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 - Page 4

post #121 of 179
Well, I decided I had to measure the resolution of my eyes myself, using the method on the wikipedia page mentioned above. I created two 1000 x 1000 images with one-pixel black lines, one horizontal and one vertical, using this simple Matlab script:

Code:

a = repmat([1 0],1000,500);
imwrite(a ,'lines_vertical.png')
imwrite(a','lines_horizontal.png')



I put the images on my 24 inch LED Cinema Display, and on my 15 inch Macbook Pro. I measured the distance I had to move my eyes away from the display to make the lines disappear. The results were the same for the horizontal and vertical lines (both devices have square pixels so the numbers are the same as wel), so I only put the results for the vertical lines (horizontal resolution) in the table.

I couldn't figure out how to make a table on the forum so the table is over here:
Eye resolution comparison table

You can download the images here and do the test for yourself:
http://tauserver.wtb.tue.nl/basd/pics/lines/

Make sure you put your viewer on "actual size" (in Preview.app this is command-0).

I also put the Matlab script and the spreadsheet (OpenOffice format) in the directory in the second link, so you can play with it.

It turns out that my eyes have a resolution of a little bit more than 0.6 arc minutes, using this test. The last column in the table gives the values for the iPhone 4. I used 304 mm, which is 12 inches, because that is what Steve Jobs said. This is 0.88 arc minutes, so I guess I will be able to see pixels when holding the iPhone4 at a 12" distance.

I tend to use my iPhone at a distance of between 300 and 500 mm, depending on what I'm doing. I guess it's still an awesome display btw.
post #122 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Are you sure about that? I have used 600 dpi printers since the late 1980's, and I can easily see the dots with my naked eye.

the dots printed by a printer are not analogous to pixels on a screen.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #123 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

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 ").

FWIW, I'm in my last year of college and have had some optics related courses, and I back up these numbers!
Sounds about right. Then again, you have to take into account the vision of the person, but for the normal human being, even with a 20/20 vision, the 1' is the angular resolution is correct.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #124 of 179
Makes no difference what you call it or what marketing terms are thrown around, the new display is gorgeous. That's all that matters.
post #125 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Steve is the one who made the 12 inch claim.

Did Steve specifically state that a human eye with 20/10 vision can't determine pixels or he did he make a blanket statement that works with those with 20/20 vision or worse, which accounts for most of the population?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I don't think so.

"Soneira claims that the actual distinguishable resolution of the human retina is 477 ppi at a distance of 12 inches. "


ISTM that this is a matter of fact and not opinion.

So your claim is that ALL human eyes are capable of distinguishing the same exact data. You are saying that these "scientists" that say that 20/20 and 20/10 vision are all full of crap.

Of course you aren't but since I clearly made a point to reference 20/20 vision and you clearly made a point to reference no variation in vision you MUST be arguing what is said in the paragraph above.

Did you even read this article that clearly explains it are you just so hell bent in trying to find something negative against Apple and Jobs to hold to?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #126 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

FWIW, I'm in my last year of college and have had some optics related courses, and I back up these numbers!
Sounds about right. Then again, you have to take into account the vision of the person, but for the normal human being, even with a 20/20 vision, the 1' is the angular resolution is correct.

No wonder I extracted the figure from my neurophysiology book.

In France, we measure the visual acuteness in tenths, not twentieths. 10/10, or 20/20 in the US, corresponds to 1' of eye angular resolution, but it is by no way a physiological limit: it's a mean value. Some people (I do, and many plane pilots, especially in the army, do also) reach 12/10 or more. It just means we do have a cone density on the fovea higher than normal, so we are able to make out "finer grains".

It seems also that some women have a fourth type of cone, beyond the normal ones (sensitive to red, blue, green), that would react to the orange part of the spectrum: they are called tetrachromats.
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #127 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

It seems also that some women have a fourth type of cone, beyond the normal ones (sensitive to red, blue, green), that would react to the orange part of the spectrum: they are called tetrachromats.

I've certainly learned things in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrach..._tetrachromats
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #128 of 179
If you are watching the World Cup there is a very clear example of pixelation on the ad banners surrounding the field. How big are those LEDs, a half-inch?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #129 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you are watching the World Cup there is a very clear example of pixelation on the ad banners surrounding the field. How big are those LEDs, a half-inch?

Clearly you are not holding the banner 12-14" from your face.
post #130 of 179
This has been an interesting discussion from an ophthalmological standpoint, but is probably meaningless for real world iPhone customers. Retina Display? A catchy marketing gambit.

Another of my recent favorites is the TV commercial for a nonprescription male enhancement pill that steals the line from Viagra and Cialis. "Get immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours."

The implication, obviously, is that if some poor limp stooge of a customer uses this stuff, he's liable to get a heroic stiffy.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #131 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

Yawn.

exactly. Holy mother is this really that huge a deal?

Show me a computer maker who hasn't maybe stretched the truth a little, or boasted a wee bit.

My 3G screen looks snazzy, still. If the 4G is way better, cool. Next?
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #132 of 179
I think it's entirely appropriate for Jobs' claim to be examined for its accuracy. Jobs should have been a little more precise in spelling out what his claims are for the display. Had Jobs specified that for someone with 20/20 vision, the display did have enough resolution to do the trick, all of this would have been perfectly fine. Jobs did make a claim that is misleading, though for most of us not in a significant fashion.

It's like we know that human hearing is capable of 20 hz to 20,000 Hz but as has been pointed out, many of us, as we age, can't come anywhere close to 20,000 Hz. My limit is closer to 14,000 Hz. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a fine piece of stereo equipment. But it's not about the equipment's range as it is about the quality of the sound in other regards. Still, I think that it would be misleading to market a stereo with a range of let's say 30 hz to 16000 Hz as providing a range that reaches the limits of human hearing. Sure for me personally and many others, it would be in effect accurate to say that the stereo covered enough spectrum to get the job done but that's beside the point.

Still, I do imagine that pushing for even more resolution on a mobile device screen is pretty much a pointless exercise and I suppose that's the message Jobs was trying to deliver. It's unfortunate, though, that he was so cavalier about how he presented that message, making a statement that was, in truth, not accurate.
post #133 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

t seems also that some women have a fourth type of cone, beyond the normal ones (sensitive to red, blue, green), that would react to the orange part of the spectrum: they are called tetrachromats.

Of course. That's how they see things that aren't there-my ex-wife must have been a tetrachromat.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #134 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Did Steve specifically state that a human eye with 20/10 vision can't determine pixels or he did he make a blanket statement that works with those with 20/20 vision or worse, which accounts for most of the population?

Here's what he said:

It turns out theres a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels, Jobs said.

I dunno if he is correct or incorrect.

Here's what the other guy said:

"Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4 has a resolution higher than the retina - that's not right:

1. The resolution of the retina is in angular measure - it's 50 Cycles Per Degree. A cycle is a line pair, which is two pixels, so the angular resolution of the eye is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel.

2. So if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes, that works out to 477 pixels per inch. At 8 inches it's 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi."

I dunno if he is correct or incorrect.

But as I said (and you dispute?), this is a matter of fact, and not opinion.
post #135 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

t's like we know that human hearing is capable of 20 hz to 20,000 Hz but as has been pointed out, many of us, as we age, can't come anywhere close to 20,000 Hz. My limit is closer to 14,000 Hz. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a fine piece of stereo equipment. But it's not about the equipment's range as it is about the quality of the sound in other regards. Still, I think that it would be misleading to market a stereo with a range of let's say 30 hz to 16000 Hz as providing a range that reaches the limits of human hearing.

Let's use your example. Typically, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz is considered the range of human hearing. But there are a few people who can hear beyond that. I have a friend who can hear to about 24,000 Hz (probably not any more, but when he was in his 20's). So is it false to say that 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz is the range of human hearing? Of course not. The word 'typical' or 'normal' is assumed.

Similarly, for normal human vision (considered to be 20/20 by definition), the iPhone 4.0's display exceeds the ability of the eye to distinguish. The fact that there are a few people with better eyes doesn't change that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #136 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Similarly, for normal human vision (considered to be 20/20 by definition), the iPhone 4.0's display exceeds the ability of the eye to distinguish. The fact that there are a few people with better eyes doesn't change that.

You might be misunderstanding the controversy.

For normal human vision, as you define it, the iPhone does NOT exceed the ability of the eye to distinguish, according to vision experts.

That is the whole point of why people are commenting on the situation.
post #137 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I think it's entirely appropriate for Jobs' claim to be examined for its accuracy. Jobs should have been a little more precise in spelling out what his claims are for the display. Had Jobs specified that for someone with 20/20 vision, the display did have enough resolution to do the trick, all of this would have been perfectly fine. Jobs did make a claim that is misleading, though for most of us not in a significant fashion.

Does a presentation designed to advertise a product have to be so precise that he needs to qualify all marketing statements? I don't think so.

From what I read, it appears that only 35% of the world's population even have 20/20 vision or better. And since 20/20 is still within the threshold of arc minute from 12" away and is widely considered the "average" good eyesight I have to say that his comments are in order. What percentage of the world's population would fall under the "I can differentiate a pixel at 12 inches" category? 25%?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #138 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


From what I read, it appears that only 35% of the world's population even have 20/20 vision or better. And since 20/20 is still within the threshold of arc minute from 12" away and is widely considered the "average" good eyesight I have to say that his comments are in order. What percentage of the world's population would fall under the "I can differentiate a pixel at 12 inches" category? 25%?


Here are the good Doctor's comments on that topic:

"If you allow poor vision to enter into the specs then any display becomes a retina display. That turns it into a meaningless concept that will be exploited by everyone. The iPhone 3GS is a retina display too for good percentage of the population.


Specs need to be objective, precise and accurate. Allowing puffery and exaggerations in the sales and marketing starts a snowballing effect that eventually leads to the 1000% rampant spec abuse that I document for many other displays."



I wonder what percentage of the world's population can hear 20-20,000 Hz? Do we nevertheless use that as the spec for a reason?
post #139 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

For normal human vision, as you define it, the iPhone does NOT exceed the ability of the eye to distinguish, according to vision experts.

Sure it does. The "norm" is worse than 20/20 and you'd have to be better somewhat better than 20/20 to even see the pixels at 12" away.

If you actually read the posts on this thread you'd see that it's been proven over and over that Soneira is the one exaggerating by taking the highest category of visual acuity, which you are foolishly attributing as the "average" user's eyesight. If you can't see that then you should get your eyes check out.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #140 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Here are the good Doctor's comments on that topic:

"If you allow poor vision to enter into the specs then any display becomes a retina display. That turns it into a meaningless concept that will be exploited by everyone. The iPhone 3GS is a retina display too for good percentage of the population.

So now 20/20 is poor vision?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #141 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You might be misunderstanding the controversy.

For normal human vision, as you define it, the iPhone does NOT exceed the ability of the eye to distinguish, according to vision experts.

That is the whole point of why people are commenting on the situation.

No, you're distorting things - as usual.

The doctors agree, that for 20/20 vision (which is BY DEFINITION normal) resolution is 1 arc-minute - which is about what the iPhone 4 provides at normal viewing distances.

You're confusing theoretical RETINA resolution - which is meaningless. Most people's vision has to go through lenses, the aqueous humor, vitreous humor, and cornea, before it gets to the retina. For NORMAL (by definition) vision, Jobs was correct.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #142 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I wonder what percentage of the world's population can hear 20-20,000 Hz? Do we nevertheless use that as the spec for a reason?

Great example. You accept that 20-20,000 Hz is the normal spec for hearing - even though a few people can hear well past 20,000 Hz (I have a friend who was once able to hear to 24,000 Hz).

Similarly, 20/20 is the normal spec for vision - even though a tiny percentage can see better than that.

Why is it that you accept 'normal' for hearing, but insist on 'superhuman' for vision?

Oh, right. It's another chance for you to spew your mindless Apple-bashing.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #143 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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

They have made AMOLED screens work in daylight. It's called Super AMOLDED and is present in the Samsung Galaxy S.
post #144 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yet, the battery life on the iPhone 4 is vastly superior (or, so Jobs says). I'll bet it was a well-thought out trade-off on Apple's part: how much incremental battery life versus how much incremental screen quality.

The battery life on the Samsung Galaxy S is even better than the iPhone 4, in standby, talk time and browsing.
post #145 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba View Post

They have made AMOLED screens work in daylight. It's called Super AMOLDED and is present in the Samsung Galaxy S.

Surely Super AMOLED work "better" in direct sunlight, but 'd like to see some evidence that it's actually works well in direct sunlight and/or that it works better than LCDs in direct sunlight.

Case in point, I wouldn't classify the iPhone, iPhone 3G or iPhone 3GS as working well in direct sunlight, just that they are still usable in direct sunlight. I look forward to comparing my iPhone 4 to my iPhone 3GS in direct sunlight on the 24th.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #146 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba View Post

The battery life on the Samsung Galaxy S is even better than the iPhone 4, in standby, talk time and browsing.

Better, eh? I think you need to qualify that statement with "in some areas" instead of implying that it's better across the board. Or course, if you're just out to market the device and not here to compare specs for what you think is a good device then by all means keep stating halfisms.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #147 of 179
Oh god... have these people ever heard of marketing? I can't believe people are attacking apple over something so stupid. It's a freaking good display, apple calls it retina display, whatever. Who cares if it's not as good as your eyes, doesn't take away from the fact that it kicks the crap out of every other display out there. Just because some nerd calculated some number or such bullshit people all in a tizzy. Get over it!
post #148 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Makes no difference what you call it or what marketing terms are thrown around, the new display is gorgeous. That's all that matters.

And all this debate about the accuracy of the statement, even the criticisms, are GREAT publicity for Apple. People may doubt whether the display is a "retinal" display, but they will all be aware that it's the best display on the market.
post #149 of 179
Apple going to sell millions of phones because people will upgrade and new customers will fall in love with overall look of the new iPhone and it will be successful.
These discussions are great and informative (except for 95% Stevie's comments, which sound like Tekstud and iGenius), but really will not change the fact that the iPhone 4 display is one of the best, if not the best coming to market.
post #150 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Here's what the other guy said:

"Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4 has a resolution higher than the retina - that's not right:

except by your own admission that's not what steve said at all.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #151 of 179
I really appreciate what Apple is doing with pixel densities. It not only makes the display more beautiful, but in a way it simplifies the device too, because it makes one more technology - pixels - disappear (literally).

I own an iPhone and an iPad, and do use them, but out of necessity spend most of my time on a desktop computer, so I hope they do dense Mac screens too.
post #152 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

except by your own admission that's not what steve said at all.

Admission? Huh?

I quoted the original statement and the rebuttal. Take your pick.
post #153 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Admission? Huh?

I quoted the original statement and the rebuttal. Take your pick.

the quote in your post showed it wasn't at all what Jobs said, i'll take that as an admission that you know you are aware of the untruth you are pushing.

as for the rebuttal, a rebuttal of what? you prove that jobs didn't say what the "expert" based his argument on. argument invalidated.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #154 of 179
and Apple should very well have known that every claim would be checked and the BS flag waved enthusiastically when deviation from the truth was found. It is inexcusable for Apple to make such unsubstantiated claims. The question now is whether the continued use of the name "Retina Display" constitutes a continuing fraud...they may be forced to drop the name either for legal considerations or simply because they will continually be lambasted for using it. It would have been better to simply state that it is the highest resolution cell phone display currently available and it looks great. He could even have said that it is approaching the limits of the ability of the human eye to resolve and not run afoul of the truth police too badly. Now every time the name "Retina Display" is used

We all know that Steve is not always entirely truthful (he did promise "all the internet" with the original iPhone and we know that you can not access "all the internet" without Flash. Whether you think Flash should be there or not, it is there and only the delusional deny its existence) and sometimes he needs an internal "turth cop". The problem is that he would fire a "truth cop" whenever his ruling was inconvenient. Come to think of it, Steve would find the mere existence of such a function more than inconvenient.

Another consideration when making unsubstantiated, if not outright false, claims is that people will wonder just what else they are being misled about.

Speaking of doubting the truthfulness of claims, AT&T's claim that 98% of iPhone users use less than 2 GB of data a month is suspect on its face. If so few people exceed 2 GB of data (which isn't much) then just how does that actually impact the network? Just when are you lying to us AT&T?
post #155 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

and Apple should very well have known that every claim would be checked and the BS flag waved enthusiastically when deviation from the truth was found. It is inexcusable for Apple to make such unsubstantiated claims. The question now is whether the continued use of the name "Retina Display" constitutes a continuing fraud...they may be forced to drop the name either for legal considerations or simply because they will continually be lambasted for using it. It would have been better to simply state that it is the highest resolution cell phone display currently available and it looks great. He could even have said that it is approaching the limits of the ability of the human eye to resolve and not run afoul of the truth police too badly. Now every time the name "Retina Display" is used

We all know that Steve is not always entirely truthful (he did promise "all the internet" with the original iPhone and we know that you can not access "all the internet" without Flash. Whether you think Flash should be there or not, it is there and only the delusional deny its existence) and sometimes he needs an internal "turth cop". The problem is that he would fire a "truth cop" whenever his ruling was inconvenient. Come to think of it, Steve would find the mere existence of such a function more than inconvenient.

Another consideration when making unsubstantiated, if not outright false, claims is that people will wonder just what else they are being misled about.

Speaking of doubting the truthfulness of claims, AT&T's claim that 98% of iPhone users use less than 2 GB of data a month is suspect on its face. If so few people exceed 2 GB of data (which isn't much) then just how does that actually impact the network? Just when are you lying to us AT&T?

sure they did. And it will have people talking about the iphone 4 even more. Sounds like smart marketing to me.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #156 of 179
deleted
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #157 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

and Apple should very well have known that every claim would be checked and the BS flag waved enthusiastically when deviation from the truth was found. It is inexcusable for Apple to make such unsubstantiated claims. The question now is whether the continued use of the name "Retina Display" constitutes a continuing fraud...they may be forced to drop the name either for legal considerations or simply because they will continually be lambasted for using it. It would have been better to simply state that it is the highest resolution cell phone display currently available and it looks great. He could even have said that it is approaching the limits of the ability of the human eye to resolve and not run afoul of the truth police too badly. Now every time the name "Retina Display" is used

We all know that Steve is not always entirely truthful (he did promise "all the internet" with the original iPhone and we know that you can not access "all the internet" without Flash. Whether you think Flash should be there or not, it is there and only the delusional deny its existence) and sometimes he needs an internal "turth cop". The problem is that he would fire a "truth cop" whenever his ruling was inconvenient. Come to think of it, Steve would find the mere existence of such a function more than inconvenient.

Another consideration when making unsubstantiated, if not outright false, claims is that people will wonder just what else they are being misled about.

Speaking of doubting the truthfulness of claims, AT&T's claim that 98% of iPhone users use less than 2 GB of data a month is suspect on its face. If so few people exceed 2 GB of data (which isn't much) then just how does that actually impact the network? Just when are you lying to us AT&T?

The fact is that the statement was true. When Jobs talks about 'human vision', he's clearly talking about AVERAGE human vision. No doubt Superman could see the pixels on this phone - along with an insignificant percentage of mere mortals. But 20/20 vision is DEFINED as 'normal' human vision - and all the published reports agree that for someone with 20/20 vision holding the phone at 12-18", the pixels will be invisible.

Truth is truth, right? So why are you spreading lies?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #158 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

as for the rebuttal, a rebuttal of what? you prove that jobs didn't say what the "expert" based his argument on. argument invalidated.

AI did a whole article on what the expert said in rebuttal.

But you say that he misunderstood Steve and that his argument is not a rebuttal?
post #159 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The fact is that the statement was true. When Jobs talks about 'human vision', he's clearly talking about AVERAGE human vision.

You know that is not true. If not, reread what he said.
post #160 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

. But 20/20 vision is DEFINED as 'normal' human vision - and all the published reports agree that for someone with 20/20 vision holding the phone at 12-18", the pixels will be invisible.

Truth is truth, right? So why are you spreading lies?

The published report you are responding to says very different. And Steve claims that at 10 inches, the eye cannot resolve the detail present.

Truth is truth.
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