or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Cory Bauer

Getting 32GB in addition to retina display and A6 processing may be wishful thinking on my part, but given that the extra 16GB really only costs Apple a couple bucks (despite charging $100 more), I'm hopeful they'll throw it in while they're upping the iPad price by $100.Why do you think they would make 3G standard? It's an expensive feature a lot of people, including myself, don't need. I won't buy a 3G-enabled iPad until the cellular companies stop forcing you to buy...
Huh, yup I was definitely remembering wrong!
Hmm. This makes me think I was right to believe there'd be a $200 difference between the carry-over iPad 2 and iPad 3, but wrong that the iPad 3 would still start at $499. Based on Gruber's comment, I'm now thinking that the line-up will start like this:iPad 2 16GB/WiFi (dual-core A5, 1024x768 display)i: $399iPad 3 32GB/WiFi (quad-core A6, 2048x1536 display): $599I don't recall Gruber ever backing the 2011 iPad 3 release rumor; in fact I remember him being very much...
if that were true, then the letterboxed area of 2.35:1 aspect films would not be immuninated on my plasma, which they are. And as they are on all plasmas. I wish you were right, because then my plasma would have infinite blacks Nope, that one is and actual OLED screen, which LG will be showing at CES next week.
Interesting stuff about OLED, but rather silly of them to claim "there may not be anything to watch on it". That sounds like hyperbole from LCD manufacturers who don't have an OLED display in the works. Even if today's content will only use a fraction of the technologies' color range, today's content will still look vastly superior on OLED thanks to all of its other advantages.
Your marks against OLED are the exact opposite of what I know to be true. From one of Sony's professional OLED field monitor descriptions:And regarding color accuracy, the description of another one of Sony's professional OLED monitors:EDIT: I wonder if you're not thinking of AMOLED, for which the flaws you mentioned are most certainly true. That is not the tech being used in broadcast displays and soon TVs.That...doesn't make a lot of sense. A better screen makes...
You are of course right. What I'd expect Apple to do, if the content providers would only allow them, is offer a subscription plan to Apple TV and iTV owners that grants them X number of shows per month for X number of dollars, plus X number of movies. Plans would be tiered, with prices like $29/mo, $59/mo and $99/mo. You'd subscribe to shows, not channels, and you'd get a number of allotted movie rentals per month as part of your subscription. A consistent and continuous...
As I suspect you're aware, most if not all of the "technologies" used in LCDs to make up for their shortcomings end up introducing all new problems. "Intelligently" dimming parts of the screen can result in odd shifts in brightness mid-scene, dark scenes being dimmed to the point of being unwatchable, haloing effects, and from what I remember far worse viewing angles. All of the sake of trying to make LCDs reach black levels they can't actually achieve. This is much like...
That is unfortunately not the case with LCD or Plasma, but that is the capability that OLED will bring to televisions when it becomes more affordable in the near future.
A misconception intentionally pushed by the LCD manufacturers; they've purposely led (no pun intended) customers to believe that these televisions are LED, when in fact they're still LCD; consumers can't be blamed for this misunderstanding.
New Posts  All Forums: