Testing Finds Inaccurate Touch Sensing on iPhone 5s/5c, But Neglects Perspective Compensation

[Rootus]

Would the precision improve with any fine-pointed stylus? Would they be usable anyways?

You can't really use a fine pointed stylus with a capacitive touch screen. You'd need something hybrid, like the Wacom digitizer the Note 3 uses, if you want a fine tip.

It hasn't been long since I read that Apple's iPhones had in fact the best touch screen accuracy. Where went it?

Was there something about accuracy, though? I remember some hoopla about Apple's touch screens being the most responsive. Not that it ever made a noticeable difference in actual usage, but if you want to play the specs game (wait a second, that's an Android thing to do, play the spec game, right? ).

 

[anonymust]

You're touching it wrong?

Thats what she said...... but how can someone be touching it wrong?.....

By the way, can we prove these results are real and not perhaps paid my Samsung to make the iPhone look bad?

Dont they both use the same technologies? or perhaps is something to do with the processor speed?

Im not sure, but im just saying

P.s. this was conducted in Finland.. perhaps Nokia is behind this?

 

[polterbyte]

At least the robot did the test without bias, unlike many Apple fan boys here...

Ouch!

Was it indeed a test without bias? If so, how come it didn't take into account the fact that Apple screens are calibrated for usage in angle? (nobody uses a phone or tablet screen with their eyes EXACTLY perpendicular to the surface). Unbiased test? No.

Anyway, what is the practical purpose of this test? How does the purported imprecision in the Apple screens translate to the user experience?

Apple has a lot of problems in their products (iWork's back-step, Touchpad/keyboard freezes in MBP2013, to mention only two of them found recently). There is no gain in pointing out a purported imprecision when the net loss to the user is zero.

----------

yupp - it's just funny how some people here were bashing Samsung when the same company released their touch-screen accuracy thing last time, where the 5 won. This time around, of course, the study is flawed. Of course.

The difference being, of course, that in that case people actually NOTICED Sammy's imprecision, and their experience was negatively influenced by said imprecision. This purported flaw doesn't take into account angle of usage, nor the fact that nobody is complaining about Apple's imprecision, as it doesn't cause a worse usage experience.

 

[Nickpocalypse]

Yes, he did. Sorry you disagree, but you're wrong.

How can you think "Apple did that intentionally" directly equals "Apple made their product difficult to use intentionally"? Did you read the first thing, and then forget it before you were able to read the second thing? Do you see how the two sentences use different words?
I know what you're trying to say, but what you don't understand is that you made an inferrence based on what he said, and that what you inferred is not necessarily what was meant, and absolutely not what he said. This is based on your likely very loose grasp on the english language.

 

[KPOM]

They intentionally made their product difficult to use?

No, it appears Apple intentionally offsets their touch sensors to account for how people actually interact with their devices.

 

[Konrad9]

No, it appears Apple intentionally offsets their touch sensors to account for how people actually interact with their devices.

The article says: "Apple screen unresponsive in certain areas"

The person I replied to literally said "They did it on purpose".

So please clarify, did they do it on purpose or not.

----------

How can you think "Apple did that intentionally" directly equals "Apple made their product difficult to use intentionally"? Did you read the first thing, and then forget it before you were able to read the second thing? Do you see how the two sentences use different words?
I know what you're trying to say, but what you don't understand is that you made an inferrence based on what he said, and that what you inferred is not necessarily what was meant, and absolutely not what he said. This is based on your likely very loose grasp on the english language.

Because he said "They did it intentionally" in response to an article that says "iPhone screen is unresponsive".

I didn't make an inference, I just did something crazy and READ THE ARTICLE, which states that the screen is unresponsive in certain areas.

----------

Ouch!

Was it indeed a test without bias? If so, how come it didn't take into account the fact that Apple screens are calibrated for usage in angle? (nobody uses a phone or tablet screen with their eyes EXACTLY perpendicular to the surface). Unbiased test? No.

I often have my phone sitting on my desk in front of me, so instead of looking down at it, I'm looking up at it.

This "optimization" hinders my use of it, instead of helping me.

So, yes, it was an unbiased test. It tested all of the devices in an identical manner.

And yes, I do also often use my phone with my eyes perpendicular, when I'm laying in bed, or also when I'm holding it while at my desk.

Are you telling me I am literally the only person on the planet who ever uses my phone in all of those 3 ways?

 

[Cubytus]

You can't really use a fine pointed stylus with a capacitive touch screen. You'd need something hybrid, like the Wacom digitizer the Note 3 uses, if you want a fine tip.

Was there something about accuracy, though? I remember some hoopla about Apple's touch screens being the most responsive. Not that it ever made a noticeable difference in actual usage, but if you want to play the specs game (wait a second, that's an Android thing to do, play the spec game, right? ).

Well if any i-device is to replace my note-taking behavior currently set on paper, it would have to play nice with anything fine-pointed enough to allow me to write fast and without altering scripture size. I have used Penultimate with a common, rubber-tipped stylus, and have been underwhelmed by the stylus-iPad performance. Too flexible at the tip, too large, albeit responsive enough to my taste. Same goes when I got asked a few times to sign with my finger an electronic form at the Genius Bar. Just impossible.

Actually, there was such a test done in the past about accuracy, when one site partially reverse-engineered iPhone's screen, and found Apple slightly over-volted something in the touch sensor to allow for better accuracy. And indeed, between a Nokia N8 with a capacitive touch screen and an iPhone (same year), I almost had to force myself to voluntarily make mistakes typing on the keyboard, whereas the Nokia could never get it right. On a phone, I put accuracy before responsiveness, and the reverse on an iPad, since the screen is large enough for accuracy not to be a significant issue.

P.s. this was conducted in Finland.. perhaps Nokia is behind this?

Makes sense to me. Only, I hope their latest Lumia models improved over the crappy 2009-2010 Symbian phones they produced back then.

No, it appears Apple intentionally offsets their touch sensors to account for how people actually interact with their devices.

This would be coherent with their obsessive attention to detail. However, would it be a dynamic, or a static offset¿

 

[kdarling]

By the way, can we prove these results are real and not perhaps paid my Samsung to make the iPhone look bad?

The results fit with previous tests from other places, and with characteristics described in Apple patents.

Dont they both use the same technologies? or perhaps is something to do with the processor speed?

Im not sure, but im just saying

Apple uses their own touch processor variation. Everyone else uses touch processors from a few well known sources like Atmel and Synaptics.

P.s. this was conducted in Finland.. perhaps Nokia is behind this?

Never look for a conspiracy where there's easier motive explanations

If you have read the report closely enough to figure out that it was done in Finland, then you might also have noted that it was done by a company that specializes in test setups using optics and robots.

Their intention is not to diss Apple, but to diss sloppy non-robotic tests done by other companies.

So, just as with those "web usage" reports we see all the time, it's basically a self-advertisement designed to attract potential customers.