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.
A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
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.
That all depends upon what you mean by every time. At the start up of the app certainly. However after the app is running that is a different story and depends upon the developers goals. Frequently used images can be cached for reuse in the App so that you only pay for the draw time once.
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 fully realize their size, my point is that many developers use raster images where they don't have too. In this context one can hardly feel sorry for the developer.
I can't imagine you ever shipped to the App store with PNGS, you need a few by default.
Yes you need a few but the required ones are trivial.
A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
Top drainer of battery (without considering specific 3rd party apps) is likely the antennas. Connecting with Wi-Fi routers and 3G base stations, handovers between base stations and even GPS processing can all drain the battery pretty fast.
Is that as meaningful (i.e. meaningless) as best camera, best athlete, best person, best engine, ...?
Seriously, what in the world does "best screen" mean?
What I basically mean that the screen on the iPhone 5 is better overall in terms of color saturation, brightness, picture quality compared to both the htc one and Samsung galaxy s4.
A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
Hardly a problem worth mentioning.
.
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses.
This is so true. Another killer is leaving Safari running while viewing a web site that auto updates every few seconds.
I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
There are a few but even when used properly some apps do seem to kill the battery at an alarming rate. If your work day is longer than the 8 hour average this can be a big problem. Thus battery life is a big issue on my check list. I'd like to see a 25% improvement though I realize that probably won't happen. In fact if the screen and electronics improve I could see Apple making the phone thinner and thus lowering battery capacity. This would put us back to the same run time life.
That seems unlikely to me. You're talking about not doubling the resolution for the first time which results in a 1536x1152 at 1.5x which is 244 PPI. I suppose that would work for a Retina tablet but it seems like the simplest path is to just make it 2048x1536 at 326 PPI which fits into very part of the process.
Actually on the ipad side what I would like to see is a move to the 16:9 aspect ratio. That would simplyfied resolution handling on the dev side and could explain why they would go to unnessary high PPI on the phones.
Phones could run at 1920x1080 full HD and tablets could run at double HD. That would take care of the resolution for a few years on all mobile devices and Apple could have a very clean dual resolution pattern that would be very clean for devs.
On top of that, Full HD on phones and 2x HD (4k) on tablets could also be expand to full HD Tv's and 4K tv's. I really love this concept. This is all doable with IGZO screens. They could handle everything with those 2 resolutions.
I doubt this rumor is true. Quadrupling the display resolution is not what the iPhone needs. What the iPhone actually needs is to be slightly widened and bump the resolution to 1136x720. Consumers will likely perceive the display as 720p, and thus, HD.
Furthermore, skeuomorphism is not what is wrong with iOS either. The UI feels antiquated and clunky under iOS. There are a lot of little things Android does right that Apple can take a page from. The address and search bars are merged in the Android web browser. The UI supports popup and dropdown windows which means you can switch mailboxes in the Mail app without having to navigate all throughout the UI like under iOS' Mail app. The camera under Android feels more like a fully-fledged digital camera than Apple's. The little things to improve the user experience can go a long way.
I'm sorry, but you guys need to think a little more:
The current iPhone already has enough horsepower for it;
If they go with Imagination's ROGUE, it will have more than enough horsepower to power a nuclear submarine. That sort of thing, on your phone, must have a purpose, and it isn't Angry birds;
With things like IGZO, the power requirements would be substantially lower;
Put an HTC one and an iPhone side by said. While you can talk about the iPhone having a better screen overall, try and read text. The HTC one just looks better.
So, basically:
I hope this rumor is true;
I hope they go with the 9.7" iPad's resolution;
I hope they use the same resolution on the iPad mini or the resolution on the 13" retina Macbook pro;
I hope they up the resolution on the 9.7" iPad so it is equal to the 15" rMBP;
I hope they use similar resolutions on Airs;
I hope they go 4K for the Macbook Pros;
IGZO all the way.
And, to conclude:
It could make sense, be a huge improvement, put prices down for IGZO and LiquidMetal, so they can make a non-expensive badass watch for everyone, later.
Have a nice day!
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it makes sense to do it. I'm aware of the various possibilities such as being first to use Rogue based GPUs and IGZO technology, etc. We're all aware of this. Where we differ is by claiming other (higher ppi) devices actually look better than the iPhone's 326ppi. Sorry, but I don't see it. Maybe that's a limitation of my otherwise strong eye sight. However, the difference between 133ppi (original iPhone / iPad mini) and the current iPhones (326ppi) was dramatic and a marketing worthy upgrade. Going from 326ppi to something higher just has a lot of people asking... why? It's not something that people will notice and quite frankly, even if you could tell the difference, if you have to compare two phones side by side and really look closely to see the difference, it's just not obvious or important.
Like others, I don't believe this rumor, simply because it doesn't make sense. Apple isn't in the spec comparison game and there is no tangible benefit to making this move. This move would impact developers, it would impact heat, it would impact performance. Even if you add new, more efficient display technology like IGZO, it would still be more efficient / brighter at lower resolutions.
Actually on the ipad side what I would like to see is a move to the 16:9 aspect ratio. That would simplyfied resolution handling on the dev side and could explain why they would go to unnessary high PPI on the phones.
Phones could run at 1920x1080 full HD and tablets could run at double HD. That would take care of the resolution for a few years on all mobile devices and Apple could have a very clean dual resolution pattern that would be very clean for devs.
On top of that, Full HD on phones and 2x HD (4k) on tablets could also be expand to full HD Tv's and 4K tv's. I really love this concept. This is all doable with IGZO screens. They could handle everything with those 2 resolutions.
1) God i hope not! The worst concept for a tablet is to use 16:9. The only benefit is for watching videos, which are still most likely letterboxed or cropped unless they are TV shows or camera phone videos. They are not ideal for anything text based from either portrait or landscape mode.
2) This idea that it could 1x or 2x from the iPod Touch to the 10" iPad implies it would use the same UI across the board. That would ruin everything. Everything!
3) I don't get this idea that we need the same resolution and aspect ratio from the smallest to the largest displays. Why does a phone need to be 1920x1080 a tablet 4K for them to be functional? Why not use the ideals that work best to maximize the UX?
That's exactly the path that Apple took with their (expletive deleted) pixel doubling strategy to begin with. They did this to encourage development by all the developers unused to better programming.
It's why there's ridiculous results like iPhone apps being tiny on an iPad (or jagged doubled), and black bands on the iPhone 5 to hide unused screen space.
It reminds me of one reason that PCs took over. Everyone else was doing slower but more forward-looking screen independence, while the PC folks hardcoded for direct access to VGA screen memory and blew away customers with speed and prettiness.
Likewise, Apple chose the easier path of hardcoded sizes for iOS apps... something that is often cited as an "advantage" over more resolution independent apps on Android... yet is ultimately a short term solution.
Then why are the bulk of Android apps simply hideous when run on a tablet?
Then why are the bulk of Android apps simply hideous when run on a tablet?
The bulk of them look hideous on a phone, too. But that's just Google not wasting time on the SDK because real programmers don't want anything to make apps look and run better with less effort.
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. :)
For the record, I don't think what you are saying is ridiculous at all. There are hidden benefits to stereo vision that most people have never thought about, and won't until they have some experience with a medium that takes advantage of it. It's not just about depth perception or objects coming out past the screen, it's just as much about the appeciation of texture, the flow of objects through space, solidity vs. softness, fine detail that is otherwise invisible without parallax, stuff like that.
Whether this rumor is true or not, a doubling of resolution will probably be necessary to maintain the sharpness of the fused picture when the pixels are divided between right and left views—if the two views are multiplexed, or interlaced, that is.
Or another way of looking at it: if Apple goes ahead with their stereo glasses-screens they are going to need twice the res for that as well.
I'd prefer this latter approach to handheld glasses-free 3D, which won't be nearly as immersive as stereo screens filling the field of view.
I barely watch TV, so I have no idea if there are any benefits between 60 to 120 Hz. These resolutions and frame/refresh rates will all require about the same CPU/GPU performance. Higher DPI may be technically easier to do than higher refresh rates though. Don't know all this TV this well.
I barely watch TV, so I have no idea if there are any benefits between 60 to 120 Hz. These resolutions and frame/refresh rates will all require about the same CPU/GPU performance. Higher DPI may be technically easier to do than higher refresh rates though. Don't know all this TV this well.
120 is the max needed for a non-3D TV. 24Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz are all standard US TV or video frame rates. 120Hz is the lowest frame rate that divides in to integer number of frames for those three frame rates. If it weren't for that fact, it's overkill.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Quote:
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.
A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
My guess is that you don't know what it means.
I'd waste my time going over how the term 'color accuracy' is perfectly fine by showing you how the accuracy (funny word) of colors is represented.
Except I know you couldn't care less.
Yes you need a few but the required ones are trivial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd waste my time going over how the term 'color accuracy' is perfectly fine by showing you how the accuracy (funny word) of colors is represented.
Except I know you couldn't care less.
Nice way to wriggle off the hook!
NP, I am not one to beat a dead horse.
But if you care, then you'll learn that the term is at ambiguous and in reality entirely misleading.
Case closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
A longer lasting battery for us to confirm more frequently that iMessage isn't working? ;-)
I reckon, based on my experience, that 25% of smartphone users can prolong battery life by closing an app (or at least returning to launcher screen) before stuffing their phones into their pockets or purses. I cannot tell you how many people would take a photograph with their phone and then immediately pocket it. That is likely the #1 battery killer.
I'd say it's #2.
Top drainer of battery (without considering specific 3rd party apps) is likely the antennas. Connecting with Wi-Fi routers and 3G base stations, handovers between base stations and even GPS processing can all drain the battery pretty fast.
What I basically mean that the screen on the iPhone 5 is better overall in terms of color saturation, brightness, picture quality compared to both the htc one and Samsung galaxy s4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That seems unlikely to me. You're talking about not doubling the resolution for the first time which results in a 1536x1152 at 1.5x which is 244 PPI. I suppose that would work for a Retina tablet but it seems like the simplest path is to just make it 2048x1536 at 326 PPI which fits into very part of the process.
Actually on the ipad side what I would like to see is a move to the 16:9 aspect ratio. That would simplyfied resolution handling on the dev side and could explain why they would go to unnessary high PPI on the phones.
Phones could run at 1920x1080 full HD and tablets could run at double HD. That would take care of the resolution for a few years on all mobile devices and Apple could have a very clean dual resolution pattern that would be very clean for devs.
On top of that, Full HD on phones and 2x HD (4k) on tablets could also be expand to full HD Tv's and 4K tv's. I really love this concept. This is all doable with IGZO screens. They could handle everything with those 2 resolutions.
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
Case closed.
Two screens. Each supposed to display #00FF00. One displays turquoise and the other displays a deep burgundy.
Which one is more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Two screens. Each supposed to display #00FF00. One displays turquoise and the other displays a deep burgundy.
Which one is more accurate.
Sorry. That type of argument doesn't deserve a proper response. No offence. But ...
P.S. Damn! I did respond. But you know what I mean.
I doubt this rumor is true. Quadrupling the display resolution is not what the iPhone needs. What the iPhone actually needs is to be slightly widened and bump the resolution to 1136x720. Consumers will likely perceive the display as 720p, and thus, HD.
Furthermore, skeuomorphism is not what is wrong with iOS either. The UI feels antiquated and clunky under iOS. There are a lot of little things Android does right that Apple can take a page from. The address and search bars are merged in the Android web browser. The UI supports popup and dropdown windows which means you can switch mailboxes in the Mail app without having to navigate all throughout the UI like under iOS' Mail app. The camera under Android feels more like a fully-fledged digital camera than Apple's. The little things to improve the user experience can go a long way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
I'm sorry, but you guys need to think a little more:
The current iPhone already has enough horsepower for it;
If they go with Imagination's ROGUE, it will have more than enough horsepower to power a nuclear submarine. That sort of thing, on your phone, must have a purpose, and it isn't Angry birds;
With things like IGZO, the power requirements would be substantially lower;
Put an HTC one and an iPhone side by said. While you can talk about the iPhone having a better screen overall, try and read text. The HTC one just looks better.
So, basically:
I hope this rumor is true;
I hope they go with the 9.7" iPad's resolution;
I hope they use the same resolution on the iPad mini or the resolution on the 13" retina Macbook pro;
I hope they up the resolution on the 9.7" iPad so it is equal to the 15" rMBP;
I hope they use similar resolutions on Airs;
I hope they go 4K for the Macbook Pros;
IGZO all the way.
And, to conclude:
It could make sense, be a huge improvement, put prices down for IGZO and LiquidMetal, so they can make a non-expensive badass watch for everyone, later.
Have a nice day!
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it makes sense to do it. I'm aware of the various possibilities such as being first to use Rogue based GPUs and IGZO technology, etc. We're all aware of this. Where we differ is by claiming other (higher ppi) devices actually look better than the iPhone's 326ppi. Sorry, but I don't see it. Maybe that's a limitation of my otherwise strong eye sight. However, the difference between 133ppi (original iPhone / iPad mini) and the current iPhones (326ppi) was dramatic and a marketing worthy upgrade. Going from 326ppi to something higher just has a lot of people asking... why? It's not something that people will notice and quite frankly, even if you could tell the difference, if you have to compare two phones side by side and really look closely to see the difference, it's just not obvious or important.
Like others, I don't believe this rumor, simply because it doesn't make sense. Apple isn't in the spec comparison game and there is no tangible benefit to making this move. This move would impact developers, it would impact heat, it would impact performance. Even if you add new, more efficient display technology like IGZO, it would still be more efficient / brighter at lower resolutions.
1) God i hope not! The worst concept for a tablet is to use 16:9. The only benefit is for watching videos, which are still most likely letterboxed or cropped unless they are TV shows or camera phone videos. They are not ideal for anything text based from either portrait or landscape mode.
2) This idea that it could 1x or 2x from the iPod Touch to the 10" iPad implies it would use the same UI across the board. That would ruin everything. Everything!
3) I don't get this idea that we need the same resolution and aspect ratio from the smallest to the largest displays. Why does a phone need to be 1920x1080 a tablet 4K for them to be functional? Why not use the ideals that work best to maximize the UX?
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
That type of argument doesn't deserve a proper response.
What, a relevant one?
Then why are the bulk of Android apps simply hideous when run on a tablet?
Yeah, this isn't right. If there's any truth to it, maybe it's somebody who got confused by seeing the specs of the larger-screened iphone.
It's pointless to include pixels that can't be distinguished.
The bulk of them look hideous on a phone, too. But that's just Google not wasting time on the SDK because real programmers don't want anything to make apps look and run better with less effort.
For the record, I don't think what you are saying is ridiculous at all. There are hidden benefits to stereo vision that most people have never thought about, and won't until they have some experience with a medium that takes advantage of it. It's not just about depth perception or objects coming out past the screen, it's just as much about the appeciation of texture, the flow of objects through space, solidity vs. softness, fine detail that is otherwise invisible without parallax, stuff like that.
Whether this rumor is true or not, a doubling of resolution will probably be necessary to maintain the sharpness of the fused picture when the pixels are divided between right and left views—if the two views are multiplexed, or interlaced, that is.
Or another way of looking at it: if Apple goes ahead with their stereo glasses-screens they are going to need twice the res for that as well.
I'd prefer this latter approach to handheld glasses-free 3D, which won't be nearly as immersive as stereo screens filling the field of view.
Which would you prefer:
1. 1136 x 640 at 120 Hz
or
2. 1600 x 900 at 60 Hz
or
3. 2272 x 1280 at 30 Hz
I barely watch TV, so I have no idea if there are any benefits between 60 to 120 Hz. These resolutions and frame/refresh rates will all require about the same CPU/GPU performance. Higher DPI may be technically easier to do than higher refresh rates though. Don't know all this TV this well.
120 is the max needed for a non-3D TV. 24Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz are all standard US TV or video frame rates. 120Hz is the lowest frame rate that divides in to integer number of frames for those three frame rates. If it weren't for that fact, it's overkill.