iPhone vs Nokia N900 vs Android ...part2- hardware

This comparison is restricted to iPhone vs n900, since android hardware varies more widely.


The comparison is also a 'what is it like to live with' instead of the raw specs.

Summary of part2: the hardware of the n900 is more impressive. If raw features is what you are looking for, the n900 impresses.

1. Battery life.
This is a simple one, the iPhone has better battery life. It is harder to add a long life battery for the iPhone, but in the spirit of the strengths of the iPhone, despite it being tricky some one has done it and it is available. You can get spare batteries for the n900, and yes there are long life batteries also.

Both will iphone and n900 will fail to survive a full day if used heavily enough, but the n900 battles just that little for often and more people run out of power on an n900. Having said that, people with n900s tend to use the device to do more. If you really want to do a lot with your device, then the n900 becomes a stronger choice. Are you a casual user? If so, then the iPhone looks good. But if you are a heavy user of your mobile device and therefore more likely to choose the n900 be prepared to use some 'through the day' charging solution, or a spare or long life battery on those days where you really use the n900 to the full extent. I don't have a spare or long life battery and it is not a problem. However if i am sitting at a desk using the n900 a lot almost as a laptop then i am using a computer keyboard and display and the n900 is on charge.


2. Display.
The n900 display can show almost 3 times the information of the iphone screen. In many cases you need good eyes or glasses to see 3 times the detail of an iphone screen but if you try to watch a movie of ip tv or 3d you will really see the difference. The n900 is also 3d accelerated and the iphone is not.
Also, when web browsing a regular web page, 480 pixels across is just not enough whereas 800 pixels can get everything.
So it depends on your usage. The n900 display is much more detailed and for some applications this matters, however if your primary use is as phone, the increased resolution won't be noticed very often.

3. Touch Screen.
It is really hard to move from n900 to iPhone and vice versa. With each, you learn how to do touch the screen to get best result and that same technique will NOT work on the other. Capacitive vs resistive generates almost a religious fervour. Certainly it is easy to see anyone accustom to either as feeling the other system is terrible. With the iPhone use the pad of your finger, with the n900 use the tip near the nail- or the nail itself.
In the end I found both about equal. The iPhone is easier to touch as you almost don't need to make contact. However a broad point of contact works best and for the finest work it is like trying to be accurate with a balloon. The iPhone carefully avoids you needing to be accurate and the lower resolution display is less appropriate for those application on the n900 that use the great accuracy of touch on the n900.
So - for general navigation the iPhone is just easy, a simple tool that does simple tasks brilliantly, but you cant use gloves or a regular stylus.
Touch on the n900 allows finer work which goes well with the higher resolution display, allows gloves and works well with the included stylus.
In the end, equal points. For simplest stuff the iPhone is best, for detailed tasks the n900 shines.

4. Camera etc.
The iPhone is currently a 3mpix camera and the camera, also capable of video on the 3Gs version. The n900 is 5mpix, again video capable, and while usually megapixels are a very poor guide to camera resolution in this case the quatlity is not far off the the 3 to 5 ration suggested by the pixels.
The n900 also has a useful dual-led flash/video light as well as a second camera for video calls.
The n900 also has infra red as well as fm radio. An extra feature of the n900 is fm transmitter so your music can be enjoyed anywhere there is an fm receiver. No cable required.

iPhone vs Nokia N900 vs Android ...part1

This comparision will be posted in a number of parts, and I am going to concentrate on the iPhone vs Nokia N900 and make references to Android, partly because there are several Android phones, and partly because I think Android tends to in some ways sit in the middle and where as the iPhone and N900 are opposite ends of the spectrum.

This is not a superficial test, but the results of living with the different devices for an extended period of time.

So who wins, iPhone or Nokia N900? The answer is it depends on you. If you want a cozy world where big brother Apple looks after your needs, the iPhone is for you. If you want freedom and will suffer some of the anarchy and are willing to do things for yourself that a big brother would help you with, take the N900. You will see more of the pros and cons of each as we go through the experiences.

Experience No1- The out of box experience.
Actually the out-of-box experience is very telling.

iPhone.
The iPhone went with me to meet some friends. I opened the box and took the iPhone out and brought it with me with the idea I would equip it with a SIM and start playing with it while I was out. The first surprise was it was not at all obvious how i would open the SIM holder. A little detective work solved the problem, it was clear a small tool was needed, and it was logical this tool was at home in the box. No problem, a borrowed improvised tool (an earring) solved this. Insert the SIM and turn the phone on. It was then I discovered the first negative experience. The iPhone asked to be connected to iTunes. I thought 'OK, we can do that later, but I need the phone now'. It soon became clear that the iPhone cannot be activated without connecting to a computer running iTunes. You must have a computer, and you MUST install iTunes! If you have iTunes already this is no big deal, but if you find this a little dictatorial you may be more an N900 person. Load up iTunes and register to apple and the roadblock is passed. Sync your contacts and you are away. Note if moving from an Outlook addressbook there are limits on bringing multiple mobile numbers (car, mobile, work mobile or foreign mobile for example) for the smae contact across. The out of box is over. Using the device is intuitive.

n900.
No problem inserting the SIM although the mechanism for opening the rear cover is obvious it is not the most comfortable mechanism. At first startup the n800 asks a series of question. It seems very strange that once English is selected as a Language, then you must set your timezone to be somewhere in England! Very strange! Actually I am in Australia at the time and Australia is not even an option! So an English speaking person cannot travel to a non-english speaking country? So if you speak Finnish and wish that as your language can you only ever have your time zone as Finland? I am aware there have been updates for n900 and the first thing I do is download updates. The process is very smooth and simple. I need to download two updates and restart each time, however the data i entered into the phone as a test is retained and after updates I am now able to locate myself in Australia and the functionality is clearly improved.

Summary: For the Apple you need to link to Apple, install Apple software on your computer before you can use the device. For the n900 you need to update the device and it is clear the device moves from 'very raw' to 'more mature' in the process. With Apple you are tied to Apple, with the n900 you are dealing with a work in progress.


Software and Apps.


The Case.

opening the box!
The out

the apple catalogue is a model for the industry!

No, I am not an Apple 'fanboy'. I test their products, but i don't even use them as my own personal choice. However when Apple does something way better than the industry, it is worth acknowledging. Apple negative points are worthy of note too...but today is about a strength.

Look at the apple catalogue, in particular the iPhones and MacBooks. Compare the list of phones with those of Nokia, Samsung or Sony-Ericsson. Compare the list of laptops with those of Dell, Asus or HP.

The point to notice is that Apple don't make a huge list of choices, and it is easy to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various models. For any of the competitors listed, there is a myriad models. Take Asus notebooks for example. While for some models (usually special models like the bamboo notebook) their is a clear differentiator, but more often their seems to be several models where the specification difference is unclear. It is really difficult to decide which model is most appropriate for your use, or even which model is should command the higher price.

Most competitors simply give far too many options. Not only is it confusing to make a choice as to which model to buy, when it comes to support there are so many models to provide drivers for or find others with the same machine who have solved the problem you are facing.

With less models to choose from, Apple products are industry best sellers even where Apple are not the industry leader. Nokia sells far more phones than Apple, but does any Nokia sell in similar volumes to the iPhone?

Since individual models are such volume sellers, the accessory market is also better. You can get more covers and accessories for an iPhone than for a 'Nokia' partly because there are so many different Nokias. Want a special cradle to mount your phone to you bicycle for example? Buy an iPhone!

Nokia, Motorola, Samsung really need to take notice. Make a great case design and keep using the exact same footprint to allow the production of accessories. Rationalise the product line! Allow software to differential product instead of an array of very similar yet different case designs. Nokia has done this with the E71,E72 and E63. They need to do this more often!

Anyone agree that choosing models from many suppliers seems like wading through specification of products that simply dont seem different enough?
and finding others who have overcome a problem to one you have discovered,

technical post.....how to ssh to the nokia n900

This is a technical post.....if not interested in tech stuff, and in specific, you don;t know what ssh is or own an n900....then move to other posts.

SSH allows a secure connection to a computer at the most basic level, so you can remotely copy files or perform other operations on the computer...enough of that now for the answers!

Step 1. Simply enable the extras repository and install openSSH client and server. You can check SSH is now running by using 'ps -ef |grep ssh'

Step 2. try simply ssh root@ from another device on the same subnet.....Note: in most cases this will NOT work, even though SSH is set up.

The reason this doesnt work is the way the n900 conserves wifi power and doesn't 'keep alive' the wifi connection

3. From the terminal on the n900, try 'ssh root@127.0.0.1'. Note: in many cases 'localhost' will not resolve so no point using that.

4. if the n900 cant ssh to itself you have an additional problem, but if it does work then all is normal.

5. set the n900 to ping the router.

6. ssh to the n900. the 'pings' keep the wifi alive and you should have no problem getting in

Meego, the n900, and how Nokia doesn't yet 'get' smartphones!

Recently Nokia and Intel announced the merger of the Maemo and Moblin smartphone operating systems. While this could be a good thing, it has left many Nokia N900 owners wondering what is going to happen to them?

Specifically their big question is: will the N900 support this new Meego or will the N900 be at a 'dead end'. The answer from Nokia is 'no, there is no plan to offer Meego on the N900'. Worse than this, there has been no plan to offer Maemo6 on the N900 either. While the name of the next release is undecided between Maemo6 or Meego and will in either event be Meego compatible, it was never planned to be offered to N900 buyers. Nor phones with the first version of Meego be offered an upgrade to the the second version. Each device 'obsolete' very quickly unless things at Nokia change.

The reason for this is Nokia things about Maemo devices the same way it has always though about Symbian devices. That is, a device will only ever run the release originally offered. Can you recall a Nokia phone that moved from one version of Symbian to another? If a new phone with a newer Symbian was released soon after you bought a phone, do you seek to move to the new version? Generally 'no' and it all comes down to difference between a phone and a computer.

Historically, computers have the option of running a new version of operating system, but phones don't get that choice. For computers, a big deal is made of the operating system whereas historically the OS has simply been the engine to enable the phone to work. More specifically, with a computer it is anticipated you may wish to run the latest apps, and historically, prior to the iPhone, most people didn't even run apps on their phone. If apps were present, they were an accessory, not central to using the phone in its primary role.

Now all this has changed, but Nokia doesn't yet have the mindset for the change. Until they do have that mindset, new Nokia phones will only ever have Nokia support to run the OS originally offered.
Traditional computer buyers, for example buying a Macbook, would be horrified if Apple two months later introduced lepoards, tigers, lions or other big cats and did not offer this OS to existing customers with a new enough computer for it to function, but phone buyers have not had this offering since application software compatibility was historically not an issue.
Now Nokia has the N900 'mobile computer'. People think of it like a computer and expect computer treatment with respect to software upgrades. However Nokia hasn't made that leap yet!

Until this approach changes at Nokia, there will be disappointment in the mobile computer customer ranks. Sure their will be community versions not supported by Nokia, but Apple with their computer background will encourage moving to the latest software to enable the largest base for application developers, and Nokia will treat devices as traditional phones and developers will not be as enthusiastic.

Yes, it does sound like there are other reasons why the N900 will be an orphan, but the mindset still needs an update if Nokia is to avoid angering the faithful.

Phones are not obsolete when a new OS is released if they cannot be upgraded are they? That only applies to computers surely?

For background, here is a link to a video on unwired that where some Nokia views are expressed:
here

digital cameras ..or 'walk softly and carry a big lens'

Basic Principles

This is a first post on this topic here, so i will keep to the basics. These basics are:
1. How to equip your self to get enough light for a good quality photo
2. How to actually capture the light needed for a photo
3. How to actually get the right photo
4. What do mega pixels really do for you
5. Conclusions - how to choose cameras

1. The basics for a good photo- light!

Capture a photograph, you capture light. The more light you capture, the higher the quality photograph is possible. There are three ways to capture the sufficient light for a good photo-
1) A bigger lens/sensor will capture more light from any given subject
2) Only take photos where there is a lot of light
3) Use a long exposure and capture the light over a longer period of time.

To take the absolute best photographs, professional photographers use large formate cameras, intense studio lighting, and have the everything keep still so they can use a long exposure. This of course is not always practical, so here is a look at all these factors and how they apply in a wider set of circumstances.

A bigger lens/sensor.

There are a whole set of sizes of photographic equipment. The sensor size partially determines the lens size, and is one area often not understood by people new to photography so i will discuss it first.

Camera Type	Sensor diagonal size	area mm2
Large Format	size varies, but usually 156mm diagonal	12,000
Medium Format	anywhere between large and 43mm...but 78mm diagonal is typical	3,000
35mm Film	43mm (24mm x 36mm)	864
35mm digital	27mm to 43mm (26mm ='apsc', 43mm= full frame)	337 to 864
4/3 four thirds	21mm	221
typical digital camera (non DSLR)	6mm to 12mm	20 to 50
mobile phone or webcam	usually 3mm to 5mm	8 to 18

The bigger the format, in theory, the better photo is possible. But there are trade offs- notably, the bigger the format, the bigger the lens you need for the same application. No one makes long range telephoto lenses for large format or even medium format cameras to take photos of small subjects 100m away- these lenses would be just to large to be practical.
In practice, (at time of writing in 2007) fashion covers are mostly photographed with medium format cameras and 35mm DSLR cameras (43mm diagonal) are now able to be considered for this application. Professional sports photographers mostly use 35 DSLR cameras, but often with reduced 35mm diagonal sensors. These photographers cannot use a larger format because they require telephoto lenses.

As technology enables extracting more detail from the light falling on an given sensor area, better photos will be able to be taken with smaller sensors, but there is only so far you can take the laws of physics.

Given the same technology, and all else being equal, the bigger the sensor you use, the higher quality photo it is possible to take. To get the best photo, uses the largest sensor you can.

2. How to actually capture the light needed for a photo

Regardless of the size of the sensor, it is still necessary to get sufficient light (or photons) to land on each mm2 of the sensor. The three ways or increasing the light are to collect it from a larger area (known as 'aperture'), collect light for a longer time (know as 'shutter speed') or simply have more light in the first place. The more light that lands on each mm2, the more detail it is possible (with the right technology) to extract from that mm2.

Every lens has a maximum 'aperture' or 'hole that light passes through'. To hole cannot be bigger than the diameter of the lens, so the larger the lens, the larger the possible aperture. So if you buy a really big diameter, expensive lens, you can take better pictures with less light. However, it is not all a matter of money- the larger the aperture, the shorter the range of distance that is in focus in your picture. Sometimes a blurred background is a desired effect but other times it just means not everything you want is in focus.

The second factor, 'shutter speed', allows capturing the light over a longer time. It is obvious that if the subject of your photo moves while you are capturing the light, you get a blurred photo. For fast action, a long shutter speed is not possible. There is also another problem! You have to hold the camera still. Now this may sound easy, and for photos of close objects, it is not such a big problem. However, when taking long range 'zoomed in' telephoto pictures, just the tiniest movement of the camera becomes magnified and will blur your picture. If the subject is not moving there are two solutions. a) use a tripod and b) image stabilisation. A tripod is great, but a pain to carry sometimes. Real image stabilization that physically steadies the camera and/or lens is called 'optical image stabilisation'. Beware of 'digital' image stabilization which generally simply doesn't actually allow a long shutter speed or capture more light. 'Digital image stabilization' generally means the camera will try to do the best it can without getting enough light and does not solve the problem.

The third way to get enough light is to take photos where everything is brightly lit. Most of us do not take photos in our own light controlled studios, the best we can do is bring a flash. Using flash also has limits. The light from you flash has a limit as to how far away it will still provide sufficient light. The flash is not appropriate in many situations and you may even be told flash photography is prohibited. The light from a flash is just not artistically substitute for natural light when capturing nature.

To have the most flexibility in capturing the right light:-
1) have a flash but only use it when no other solution is available
2) either have a tripod or good 'optical image stabilisation', particularly for telephoto pictures.
3) have the largest apertures lenses you can. these are measured by 'f' stop ratings and the lower the number, the larger the aperture. 'f1.0' is almost unobtainable, 'f2.0' is wonderful if you could get it, 'f2.8' is great and 'f6.0' is only for when enough light is just not a problem.

3. How to actually get the right photo
There are three ingredients to getting the right photo.
a) be able to take your photo quickly enough
b) either get close enough to what you are photographing or have a lens that makes your subject look close from where you are.
c) have your camera and lens with you
Outside studio photography, capturing the best photograph

3a. be able to take your photo quickly enough.
A critical difference between a good and a bad camera is the time delay from when you press the shutter button, to the picture acutally being captured. Early digital cameras, and some newer budget cameras, have such a delay that you need to literally need to anticipate the right moment, and press the shutter seconds in advance. I recall a friend trying to take a picture of a child on a 'merry go round' needing to press the shutter when the child two positions in front of his child was in the viewfinder in order to get a picture of the correct child, as the delay between pressing the shutter and the picture being captured meant the child in the frame would change.
Bad as this situation is, some problems can be even worse. He was still able to get a photo, as the child was going round and round and he could practice timing and the time delay was predictable.
Apart from the predictable 'shutter lag' which can be found in specifications, another delay occurs when the camera is slow to be able to focus on the subject. You press the shutter, and no picture is taken as the camera is still attempting to correctly focus on the subject, or the picture is taken without correct focus so there is still no useful photo.
The third timing problem is that adjustments to camera settings are required to get the photo you want, but the adjustments are hidden several levels deep in menus and simply take too long.

3b) either get close enough to what you are photographing or have a lens that makes your subject look close from where you are.
A fixed focal length camera requires 'pedestrian zoom' where you are able to walk to stand the appropriate distance from your subject. This doesn't always work as a solution. During a football match you may not be permitted to walk to ideal position to take a photo unless you also have a number on your back. Wildlife, and particularly bird life, may not allow you to get very close. At dinner you may not be get far enough away to get everyone in the frame. The solution is either interchangeable lens or zoom lens, or both. The greater zoom range you have, the greater your ability to capture that special moment.

Do not be fooled by 'digital zoom'. Imagine having a picture of a crowd of 100 people when you really wanted a picture of one person in the crowd. Digital zoom is the effectively taking the photo of the crowd, cropping away everyone buy the person you want and then magnifying that picture. There is still no more detail of the person you want than in the crowd picture. Digital zoom is merely cropping the picture and produces no better detail than cropping in 'photoshop' yourself. To quote megapixels, if you have a 5 megapixel camera, 2x digital zoom yeilds the centre 2.5 megapixels. At 10x digital zoom you have the 0.5 megapixels at the centre of the lens. The only way this helps is if you do not have enough room to keep the whole 5 megapixels until you can crop the photo yourself later.

3c) have your camera and lens with you
A big zoom or multiple interchangeable lens, the ability to capture the most light and focus it on a reasonable size sensor : all of these requirements make the camera and lens larger, heavier, and more of an inconvenience to carry with you every where you go.

4. What do mega pixels really do for you

Pixels, or megapixels, capture the detail of the photo. If comparing cameras with pixels of equal quality, the more pixels the more detailed the photos that can be taken. A DSLR with 10 megapixels will typically have each pixel collecting over 10x the amount of light as each pixel in a 10 megapixel compact digital camera. Despite the same pixel count, the capability of the cameras are worlds apart.
The bigger each pixel, the more light it captures, the better photos in can take in all light but especially in low light or fast shutter speeds.
The more pixels you get in the same size sensor, the smaller and lower quality each pixel. For any given size sensor, there is a point of diminishing returns where increasing the number of pixels simply reduces the quality of the pixels, producing no improvement in the photos.
For compact digital cameras with current technology and current sensor sizes, around 5 to 6 megapixels is the point where quality no longer increases. As of late 2007 these cameras are offered in pixel counts as high as 12 megapixels, but the image quality has not improved significantly since around 5 or 6 megapixels. Now the 10 megapixel camera which is a new model that replaces an older 6 megapixel model may show some improvement due to newer technology, but never a 6 to 10 improvement.
Camera phones will normal phone size sensors have not got significantly better than 3 megapixel quality, even though 3 and 5 megapixel models are available. The following table shows how as of 2007, practical megapixel counts on smaller sensors are exceeded by many products. New technologies can increase practical limits, but the limits can only go so far.

Camera Type	maximum available pixels	practical limit
Large Format	dont know	dont know
Medium Format	60	not reached
35mm Full frame	24 megapixel	not reached
35mm cropped	12 megapixel	not reached
4/3 four thirds	10 megapixel	?
typical digital camera (non DSLR)	12 megapixel	6 megapixel
mobile phone or webcam	8 megapixel	2 megapixel

5. Conclusions - how to choose cameras

to be added

index

There a too few posts to need an index so far, but if the blog grows i will index posts under
technology misc
audio visual photography
non technology
australia specific (i spend most time in australia, and some posts may reflect this)

and we will see what else !

There is at least one old post and one day i may update that site