct and I can provide sources if asked. Everything else in an Ad hominem.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, because reading and even participating in discussions with experts on a subject doesn't usually lead to at least passable knowledge on a subject. I'm not an expert by any means on Star Wars vs Star Trek, but after posting on this site for so many years, I feel pretty confident on the subject. If I saw someone telling people an incorrect length for the Executor, I know enough to correct them. No, I haven't done any original research, and if pressed the only two sources I know of are this site and Wookiepedia. So does that mean I'm not qualified to discuss Star Wars? Then what are the qualifications?

Good thing Star Wars is not a technical profession or skill. Your analogy fails.

Good thing I'm not trying to do anything technical with the knowledge. All I'm doing is discussing it. And regardless I can provide sources for everything I've posted. I've got The Motion Pictures Experts Group official hompage, including their FAQ on MPEG-4. I've got a whole assload of things off of the official MPEG Industry Forum's website.

And I haven't bothered asking because I know you don't have any and was hoping you would go read some and maybe stop being such an idiot, but what sources are you using? DR6, now.

Apple doesn't claim to support Mpeg-4 on the iPhone, you goddamn fucking retard who can't even be bothered to google the things you're pulling out of your ass.

• Video formats supported:
• H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
• MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

It's the first result in Google for "iPhone specs" you fucking moron. Notice how it only claims to support Mpeg-4 in simple profile which on it's quicktime page Apple claims to have invented? It can't play any other profiles so it can't be called completely Mpeg-4 compatible.

Verify your fucking claims before posting dumbass. I can produce a source for every claim I've made. (though it may Doom9 if that's not good enough for you, you goalpost moving idiot)

Um ... according to that, it supports MPEG-4. What weird-ass definition of "MPEG-4 support" are you using?

You never did well on any of the reading comprehension parts of the standardized tests you took did you? Not only did I specifically tell you to google it further down in the post, I italicized the words in my post. I'll explain it again, but I ask that you turn VoiceOver on so you have a better chance of comprehending it this time. First, I'm just going to quote straight out of MPEG Industry Forum's white paper on the subject, then I'll explain it using small words so you can understand. Got VoiceOver started up? Alright, here we go:

MPEG-4 Visual – Simple Profile (SP) is designed primarily for low processing power coding, low latency and use in less-than-ideal transmission circumstances. Ideal for real-time desktop software encoding, mobile and wireless devices, video telephony and video–conferencing.

MPEG-4 Visual - Advanced Simple Profile (ASP) offers the best MPEG-4 coding performance and can be deployed into more demanding environments where video decoding at intermediate and higher bit rates is required. ASP is also ideal for broadcasters wishing to provide wide range of programming qualities suited to a variety of platforms, e.g. Broadcast, Internet and Mobile Phones.

Simple Profile is what the iPhone supports. It does not support Advanced Simple Profile (ASP). Since it only supports one profile of MPEG-4 and not the other, it can't be called fully MPEG-4 compatible.

The iPhone/Touch never claims to be complaint with all of the Mpeg-4 collection of standards. It lists very clearly what it's compatible with, and if you actually bother looking that up (I know you won't but just in case, I'm referring to the simple profile for mpeg-4 part 2 and the baseline profile for h.264) it lists all the features of the encoders it's capable of playing back.

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

See it there? See where I specifically told you to google mpeg-4 simple profile? That white paper I just quoted is the second result on Google for it.

And what exactly does constitute evidence now after you've moved the goalposts for the umpteenth time? If you won't except the words of experts if I'm not one of them, what do I have to do? I've seen this tactic before, used by creationists when they try to reject the research done by scientists as "appeals to authority." When they try to do that, we usually ban them.

What goalposts did I move?

You want a list? Because I'd be more then happy to make a list. But just as an example, the next quote box.

Both containers were completely unheard of at the time.

The MPEG-4 container was unheard of before the iPod touch, meaning "before 9 months ago"? Wow. I don't even know what to say to that.

See that goal post moving? Unfortunately it's not easy since you deleted the quote boxes I was replying to. The original post is still available if you scroll up, but if you don't want to, I'll just quote it again:

Before or after the iPod came out?

Before. The answer's the same. Matroska is less than a niche format.

You still have VoiceOver on? Notice how I say iPod, and not iPod Touch? Deleting a quote box and then replying as if the deleted quote box contained something else is a prime example of goalpost moving. (Well actually it's a prime example of lying, but I'm trying to be nice here.)

[Durandal]

Simple Profile is what the iPhone supports. It does not support Advanced Simple Profile (ASP). Since it only supports one profile of MPEG-4 and not the other, it can't be called fully MPEG-4 compatible.

Let's cut the bullshit (along with all of your grand-standing). This is the crux of your argument. You objected to me saying that the iPhone / iPod touch / whatever was "MPEG-4 compliant" (I never said it was "fully MPEG-4 compatible") because it doesn't support both Simple Profile and Advanced Simple Profile. You apparently just pulled this definition out of your ass. Where's your evidence that that's the official definition of MPEG-4 compliance? I'll save you some trouble. It doesn't exist.

There are 19 visual profiles defined as part of MPEG-4, and supporting one does not necessarily imply supporting others enumerated before it. In fact, the Fine Granularity Scalability Profile can be implemented on top of either Simple Profile or Advanced Simple Profile.

Your assertion that Simple Profile and Advanced Simple Profile are required for "full MPEG-4 compliance" is totally arbitrary and groundless. You're under the misconception that all parts of the standard must be implemented in order to claim compliance, but that argument fails for two reason. Firstly, SP and ASP are not the only profiles defined in MPEG-4. Secondly, the standard defines what is necessary in order to comply, not you. And what does MPEG say about this?

In order to allow effective implementations of the standard, subsets of the MPEG-4 Systems, Visual, and Audio tool sets have been identified, that can be used for specific applications. These subsets, called ‘Profiles’, limit the tool set a decoder has to implement.

See that? An "implementation of the standard" need not support all features or all profiles. If everyone had to implement every profile to claim MPEG-4 compliance, there'd be no point to even having profiles. Profiles are there to let people implement the part(s) of the MPEG-4 standard which suits their needs.

And by the way, I'm not the only person who interprets the standard this way.

Typical MPEG-4 codecs are DivX, 3ivx, Quicktime MPEG-4 and of course XviD. While these are all MPEG-4 compliant, that does not necessarily mean they can all play each others files properly. An example of this is the handling of more than 1 B-frame, which XviD can handle but DivX cannot. Another example would be XviD's 3-warppoint GMC.

As to the rest of your uninformed rambling, technical knowledge matters here because technical people design the standards in question. For people (like me) with formal education in these areas, design decisions like the use of profiles in a standard serves an obvious purpose: to ease the burden on implementors without them having to sacrifice compliance with the standard. Frankly, it doesn't even need to be explained to technical people.

But you, Mister Armchair Developer Who Knows Everything Because He Lurks on Doom9, see something like a profile and don't actually understand what it is conceptually. You just see that certain things are defined in the profiles and think that implementing the aggregation of those profiles' specifications must be the definition of "compliance" without regard to whether the standard actually says that. Think about it. Why would MPEG-4 define these profiles if implementing one of them correctly didn't mean you were compliant? All they'd be telling you how to do is how not to comply with the standard.

You don't consider these things because you've never actually designed or studied a standard in-depth, either for the purposes of conformance testing, debugging or implementation. So you have no technical familiarity with the subject matter. And that means that I don't give a flying fuck what you have to say, you insipid little prick.

[Praxis]

And I have absolutely no doubt the game will actually look that good when it actually comes out. Just like Killzone 2, right?

Even if it looks that good, it was not "approaching PSP graphics." That's not even close to psp. It's arguable whether or not it's even better then the DS, which cost's about a third the price before the subsidy you get for signing a two year contract with AT&T.

This is what a first generation PSP game looks like. Notice how much better it looks then the "gameplay" video you posted? No, you probably don't because you're blinded by your fanboyness.

That game was demoed live on stage. Killzone 2 was not, which is why people doubted it. The iPhone game will likely improve before launch, while Killzone's trailer was a proof of concept of what they were aiming for.


And that link you sent me is NOT a first generation PSP game. It came out later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3RhL-Le5Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlRD4DO9yLI

are first gen PSP games.

Yeah, pretty much every launch title for the PSP sucked, which is one of the reasons it bombed so hard.

The first PSP game that was widely regarded not to completely suck is Grand Theft Auto Liberty City Stories.

So what? I said "Approaching PSP", not superior to. The iPhone has graphics that are approaching first gen PSP games, but not equal to. What is so offensive about this statement?

Even a fanboy isn't stupid enough to bankrupt himself.

Wow. What an utterly useless way to reply to my post. You don't argue with anything you say, you just sort of avoid the subject.

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read the last line in your post, and the first line in mine. They match up perfectly.

Because it makes no sense. You say I'm a fanboy because I DON'T buy Apple products I consider overpriced? What are you smoking? I buy the apple products that I feel fit my needs and are of value. How is that fanboyism?

I was talking about the iPhone 3g. You haven't used it and have only seen a 5 day long advertisement for it.

...the iPhone 3G is a standard iPhone, just like mine, with GPS and faster download speeds. Same processor, and I have no intention of upgrading. It's just the software update I'm interested in.

Right, which you haven't used. This is Apple we're talking about, so the new features are probably going to be good and easy to use, but that's not the point. The point is you're actively recommending something based on the "probably." It's not too much to ask that you use the fucking thing first. I had the decency to look up the graphics specs for the device before saying it wasn't capable of PSP level graphics and I haven't said a thing about it's usability precisely because I haven't used it very much.

I'm not even recommending the iPhone 3G. I'm recommending the iPhone in general. The iPhone 3G is a standard iPhone with a GPS chip and different antennae. It has the same processor and software as the current iPhone which I own.

Yeah, the blackberry sucks pretty bad, especially compared to the iPhone. But you didn't have to make shit up about the iPhone's capabilities. It's only going to make people disappointed when it actually comes out.

Are you stupid? What capability did I make up?

The PSP level graphics. You don't read very well do you? It's only the thing I've been hammering you for all thread.

I don't get why you've been hammering me for it, either. It was one point in a list of multiple, and you seem completely obsessed with it. And I do believe it was pointed out that the PSP's processor outstrips the PSP and GPU falls short, but they're in a similar class at least and definitely worlds beyond the Nintendo DS.

[Beowulf]

Got released today. Anyone pickup a Jesusphone 3G?

[Singular Intellect]

Personally, I can hardly wait till they start producing cheap cell phones that store phone numbers and you use to call people. And that's it. Not a fucking music player, camera, internet browser, notebook, calculator, gaming console and other assorted shit I never use. Wonderful features, but I'd like them to be options. Some of us folks just want a simple phone...maybe use all that extra space for battery power and signal strength instead.

[GuppyShark]

You know there are handsets made for that market, right? Or are you just venting?

Australian iPhone 3G launch day was a lot of fun for me. Heard some great stories about Telstra and Voda getting kicked out of the Apple store because their systems fucked up.

[Stark]

Personally, I can hardly wait till they start producing cheap cell phones that store phone numbers and you use to call people. And that's it. Not a fucking music player, camera, internet browser, notebook, calculator, gaming console and other assorted shit I never use. Wonderful features, but I'd like them to be options. Some of us folks just want a simple phone...maybe use all that extra space for battery power and signal strength instead.

Oh dear.

I'm not getting one until I can remember to get my number transferred to Optus. I'm with vf at the moment and their offering is terrible.

[Gandalf]

Australian iPhone 3G launch day was a lot of fun for me. Heard some great stories about Telstra and Voda getting kicked out of the Apple store because their systems fucked up.

My sister's there now, representing Optus. Just some trivia.

I might get one next March if 3 offers one cheaply.

[Stark]

I might get one next March if 3 offers one cheaply.

What could possibly motivate you to use the 3 network?

[Gandalf]

I might get one next March if 3 offers one cheaply.

What could possibly motivate you to use the 3 network?

My friends are on it, so cheap calls to them got me aboard.

[Stark]

My friends are on it, so cheap calls to them got me aboard.

Ugh. Worst network in the country, and the only one that doesn't sell iPhones.

It's a message from god.

[Beowulf]

By the time I could manage to get to an AT&T store, they were sold out. Needed to put in a order for the phone. *sigh*

[Bounty]

It's been released in Belgium for... *drumroll* €525, or US$835!

Oh dear, a 400% markup. Didn't see that one coming.

My paper ran a four-page article series on it today and mauled it. The data plan that's supposedly "tailor-made" for the iPhone is a complete rip-off ($1700 for a one-year plan with 500MB of data/month and 6 hours call time) and for the price you get a device that's mediocre as a phone and brilliant as a gadget - except most of the gadgets are either useless or too expensive to even try.

[phongn]

Whoever's selling the iPhone out there must really, really hate Apple.

[Bounty]

Mobistar hates everyone.

It's been selling pretty well despite the high price. I'm not sure if it'll have legs here, but it looks like it'll be a modest success at least.