Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mjoshi123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 14, 2010
451
5
As per this post it seems like Steve Jobs is once again up at putting FoRD (Field of Reality Distortion) on his fan community. It would be interesting to see how well critics review the device once they get it.
Steve Jobs has already been busted for exaggerating the resolution of a new iPhone screen the Apple CEO unveiled yesterday. It's only the latest in a series of misleading videos, pictures and claims designed to part you and your money.
http://gawker.com/5558442/how-apple-tricks-you
 
I believe the correct and popular terminology is Reality Distortion Field (RDF). It's more catchy too.
 
As per this post it seems like Steve Jobs is once again up at putting FoRD (Field of Reality Distortion) on his fan community. It would be interesting to see how well critics review the device once they get it.
Steve Jobs has already been busted for exaggerating the resolution of a new iPhone screen the Apple CEO unveiled yesterday. It's only the latest in a series of misleading videos, pictures and claims designed to part you and your money.
http://gawker.com/5558442/how-apple-tricks-you


A Gawker link. LOLz. They have no axe to grind.
 
This is stupid. He was just using an example that would make it easier to tell the difference. Not trying to RDF you or whatever.
 
Did Steve lie to us about the display?

Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4 has a resolution higher than the retina - that's not right:

1. The resolution of the retina is in angular measure - it's 50 Cycles Per Degree. A cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.

2. So if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes, that works out to 477 pixels per inch. At 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi.

So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina. It actually needs a resolution significantly higher than the retina in order to deliver an image that appears perfect to the retina.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/198402/does_the_iphone_4_really_have_a_retina_display.html
 
Hey, it'll work for me just as well as it works for Steve. We're the same age.

Until, of course, he finds he has to have his arm lengthened.
 
reminded me of this law suit from a few years back.

Apple Sued for iMac Display Deception, Steve Jobs Suspected Closet Megatron

Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP PRESS RELEASE
LOS ANGELES, March 31 /PRNewswire/ — Apple deceptively marketed its new 20-inch iMac in a way that grossly inflated the capabilities of its monitor, which is vastly inferior to the previous generation it replaced, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.
According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Jose, Apple is deceiving consumers by concealing that the new 20-inch iMac monitors are inferior to the previous generation's and those of the new 24-inch iMac. In addition, the monitors are incapable of displaying "millions of colors," despite Apple's marketing claims.

Apple's newest iMac — an "all-in-one" desktop computer that combines the monitor into the same case as the CPU — was unveiled in August 2007.
"Apple is duping its customers into thinking they're buying 'new and improved' when in fact they're getting stuck with 'new and inferior,'" said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "Beneath Apple's 'good guy' image is a corporation that takes advantage of its customers. Our goal is to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future."

Apple told consumers that both the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs displayed "millions of colors at all resolutions." Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).
While Apple describes the display of both the 24-inch and 20-inch iMacs as though they were interchangeable, the monitors in each are of radically different technology. The 20-inch iMacs feature 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screens, the least expensive of its type.
The 20-inch iMac's TN screens have a narrower viewing angle, less color depth, less color accuracy and are more susceptible to washout across the screen.
Apple's Web site tells consumers that "No matter what you like to do on your computer — watch movies, edit photos, play games, even just view a screen saver — it's going to look stunning on an iMac."
In fact, the inferior technology of the 20-inch iMac is particularly ill-suited to editing photographs because of the display's limited color potential and the distorting effect of the color simulation processes.


"Apple is squeezing more profits for itself by using cheap screens and its customers are unwittingly paying the price," Kabateck said.
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP is one of the nation's foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Google, Farmer's Insurance, Eli Lilly and other major corporations. As a plaintiff's-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers' side.
 
So if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes

This is your error. The normal viewing distance is not 12", it's probably closer to 22" or just short of arms length.
 
From the article:
This is a bit tricky, since the eye doesn't have "pixels" and the resolution required to match the human eye's capability depends on the distance from your eye to the display. If you sit four feet away from a 50" 1080p television, you'll see pixels. If you sit 100 feet away, you won't

So while technically Jobs was not lying (but he wasn't being truthful if that makes sense), clearly the iPhone's display is not a retina display at a normal usage distance and the user has normal vision.

Is that bad, no, is that marketing, yes. Name one product that is being sold that doesn't exaggerate its features.
 
Is that bad, no, is that marketing, yes. Name one product that is being sold that doesn't exaggerate its features.

Exactly...

FWIW, I remember when laser printers made the jump from 300 DPI to 600DPI. It was evident. However, the jump from the inkjets of that day (regardless of stated DPI, which was sometimes already higher than 300DPI) to a 300DPI laser printer was a much bigger deal. I haven't seen the new screen yet, but Apple's claim that it is about as pixel dense as is really necessary is probably not overly unreasonable... well, we'll see, I guess.
 
Well if you are holding the phone at arms length and are at 8 and 12 inches viewing distance, wait a few years you big baby ... and your arms will grow into Apple's claims.
 
Who cares? Everyone who has used it says the display is stunning.

I agree. I think the whole "Retina Display" is just a way for him to market it. Otherwise how would the general public really understand it, as the iPhone isnt advertised based on specs like other phones are.

Can't wait to see this display in person. Can't imagine a resolution of 960x640 on a 3.5" screen, you'll have to hold the screen very close to your eyes to start seeing any pixels i'm sure..
 
It has a resolution as high or higher than print magazines, so I fail to see why this matters.
 
I'm fairly confident he was just feeding us half-truths. He's a great showman and genius marketer. But, he doesn't tell the undistorted truth, but bends it considerably. He's told us that the iPhone gets the "full" internet. He showed iPad screens displaying Flash content. He also keeps spouting this "magical" crap.

That said, for many of us with a brain, he doesn't need to use his Reality Distortion Field on us. We would buy if if he just told us the plain and simple truth. However, for people function with a half-brain (millions and millions), he really needs to spin things majorly or he wouldn't sell any of his iDevices.
 
This is your error. The normal viewing distance is not 12", it's probably closer to 22" or just short of arms length.

I do not know about you but I do hold my phone out that far nor do most people I see holding a phone. Instead they hold the phone at 1/2 arm length or less.For me I find myself normally using my phone about the same distance from my face as as I read a book which is about 12in.

As for the marketing pitch. Apple has a long history of being full of ****. I can think of multiple examples from the past were apple got caught lieing. Back during the switch between G4 and G5 chips on the iMac apple showed graphic at the 'huge" improvements in gaming performance on the computer. Barefeet did a test and yes while it was better it was only marginally better. Not the 50% that apple showed it was. Shortly afterwards that ad was removed from apples site.
 
This is your error. The normal viewing distance is not 12", it's probably closer to 22" or just short of arms length.

Go get out a ruler and hold your iPhone exactly 22" away from your face. Now browse the web for a minute.

I just tried it and it was ridiculous.

I'm thinking you misjudged how far 22" is.

My arms are longer than that.

C.

I'd like you (and everyone else) to report back with your numbers too. Let's get some real answers here instead of guesses!

My comfort distance was 14" - 15"
 
I'm fairly confident he was just feeding us half-truths. He's a great showman and genius marketer. But, he doesn't tell the undistorted truth, but bends it considerably. He's told us that the iPhone gets the "full" internet. He showed iPad screens displaying Flash content. He also keeps spouting this "magical" crap.

That said, for many of us with a brain, he doesn't need to use his Reality Distortion Field on us. We would buy if if he just told us the plain and simple truth. However, for people function with a half-brain (millions and millions), he really needs to spin things majorly or he wouldn't sell any of his iDevices.

For those with a brain would realize that other devices don't get the full internet either, even those with Flash.

Why? Check HTML5 ACID3 tests. And some IE sites won't work without I.E. Etc.

The NewYorkTime demoed uses HTML5 for video so it works on HTML5 capable devices. Why is that bad?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.