Ahh, change the discussion if you don't have an answer?
I didn't say I expect anything. I did say I had questions. Apparently you don't. The biggest question mark for me is just what would Foxconn do with purchasing half the Sharp LCD production if they weren't reselling it, so of course they are. Who are they selling it to? We don't know, but if some of it is being sold to Apple, that might be an indicator that it's somewhat Foxconn's product being branded as Apple's.
When in Apple's history have they done what you suggest, with a major product category? I.e., given all that we know about the company -- and I am assuming that you too must have vaguely picked up, given how long you've been hanging out in these forums -- have they passed off someone's else's product with an Apple logo?
So, no, it wasn't my trying to evade an answer -- the answer was evident in my response if you could actually stop to read and comprehend. It was also simultaneously calling out your usual, lazy, passive-aggressively anti-Apple posts (that you never seem to tire of).
In other words, it was also pointing out (in a subtle way, but now not so subtle) that your question was pure non-sequitur b-s.
Ahh, change the discussion if you don't have an answer?
I didn't say I expect anything. I did say I had questions. Apparently you don't. The biggest question mark for me is just what would Foxconn do with purchasing half the Sharp LCD production if they weren't reselling it, so of course they are. Who are they selling it to? We don't know, but if some of it is being sold to Apple, that might be an indicator that it's somewhat Foxconn's product being branded as Apple's.
Oh good, the "just asking questions" soft troll has questions.
Except this question is insultingly stupid on the face of it, so move on.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
Get a life. Find something you like, and participate in that. Participating in things you don't like makes you seem like a bitter loser. You don't want to be a bitter loser, do you? Of course not! Go to the light!
Get a life. Find something you like, and participate in that. Participating in things you don't like makes you seem like a bitter loser. You don't want to be a bitter loser, do you? Of course not! Go to the light!
What are you on?
What's not to like? I just want my AppleTV to have a Resolutionary display which for me would be the main reson to buy. If it only plays iTunes content at least give me a display then that kicks ass.
When in Apple's history have they done what you suggest, with a major product category? I.e., given all that we know about the company -- and I am assuming that you too must have vaguely picked up, given how long you've been hanging out in these forums -- have they passed off someone's else's product with an Apple logo?
So, no, it wasn't my trying to evade an answer -- the answer was evident in my response if you could actually stop to read and comprehend. It was also simultaneously calling out your usual, lazy, passive-aggressively anti-Apple posts (that you never seem to tire of).
In other words, it was also pointing out (in a subtle way, but now not so subtle) that your question was pure non-sequitur b-s.
I'm not sure what would be insulting to find that FoxxConn had assisted with design. As for whether Apple has ever relied on Foxconn for any design work, only Apple and Foxconn know that for certain. You can assume they haven't, I can assume they haven't. We're still assuming. Why get so upset about questions? They certainly weren't accusations nor insults.
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
As the distance to the display is a main factor (as Apple pointed out with the new ipad as it has lower ppi than the first retina display), 1080p can indeed be seen as a retina display when viewed from for instance 3 meters.
And as you might know, 4k display are great, but at normal viewing distances a lot of consumers have a hard time in telling 1080p and 720p apart !
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
Truedat- Steve Jobs also said. "I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo." when the iPod HiFi was released. For all we know he could have been jerking Issacson's chain- giving ambigous anwers- knowing this would keep him even more relevant beyond the grave.
TV's run on content and how could SJ crack the Hollyood/cable TV cabal? You can SHOUT at your Siri iTV all you want but you're not going to watch i.e. Game of Thrones unless HBO is on board with Apple.
As the distance to the display is a main factor (as Apple pointed out with the new ipad as it has lower ppi than the first retina display), 1080p can indeed be seen as a retina display when viewed from for instance 3 meters.
And as you might know, 4k display are great, but at normal viewing distances a lot of consumers have a hard time in telling 1080p and 720p apart !
It should do for film as the new iPAd has done for print- Resolutionize the industry. It should better what is currrently available and be exclusive to Apple. Only then can I see a reason to buy.
DO I really need to talk to a TV? I can think of nothing worse than having Siri blasted though my home stero trying to change channels not understanding that PBS is not BBS when I could just punch in a channel number. A Safari webbrowser on my ATV now would be better than that if that is the answer to what has been "cracked".
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
You may be right re. Digitimes.
But I can't wait to see your reaction when the TV actually comes out later this year (for delivery before Superbowl next year).
Oh, if one got truly bothered by these serial ruiners, one would avoid AI altogether.
I am bothered by it as now there will harder to have a decent discussion on this thread, but AI is still the best tech forum out there, weighted by an abundant of intelligent and knowledgable posters. Unfortunately it only takes one bad egg to spoil a thread.
What the heck did I have to do with Post #24? Why quote my post, for your response? Did you reply to the wrong post? If, you can still edit it, you know.
What the heck did I have to do with Post #24? Why quote my post, for your response? Did you reply to the wrong post? If, you can still edit it, you know.
Really- which ones? Which ones have "That’s four times the number of pixels in iPad 2 and a million more than an HDTV."?
or 2048 X 1536 to be more precise?
I'd like to get one now that's comparable to my iPhone 4 or new iPad.
You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.
Comments
Apple's new TV should have a built-in CableCard, or better yet, a Tru2Way card to allow the reception of cable without additional boxes.
Ahh, change the discussion if you don't have an answer?
I didn't say I expect anything. I did say I had questions. Apparently you don't. The biggest question mark for me is just what would Foxconn do with purchasing half the Sharp LCD production if they weren't reselling it, so of course they are. Who are they selling it to? We don't know, but if some of it is being sold to Apple, that might be an indicator that it's somewhat Foxconn's product being branded as Apple's.
When in Apple's history have they done what you suggest, with a major product category? I.e., given all that we know about the company -- and I am assuming that you too must have vaguely picked up, given how long you've been hanging out in these forums -- have they passed off someone's else's product with an Apple logo?
So, no, it wasn't my trying to evade an answer -- the answer was evident in my response if you could actually stop to read and comprehend. It was also simultaneously calling out your usual, lazy, passive-aggressively anti-Apple posts (that you never seem to tire of).
In other words, it was also pointing out (in a subtle way, but now not so subtle) that your question was pure non-sequitur b-s.
Ahh, change the discussion if you don't have an answer?
I didn't say I expect anything. I did say I had questions. Apparently you don't. The biggest question mark for me is just what would Foxconn do with purchasing half the Sharp LCD production if they weren't reselling it, so of course they are. Who are they selling it to? We don't know, but if some of it is being sold to Apple, that might be an indicator that it's somewhat Foxconn's product being branded as Apple's.
Oh good, the "just asking questions" soft troll has questions.
Except this question is insultingly stupid on the face of it, so move on.
Oh right- whatever you say.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
Get a life. Find something you like, and participate in that. Participating in things you don't like makes you seem like a bitter loser. You don't want to be a bitter loser, do you? Of course not! Go to the light!
Get a life. Find something you like, and participate in that. Participating in things you don't like makes you seem like a bitter loser. You don't want to be a bitter loser, do you? Of course not! Go to the light!
What's not to like? I just want my AppleTV to have a Resolutionary display which for me would be the main reson to buy. If it only plays iTunes content at least give me a display then that kicks ass.
When in Apple's history have they done what you suggest, with a major product category? I.e., given all that we know about the company -- and I am assuming that you too must have vaguely picked up, given how long you've been hanging out in these forums -- have they passed off someone's else's product with an Apple logo?
So, no, it wasn't my trying to evade an answer -- the answer was evident in my response if you could actually stop to read and comprehend. It was also simultaneously calling out your usual, lazy, passive-aggressively anti-Apple posts (that you never seem to tire of).
In other words, it was also pointing out (in a subtle way, but now not so subtle) that your question was pure non-sequitur b-s.
I'm not sure what would be insulting to find that FoxxConn had assisted with design. As for whether Apple has ever relied on Foxconn for any design work, only Apple and Foxconn know that for certain. You can assume they haven't, I can assume they haven't. We're still assuming. Why get so upset about questions? They certainly weren't accusations nor insults.
That is all. Again.
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
Oh right- whatever you say.
I get it- the iPad display is not better than a HDTV regardless that Apple is marketing it as such.
As the distance to the display is a main factor (as Apple pointed out with the new ipad as it has lower ppi than the first retina display), 1080p can indeed be seen as a retina display when viewed from for instance 3 meters.
And as you might know, 4k display are great, but at normal viewing distances a lot of consumers have a hard time in telling 1080p and 720p apart !
DigiTimes.
That is all. Again.
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
Truedat- Steve Jobs also said. "I'm an audiophile, and I'm getting rid of my stereo." when the iPod HiFi was released. For all we know he could have been jerking Issacson's chain- giving ambigous anwers- knowing this would keep him even more relevant beyond the grave.
TV's run on content and how could SJ crack the Hollyood/cable TV cabal? You can SHOUT at your Siri iTV all you want but you're not going to watch i.e. Game of Thrones unless HBO is on board with Apple.
As the distance to the display is a main factor (as Apple pointed out with the new ipad as it has lower ppi than the first retina display), 1080p can indeed be seen as a retina display when viewed from for instance 3 meters.
And as you might know, 4k display are great, but at normal viewing distances a lot of consumers have a hard time in telling 1080p and 720p apart !
It should do for film as the new iPAd has done for print- Resolutionize the industry. It should better what is currrently available and be exclusive to Apple. Only then can I see a reason to buy.
DO I really need to talk to a TV? I can think of nothing worse than having Siri blasted though my home stero trying to change channels not understanding that PBS is not BBS when I could just punch in a channel number. A Safari webbrowser on my ATV now would be better than that if that is the answer to what has been "cracked".
They certainly weren't accusations nor insults.
Chill, buddy. Calm down.
Who used the words "accusations" or "insults" except you?
DigiTimes.
That is all. Again.
And if I read that Steve Jobs purportedly "cracking" the TV is in any way related to Apple releasing an actual television one more time, I think I might crack.
You may be right re. Digitimes.
But I can't wait to see your reaction when the TV actually comes out later this year (for delivery before Superbowl next year).
iSheldon has ruined another thread with stupid comments. :sigh:
Oh, if one got truly bothered by these serial ruiners, one would avoid AI altogether.
You would have a tough time with that! (I mean than in a positive way).
Chill, buddy. Calm down.
Who used the words "accusations" or "insults" except you?
Post 24?
Oh, if one got truly bothered by these serial ruiners, one would avoid AI altogether.
I am bothered by it as now there will harder to have a decent discussion on this thread, but AI is still the best tech forum out there, weighted by an abundant of intelligent and knowledgable posters. Unfortunately it only takes one bad egg to spoil a thread.
Post 24?
What the heck did I have to do with Post #24? Why quote my post, for your response? Did you reply to the wrong post? If, you can still edit it, you know.
Anyway, enough time wasted with you.....
What the heck did I have to do with Post #24? Why quote my post, for your response? Did you reply to the wrong post? If, you can still edit it, you know.
Anyway, enough time wasted with you.....
I completely agree.
iSheldon has ruined another thread with stupid comments. :sigh:
So says the self annointed genius.
We can't count all the threads that you have single handledly ruined with your Newt Gingrich style personal attacks.
Really- which ones? Which ones have "That’s four times the number of pixels in iPad 2 and a million more than an HDTV."?
or 2048 X 1536 to be more precise?
I'd like to get one now that's comparable to my iPhone 4 or new iPad.
You are right in saying no TV is "retina display" with regards to the number of pixels per inch (ppi). But keep this in mind. The retina display makes a lot of sense in a device that's 9"-15" from your face because the visual perseption of the pixels almost completely disappears. But when you have a display that on average 10'-12' away from your face, the pixels are so small that's it's a huge waste. Not to mention TV is showing no signs of increasing the resolution to greater than 1080p anytime in the near future so again all those extra pixels go to waste. And furthermore, a display that's 200-300ppi at this time would probably be many times the cost of the new iPad. And that's not a competitive price in any economy.
Here's the numbers:
True HD= 1920x1080 @16:9 aspect
iPhone =960x640 @ 4:3 aspect
iPad=2048x1536 @ 4:3 aspect
True HD translated into 4:3 = 1920x1440, not that far off from the iPad.
Pixels might be bigger on an HDTV but are very close to the same proportional ppi when viewed at normal distances.