Maybe one should educate themselves on what a spec is and what results are from said specs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 5 Touch Screen Twice as Fast as Android Touch Screen
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe one should educate themselves on what a spec is and what results are from said specs.
Precisely the reason I have an iPhone and iPad, because it sure isn't the ridiculous clown UI. As long as the hardware is better, I'm sticking with it.
Higher pixel density...
on Android phone screens (compared to iPhone) is probably more meaningful than the touch screen "snappiness" reported by these folks. This seems to be a typical case of people that can collect the data but can't interpret it. So, iPhone 's reaction is 50ms. Does it matter? It does not. here is why. Because in order to take advantage of this speed, one has to type with the speed of 20 characters per second. Anybody is this thread is this fast? Also, given the fact that human reaction time (responding to visual stimulus) is about 190 milliseconds (link) it is unlikely that people can see/feel any difference between 50ms and 100ms screen response times. They definitely can't benefit from such decreases in screen response time in any meaningful way.
on Android phone screens (compared to iPhone) is probably more meaningful than the touch screen "snappiness" reported by these folks. This seems to be a typical case of people that can collect the data but can't interpret it. So, iPhone 's reaction is 50ms. Does it matter? It does not. here is why. Because in order to take advantage of this speed, one has to type with the speed of 20 characters per second. Anybody is this thread is this fast? Also, given the fact that human reaction time (responding to visual stimulus) is about 190 milliseconds (link) it is unlikely that people can see/feel any difference between 50ms and 100ms screen response times. They definitely can't benefit from such decreases in screen response time in any meaningful way.
I gotta agree (if you're saying the touch screen feels weird). that's the one thing I really hate about my Android phone. Android phones are not the best for fruit ninja,,,
It´s all about the kernel.
Read this. Android runs the thread of rendering with normal priority. And that can´t be changed. You should rewrite the whole OS.
http://androidandme.com/2011/12/news/android-may-never-be-as-smooth-as-ios-says-ex-googler/
Read this. Android runs the thread of rendering with normal priority. And that can´t be changed. You should rewrite the whole OS.
http://androidandme.com/2011/12/news/android-may-never-be-as-smooth-as-ios-says-ex-googler/
That's framerate, aka the amount of time the screen refreshes in a single second, not response time. Yeah, the human eye can detect up to (I believe) 73 frame per second, with 60 being around the max you can be consciously aware of. 15 frames per second is considerably less smooth than 30, with 60, while being visibly smoother, isn't quite as dramatic a difference to 30 it as 30 is to 15.
But that's neither here nor there.
What we're talking about here is repsonse time. The amount of time it takes for the screen to detect your touch, and convert it to an accepted input by the computer. 115ms isn't exactly fast, but it's not so slow anyone would notice it unless brought up in conversation. You'd only notice the difference between it and the iPhone 5 if you had them side by side, and were flicking your fingers around on the screen.
Anyone here with an iPad 3 or 4, try this. Go to the springboard and start flipping between pages moderately fast. It doesn't have to be super fast. Just...decent.
Notice how quickly it loses track of your finger? How it isn't a perfect 1:1 match? If you go slow enough it is. Speed it up just a little bit, and it start seeing it lag behind.
Do the same thing in Safari. Find a nice, big webpage and scroll it up and down. Slow at first, then more quickly. See how it quits tracking your finger perfectly after you reach a certain threshold?
Now ask yourself this: has this "lag", and that's exactly what it is, ever bothered you before? Oh no, it's been perfectly smooth since the original iPhone came out years ago. No one ever talks about how the newer iPhones seem to give you better tactile feedback compared to the previous generations. It's all about the resolution of the screen, or how quickly it loads and jumps between apps. Never anything about pure responsiveness to touch.
Which proves one thing to me: it's an entirely pointless metric. No one was ever bothered about it, no one ever even mentioned it until someone brought up a whole slew of numbers to brag over.
Lower latency, all else being equal, allows more points in a given time to be placed, which is important for tasks like sketching a line or painting. Even though a prototypical human wouldn't be able to place individual points that fast, any dragging action, such as sketching a curve would benefit.
It isn't a matter of trying to outpace the response time in order for it to matter, it's the way higher latency input feels. The effects of latency are very common issue in gaming, both network latency and controller latency. A 50ms difference is without a doubt noticeable.
You do too, actually. Greater than 60 FPS won't give your brain any additional information over the frames on either side of any particular frame. Your brain will smooth things out a bit. But your brain doesn't have a "framerate", it perceives things continually as an analog process called temporal aliasing. Something flashing for much shorter than 1/60th of a second is still perceived, for example, though not necessarily at a conscious level at extremely high frame rates. Our body still reacts to subconscious perceptions, and our brain can even catch up and consciously be aware that something was flashed. USAF fighter pilots were able to identify enemy aircraft flashed for only 1/220th of a second. They could not only see the flashed image, but determine what the image was with enough detail to name it. Our capability to see a rapidly moving object and predict its path is nothing short of beyond current scientific understanding. The classic example is a 120 mph baseball pitch where players are able to hit a ball that is 15 feet ahead of their perception of it.
But generally you're right. 60 FPS is about 17 milliseconds, which is about what companies should be aiming for with their touch screen response, give or take a couple milliseconds. Apple is still a long ways away, but apparently the other guys are longer. But still, as the Microsoft Research demo shows, when it comes to lag, even 17 ms can be too much for faster motion. When your hand is in one place, and the UI response is in another, that's very clear to see. Getting down to below 5 ms is probably as far as you need to go for the most extreme cases (drawing apps for large tablets), but who knows what further research will show.
How important is this though? Pretty important, if you want the user to perceive that the device is immediately responsive to input. If you don't think that's important, all I have to do is point to the continuing impression in the market that iOS is faster than the alternatives, regardless of spec sheets.
That's what the brain does. The eye doesn't see the world in frames either, but in something called arcminutes.
...and don't ask me to explain what that is, cuz I don't totally understand it.
Another point of reference for the discussion about latency is Midi devices and software synths. With a midi keyboard latency is obvious until it starts getting under ~20ms. Anything higher than that and you feel a disconnect between your playing and the sound that is coming out of your computer. A 50ms increase would absolutely be instantly noticeable to the point that you would be looking for a solution to the problem in order to comfortably play.
No one's claiming you can't notice the difference between 50ms. What I'm saying is that, at least as far as we currently use our touch devices, it's just entirely useless to compare the difference between 55ms and 115. There are no apps out at the moment that absolutely require being able to track your finger from one corner of the screen to the other with near pixel perfect accuracy. Pressing a link on the other hand, well, it takes at least 20 times as long to load up the webpage as it does for the touch device to register the input. Same with clicking on apps or anything else that requires a single touch. It takes longer to perform the action set forth by the touch than it takes to respond to the touch itself.
If you want to know how big of a difference it makes, just check this out...
(action starts 52 seconds it FYI)
Yes. There is a difference. But beyond games and painting programs, explain to me how being able to keep the screen scrolling roughly a quarter of an inch closer to your finger improves the user experience in any way.
I'll tell you right now it doesn't. It will later when tablets become capable of handling higher end tasks. But flicking through a webpage or your home pages? It's more about the speed and the framerate than it is how closely the scrolling is tracking the movement of your finger.
...well, within reason, of course. If it were 300+ms, it'd be terrible. But 55ms to to 115 wouldn't be noticeable unless you were specifically going out of your way to look for it.
Continuous input on android can also help negate the effects of slow touch response time. Slow response time can either effect typing or gaming. At least they got one covered. When will apple bring out continuous input? (Eg swype)
Uh, yeah, this is a spec where the iPhone is better than the competition. Some of us wish more specs were like this...
I know its not a straight comparison but I just switched from an iphone4 to a nexus 4 and I haven't noticed any difference.
(I know the iPhone 4 was an older device but I never noticed lag on either. Ios7 on my iPad? Well that's a different story!)
(I know the iPhone 4 was an older device but I never noticed lag on either. Ios7 on my iPad? Well that's a different story!)
In fact you're quite wrong. Regardless of touchscreen lag, one can enter input much faster than 20 characters per second (if one could). However, it will be delayed by however many milliseconds before any such input is displayed on the screen. It's no different than if your mouse input was delayed by some lag in the system. It doesn't prevent you from jiggling the mouse as quickly as you want on your desk, that input will still go through to your OS and any software you're running, and your cursor will move just as quickly as you entered it, but it won't begin the sequence of movements until after a delay, and it won't stop moving until that same delay after you've stopped moving the mouse.
Without instantaneous (perceived) reaction by your mouse to your hand movements, you would find it quite difficult to click on anything with precision. You're really just guessing, and might easily overshoot. The delays we're talking about here are relatively small, and you learn to compensate, and gain muscle memory, but nonetheless a tenth of a second is quite perceptible. A twentieth of a second is quite perceptible too, for the record, so Apple is hardly perfect here. You need to remember that our brains evolved to deal with a physical world where action-reaction is truly instantaneous. Any lag over 20 ms is going to be apparent for small movements like those made on a phone touch screen. For a tablet, something larger with quicker movements over longer distance, the lag will need to be reduced even more to be imperceptible. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, watch the Microsoft video and see for yourself. If you watch that, and try to tell us that there's no meaningful difference between 100 ms and 50 ms, and then again between 50 ms and 10 ms, then you're simply a liar. Actual engineers and scientists who have studied this problem will call you a liar too, or perhaps visually/mentally disabled.
This is not some ideological fight between Android and iOS. These are facts, here. Apple has either made it a priority to reduce latency, or lucked into it due to various other decisions they made in building their devices and programming their software. I'm sorry if you're an Android user and don't want to believe that Apple's touch screens are more responsive in a perceptible way. But they are. This new (third party) test will be able to show us how less sucky various screens are. I don't like to think of the iPhone 5 as being twice as fast. It's more like it's half as slow. It's still slow, by almost an order of magnitude.
I'd like to think you're not just a troll, but it's obvious you haven't watched the video or read anything from various companies (like Oculus VR) who have studied input latency extensively to understand perception and improve user experience.
I was careful not to say it was Apple if you read again. I did in fact say that if it was my company (meaning Apple) I would not want such a comparison to be drawn (indicating someone else was making the comparison). The reason I posted this was it smacks of being a straw clutching argument, when there are many other positives they can rely on.
I don't know where you've been, but people mention it all the time. People certainly noticed it, as evidenced by how many people are posting in this topic about how this finally explains what they've known all along. I certainly noticed lag on my 3G, which was much improved on the 4S, but still noticeable. In the early days Android was notoriously laggy, mentioned frequently in comparison to iOS, and while they've improved somewhat they are apparently still behind Apple on the latency race. Now, we actually have real numbers to prove it, and a third party test that can continue to measure as new devices come along.
Ios and android is competeting each other means better product and better ui and cheaper price for customers I like that.
I love both of them in deferent aspect.
My vote goes to Iphone for durability and
Good for reader coz ios has good dictionary support for reader even idivice is offline android nope only web search the other thing if drop any android phone very less chance to
pic up solid phone or u have sweep to collect the phone I did not like that. My vote goes for android ,because of android has developer options and flash support still out there a lot of online stuff in flash version which is ios doesn't
Accept.i still have s4 and 4s I prefer to carry 4s
With me . Touch screen response , my experience says yes idivice is very fast . In android some time I have to restart to the phone . I hope samsung listen to this. They faster processor but laggy touch screen and ios 7 also little bit laggy right now apple improve it pls
I love both of them in deferent aspect.
My vote goes to Iphone for durability and
Good for reader coz ios has good dictionary support for reader even idivice is offline android nope only web search the other thing if drop any android phone very less chance to
pic up solid phone or u have sweep to collect the phone I did not like that. My vote goes for android ,because of android has developer options and flash support still out there a lot of online stuff in flash version which is ios doesn't
Accept.i still have s4 and 4s I prefer to carry 4s
With me . Touch screen response , my experience says yes idivice is very fast . In android some time I have to restart to the phone . I hope samsung listen to this. They faster processor but laggy touch screen and ios 7 also little bit laggy right now apple improve it pls
Thank you for your kind assessment of my mental state. Read up above my response to a similar post.
But if there's a delay between initiating an action, and that action starting, and that's perceptible, isn't that something the user will consider, especially compared to a device that responds more readily to user input? Nobody's sitting at their desks with a stopwatch to measure how fast an app starts up, but they sure as heck notice when an app is slow to even start starting up after they touch their screen. As phones get better, and that latency gets reduced to a 1/6th of what it is now on Android, and 1/3rd what it is now on iOS, then nobody will notice, and nobody will care. But right now, that's a difference people notice, and Apple's input lag is about half as perceptible. If an app is slow, people blame the app. If touch screen input has latency, people blame the OS or the device itself.
----------
So you're saying user input is not important to users. Gotcha.
Wow, you must be the only one who doesn't understand it. It's not about specs, it's about the experience. The iPhone 4, with outdated hardware, will feel snappier than the galaxy 4, despite the newer processor of the latter, with endless cores.
----------
I'm afraid you don't understand what spec is, otherwise you would not post that.