Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 22, 2012, 10:16 PM   #126
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwwilson View Post
You iPhone fanboys are so funny. You claim you don't "need 5 inches" or that "1080p is useless" but if this was Apple doing it you'd be wetting your pants at their "innovation". You guys are so jealous that Android continues to beat Apple to the punch with the latest in cell phone technology. Bigger screens, HD res, multi-core processors, gigabytes of RAM, LTE etc...and that's not even the software side of things. If it wasn't for android you will still be using your 3.5" 480x320 screen and living in denial believing you're happy with it.

You should want phones to continue to improve, thank god we have Android that pushes itself to the bleeding edge or we'd still be stuck in the stone ages of 2007.
I agree with some of your points, particularly that if it weren't for Android (or other devices) we definitely would be stuck in 2007 as there would be no reason for Apple to innovate.... not that they really innovated anything anyway, they took existing ideas, slapped them together and charged enormous amounts for the iPhone. Worse is the fact that they claimed ownership of multitouch, a completely BOGUS statement.

However, where youre wrong is in the screen size argument. 3.5" is small now only because manufacturers forced larger screens onto us. There was never a demand for gigantic phones. 4.3.. 4.5..... 4.85" for a PHONE? You gotta be kidding me. Unless youre a hoodrat thug with XXXXL jeans, that is NOT a pocketable phone. I *wish* there would be at least some emphasis on creating 3.7" screen sized phones, that was *my* sweet spot. And I don't say this as 4-5" phones can't still be made, I dont care if they exist. I just want CHOICE cuz over the last couple years I've found myself be screwed in that department.
wikus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 10:18 PM   #127
dalbir4444
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
What else can you say in response to an opinion post??
Offer your own thoughts on it. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by wepiii View Post
This whole thread is so pointless. Apple doesn't make a 5 inch phone that has a 1080p screen. If that is as important to you as it must be considering you have made several different threads about this same topic, then please just buy that phone. Nobody here is going to care and if that phone makes YOU happy then that's all that should matter. I don't like the android operating system, and if I had to choose I would pick the iPhone 2g over any android phone. I completely understand that sounds ridiculous and irrational to you, but for me it would serve my needs better because of what is important to me in a phone. If 1080p and 5 inches is important to you in a phone then just buy that phone.... I feel like you must just really like ios or something so it's frustrating to you that you don't like the hardware as much or something. I get that, but Apple is a publicly traded company. They build phones for the masses... Maybe one day you will be able to design your own phone online or something (that would be innovation) but until then you just have to realize Apple is making the product they see best fit for their marketshare and based on every piece of evidence the 4 inch screen size is what will stay for awhile. So again, please just buy the HTC phone you were talking about and be happy.
You sound mad. I think you are too emotionally invested in your phone.
dalbir4444 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 10:21 PM   #128
smellysox8
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
If your argument is bigger screen and higher resolution is always better, I suggest you sell your Nexus 7 and get the iPad 4.

I still love my 3.5" iPhone 4S.
You mean Nexus 10. iPad 4's screen is a joke.
smellysox8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 10:21 PM   #129
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by wepiii View Post
This whole thread is so pointless. Apple doesn't make a 5 inch phone that has a 1080p screen.
iThink you do not understand the purpose of this sub-forum.
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 10:22 PM   #130
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinegarTasters View Post
1080p should be the minimum of all smartphone displays. In fact, at 440 ppi, viewing it at over 12 inches viewing distance (way over normal holding distance), you can still see the individual dots. So 5 inches at 440 ppi is great but it offers room for more improvement.

With normal 7-8 inches viewing distance, at 900 ppi, you can just barely see the dots. And guess what? 880ppi, is double 440ppi of the 5 inch. And with 4k just around the corner... You can have 4k in 5 inches using 880 ppi, and that would be perfect for a display in the future to match the 4k television sets and movies coming out.

But lets say technology is not catching up fast enough. Then we can use the current 440 ppi to make a 10 inch tablet display. It would fit into 10 inches diagonal, perfect for a tablet computer with 4k resolution.

Current monitors and TV's are selling full HD minimum resolution. Movies are being released at 1080p minimum. In 3 years time people will start moving to 4k resolution televisions. To meet technological progress, smartphones should be 1080p at 5 inches diagonal now! And a tablet should be 4k resolution at 10 inch diagonal in 3 years time. These are the resolutions that all companies that make displays should aim for.

With paper printers making 1400+ dpi common, stopping at 326 ppi of the retina display is slowing progress. dpi and ppi are the SAME thing. In fact, many monitors manufactures will substitute dpi instead of ppi. Pixel is dot. Dot is pixel. The iPhone is last years technology if it stays with 326ppi. The closer you move a display to your face, the more ppi/dpi is required. In fact the reason 1400dpi is common is that when people are examining things in detail, they will move it within 6 inches of their eyes. 1400+ is needed to so they won't see "dots". So I would say close to 1000ppi should be standard for all displays in 5 years time, and premium displays would aim for 1400+, matching whatever the printers are aiming for.

In fact, they shouldn't even be aiming for 1000ppi 2D displays. They should go full holographic 3D displays. If you have seen a holograph sticker, you can move left and right and it should rotate with your eyesight. Nintendo 3DS has this. You can even make it vertical 3D as well (so full 3D left right, up down). These displays require even more pixels. 2000ppi would allow you to get a good 3D holographic display with barely enough good size for viewing in front of you. But because technology is not moving fast enough, we probably need ANOTHER 8 years, unless someone thinks ahead and aims for it RIGHT NOW! Full 3D (up down left right) holograph color stickers were out over 20 years ago! Why are there STILL no displays able to produce full 3D without glasses? (that includes up and down 3D). The technology movers are TOO SLOW! They could land on the moon in 10 years time, but in 20 years time they STILL CAN'T replicate on display what they can on paper.
I'm gonna render your entire argument moot with one sentence:

The human eye has great difficulty seeing past 300dpi.

So what is the point in creating a display so high-res that ultimately makes ZERO real world difference? You do realize that not only would the process of packing in more pixels on a display mean higher manufacturing costs, stupid and pointless bragging rights by the likes of smartphone fans of all sorts, but more importantly it would create more strain on the processor and drain your battery life.

Logic tells us 300+ dpi is meaningless. Its a similar problem with having 8+ megapixels on a crappy smartphone camera sensor; hooray for high ISO noise levels just to get a gigantic and useless image!
wikus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2012, 11:24 PM   #131
wepiii
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
You sound mad. I think you are too emotionally invested in your phone.[/QUOTE]

Not mad at all. Just don't understand the point of making this same thread 3 different times. It just seems a little ridiculous to me... Please read one of his other threads...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinegarTasters View Post
Apple needs people who can think ahead, not just good design. It also needs to put performance and quality control as priority one. No one plays games on mac because it is too slow compared to windows for the same game. The OS has slow objective-c and lots of virtual machine code that prevents it from outperforming a windows machine that use C/C++ or assembly. Even though microsoft adds in SLOW .NET, at least the lower layers use C/assembly, so apps can run on top of them, and people who don't care for performance can load in the .NET layers (ON TOP OF operating system). For apple, the slowest layers ARE IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM! This is stupid, as stupid as what android is doing with SLOW Java being the OS layer (which will bite them in the end when Windows Phone starts getting good apps).

Thinking ahead means you need someone who understands technology. A good designer can probably design something you like to look at (like a car). But if the engine is not good, nobody will buy it. Just like if a Mac Book Pro looks nice, but with a buggy and slow OSX Mountain Lion, people want to throw the OS away and install something better (windows?). Just like the NeXT computer, good design, terrible optical drive speed that killed it. Performance is important. Good quality control is important. Good technological direction is important.

For example, lets look at display technology:

1080p should be the minimum of all smartphone displays. In fact, at 440 ppi, viewing it at over 12 inches viewing distance (way over normal holding distance), you can still see the individual dots. So 5 inches at 440 ppi is great but it offers room for more improvement.

With normal 7-8 inches viewing distance, at 900 ppi, you can just barely see the dots. And guess what? 880ppi, is double 440ppi of the 5 inch. And with 4k just around the corner... You can have 4k in 5 inches using 880 ppi, and that would be perfect for a display in the future to match the 4k television sets and movies coming out.

But lets say technology is not catching up fast enough. Then we can use the current 440 ppi to make a 10 inch tablet display. It would fit into 10 inches diagonal, perfect for a tablet computer with 4k resolution.

Current monitors and TV's are selling full HD minimum resolution. Movies are being released at 1080p minimum. In 3 years time people will start moving to 4k resolution televisions. To meet technological progress, smartphones should be 1080p at 5 inches diagonal now! And a tablet should be 4k resolution at 10 inch diagonal in 3 years time. These are the resolutions that all companies that make displays should aim for.

With paper printers making 1400+ dpi common, stopping at 326 ppi of the retina display is slowing progress. dpi and ppi are the SAME thing. In fact, many monitors manufactures will substitute dpi instead of ppi. Pixel is dot. Dot is pixel. The iPhone is last years technology if it stays with 326ppi. The closer you move a display to your face, the more ppi/dpi is required. In fact the reason 1400dpi is common is that when people are examining things in detail, they will move it within 6 inches of their eyes. 1400+ is needed to so they won't see "dots". So I would say close to 1000ppi should be standard for all displays in 5 years time, and premium displays would aim for 1400+, matching whatever the printers are aiming for.

In fact, they shouldn't even be aiming for 1000ppi 2D displays. They should go full holographic 3D displays. If you have seen a holograph sticker, you can move left and right and it should rotate with your eyesight. Nintendo 3DS has this. You can even make it vertical 3D as well (so full 3D left right, up down). These displays require even more pixels. 2000ppi would allow you to get a good 3D holographic display with barely enough good size for viewing in front of you. But because technology is not moving fast enough, we probably need ANOTHER 8 years, unless someone thinks ahead and aims for it RIGHT NOW! Full 3D (up down left right) holograph color stickers were out over 20 years ago! Why are there STILL no displays able to produce full 3D without glasses? (that includes up and down 3D). The technology movers are TOO SLOW! They could land on the moon in 10 years time, but in 20 years time they STILL CAN'T replicate on display what they can on paper.
To me, it's just not logical to think that you as an individual know more about this than everyone at Apple. But again, I'm certainly not mad about it... Confused would be a better adjective.

And lastly....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
iThink you do not understand the purpose of this sub-forum.
Maybe I don't I guess... I would assume this would be better suited for the, "Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices
Discussion of non-Apple smartphones and tablets and their operating systems; comparisons with Apple products" Subforum, but if I am wrong I'm sorry. Although it still won't change the fact that I will still find this thread pointless.
wepiii is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 07:49 AM   #132
viewfly
macrumors 6502a
 
viewfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinegarTasters View Post
1080p should be the minimum of all smartphone displays. In fact, at 440 ppi, viewing it at over 12 inches viewing distance (way over normal holding distance), you can still see the individual dots. So 5 inches at 440 ppi is great but it offers room for more improvement.

With normal 7-8 inches viewing distance, at 900 ppi, you can just barely see the dots. And guess what? 880ppi, is double 440ppi of the 5 inch. And with 4k just around the corner... You can have 4k in 5 inches using 880 ppi, and that would be perfect for a display in the future to match the 4k television sets and movies coming out.

But lets say technology is not catching up fast enough. Then we can use the current 440 ppi to make a 10 inch tablet display. It would fit into 10 inches diagonal, perfect for a tablet computer with 4k resolution.

Current monitors and TV's are selling full HD minimum resolution. Movies are being released at 1080p minimum. In 3 years time people will start moving to 4k resolution televisions. To meet technological progress, smartphones should be 1080p at 5 inches diagonal now! And a tablet should be 4k resolution at 10 inch diagonal in 3 years time. These are the resolutions that all companies that make displays should aim for.

With paper printers making 1400+ dpi common, stopping at 326 ppi of the retina display is slowing progress. dpi and ppi are the SAME thing. In fact, many monitors manufactures will substitute dpi instead of ppi. Pixel is dot. Dot is pixel. The iPhone is last years technology if it stays with 326ppi. The closer you move a display to your face, the more ppi/dpi is required. In fact the reason 1400dpi is common is that when people are examining things in detail, they will move it within 6 inches of their eyes. 1400+ is needed to so they won't see "dots". So I would say close to 1000ppi should be standard for all displays in 5 years time, and premium displays would aim for 1400+, matching whatever the printers are aiming for.

In fact, they shouldn't even be aiming for 1000ppi 2D displays. They should go full holographic 3D displays. If you have seen a holograph sticker, you can move left and right and it should rotate with your eyesight. Nintendo 3DS has this. You can even make it vertical 3D as well (so full 3D left right, up down). These displays require even more pixels. 2000ppi would allow you to get a good 3D holographic display with barely enough good size for viewing in front of you. But because technology is not moving fast enough, we probably need ANOTHER 8 years, unless someone thinks ahead and aims for it RIGHT NOW! Full 3D (up down left right) holograph color stickers were out over 20 years ago! Why are there STILL no displays able to produce full 3D without glasses? (that includes up and down 3D). The technology movers are TOO SLOW! They could land on the moon in 10 years time, but in 20 years time they STILL CAN'T replicate on display what they can on paper.
Printers need a lot more dpi to match the tonal and brightness range of a single LCD pixel. It is a confusing subject. You are mixing the two up. Printers need to high resolution cluster pixels to achieve full shades of grey and color.

Also stating that displays should be at 1080p doesn't define the screen resolution in terms of pixel density per inch. A 1080p 4" has higher ppi than a 55" 1080p HD monitor.

For the normal and average user with 20/20 vision 326ppi LCD is enough resolution. The normal eye cannot focus closer than 6".
viewfly is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC