Foxconn looks to lessen reliance on iPhone, positions for potential Apple television

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 22 of 56
    brunzillabrunzilla Posts: 39member
    I want an apple TV!
  • Reply 23 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 25 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 26 of 56
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    Yes, because we don't need it, we only want it.


     


    My eyes disagree, and they're right.

  • Reply 27 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    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
  • Reply 28 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Yes, because we don't need it, we only want it.

    That's a horrible argument.
  • Reply 29 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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:
  • Reply 31 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    ...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.
  • Reply 32 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 33 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote:
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 56
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post



    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?

  • Reply 35 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Where did I say all that?

    You're the one that mentioned Blu-ray. I never once mentioned any shiny plastic disc media.
  • Reply 36 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    tooltalk wrote: »

    because Apple's order accounts for up to 70% of Foxconn's production?

    Look at Rubbermaid, Walmart was just 24% of its business and when Walmart decided to stop carrying Rubbermaid products it devastated the company.
  • Reply 37 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.

    Where did I even mention phones?
  • Reply 38 of 56
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    Where did I even mention phones?


     


    You said the equivalent of "1080p ought to be enough for anyone". 

  • Reply 39 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Where did I even mention phones?

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.