But you haven't fully address your comment about the OLED display yet, and now you're making it worse (for yourself to be attacked by Apple fans, this is an Apple-centric forum after all) by dishing on other Apple's products..
I'm interested to know why though..
Why are you calling iPhone 3GS and iPad lazy? What do you mean by lazy?
Why do you hate iTunes the most?
It's astonishing, especially for me, because many Apple competitors out there are trying to catch up with what Apple has now on its products. Every mobile manufacturers are still trying to build what they call as "iPhone-killer", but still no avail. Not to mention now, everyone in the industry is trying to build a tablet, after the iPad seen as and proven to be a successful product. Apple did it first, and the rest are trying to catch up..
To me, the others are lazy while Apple has done the most work..
For iMac, well.. can't argue that it is expensive.
While for iTunes, well.. it has became the most used music player in the market up to today, and surely it happened for a good reason: because everyone like using it. And the most important question is: do you also still use iTunes now? \
I don't know what else there is to say about OLED. To me it looks better, like the difference between LCD (washed out blacks) and plasma (deep blacks). I simply prefer a display which knows what black is to one which doesn't.
The 3GS was lazy as it was just a 3G with faster chips in it and a compas. Not exactly revolutionary was it? The iPad was lazy as it was just an iPod touch made larger. Wow, really earth shattering stuff. Personally I doubt the tablet form fact has much appeal beyond novelty, and I doubt they will ever achieve even 10% of the popularity of laptops, let alone smart phones. Even Jobs himself said 'nobody reads anymore', which while rather ignorant and foolish has a grain of truth to it, and besides, why would I buy an ebook for £10-15 poisoned with DRM when I can buy 2 or 3 books for £10 from Amazon, and then loan them to everyone I know?
As for iTunes, it's popular because it feeds the iPod. That's it. To use it, is to hate it. It's slow, earth shatteringly slow, it can bring powerful PCs to a total standstill when syncing a simple USB device, it crashes a lot, it looks like a database application from 10 years ago, it's tagging is laborious to use and very slow, and the store feels like it's running on a Vic 20 such is it's slowness. Take a look at Microsoft's Zune application. Notice the difference? That's how you make a modern media application.
Wont be able to play the 720p video its supposed to be able to record, at least not in full resolution? Am I missing something?
You will certainly be able to playback 720p recordings. Interpolation Takes Care of 720p Playback on all the mobile devices. I'm sure iPhone OS 4 will include the spec to play 720p video interpolated down according to the mobile display's spec. I'll be in shock if that is not the case.
It's more than just display size and aspect ratio!
Some have said that: "the iPad is just a big iPod Touch." But it's not as, others have said: "that's like saying a swimming pool is just a big bathtub."
The additional real estate opens all kinds of possibilities.
Consider:
-- in a bathtub your toys are pretty much limited to a rubber ducky, in the pool you can choose among inner tubes, lounge/drink carriers, water volley ball sets, slides, etc.
-- in the pool you can have lots of participants. doing various thiings... the tub is more limited to how many and what they can do
-- laps are a lot easier in the bathtub.
-- in the pool you can, likely, get away with wizzin' in the water... the bathtub, not so much.
Until OS 4.0, you can have lots of participants, but only one can be in the pool at any one time.
Until OS 4.0, you can have lots of participants, but only one can be in the pool at any one time.
I was referring to the number of objects on the screen: larger screen == more objects, columns, etc... Not the number of concurrent tasks.
And, your statement is incorrect! In both 3.0 (and earlier) and 4.0 you can have multiple tasks running concurrently. Only one of these can be a non-Apple task, however. In 4.0 the rules are relaxed somewhat to allow ways for non-Apple tasks to finish or remain suspended while another runs.
I was referring to the number of objects on the screen: larger screen == more objects, columns, etc... Not the number of concurrent tasks.
And, your statement is incorrect! In both 3.0 and 4.0 you can have multiple tasks running concurrently. Only one of these can be a non-Apple task, however. In 4.0 the rules are relaxed somewhat to allow ways for non-Apple tasks to finish or remain suspended while another runs.
Why, thank you! Not only is it fine, it is valid and practical to meeting the goals of the device for its target audience.
.
Old ground - and disingenious to my mind. Yes, this is multitasking, but nearly every one, except apple apologists accept multitasking as being able to do more than one thing of your own choosing.
Old ground - and disingenious to my mind. Yes, this is multitasking, but nearly every one, except apple apologists accept multitasking as being able to do more than one thing of your own choosing.
Your comment is disingenuous by choosing not to be accurate in your statement. I can have the iPod playing music, while Mail is being checked, pop into Safari start loading a page and hit another app and then come back to Safari with the page loaded. I can even be on a call when I do that, but the iPod will pause for that.
THAT IS RUNNING MULTIPLE APPS AT THE SAME TIME.
I can do more than one thing of my own choosing but what you are wanting has nothing to do with the definition of multitasking, but with some foolish notion that Apple should work for a specific individual's needs, and not their own. They choose to make only the necessary default apps run services in the background. They did NOT enable this for any App Store app, not just 3rd-party apps.
The kind of control you want is silly as it's completely opposite the business model Apple set up in the 70's. It sounds like you don't want Apple to intelligently control the way anything is started and stopped, letting the user have completely unfettered control. I guess you'd want videos to keep playing in the background even when you leave the app or music to keep playing when you receive a call. Let the user go through a a few thousand cryptic settings to keep those things from happening.
Apple brought the smartphone to average user which has given Android, WebOS and WinMo7 a viable "me too" market. Check out the direction smartphones were going before 2007. Whether you like the iPhone or not, you should at least be thankful that the smartphone market is better because of Apple.
Your comment is disingenuous by choosing not to be accurate in your statement. I can have the iPod playing music, while Mail is being checked, pop into Safari start loading a page and hit another app and then come back to Safari with the page loaded. I can even be on a call when I do that, but the iPod will pause for that.
THAT IS RUNNING MULTIPLE APPS AT THE SAME TIME.
I can do more than one thing of my own choosing but what you are wanting has nothing to do with the definition of multitasking, but with some foolish notion that Apple should work for a specific individual's needs, and not their own. They choose to make only the necessary default apps run services in the background. They did NOT enable this for any App Store app, not just 3rd-party apps.
The kind of control you want is silly as it's completely opposite the business model Apple set up in the 70's. It sounds like you don't want Apple to intelligently control the way anything is started and stopped, letting the user have completely unfettered control. I guess you'd want videos to keep playing in the background even when you leave the app or music to keep playing when you receive a call. Let the user go through a a few thousand cryptic settings to keep those things from happening.
Wow. Didn't mean to touch a nerve... Why can't I run pandora and facebook at the same time, right now? You can take a purely technical view of multitasking and that's fine, and I see you've also taking some sort of philosophical view on it, as well. That fine, too. But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
It's all moot with OS 4.0 in the chute anyway - sorry to have derailed this thread.
Quote:
Apple brought the smartphone to average user which has given Android, WebOS and WinMo7 a viable "me too" market. Check out the direction smartphones were going before 2007. Whether you like the iPhone or not, you should at least be thankful that the smartphone market is better because of Apple.
But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
Yep, which is exactly why they did things that way. Your scenario doesn't look at the big picture. How many apps could someone possibly run between reboots? To think that everyone of those apps could be constantly running in the background until the system has to kill something due to RAM constraints, require the use of an app to manage processes and have that affect the performance and battery of the device is absurd.
It was long predicted that Apple would come up with backgrounding API for apps to tie into thus minimizing the performance and battery hit to the system. This took longer than many had hoped, but that is how Apple tends to work. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. They took until v3.0 to offer cut/copy/paste and despite all the complaints and ignorant comments that "such-and-such has had that feature since x-year", it's still the only mobile OS that has properly and completely added that feature.
There is something to be said about doing something well over doing it fast.
The best thing about the new iPhone 4G is that, while it is Apple's 4th iPhone release, and yet it is only the third generation of iPhone, it won't have any of that tired 4G cell technology. Horray for research and things that make sense! Hooray for tech journalists that write before they think!
I really don't get your point at all. The screen is high-res, that's great, but it's still an LCD. That means washed out blacks, low contrast, and an overall flat look.
When you've seen a good OLED screen (Nexus One), an LCD just looks weak by comparison. A high-res LCD isn't going to fix that.
Oh, how wrong you are. Here's a simple little test: Take your Nexus One and its glorious OLED screen outside on a sunny day and put it next to the iPhone. Now tell me; which one of those two screens looks "washed out, low contrast and overall flat"?
The best thing about the new iPhone 4G is that, while it is Apple's 4th iPhone release, and yet it is only the third generation of iPhone, it won't have any of that tired 4G cell technology. Horray for research and things that make sense! Hooray for tech journalists that write before they think!
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Wow. Didn't mean to touch a nerve... Why can't I run pandora and facebook at the same time, right now? You can take a purely technical view of multitasking and that's fine, and I see you've also taking some sort of philosophical view on it, as well. That fine, too. But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
The regular Joe doesn't care about Pandora. The regular Joe is using iTunes and it will play just fine while doing things in Facebook.
The only people complaining are the geeks who want things their way, no matter what it does to usability.
Oh, how wrong you are. Here's a simple little test: Take your Nexus One and its glorious OLED screen outside on a sunny day and put it next to the iPhone. Now tell me; which one of those two screens looks "washed out, low contrast and overall flat"?
Yeah, exactly.
I use my phone inside (be it on a train, or in an office) 99% of the time, so frankly such a test is of no interest to me.
On the very rare ocassion I do try to use my iPhone outside, all I see is reflection. Perhaps if Apple could lose it's obsession wih making every screen into a mirror things might be different.
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
Here's a sig I have been using for a while at MR-- Will need to update it in a few days:
I use my phone inside (be it on a train, or in an office) 99% of the time, so frankly such a test is of no interest to me.
On the very rare ocassion I do try to use my iPhone outside, all I see is reflection. Perhaps if Apple could lose it's obsession wih making every screen into a mirror things might be different.
Then an OLED display is fine... for you!
Most of my phone use is when I am out and about-- especially during the summer (Jun-Nov) where several hours, 6 days a week, are spent in the middle of a park at the 3 grandkids soccer practice and games
The LCD display is better... for me:
Perhaps, if you could lose your obsession criticizing every iPhone feature that does not meet your special (or imagined) needs you would be happier with your choice.
Maybe, someday, someone will make the perfect multi-touch phone for the anal-retentive!
Most of my phone use is when I am out and about-- especially during the summer (Jun-Nov) where several hours, 6 days a week, are spent in the middle of a park at the 3 grandkids soccer practice and games
The LCD display is better... for me:
Perhaps, if you could lose your obsession criticizing every iPhone feature that does not meet your special (or imagined) needs you would be happier with your choice.
Maybe, someday, someone will make the perfect multi-touch phone for the anal-retentive!
.
Maybe someday Apple will actually be sensible enough to offer people a choice of iPhone specs as they do with the iPod. Why not make a premium high end model with a larger screen using OLED? For a premium brand I can't fathom why Apple have surrendered the high end to HTC.
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
I find it's more clear to flip the placement and order to refer to the generation of the product. For instance, G4 iPhone, as this is not how one refers to network marketing nomenclature.
Regardless, this issue will be ending shortly as next iPhone will be named in a week and next year we can refer to the next model as iPhone G5 without it being confused with a network technology.
Just use any photo manipulation app, take the "luminosity curve" and make it bend sharper at the dark end -- then add 5% contrast.
One very important aspect of a cell phone screen is NOT HD resolution when you cannot discern HD resolution -- for that you need a larger screen. 300+ DPI is nice but more than that is just ridiculous -- this is the PC megahertz race all over again folks.
I believe that Apple is using a "light reflecting" technology that takes the ambient light and concentrates it back -- kind of like the UV converting chemicals in your laundry soap that make "whites whiter." Just a guess.
Anyway, the iPhone screen should be a lot better to SEE what you are doing on without walking into the shade -- although all of these screens have a hard time in direct sunlight.
I'm also concerned about OLED fading in about a year -- anyone have any good specs on that?
Comments
-- in the pool you can, likely, get away with wizzin' in the water... the bathtub, not so much.
LMAO
But you haven't fully address your comment about the OLED display yet, and now you're making it worse (for yourself to be attacked by Apple fans, this is an Apple-centric forum after all) by dishing on other Apple's products..
I'm interested to know why though..
Why are you calling iPhone 3GS and iPad lazy? What do you mean by lazy?
Why do you hate iTunes the most?
It's astonishing, especially for me, because many Apple competitors out there are trying to catch up with what Apple has now on its products. Every mobile manufacturers are still trying to build what they call as "iPhone-killer", but still no avail. Not to mention now, everyone in the industry is trying to build a tablet, after the iPad seen as and proven to be a successful product. Apple did it first, and the rest are trying to catch up..
To me, the others are lazy while Apple has done the most work..
For iMac, well.. can't argue that it is expensive.
While for iTunes, well.. it has became the most used music player in the market up to today, and surely it happened for a good reason: because everyone like using it. And the most important question is: do you also still use iTunes now?
I don't know what else there is to say about OLED. To me it looks better, like the difference between LCD (washed out blacks) and plasma (deep blacks). I simply prefer a display which knows what black is to one which doesn't.
The 3GS was lazy as it was just a 3G with faster chips in it and a compas. Not exactly revolutionary was it? The iPad was lazy as it was just an iPod touch made larger. Wow, really earth shattering stuff. Personally I doubt the tablet form fact has much appeal beyond novelty, and I doubt they will ever achieve even 10% of the popularity of laptops, let alone smart phones. Even Jobs himself said 'nobody reads anymore', which while rather ignorant and foolish has a grain of truth to it, and besides, why would I buy an ebook for £10-15 poisoned with DRM when I can buy 2 or 3 books for £10 from Amazon, and then loan them to everyone I know?
As for iTunes, it's popular because it feeds the iPod. That's it. To use it, is to hate it. It's slow, earth shatteringly slow, it can bring powerful PCs to a total standstill when syncing a simple USB device, it crashes a lot, it looks like a database application from 10 years ago, it's tagging is laborious to use and very slow, and the store feels like it's running on a Vic 20 such is it's slowness. Take a look at Microsoft's Zune application. Notice the difference? That's how you make a modern media application.
Wont be able to play the 720p video its supposed to be able to record, at least not in full resolution? Am I missing something?
You will certainly be able to playback 720p recordings. Interpolation Takes Care of 720p Playback on all the mobile devices. I'm sure iPhone OS 4 will include the spec to play 720p video interpolated down according to the mobile display's spec. I'll be in shock if that is not the case.
It's more than just display size and aspect ratio!
Some have said that: "the iPad is just a big iPod Touch." But it's not as, others have said: "that's like saying a swimming pool is just a big bathtub."
The additional real estate opens all kinds of possibilities.
Consider:
-- in a bathtub your toys are pretty much limited to a rubber ducky, in the pool you can choose among inner tubes, lounge/drink carriers, water volley ball sets, slides, etc.
-- in the pool you can have lots of participants. doing various thiings... the tub is more limited to how many and what they can do
-- laps are a lot easier in the bathtub.
-- in the pool you can, likely, get away with wizzin' in the water... the bathtub, not so much.
Until OS 4.0, you can have lots of participants, but only one can be in the pool at any one time.
Until OS 4.0, you can have lots of participants, but only one can be in the pool at any one time.
I was referring to the number of objects on the screen: larger screen == more objects, columns, etc... Not the number of concurrent tasks.
And, your statement is incorrect! In both 3.0 (and earlier) and 4.0 you can have multiple tasks running concurrently. Only one of these can be a non-Apple task, however. In 4.0 the rules are relaxed somewhat to allow ways for non-Apple tasks to finish or remain suspended while another runs.
.
I was referring to the number of objects on the screen: larger screen == more objects, columns, etc... Not the number of concurrent tasks.
And, your statement is incorrect! In both 3.0 and 4.0 you can have multiple tasks running concurrently. Only one of these can be a non-Apple task, however. In 4.0 the rules are relaxed somewhat to allow ways for non-Apple tasks to finish or remain suspended while another runs.
.
A fine distinction, one might say.
A fine distinction, one might say.
Why, thank you! Not only is it fine, it is valid and practical to meeting the goals of the device for its target audience.
.
Why, thank you! Not only is it fine, it is valid and practical to meeting the goals of the device for its target audience.
.
Old ground - and disingenious to my mind. Yes, this is multitasking, but nearly every one, except apple apologists accept multitasking as being able to do more than one thing of your own choosing.
Old ground - and disingenious to my mind. Yes, this is multitasking, but nearly every one, except apple apologists accept multitasking as being able to do more than one thing of your own choosing.
Your comment is disingenuous by choosing not to be accurate in your statement. I can have the iPod playing music, while Mail is being checked, pop into Safari start loading a page and hit another app and then come back to Safari with the page loaded. I can even be on a call when I do that, but the iPod will pause for that.
THAT IS RUNNING MULTIPLE APPS AT THE SAME TIME.
I can do more than one thing of my own choosing but what you are wanting has nothing to do with the definition of multitasking, but with some foolish notion that Apple should work for a specific individual's needs, and not their own. They choose to make only the necessary default apps run services in the background. They did NOT enable this for any App Store app, not just 3rd-party apps.
The kind of control you want is silly as it's completely opposite the business model Apple set up in the 70's. It sounds like you don't want Apple to intelligently control the way anything is started and stopped, letting the user have completely unfettered control. I guess you'd want videos to keep playing in the background even when you leave the app or music to keep playing when you receive a call. Let the user go through a a few thousand cryptic settings to keep those things from happening.
Apple brought the smartphone to average user which has given Android, WebOS and WinMo7 a viable "me too" market. Check out the direction smartphones were going before 2007. Whether you like the iPhone or not, you should at least be thankful that the smartphone market is better because of Apple.
Your comment is disingenuous by choosing not to be accurate in your statement. I can have the iPod playing music, while Mail is being checked, pop into Safari start loading a page and hit another app and then come back to Safari with the page loaded. I can even be on a call when I do that, but the iPod will pause for that.
THAT IS RUNNING MULTIPLE APPS AT THE SAME TIME.
I can do more than one thing of my own choosing but what you are wanting has nothing to do with the definition of multitasking, but with some foolish notion that Apple should work for a specific individual's needs, and not their own. They choose to make only the necessary default apps run services in the background. They did NOT enable this for any App Store app, not just 3rd-party apps.
The kind of control you want is silly as it's completely opposite the business model Apple set up in the 70's. It sounds like you don't want Apple to intelligently control the way anything is started and stopped, letting the user have completely unfettered control. I guess you'd want videos to keep playing in the background even when you leave the app or music to keep playing when you receive a call. Let the user go through a a few thousand cryptic settings to keep those things from happening.
Wow. Didn't mean to touch a nerve... Why can't I run pandora and facebook at the same time, right now? You can take a purely technical view of multitasking and that's fine, and I see you've also taking some sort of philosophical view on it, as well. That fine, too. But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
It's all moot with OS 4.0 in the chute anyway - sorry to have derailed this thread.
Apple brought the smartphone to average user which has given Android, WebOS and WinMo7 a viable "me too" market. Check out the direction smartphones were going before 2007. Whether you like the iPhone or not, you should at least be thankful that the smartphone market is better because of Apple.
I am unworthy. GIVE ME A BREAK.
But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
Yep, which is exactly why they did things that way. Your scenario doesn't look at the big picture. How many apps could someone possibly run between reboots? To think that everyone of those apps could be constantly running in the background until the system has to kill something due to RAM constraints, require the use of an app to manage processes and have that affect the performance and battery of the device is absurd.
It was long predicted that Apple would come up with backgrounding API for apps to tie into thus minimizing the performance and battery hit to the system. This took longer than many had hoped, but that is how Apple tends to work. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. They took until v3.0 to offer cut/copy/paste and despite all the complaints and ignorant comments that "such-and-such has had that feature since x-year", it's still the only mobile OS that has properly and completely added that feature.
There is something to be said about doing something well over doing it fast.
I really don't get your point at all. The screen is high-res, that's great, but it's still an LCD. That means washed out blacks, low contrast, and an overall flat look.
When you've seen a good OLED screen (Nexus One), an LCD just looks weak by comparison. A high-res LCD isn't going to fix that.
Oh, how wrong you are. Here's a simple little test: Take your Nexus One and its glorious OLED screen outside on a sunny day and put it next to the iPhone. Now tell me; which one of those two screens looks "washed out, low contrast and overall flat"?
Yeah, exactly.
The best thing about the new iPhone 4G is that, while it is Apple's 4th iPhone release, and yet it is only the third generation of iPhone, it won't have any of that tired 4G cell technology. Horray for research and things that make sense! Hooray for tech journalists that write before they think!
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
Wow. Didn't mean to touch a nerve... Why can't I run pandora and facebook at the same time, right now? You can take a purely technical view of multitasking and that's fine, and I see you've also taking some sort of philosophical view on it, as well. That fine, too. But I think it's fair to say that multitasking to the regular joe on the street has very little to do with what you're banging on about. Apple's all about the regular joe, isn't it? (You say so in your next paragraph). Not some fine grained distinction about what is and isn't multitasking.
The regular Joe doesn't care about Pandora. The regular Joe is using iTunes and it will play just fine while doing things in Facebook.
The only people complaining are the geeks who want things their way, no matter what it does to usability.
Oh, how wrong you are. Here's a simple little test: Take your Nexus One and its glorious OLED screen outside on a sunny day and put it next to the iPhone. Now tell me; which one of those two screens looks "washed out, low contrast and overall flat"?
Yeah, exactly.
I use my phone inside (be it on a train, or in an office) 99% of the time, so frankly such a test is of no interest to me.
On the very rare ocassion I do try to use my iPhone outside, all I see is reflection. Perhaps if Apple could lose it's obsession wih making every screen into a mirror things might be different.
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
Here's a sig I have been using for a while at MR-- Will need to update it in a few days:
•the 1G iPhone is 2.5G (there is no 2G)...
•and, heh, heh, heh, the 3G is the 2G iPhone...
•and now the 3GS is the 3G iPhone...
•all run 3.1...
Hope this makes it easier to understand!
.
I use my phone inside (be it on a train, or in an office) 99% of the time, so frankly such a test is of no interest to me.
On the very rare ocassion I do try to use my iPhone outside, all I see is reflection. Perhaps if Apple could lose it's obsession wih making every screen into a mirror things might be different.
Then an OLED display is fine... for you!
Most of my phone use is when I am out and about-- especially during the summer (Jun-Nov) where several hours, 6 days a week, are spent in the middle of a park at the 3 grandkids soccer practice and games
The LCD display is better... for me:
Perhaps, if you could lose your obsession criticizing every iPhone feature that does not meet your special (or imagined) needs you would be happier with your choice.
Maybe, someday, someone will make the perfect multi-touch phone for the anal-retentive!
.
Then an OLED display is fine... for you!
Most of my phone use is when I am out and about-- especially during the summer (Jun-Nov) where several hours, 6 days a week, are spent in the middle of a park at the 3 grandkids soccer practice and games
The LCD display is better... for me:
Perhaps, if you could lose your obsession criticizing every iPhone feature that does not meet your special (or imagined) needs you would be happier with your choice.
Maybe, someday, someone will make the perfect multi-touch phone for the anal-retentive!
.
Maybe someday Apple will actually be sensible enough to offer people a choice of iPhone specs as they do with the iPod. Why not make a premium high end model with a larger screen using OLED? For a premium brand I can't fathom why Apple have surrendered the high end to HTC.
It goes back to the iPod nomenclature. The second was called '2nd generation' or 2G for short. The third version was called 3G and so on. Clearly, the ipod doesn't use cell phone towers so they weren't referring to its cell phone usage.
There was the first iPhone.
Then the iPhone 3G
Then the iPhone 3GS
Then the one that should be released next month. That's 4th generation.
Notice, however, that Apple doesn't use the 'generation naming' scheme. The iPhone 3G was only the 2nd Generation, but was named after the cell phone network used. I would expect the same thing here. It will probably be called 'iPhone HD' or something like that. It's only the journalists and bloggers who call it 4G.
I find it's more clear to flip the placement and order to refer to the generation of the product. For instance, G4 iPhone, as this is not how one refers to network marketing nomenclature.
Regardless, this issue will be ending shortly as next iPhone will be named in a week and next year we can refer to the next model as iPhone G5 without it being confused with a network technology.
One very important aspect of a cell phone screen is NOT HD resolution when you cannot discern HD resolution -- for that you need a larger screen. 300+ DPI is nice but more than that is just ridiculous -- this is the PC megahertz race all over again folks.
I believe that Apple is using a "light reflecting" technology that takes the ambient light and concentrates it back -- kind of like the UV converting chemicals in your laundry soap that make "whites whiter." Just a guess.
Anyway, the iPhone screen should be a lot better to SEE what you are doing on without walking into the shade -- although all of these screens have a hard time in direct sunlight.
I'm also concerned about OLED fading in about a year -- anyone have any good specs on that?