Sorry but my limited mind doesn't see much potential for a static device other than it being viewed. Most apps will be channels or games, I mean look at cars, they've been around for 100 years and there's been a ton of innovations since then but they still only get you from point A to point B.
And displays in the 1950s still show images today but you're note really suggesting that we should only still still display tech from the 1950s are you?
And static display? That would be a painting. These displays are anything but static as the trick the brain into perceiving action by rapidly replacing an image many times per second.
And displays in the 1950s still show images today but you're note really suggesting that we should only still still display tech from the 1950s are you?
And static display? That would be a painting. These displays are anything but static as the trick the brain into perceiving action by rapidly replacing an image many times per second.
New tech doesn't always trounce old tech. Motion picture and analog music are superior to their digital counterparts. I didn't say the displays are static I said the device was, unless you walk around with your television set.
New tech doesn't always trounce old tech. Motion picture and analog music are superior to their digital counterparts. I didn't say the displays are static I said the device was, unless you walk around with your television set.
So you want to go on record as saying that "static" devices in the home will never need anything more than 1920x1080?
I'm using your words so how horrible could it be? You're just mad because I out smartassed you, but jokes aside 4K is the future of TV but until we can't get Blu Ray quality on streaming content I just can't see moving on to a higher resolution. The banding that occurs on a compressed 1080p stream will only be more obvious on a 4K TV.
I'm using your words so how horrible could it be? You're just mad because I out smartassed you.
You're arguing that technology will not progress if it's just a want despite no computer or computer display is needed for being a human being. You call that outsmarting? :no:
...until we can't get Blu Ray quality on streaming content I just can't see moving on to a higher resolution. The banding that occurs on a compressed 1080p stream will only be more obvious on a 4K TV.
Blu-ray has nothing to do with Apple TV apps on a 60+" display. As previously noted, you keep looking at this as if it's a "boob tube" but you need to see the bigger picture of how technology is evolving. It's crazy that you think that 1920x1080 on a 5" phone is perfectly reasonable and 2048x1536 on a 7.85" tablet is perfectly reasonable but on a 60+" display anything higher than 1920x1080 becoming confusing for displaying an OS UI.
You're arguing that technology will not progress if it's just a want despite no computer or computer display is needed for being a human being. You call that outsmarting? :no:
.
Just about everything is a want and sometimes we want a want more than we want a need. I'm not denying that technology will grow and it's much easier to make higher resolution content for a hi res computer screen than the content for a TV.
Blu-ray has nothing to do with Apple TV apps on a 60+" display. As previously noted, you keep looking at this as if it's a "boob tube" but you need to see the bigger picture of how technology is evolving. It's crazy that you think that 1920x1080 on a 5" phone is perfectly reasonable and 2048x1536 on a 7.85" tablet is perfectly reasonable but on a 60+" display anything higher than 1920x1080 becoming confusing for displaying an OS UI.
Where did I say all that? I only mentioned BR because of the image quality versus the same exact content but streamed. The UI elements will be easily made at 4K and even some apps. My concern is with the content that'll be consumed mostly, which are TV shows, movies and video games.
Earlier this year, Foxconn's first-quarter revenue was down 19.2 percent year over year. Those losses were attributed largely to declining orders of the iPhone and iPad from Apple.
Why does the losses have to be attributed solely to Apple? Foxconn supplies many companies along with Apple and could it possible some of the other companies participated in the losses?
Moving on...
The NYT starts off writing how Foxconn is moving away from its dependence being a supplier of Apple only to finish writing about how Foxconn's television ambition has it wanting to be ready to supply... Wait for it... Apple more than ever!
because Apple's order accounts for as much as 70% of Foxconn's entire production?
You're the one that mentioned Blu-ray. I never once mentioned any shiny plastic disc media.
And I explained why I mentioned Blu Ray, now where did I mention everything else you claimed I did?
Where did I say any of this?
It's crazy that you think that 1920x1080 on a 5" phone is perfectly reasonable and 2048x1536 on a 7.85" tablet is perfectly reasonable but on a 60+" display anything higher than 1920x1080 becoming confusing for displaying an OS UI.
You made a claim that 1080p was perfectly reasonable for any size display in the home. I pointed out that there are phones — phones! — with 1080p and tablets — tablets! — that far exceed 1080p and yet you claim that anything over 1080p makes no sense for OS UI in the future. I also pointed out that the iMacs are over 1080p as well. So if a device that can fit in a pocket or a bag can be at or over 1080p and understand how that can be useful for a computer display why can't you look at a much, much larger computer display where higher resolution is more natural and see how higher than 1080p will be useful on that OS UI? That's the real mystery.
Comments
And displays in the 1950s still show images today but you're note really suggesting that we should only still still display tech from the 1950s are you?
And static display? That would be a painting. These displays are anything but static as the trick the brain into perceiving action by rapidly replacing an image many times per second.
New tech doesn't always trounce old tech. Motion picture and analog music are superior to their digital counterparts. I didn't say the displays are static I said the device was, unless you walk around with your television set.
So you want to go on record as saying that "static" devices in the home will never need anything more than 1920x1080?
Sent from 27" iMac.
Yes, because we don't need it, we only want it.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes, because we don't need it, we only want it.
My eyes disagree, and they're right.
And my eyes don't like the awful blacks and limited color reproduction flat panels have. There was nothing quite like the HD CRTs
That's a horrible argument.
I'm using your words so how horrible could it be? You're just mad because I out smartassed you, but jokes aside 4K is the future of TV but until we can't get Blu Ray quality on streaming content I just can't see moving on to a higher resolution. The banding that occurs on a compressed 1080p stream will only be more obvious on a 4K TV.
You're arguing that technology will not progress if it's just a want despite no computer or computer display is needed for being a human being. You call that outsmarting? :no:
Blu-ray has nothing to do with Apple TV apps on a 60+" display. As previously noted, you keep looking at this as if it's a "boob tube" but you need to see the bigger picture of how technology is evolving. It's crazy that you think that 1920x1080 on a 5" phone is perfectly reasonable and 2048x1536 on a 7.85" tablet is perfectly reasonable but on a 60+" display anything higher than 1920x1080 becoming confusing for displaying an OS UI.
Just about everything is a want and sometimes we want a want more than we want a need. I'm not denying that technology will grow and it's much easier to make higher resolution content for a hi res computer screen than the content for a TV.
Where did I say all that? I only mentioned BR because of the image quality versus the same exact content but streamed. The UI elements will be easily made at 4K and even some apps. My concern is with the content that'll be consumed mostly, which are TV shows, movies and video games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG
Earlier this year, Foxconn's first-quarter revenue was down 19.2 percent year over year. Those losses were attributed largely to declining orders of the iPhone and iPad from Apple.
Why does the losses have to be attributed solely to Apple? Foxconn supplies many companies along with Apple and could it possible some of the other companies participated in the losses?
Moving on...
The NYT starts off writing how Foxconn is moving away from its dependence being a supplier of Apple only to finish writing about how Foxconn's television ambition has it wanting to be ready to supply... Wait for it... Apple more than ever!
because Apple's order accounts for as much as 70% of Foxconn's entire production?
You're the one that mentioned Blu-ray. I never once mentioned any shiny plastic disc media.
Look at Rubbermaid, Walmart was just 24% of its business and when Walmart decided to stop carrying Rubbermaid products it devastated the company.
And I explained why I mentioned Blu Ray, now where did I mention everything else you claimed I did?
Where did I say any of this?
Where did I even mention phones?
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Where did I even mention phones?
You said the equivalent of "1080p ought to be enough for anyone".
Show me where I said that. My point is that 1080p should be mastered before moving on to 4K. HD cable channels are transmitted in 1080i.
You made a claim that 1080p was perfectly reasonable for any size display in the home. I pointed out that there are phones — phones! — with 1080p and tablets — tablets! — that far exceed 1080p and yet you claim that anything over 1080p makes no sense for OS UI in the future. I also pointed out that the iMacs are over 1080p as well. So if a device that can fit in a pocket or a bag can be at or over 1080p and understand how that can be useful for a computer display why can't you look at a much, much larger computer display where higher resolution is more natural and see how higher than 1080p will be useful on that OS UI? That's the real mystery.