or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy

post #1 of 179
Thread Starter 
In the wake of Monday's iPhone 4 introduction, Apple has been the target of sharp criticism from some industry watchers and rivals looking to dispute some of the claims it made regarding the handset's new Retina Display.

Apple says new display sports four times as many pixels as that of the existing iPhone 3GS, with a resolution of 960x640, 326 pixels per inch, and backed by the same advanced IPS (In-Plane Switching) technology used in the iPad. During his keynote presentation at the company's annual developers conference, chief executive Steve Jobs asserted that the resolution of the new display was higher than "the limit of the human retina," which he noted as 300 ppi at 10- to 12-inches away.

In response to this, display expert Dr. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, contributed to an article over at PC World rebutting the claim. AppleInsider has previously referenced Soneira's extensive display critiques of both the Nexus One and the iPhone 3GS. In his most recent analysis, Soneira claims that the actual distinguishable resolution of the human retina is 477 ppi at a distance of 12 inches. According to his calculations, the iPhone 4's display wouldn't be a true retina display unless it was designed to be held at a distance of at least 18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset.

Soneira's comments were picked up by several major news outlets, including Reuters, Fox News and Wired, some of which expanded on those claims to accuse Apple of false advertising.

As numerous blogs sites continued coverage of the matter, some of the facts became further distorted, causing an eventual backlash against the criticism of false marketing. Discover Magazine blogger Phil Plait, who previously worked on the Hubble Telescope, sided with Apple by noting that Soneira's math assumes perfect eyesight, whereas the average person would be unable to distinguish the iPhone's pixels at a distance of a foot.

Jobs' WWDC keynote also drew criticism for the use of comparison graphics between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 displays that some pundits have similarly deemed as misleading. Digital Society, a non-profit think tank, alleged that Jobs during the keynote falsely propped the iPhone 4's dispay with graphics that show an iPhone 4 resolution as high as 815 ppi, and up to 489 ppi on a separate Apple advertisement.



Adding to the controversy was global electronics maker Samsung, who joined the conversation by touting its AMOLED technology, which will be used in its recently announced Galaxy S, as superior to the newly released Retina Display. A spokesperson for the electronics maker told The Korea Herald that although the iPhone has a higher resolution, "visibility difference is only 3 to 5 percent," while consuming significantly more power than its own technology.



The LCD-IPS display used in the iPhone 4 is manufactured by LG, one of Samsung's primary rivals. For its part, research firm iSuppli believes that the competition between Apple and Google is bound spill over into a battle between LCD-IPS displays and AMOLED displays. Vinita Jakhanwal, a principal analyst for the firm, similarly sided with Apple, saying that while the Nexus One "upped the ante" for handset displays with its AMOLED display, the iPhone 4 "has raised the bar even further" with its LCD-IPS Retina display.
post #2 of 179
Yawn.
post #3 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In the wake of Monday's iPhone 4 introduction, Apple has been the target of sharp criticism from some industry watchers and rivals looking to dispute some of the claims it made regarding the handset's new Retina Display....

This article is total click-bait, considering these claims are both old and already dealt with by multiple other outlets many times over. It's also a classic "tempest in a teapot."

The bottom line is that Apple used a bit of marketing double-speak but technically, everything they said is still (more or less) true. Also, the entire argument is between "specialists" and has no bearing on the average person's view of the display or the phone.

The average person reading/listening to Apple's marketing will get that the new display is "fantastic" and "better than the rest." In a few weeks the phone will be in their hands and the verdict from the public will be that it's ... "fantastic" and "better than the rest."

After that, no one will give a hoot what some scientists argument about the "true" resolution of the iPhone 4 versus the human eyeball is and whether it's 12 inches from your face, or 18.
post #4 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This article is total click-bait, considering these claims are both old and already dealt with by multiple other outlets many times over. It's also a classic "tempest in a teapot."

The bottom line is that Apple used a bit of marketing double-speak but technically, everything they said is still (more or less) true. Also, the entire argument is between "specialists" and has no bearing on the average person's view of the display or the phone.

The average person reading/listening to Apple's marketing will get that the new display is "fantastic" and "better than the rest." In a few weeks the phone will be in their hands and the verdict from the public will be that it's ... "fantastic" and "better than the rest."

After that, no one will give a hoot what some scientists argument about the "true" resolution of the iPhone 4 versus the human eyeball is and whether it's 12 inches from your face, or 18.

Exactly.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #5 of 179
I think Gruber's response to this pretty much says it all:

Quote:
They can say this now, but they wont be able to say such things and be taken seriously after the iPhone 4 is released and people have seen it in person. Until they figure out a way to make AMOLED visible in daylight, theyre not even in the game.
post #6 of 179
.

Sounds similar to claims made by Audio Experts about Fidelity in Stereo Systems

Which, like this, is useless since most Folks can't hear worth a damn, and are blind
.

But know this much is True

We can all "see" the iPhone has the Wannabes scared chitless

Even with no pixels per inch



.
post #7 of 179
who the heck holds their phone just 12" from their eye. 18-20 more likey, so IT IS A RETINA DISPLAY
post #8 of 179
Soneira was factually incorrect about the Nexus One display and appears to be repeating that form again. Why do people keep giving his opinions credence in the wake of repeated inaccuracies?

I find it interesting that AI wasn't so diligent in finding a counter to Soneira's false claims about the inadequacies of the Nexus One screen, as the have been when his negative comments concerned the iPhone.
post #9 of 179
Anyone give a crap about this article?? anyone??

Also take a ruler and put the end between your eyes.. then hold your phone at the 12 inch mark.. ya does ANYONE actually use it this close to their face?? (apart from people who won't admit they need glasses)

Honestly 18" sounds about right.. and clearly SJ wasn't 100% on those figures during the keynote when he was saying "err..uhh.. around 12 or 14 inches or so."
post #10 of 179
I agree with Prof. Peadbody. This is all garbage. You can call it a Super Dooper Better Than Reality Display for all I care. The bottom line is that it's going to be significantly better than basically anything else out there, and a huge improvement over the 3G/3GS/Original iPhone.

...which is one reason I'm upgrading in a few weeks.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 179
Was Apples display on the the existing 3GS great? Yes. Is the new display resolution and technology going to make the new iPhone 4 screen better? YES Is it perfect? NO But to most people it will be amazing. All the complaints from the experts is just their 2 minutes of fame, they don't even get 15 minutes.

Add a couple of finger smears on the screen on a sunny day and this all becomes even more irrelevant.
post #12 of 179
It's still an outstanding display! The best I've ever seen
post #13 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This article is total click-bait, considering these claims are both old and already dealt with by multiple other outlets many times over. It's also a classic "tempest in a teapot."

The bottom line is that Apple used a bit of marketing double-speak but technically, everything they said is still (more or less) true. Also, the entire argument is between "specialists" and has no bearing on the average person's view of the display or the phone.

The average person reading/listening to Apple's marketing will get that the new display is "fantastic" and "better than the rest." In a few weeks the phone will be in their hands and the verdict from the public will be that it's ... "fantastic" and "better than the rest."

After that, no one will give a hoot what some scientists argument about the "true" resolution of the iPhone 4 versus the human eyeball is and whether it's 12 inches from your face, or 18.

Well put. My sentiments exactly.
post #14 of 179
Who gives a $hit? It's a great display and John Doe, my next door neighbor, my friend's grandma, and the rest of the casual consumers who's going to buy an iPhone could care less about retina display or whatever they want to call it. The casual consumers could care less if Apple's retina display exceeds the human eye's retina..

Jeez! Unbelievable... Marketing exaggeration has been around forever.
post #15 of 179
But not so fast, says Phil Plait from Discover, whose résumé includes calibrating a camera on board the Hubble space telescope. He's done the math too and finds that the 477 number applies only to people with perfect vision. For the vast majority of us, Steve's claim stands up to scrutiny; even folks with 20/20 eyesight wouldn't be able to tell where one pixel ends and another begins. So it turns out Apple can do its math, even if its marketing isn't true for every single humanoid on the planet.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/10/i...th-microscope/
post #16 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think Gruber's response to this pretty much says it all:

Quote:
They can say this now, but they wont be able to say such things and be taken seriously after the iPhone 4 is released and people have seen it in person. Until they figure out a way to make AMOLED visible in daylight, theyre not even in the game.

No, I don't think his comment is anymore accurate than Soniera's

Quote:
AMOLED screens are infamous for their poor performance in direct sunlight though, so we took the Samsung Wave out for a stroll out in the sun with an iPhone, which uses a standard LCD TFT, to see how they compare.

When not in sunlight, the Wave shames the iPhone in contrast terms blacks are so much blacker on the Super AMOLED screen but in sunlight reflectivity is noticeably better on the iPhone. Its not a deal breaker though, especially when you can switch on the Waves Outdoor Visibility mode.

Outdoor Visibility cranks up colour saturation, and while it looks absolutely hideous when youre indoors, it does the trick when out in the sun. This mode is available in the Waves features that rely most on screen visibility, such as the video player and camera.

http://188.65.36.75/2010/05/21/samsu...ds-on-preview/
post #17 of 179
The same can be said for print... The difference between 120 line and 133 line is barely noticable, but jump up to 150 line from 120 and you see a difference. BUT try to print over 150 line screen and you are wasting valuable time and resources because the human eye CANNOT factor out any differences.

But I do tend to follow Jobs' statement of the threshold based on my printing experience. 300ppi is roughly the same as 150 line print.
post #18 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

No, I don't think his comment is anymore accurate than Soniera's

Well, actually, I just meant the first sentence, but carelessly forgot to edit the second out. My mistake.
post #19 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

... Also take a ruler and put the end between your eyes.. then hold your phone at the 12 inch mark.. ya does ANYONE actually use it this close to their face?? (apart from people who won't admit they need glasses) ...

Actually, people who need that type of glasses will likely hold it even further away.
post #20 of 179
Wow all these geek asses arguing over the nuances the human eye can see and what it can't see. Really? Is this what it's coming to? Get a life it's a beautiful display and that's it.
post #21 of 179
Samsung say their display consumes 30% less than the retina display, but also that while there is only 5% or so difference in the perceptible quality, raising their display to the same level would increase it's power consumption 30%. Hence they are verifying Apple's claims. Both display technologies consume the same power at the same resolution, but Samsung's is a lower resolution and that's the only reason it consumes less power.
post #22 of 179
Yawn, indeed! Is it a kick-ass display or not? All who have seen it seem to agree that it is.

Next...
post #23 of 179
When the iPhone 4 drops it will sell like oxcoton crack cookies.HTC can boast an 8 mega pix camera and a big screen. That is all. Apple has the support,the ecosystem etc. Apple has thier own OS. Therefore Apple can do anything with the iPhone without restrictions.iPhone is a seamless masterpiece.
HTC can take a Hike.
IT
Wait until the 2nd generation ipad comes out.
OMG!
post #24 of 179
The angular resolution of the eye is 1', that is to say 1 mm at 3 m (or 100 km on the Moon).
A 300 dpi display means each pixel is 25.4/300 = 84.7 µm.
So this corresponds to the angular resolution of the eye at 3 * 0.0847 = 0.254 m or 25.4 cm (10 ").
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #25 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, people who need that type of glasses will likely hold it even further away.

Lol I was actually just trying to be funny there.. but yes I suppose you're right :P
post #26 of 179
Apparently Apple is being truthful about the retina display. It's God's fault for giving us visually challenged people bad eyes. \
post #27 of 179
No, my display is better, the "INSERT NAME HERE" display. There is almost always a study that says your wrong.
post #28 of 179
I sure don't. 18 inches from my face is about right. And...if what they say is true, that 18" is true retina display distance relative to the resolution, it's hitting the mark. Now...could I care less? Sure. Jobs, perhaps...was just embellishing a little.

But again, who holds their phone 12" from their face. I don't think many do.
post #29 of 179
I would also add that the intensity threshold of the eye is about 10^-14 W, which is roughly equivalent to the light of a candle at 16 km (~ 9 miles).
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #30 of 179
Well... it sorta is and sorta isn't false advertising.

Digital photographers are known to print at at least 300 DPI for images intended to be hand-held and at least 150 DPI for images that will be seen at least at arms-length. The reason is, when you go beyond that resolution, you can't really tell a difference in clarity. One of Apple's design guys probably told them that, so they assumed it was common knowledge.

But that is like saying that when you hit 30 FPS, you eye can''t notice a difference. Which although motion appears fluid, it's not necessarily true.

So while, yes, I think that 300 DPI may not be the true limit of the human retina at 10 to 12 inches, I think you would have to have very good eyesight and look very carefully to see anything other than smooth images and text, unlike on the current display where I can make out pixels fairly easily.
post #31 of 179
Semantics. Marketing. Who cares.
post #32 of 179
All these phones just need to get released now so we can start getting tech blogs to do side-by-side comparisons of the screen.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #33 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post


Also take a ruler and put the end between your eyes.. then hold your phone at the 12 inch mark.. ya does ANYONE actually use it this close to their face?? (apart from people who won't admit they need glasses)

Yeah, actually that's exactly where I view my phone from and no, I don't need glasses. I'd rather not extend my arm fully and try to use my phone from 20" away. That's uncomfortable and weird. I placed my phone a comfortable distance away from my face and guess what? That was about 13".
post #34 of 179
a waste...
post #35 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In the wake of Monday's iPhone 4 introduction, Apple has been the target of sharp criticism from some industry watchers and rivals looking to dispute some of the claims it made regarding the handset's new Retina Display.

Apple says new display sports four times as many pixels as that of the existing iPhone 3GS, with a resolution of 960x640, 326 pixels per inch, and backed by the same advanced IPS (In-Plane Switching) technology used in the iPad. During his keynote presentation at the company's annual developers conference, chief executive Steve Jobs asserted that the resolution of the new display was higher than "the limit of the human retina," which he noted as 300 ppi at 10- to 12-inches away.

In response to this, display expert Dr. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, contributed to an article over at PC World rebutting the claim. AppleInsider has previously referenced Soneira's extensive display critiques of both the Nexus One and the iPhone 3GS. In his most recent analysis, Soneira claims that the actual distinguishable resolution of the human retina is 477 ppi at a distance of 12 inches. According to his calculations, the iPhone 4's display wouldn't be a true retina display unless it was designed to be held at a distance of at least 18 inches from the eye, much farther than standard use for a mobile handset.

Soneira's comments were picked up by several major news outlets, including Reuters, Fox News and Wired, some of which expanded on those claims to accuse Apple of false advertising.

As numerous blogs sites continued coverage of the matter, some of the facts became further distorted, causing an eventual backlash against the criticism of false marketing. Discover Magazine blogger Phil Plait (link 4), who previously worked on the Hubble Telescope, sided with Apple by noting that Soneira's math assumes perfect eyesight, whereas the average person would be unable to distinguish the iPhone's pixels at a distance of a foot.

Jobs' WWDC keynote also drew criticism for the use of comparison graphics between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 displays that some pundits have similarly deemed as misleading. Digital Society, a non-profit think tank, alleged that Jobs during the keynote falsely propped the iPhone 4's dispay with graphics that show an iPhone 4 resolution as high as 815 ppi, and up to 489 ppi on a separate Apple advertisement.



Adding to the controversy was global electronics maker Samsung, who joined the conversation by touting its AMOLED technology, which will be used in its recently announced Galaxy S, as superior to the newly released Retina Display. A spokesperson for the electronics maker told The Korea Herald (link 6) that although the iPhone has a higher resolution, "visibility difference is only 3 to 5 percent," while consuming significantly more power than its own technology.



The LCD-IPS display used in the iPhone 4 is manufactured by LG, one of Samsung's primary rivals. For its part, research firm iSuppli believes that the competition between Apple and Google is bound spill over into a battle between LCD-IPS displays and AMOLED displays. Vinita Jakhanwal, a principal analyst for the firm, similarly sided with Apple, saying that while the Nexus One "upped the ante" for handset displays with its AMOLED display, the iPhone 4 "has raised the bar even further" with its LCD-IPS Retina display.


oh, OK....

So other screen manufacturers now say that their products are BETTER, while still saying the iPhone screen is better by ONLY 3 to 5 PERCENT...


oookayyy...

So when is better not really better.

These people sound stupider every day when they lose the battle.
post #36 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctree View Post

who the heck holds their phone just 12" from their eye. 18-20 more likey, so IT IS A RETINA DISPLAY

I agree.

It's also sad to see a doctor stake his supposedly scientific (unless he's a chiropractor) claim on the distance someone holds a phone away from their face when being used.

"Well, if it's 12 inches, Jobs is lying. However, at 18 inches it can honestly be called a Retina Display. Apple needs to tell users to hold it 18 inches away from their face to match their marketing message. Any less than 18 inches and Jobs is a liar."

As such, both this doctor and Jobs are right. And both wrong.

And to paraphrase the OP, "Yawn, yawn."
post #37 of 179
It's not about whether the display lives up to expectations, it's about whether it matches the claims. When Apple ventures into this quasi-scientific data realm, they're setting themselves up for trouble.

This is precisely what scientists do, and frankly, calling it a kick-ass display would have clicked with me much more than all this nonsense about the retina.
post #38 of 179
In short, an arrogant snob thinks his expert eyes are better than Steve Jobs says they are. What a moron, clamoring for a bit of attention. He got his 15 minutes, and now looks like an idiot because his assertion is, of course, absolutely absurd.
post #39 of 179
Quote:
They can say this now, but they won’t be able to say such things and be taken seriously after the iPhone 4 is released and people have seen it in person. Until they figure out a way to make AMOLED visible in daylight, they’re not even in the game.

Frankly, I don't think Apple's old displays (at least my 3G and my laptops) are good in daylight either, the contrast gets so low that it's of limited use. Sunlight is just too powerful, and at least my 3G's screen isn't truly transflective like my old feature phone was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jblenio View Post

I sure don't. 18 inches from my face is about right. And...if what they say is true, that 18" is true retina display distance relative to the resolution, it's hitting the mark. Now...could I care less? Sure. Jobs, perhaps...was just embellishing a little.

But again, who holds their phone 12" from their face. I don't think many do.

I think it varies by the individual. It seems to me that the people I see use their phones at about 12". I've not observed anyone going as far as 18" though.

But whether it really fills the claim, we really won't know without trying it, but it sure sounds like the screen is going to be very nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctree View Post

who the heck holds their phone just 12" from their eye. 18-20 more likey

Pulling a tape measure out to double check, 18-20 seems pretty extreme. 18-20" is almost it at arm's length for a typical person.
post #40 of 179
Well, seeing how I've had vitrectomies in both eyes and have had both retinas lasered to death, I figure that the new iPhone 4 will match my retina's resolution just fine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 4 "Retina" display claims spark controversy