OK so how likely is it to be a problem to have multiple default.png's?
You will admit though that developers have the option to use vector graphics in their apps where they often don't? I'd be the first to admit that raster graphics have a place on any platform but even on a desktop apps you run into situations where having an image in multiple sizes makes perfect sense. In the end I really don't understand where all of this whining about Image sizes and multiple resolutions comes from. If it is a problem for a developer then they should minimize the use of such images. Seems pretty simple to me.
By the way I'm not a full time developer and the only apps written to date have been for private use. Given that I've done very useful things with out even bothering with png's. Maybe developers of commercial apps feel the need to fill every damn slot with a custom graphic but that isn't me. I'm probably one of those guys that will celebrate Ive's new flat iOS appearance but to put this simply I think many developers have this idea that more is better where I'm of the opinion that less is better.
In the end when I hear all of these noises about: "I'm a poor developer that will need to spend many a sleepless night doing more graphics work", all I can say is not my problem. The issue isn't unique to iOS either so I don't understand the issue there either.
The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.
The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.
Agree - Apple doesn't play specs game for the sake of it. I don't know of any reason to get into 500+ ppi territory. Not on a phone anyhow. Having said that, it would be interesting to see if/when iPhone will adopt a true 1080p display.
Which would require a higher resolution display! Well that or a bigger iPhone.
Frankly I'd like to see such a screen.
Battery life extension would be welcomed. But, frankly, I believe Apple needs to improve their cloud services above all else, including Mail, iCloud sync, iCloud integration with 3rd party apps (and their own), iMessage, Siri, Maps, etc. A zealot can (maybe even convincingly) argue some of these Apple services have caught up in specific ways with what other companies offer. But, overall, there are issues of reliability, user-friendliness, utility and integration friendliness that make their services second class to those of Google. As it stands, music is the only service I personally find head and shoulders superior to anything else out there.
Thank you for posting this!!. Just about every app on the iPhone needs an overhaul. Some of these apps such as contacts have no excuses for their shortcomings. Most of the apps should have feature parity with their desktop apps. Further they need to kill the special file formats for iWork apps.
Fixing services is far, far more important than a UI overhaul, a larger screen, a longer lasting battery, iRadio, etc.
Actually a longer lasting battery is everything.
Footnote on battery - Despite misleading reports by technorati, no smartphone has clearly superior battery performance. Someone out there will crack this nut soon and make a lot of money doing it.
Yep! A lot of people are working on it too. All sorts of chemistries and technologies are being pursued. We may not be that far away from a break through.
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
I think it only makes sense if it is used for 3D: full res for each eye.
winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product. It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported. No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).
So why would 3D in a phone be useful? Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical. Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days. Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction. If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000. Or more, possibly. Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera. Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D. Suitable for any Magic Kingdom! In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography. Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!
This could be a BIG winner.
And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
That would be so idiotic. I know people that can't even tell there's a difference between non-retina and retina Apple products. This resolution jump would be imperceptible to nearly everyone, and the drawbacks would be immense, from a power, battery life consumption, and developer asset point of view. Noone is complaining about the dpi of the iPhone, it's more than fine. There's so many other areas more worthy of focusing resources.
winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product. It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported. No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).
So why would 3D in a phone be useful? Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical. Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days. Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction. If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000. Or more, possibly. Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera. Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D. Suitable for any Magic Kingdom! In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography. Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!
This could be a BIG winner.
And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.
I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device.
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. ;)
There are plenty of people that will tell you they can see the difference. These people will easily say how much better the HTC One display is which they will quickly follow up as the pixel density as the reason (I suspect these are the same people that said the Retina iPhone, iPad, and MBPs were pointless and stupid).
These people aren't being scientific about their testing. Even if they were being completely objective they are looking a larger display to make their decision of what looks good. They may not even realize that they are using other metrics in their comparison. What needs to be done is show the same images on across multiple devices using only a set physical size. Anything smaller than the smallest display size would work but I'd go with something even smaller, like 1.5"x 2".
Highest resolution and most color accurate with the greatest field of view.
What does color accuracy mean?
What about contrast, sub-pixel resolution, color depth, brightness, gamma, color shifts, indoor v. outdoor, black level, white point, ...? Don't they count for something?
And who's fault is that? The tools to provide vector based images are there as are tools to scale images. So if this is true and developers take the easy way out and supply a bunch of bit maps is it really Apples fault? Especially when there is no reason to do such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Huh? Have you actually looked at developer tools lately? There is plenty of support for vector graphics in iOS.
Dude, you don't know WTF you are talking about. To submit an app to the AppStore you have to include a large number of .png files for different icons and splashscreens for iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 4, iPhone+, retina and non-retina. And every icon or image you include in your app has to have two versions (retina and regular). Yes, iOS has a ton of support for vector graphics, but not for icons.
The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.
The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.
This is interesting. I wonder if it could be possible to include vector images, then the first time each image is drawn (or as a startup task on the very first load of the app), on whatever screen size the device is, for the app to save the resultant image as a PNG, and use the PNG for ever more. That way the .ipa wouldn't need to contain multiple PNGs for every image file for each device size and resolution, just the vector, (which could be deleted once it's served its purpose, if possible), and the image that is generated on first open.
Maybe it's not possible to generate and switch resources about like that.
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
Actually, the visual differences are quite obvious, but not in the sense of better or worse and not primarily because of the resolution.
As someone was asking above - what does "best screen" mean? There is really no such thing. There is a whole "spectrum" of metrics to compare displays. It is rare that competing displays trump another one on every metric. Some websites or companies arbitrarily design a weighted scale for head-to-head comparison, but it is really for the purpose of generating views and clicks.
So yes, you can absolutely see differences between the displays on iPhone and HTC One. But anyone who says one is better, and that they are just as good, is either generalizing or repeating what they have heard/read.
It is also wrong to say that increasing iPhone display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. The difference does not show up in most applications, but it most definitely will in applications that actually take advantage of the high res.
I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device.
I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with your 3D TV. Personally, I do not own a 3D TV, and I generally dislike 3D movies on a big screen. However, I do think on a small screen, especially the pocketable iPhone (as well as iPad mini, and maybe full-size iPad), that 3D would be very attractive, for the reasons I mentioned. Not needing the special glasses being a major factor. Your disagreement is welcome; no need to cast aspersions.
How are you two getting these values? The article says double so 1136x640 would be 2272x1280.
My guess is they would do a linear resolution triple of the current 320X568 points. The iPhone 4, that still has 320X480 points, doubled the linear resolution 640X960 pixels. The iPhone introduced a 320X568 point screen with a resolution of 640X1156 pixels. The next logic step would be to triple it to 960X1704. This is close to double the number of pixels and is 1.6 million pixels.
Dude, you don't know WTF you are talking about. To submit an app to the AppStore you have to include a large number of .png files for different icons and splashscreens for iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 4, iPhone+, retina and non-retina. And every icon or image you include in your app has to have two versions (retina and regular). Yes, iOS has a ton of support for vector graphics, but not for icons.
And why is this a problem? Really is it that much of a problem to support the required icons and images? I really don't think the majority of the complaints surround these trivial requirements. If that is what people are complaining about then I really feel sorry for them.
Honestly folks how long have icons been around? Further over the years how many different sizes have they come in? Bit depths?
I mean really we have people crying in their cereal over the need to supply a few images and icons. It is rather pathetic if you ask me. This is especially the case when you consider all the tools we have today to create such files.
My guess is that you don't know what it means. Because, in reality, there is no such thing. At best, it is an ambiguous term used by those not in the know (e.g. CNET, PC World) or those in the know but compelled to distill their analysis into a single phrase. Which one are you?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
OK so how likely is it to be a problem to have multiple default.png's?
You will admit though that developers have the option to use vector graphics in their apps where they often don't? I'd be the first to admit that raster graphics have a place on any platform but even on a desktop apps you run into situations where having an image in multiple sizes makes perfect sense. In the end I really don't understand where all of this whining about Image sizes and multiple resolutions comes from. If it is a problem for a developer then they should minimize the use of such images. Seems pretty simple to me.
By the way I'm not a full time developer and the only apps written to date have been for private use. Given that I've done very useful things with out even bothering with png's. Maybe developers of commercial apps feel the need to fill every damn slot with a custom graphic but that isn't me. I'm probably one of those guys that will celebrate Ive's new flat iOS appearance but to put this simply I think many developers have this idea that more is better where I'm of the opinion that less is better.
In the end when I hear all of these noises about: "I'm a poor developer that will need to spend many a sleepless night doing more graphics work", all I can say is not my problem. The issue isn't unique to iOS either so I don't understand the issue there either.
The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.
The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.
Frankly I'd like to see such a screen. Thank you for posting this!!. Just about every app on the iPhone needs an overhaul. Some of these apps such as contacts have no excuses for their shortcomings. Most of the apps should have feature parity with their desktop apps. Further they need to kill the special file formats for iWork apps. Actually a longer lasting battery is everything. Yep! A lot of people are working on it too. All sorts of chemistries and technologies are being pursued. We may not be that far away from a break through.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
I think it only makes sense if it is used for 3D: full res for each eye.
winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product. It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported. No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).
So why would 3D in a phone be useful? Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical. Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days. Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction. If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000. Or more, possibly. Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera. Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D. Suitable for any Magic Kingdom! In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography. Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!
This could be a BIG winner.
And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
That would be so idiotic. I know people that can't even tell there's a difference between non-retina and retina Apple products. This resolution jump would be imperceptible to nearly everyone, and the drawbacks would be immense, from a power, battery life consumption, and developer asset point of view. Noone is complaining about the dpi of the iPhone, it's more than fine. There's so many other areas more worthy of focusing resources.
Then again, this rumor is 99% bullshit.
Noooo. This would make application sizes huge. Our latest iPad app is 70mb because of all the "Rentina" backgrounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot
winstein2010, the more I think about your suggestion, the more it makes sense, and the more enthusiastic I get about 3D in this product. It should be simple to implement a 3D system for the iPhone since it is generally used by a single person, and can be held at a fixed spot for viewing. Only a single "sweet spot" needs to be supported. No funky glasses would be necessary (using micro-prisms in the display to separate the images).
So why would 3D in a phone be useful? Well, firstly... it would make visual chat/telephony truly magical. Secondly, it would allow the iPhone to support displaying the large number of 3D films being produced these days. Thirdly, it would make advertising and shopping much more pleasant--and functional because one could see a 3D image of products being purchased before the transaction. If a picture is worth 1000 words, a 3D picture is worth 3000. Or more, possibly. Finally, let us not forget that the iPhone is also a powerful camera. Imagine how magical it will be to look back at your vacation photos in stunning 3D. Suitable for any Magic Kingdom! In fact, I would give serious (Siri-ous?) thought to trading in my iPhone5 for an iPhone6 merely to have the 3D photography. Imagine how much fun it could be to make your own home movies in 3D!
This could be a BIG winner.
And it could stimulate sales of 3D televisions.... which Apple might even start selling.
I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device.
There are plenty of people that will tell you they can see the difference. These people will easily say how much better the HTC One display is which they will quickly follow up as the pixel density as the reason (I suspect these are the same people that said the Retina iPhone, iPad, and MBPs were pointless and stupid).
These people aren't being scientific about their testing. Even if they were being completely objective they are looking a larger display to make their decision of what looks good. They may not even realize that they are using other metrics in their comparison. What needs to be done is show the same images on across multiple devices using only a set physical size. Anything smaller than the smallest display size would work but I'd go with something even smaller, like 1.5"x 2".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Highest resolution and most color accurate with the greatest field of view.
What does color accuracy mean?
What about contrast, sub-pixel resolution, color depth, brightness, gamma, color shifts, indoor v. outdoor, black level, white point, ...? Don't they count for something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
And who's fault is that? The tools to provide vector based images are there as are tools to scale images. So if this is true and developers take the easy way out and supply a bunch of bit maps is it really Apples fault? Especially when there is no reason to do such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Huh? Have you actually looked at developer tools lately? There is plenty of support for vector graphics in iOS.
Dude, you don't know WTF you are talking about. To submit an app to the AppStore you have to include a large number of .png files for different icons and splashscreens for iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 4, iPhone+, retina and non-retina. And every icon or image you include in your app has to have two versions (retina and regular). Yes, iOS has a ton of support for vector graphics, but not for icons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
The problem with complex vector graphics is that they take memory and time to convert to the eventual picture on screen, which has to be done every time. With the original iPhone that would have been impossible. Even now it would increase load times of everything. The benefit is lower size of the app on the flash drive.
The disadvantages of PNGS etc. are that for retina the size the app needs per PNG multiplied by 4 for each retina.png. And images are a considerable size of each app. Open up an .ipa in iTunes ( they are zips so just rename them to zip and uncompress) and see.
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.
This is interesting. I wonder if it could be possible to include vector images, then the first time each image is drawn (or as a startup task on the very first load of the app), on whatever screen size the device is, for the app to save the resultant image as a PNG, and use the PNG for ever more. That way the .ipa wouldn't need to contain multiple PNGs for every image file for each device size and resolution, just the vector, (which could be deleted once it's served its purpose, if possible), and the image that is generated on first open.
Maybe it's not possible to generate and switch resources about like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic
I dare anyone to tell the visual difference between the iPhone 5's 326 pixels per inch, and the HTC One's 468-pixel-per-inch display... without using a microscope.
Human vision cannot discern pixel densities past a certain point. So unless you habitually carry a microscope around with you to use reading your phone display, increasing the iPhones display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference.
Actually, the visual differences are quite obvious, but not in the sense of better or worse and not primarily because of the resolution.
As someone was asking above - what does "best screen" mean? There is really no such thing. There is a whole "spectrum" of metrics to compare displays. It is rare that competing displays trump another one on every metric. Some websites or companies arbitrarily design a weighted scale for head-to-head comparison, but it is really for the purpose of generating views and clicks.
So yes, you can absolutely see differences between the displays on iPhone and HTC One. But anyone who says one is better, and that they are just as good, is either generalizing or repeating what they have heard/read.
It is also wrong to say that increasing iPhone display resolution is not going to make any real-world difference. The difference does not show up in most applications, but it most definitely will in applications that actually take advantage of the high res.
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
What does color accuracy mean?
Take a… wild guess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I have a 3DTV, have watched a few 3D movies on it, and almost everything you say is ridiculous. No, 3D isn't that transformative, and consumers have shown they don't really give a shit. A but of added depth perception is not going to suddenly make all those experiences you mentioned more magical. Noone cares about taking 3D photos of making 3D movies, and noone is going to start caring anytime soon. It's a neat gimmick, and cool for some movies on a big screen, but not a pocketable device.
I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with your 3D TV. Personally, I do not own a 3D TV, and I generally dislike 3D movies on a big screen. However, I do think on a small screen, especially the pocketable iPhone (as well as iPad mini, and maybe full-size iPad), that 3D would be very attractive, for the reasons I mentioned. Not needing the special glasses being a major factor. Your disagreement is welcome; no need to cast aspersions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How are you two getting these values? The article says double so 1136x640 would be 2272x1280.
My guess is they would do a linear resolution triple of the current 320X568 points. The iPhone 4, that still has 320X480 points, doubled the linear resolution 640X960 pixels. The iPhone introduced a 320X568 point screen with a resolution of 640X1156 pixels. The next logic step would be to triple it to 960X1704. This is close to double the number of pixels and is 1.6 million pixels.
And why is this a problem? Really is it that much of a problem to support the required icons and images? I really don't think the majority of the complaints surround these trivial requirements. If that is what people are complaining about then I really feel sorry for them.
Honestly folks how long have icons been around? Further over the years how many different sizes have they come in? Bit depths?
I mean really we have people crying in their cereal over the need to supply a few images and icons. It is rather pathetic if you ask me. This is especially the case when you consider all the tools we have today to create such files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Take a… wild guess?
My guess is that you don't know what it means. Because, in reality, there is no such thing. At best, it is an ambiguous term used by those not in the know (e.g. CNET, PC World) or those in the know but compelled to distill their analysis into a single phrase. Which one are you?
An Android-device-style tickmark spec that has no purpose whatsoever. Let's move on now.