I have the Galaxy S 2 and while the blacks are really nice, the colors are way too saturated. It might be a software calibration issue but on most of my pictures especially the skin tones look horrible. It reminds me a but if the old Canon compact cameras, where pictures were way too vibrant and saturated to give (or better: to fool) the impression of a "great" picture.
And in sunlight the screen is as useless as any other. Too be fair here: in Hong Kong you get a very decent amount of sunlight, so it will be a tad hard on any equipment.
Id rather see 300+ DPI on the iPad 3, with a decent anti-glare coating. New tech standards are wonderful, when fully realized and implemented well...
... but has expressed frustration with fragmentation in the industry and the stranglehold cable companies have over the user experience with their own set-top boxes.
Apple won't use any technology if other companies are using it. They just have to be different even if it means idiotic design choices.
Here are some examples:
No right click mouse ever produced
Blu-Ray
HDMI
OLED
Copy/Paste
Flash
User swappable batteries
Which 2 statements were completely false?
Sharp's Elite series TV panels most likely does not use the same Sharp panels as they do with the mainstream panels they sell.
Additionally, the Elite brand was acquired by Sharp just recently.
by and large, Sharp panels are not reviewed as well as their counterparts, namely Samsung.
I don't have the funds to buy an Aston Martin, which is why I'd go for the Ford. Your analogy doesn't make sense.
Again, they have no act to clean up. Sales show this.
oh, i'm not saying that Apple would control the way the panels are built. I'm just saying that, like previous rumors have stated, Apple would partner with an existing panel supplier, (Sharp, LG, Samsung) and supply them with AppleTV inside their TV's a la GoogleTV with Sony.
But you're totally right, why would Apple go into a low margin business.
So, your last paragraph proves my point, and disagrees with everything else you said. Beta came out in testing with higher video quality, but by the time both actually hit the streets, they had comparable video quality. The tech was comparable, but lots of **** was made for consumer use (VHS) while nicer machines were made for commercial use (Beta), as is always the case. That skews people's perceptions. Perhaps even especially those who worked in the industry on quality equipment, going home to ****.As a Beta owner, I clearly disagree.
In addition to the well supported superiority of Beta picture quality, the mechanisms were very different.
If you hit "play reverse" on your Beta deck - the picture would pause for an instant, then start playing in reverse.
Hitting "play reverse" on a VHS deck, however, stopped the video, made some loud clunking noises, then after a while started to play the video in reverse.
However, when I got my first Sony VHS deck - it could reverse as smoothly as a Sony Beta deck. Sent all the other decks to the toxic waste site.
IME, Philips makes crappy products, including TVs. Whether the panels themselves are an 8 or a 3 (scale of 1-10) hardly matters since overall they do not make a quality product. PQ is my first consideration, but not the only one.You claimed the philips tv's use Samsung/LG panels - incorrect
You claimed they make the crapiest displays - incorrect
I'm no expert, but I thought Aston was not exactly high on the reliability list. And a niche product that most people would hardly know about if it weren't for James Bond. Even in England. Maybe y'all should stop with silly car analogies.it makes perfect sense. Trying to portray sales figures as the one and only definitive proof that a product is satisfactory or great is laughable. Which is why the Aston Martin comparison to ford is a valid one seeing as most would opt for the aston and not the ford despite the disparity in price and of course sales.
IME, Philips makes crappy products, including TVs. Whether the panels themselves are an 8 or a 3 (scale of 1-10) hardly matters since overall they do not make a quality product. PQ is my first consideration, but not the only one.
I'm no expert, but I thought Aston was not exactly high on the reliability list. And a niche product that most people would hardly know about if it weren't for James Bond. Even in England. Maybe y'all should stop with silly car analogies.
It's also kinda funny you'd compare these 2, since Ford owned Aston for some time.
Personally, I'd probably opt for a Toyota.
That could be it.All large electronic companies will have crappy products in their stable. Philips
9000 and 21:9 series are an exception and as matter of fact I don't believe they are available in the US Market so perhaps that could explain you're scepticism but I'm sure the 21:9 is the nicest looking and built tv out there (only beaten by B&O and the Elite series just released, I'd imagine).
You've been brainwashed. It's not even a brake issue, and it's been fixed. Every car has recalls, this one was very serious, but it was worked on pretty quickly and efficiently by Toyota. In fact, they took it so seriously they stopped production for a week or so, I've never heard of another company doing that. The media blew it up to be far more than it ever was, and has dragged it out much longer than it should have been. Maybe you should actually read that article you linked.Irrespective of james bond I'm sure most knew what an Aston Martin was knowing how crazy people in the UK are over cars. Anyway, I'd never for one minute consider Toyota after their brake issues resulting in millions of vehicles recalled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20092011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls
You've been brainwashed. It's not even a brake issue, and it's been fixed. Every car has recalls, this one was very serious, but it was worked on pretty quickly and efficiently by Toyota. In fact, they took it so seriously they stopped production for a week or so, I've never heard of another company doing that. The media blew it up to be far more than it ever was, and has dragged it out much longer than it should have been. Maybe you should actually read that article you linked.
The only problems with that are,
3. OLED isn't that good.
You claimed the philips tv's use Samsung/LG panels - incorrect
You claimed they make the crapiest displays - incorrect
I never said they used the same panels as on the Elite, but they are by no means crap, I can assure you.
Theres a difference...Philips makes the crappiest displays. on that note, do they even make their own displays or do they get it from the usual crowd; Samsung/LG.
i never said that Philips uses Samsung/LG panels. I was asking if they do. It was a question.
Theres a difference....
Sharps LCD panels are generally crap. They used to have a ton of banding issues. Some years back they were of quality, but Samsung/LG/Panasonic/Sony surpassed them in terms of PQ.
Please, if you feel that Sharp/Philips makes the best panels go make that trip to avsforum and tell them Philips is a premiere TV brand to buy. They'll laugh at you.
Philips makes the crappiest displays.
At least you've accepted your other comment as being downright wrong.
Obviously we're stepping into subjective territory, but i disagree with your assertion on Sharp's displays.
Show where I said Sharp/philips makes the best panels. In any case, I don't think I'd be able to compete with this:
Here it is in its full glory...
you're wrong claiming that I said Philips get their panels from Samsung/LG.
this is evident as I provided the original source of what I stated.
there is no right or wrong. I asked a question.
Sharp makes subpar panels compared to its competitors.
You're wrong claiming I said Philips/Sharp makes the best panels. Looks like it works both ways.
This is evident as i never made such a claim word for word if you look at my posts throughout this thread.
You made a bold statement coupled with a question. The former was clearly wrong.
Have fun with your Panny while I enjoy the reputed 21:9 monster in the living room.
I just want a 55" LED. No 3D, no Netflix, Pandra, etc built in. What if half of that stuff becomes obsolete in a year or so?
I thought it was thinner, used less power, and has superb black levels and colour quality than old LCD screens with backlights
Title could of simply read:
"Apple Reportedly Still Uninterested in Modern Technology"
"But" said family says, "we don't want the unsightly little box on display where anyone can see it". Salesperson says, "well, I can sell you that Apple TV for twice the price OR we could include this bracket which will hide the littleTV box behind the TV."
Apple won't use any technology if other companies are using it. They just have to be different even if it means idiotic design choices.
Here are some examples:
No right click mouse ever produced
Blu-Ray
HDMI
OLED
Copy/Paste
Flash
User swappable batteries
I'm not sure what the problem is. They recalled millions of vehicles pertaining to various issues, and yes there was a brake issue if you actually read the article as I indeed have. Sure, it was hyped up by the media but don't let that get in the way of the facts. I do not remember another company having to recall as many vehicles as Toyota were forced to maybe you could provide some insight on that.