yet if this was HTC claiming the same thing, you all would be up in arms about false advertising
I think the reason we're not is because it's still a VERY sharp display, false advertising or not.
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.
[Merged] Debating "Retina Display" Claims
- Thread starter mjoshi123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the reason we're not is because it's still a VERY sharp display, false advertising or not.
I just thought of this as a sort of gullible.
First we all believe that what Jobs said is true.
Then some guy with a PhD he probably earned online says that and we all believe it's true?
In the end, it's all opinion. I'll reserve my judgement for when I get my hands on the phone.
The only thing this does is make the whole aura of the Keynote seem, well lackluster. Not really because of that, but because of Jobs' and others' claims; "it's wonderful/magical/revolutionary/blah blah blah". As a company, you should refrain from describing your own products so blatantly, because it comes off as egotistical, and people will also raise their expectations (many will purposely find the negative too). But what am I saying, description is a core fundamental of marketing. I guess humbleness is for the losers.
If that is your view then you have no real understanding of how eye site works. Nearsited is when you can not see things far way and it have no real effect on vision up close. Far sight people can not hold things up close. It could be said that you are far sighted.
I am near sighted. With out my glasses or contacts I can see great up to 12-14in or so. After that things start getting blurry. With my glasses I see better than 20/20.
For ip close viewing I can see and read things well above average with or with out my glasses. When I read I tend to wear my glasses than deal with focus issues at reading length for me as just normal drifting it hovers in and out my visal range. I hold my phone 14 in or so from my fAce I f I am actively using it.
I'm neither near-sighted nor far-sighted. I can read small text on my iPhone from from 10 inches, 16 inches, or even 24 inches. 16 inches is most comfortable for my arm and eyes. If you need to hold it closer than 16 inches, your eyesight is probably not perfect.
Who cares about the field of distortion or what is the screen called? The early reviews are in and the screen is apparently fantastic. That's all I needed to know.
Who gives a crap? We all should. Would you buy a product when you know the product description doesn't match the specification of the item?
Mr. PhD? Do you know how hard it is get a PhD? You don't believe the guy with a PhD but you want to believe a drop out with better marketing skills to call ever piece with Apple logo "magical"?
Oh so Journalists are smarter than PhD holders now?
I just thought of this as a sort of gullible.
First we all believe that what Jobs said is true.
Then some guy with a PhD he probably earned online says that and we all believe it's true?
Do you even have an idea how the concept of online Doctoral programs work? They have a comprehensive testing to go through before anything. Why don't you try getting an 'online' PhD?
It seems you're the one lacking information.
While there are people who are far-sighted, it's not that common, while near-sighted is quite common.
Most likely, the poster is presbyopic, which is a condition which almost every person acquires with age. It means that the eye's ability to change focal point is constrined due to loss of elasticity of the crystalline lens:
Wikipedia Article on Persbyopia
People who are presbyoptic are not said to be far-sighted. Indeed, it's a common condition for people middle-age and above to be both near-sighted and presbyoptic. If the near-sightedness is sufficient, they can read just fine at normal distances by taking off their glasses. (I finally got tired of scratching-up my glasses by constantly taking them off at the supermarket...)
See Steve peering over his reading glasses? He's likely quite presbyoptic but not also near-sighted. (Otherwise, I think he could afford the progressive lenses. Then again, he ought to get them with no correction in the far zone. I'm just sayin'...)
Hey, you kids getting laser eye surgery! Haha! Guess what happens later? You'll need reading glasses and peer over your glasses like Steve!
Same here. Everyone who has reviewed it says the screen is the best they've seen yet. Not sure how that's under the RDF.
The bottom line is that "Retina Display" is just a marketing term with no actual specification. For 99% of people, picking out pixels on this display will be impossible with the antialiasing taking place..yes, you might see one if there's no smoothing..but not in most cases.
This display will not get sharper on future iterations for quite a while..
This display will not get sharper on future iterations for quite a while..
I believe what he said. I have 20/10 vision* because of my contacts and I can hardly make out the pixels on the 3G display. If they're four times smaller that would definitely border on invisible to the naked eye.
*I realize that has little to do with close eyesight. Just pointing out my vision is perfect.
*I realize that has little to do with close eyesight. Just pointing out my vision is perfect.
I just thought of this as a sort of gullible.
First we all believe that what Jobs said is true.
Then some guy with a PhD he probably earned online says that and we all believe it's true?
Did you even read the article?
"Soneira, who possesses a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Princeton and has been studying displays for 20 years, said it was inaccurate to measure the resolution of the eye in terms of pixels..."
The dude has cred.
I'll wait till I have it in hand to judge how sharp it is. The comparison between a magazine and a screen is dubious because a magazine is printed ink which has natural microscopic bleed (which smoothes things out at the subpixel scale) and it's illuminated by ambient light; a screen is illuminated from behind and stuck with pixels.
Well only if you (and Jobs) are looking at things from the perspective of perfect sight you may have a point. However Jobs was probably being very broad in his comments and was talking about the average person. From the link a couple of posts above:
Emphasis mine. You can take any generalized claim and nitpick it down - that doesn't necessarily mean that any exaggeration was deliberately going on. We don't know what Job's intent was in his keynote so we don't know if he was "exaggerating" or "generalizing" - both of which are equally likley explanations.
When Jobs was talking about the display, I doubt he was trying to cover all scenarios - after all he isn't a scientist and he isn't at a scientific conference talking to other scientists.
I find it incredible that Jobs/Apple bring a crazy display to the iphone (seriously, I can't believe we're getting 960x640 resolution on a 3.5" screen!), and most journalists/bloggers are more concerned about complaining and trying to call him a liar. I could care less about Jobs and seeing people trying to insult him, but I'm surprised that there isn't more praise or interest about the actual screen itself.
I've used a sony X10 with 852x480 resolution on a 4" screen and it was insane. you could load a whole page like MR and every line of text would be clear.. so I can't even imagine how crisp this new iPhone display is going to look.
I've used a sony X10 with 852x480 resolution on a 4" screen and it was insane. you could load a whole page like MR and every line of text would be clear.. so I can't even imagine how crisp this new iPhone display is going to look.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supposably
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Supposably
Might want to get re-certification for that grammar nazi badge.
i think people will really be amazed when they see it in person. i am really excited for the screen because to me that is a very important feature and the previous iphones are not up to par. i remember my panasonic vs2 had a great screen a few years back that i loved. i cant wait to see this thing in person.
I'm a full-time proofreader. But nice try. This guy was wanting to say "Supposedly." In this instance, he is using the wrong word. "Supposably" means "conceivable" or "capable of being supposed." It is an ancient word that is rarely used. People use it when they mean "supposedly," so it does not mean what you think it means.
So, in summary, yes, it is an ancient word, but it is regularly misused by people like the OP. And you, apparently.
Yes, he should have said that supposedly was not the correct word. And while "supposably" is a word, it is an Americanism which would not be understood by much of the English-speaking world.
Nice story, but that doesn't change the fact that you outright claimed that it isn't a word. Not that it's archaic, not that it was misused. Also, nit-picking grammar, syntax and spelling is against forum rules.