Latest iOS 12 beta hints at rounded displays for Apple's 2018 iPad Pro refresh [u]

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    slurpy said:
    Cue the outrage of those who claim that those few lost pixels in the corners are critical to their workflow..
    Ugh! I hope corner-gate doesn't happen, but if the internet has taught me anything is that if you can think of it then someone will complain about it.
    But this is a pure example of form over function, which you've railed against before?
    If after 11 months of being on the market you can't understand how the iPhone X maximizing as much of the front-face as possible with the display allows for a better user experience since the display is the primary UI then I don't think there's anything I can say that will ever make you understand how the iPhone X was designed with functionality in mind.
    How is this is relevant to rounded corners?

    The iPhone X (which I have, like, and am not complaining about) could have the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners. 

    Form over function.
    So you're complaining that the iPhone X casing wasn't made larger so that it could accommodate 90° angles at the display corners and you don't understand how increasing the size of the casing and removing the curves from the casing would affect the utility of the device? ߤ榺wj;♂️

    Because you're not one to do even a modicum of research of analysis to back up any point (being generous here) that you may have, I decided to create a mockup of the iPhone X that you say would be perfectly fine with "the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners." I did my best to make sure the white rectangular box when up to the very edge of the display sides and top without crossing over into the bezels. Of course, that's not possible when dealing with a right angle display.

    So now that you have your display with the same resolution but with no rounded corners can you explain how the fuck that could be made without changing the casing so that it also has right angles so it could also keep, as you say, "the same […] bezel depth"? Are you even aware of how the curves in the casing adds to its structural intregrtity or is that also one of those engineering decisions that you believe is a form over function?




    I didn't say the case wouldn't need to change.  Nice mockup (how did you manage to fuck up the notch?), but you've wasted your time in your determination to miss the point.

    And again, I'm not complaining.  I like the form.  I'm also not in denial that it's form over function, and that sometimes that's an ok thing to be.
    smh. The entire existence of the notch is function over form. 

    The rounded corners are an elegant solution to a device that has rounded corners and is also function induced, as it allows for thinner bezels. Nothing important is lost at the corners because of the “safe area” apps lay their content into. 

    Oh but the outrage. The eternal, burning outrage…
    I gave up after he said, "how did you manage to fuck up the notch?," despite my explanation of exactly what I did to show where the corners would be without the rounding the corners of the display.
    I understand what you did, I just don’t understand why you did it so badly. Extending the display lines to a rectangle shouldn’t have required overdrawing the notch. 
    So you don’t understand why a rectangle placed over another image would obscure a part of that image? ߤ䠇ee, that’s a question for the ages.
    edited August 2018 StrangeDays
  • Reply 42 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    IPhone X :: function over form (which is one reason people complain so much about the notch despite containing all the Face ID tech and having a much larger display for its category, which even windowed still offers you more of a viewing away than the iPhone 8.)

    iPhone X knockoffs :: form over function (specifically ones that aren’t utilizing the full notch and still have a chin with a rounded display at the bottom. Does not include devices like the Essential phone which created their notch specifically for the camera HW, not to grab into Apple’s coat tails.)

    Mr. Gish :: a form without function
    edited August 2018 StrangeDays
  • Reply 43 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,771member
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    slurpy said:
    Cue the outrage of those who claim that those few lost pixels in the corners are critical to their workflow..
    Ugh! I hope corner-gate doesn't happen, but if the internet has taught me anything is that if you can think of it then someone will complain about it.
    But this is a pure example of form over function, which you've railed against before?
    If after 11 months of being on the market you can't understand how the iPhone X maximizing as much of the front-face as possible with the display allows for a better user experience since the display is the primary UI then I don't think there's anything I can say that will ever make you understand how the iPhone X was designed with functionality in mind.
    How is this is relevant to rounded corners?

    The iPhone X (which I have, like, and am not complaining about) could have the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners. 

    Form over function.
    So you're complaining that the iPhone X casing wasn't made larger so that it could accommodate 90° angles at the display corners and you don't understand how increasing the size of the casing and removing the curves from the casing would affect the utility of the device? ߤ榺wj;♂️

    Because you're not one to do even a modicum of research of analysis to back up any point (being generous here) that you may have, I decided to create a mockup of the iPhone X that you say would be perfectly fine with "the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners." I did my best to make sure the white rectangular box when up to the very edge of the display sides and top without crossing over into the bezels. Of course, that's not possible when dealing with a right angle display.

    So now that you have your display with the same resolution but with no rounded corners can you explain how the fuck that could be made without changing the casing so that it also has right angles so it could also keep, as you say, "the same […] bezel depth"? Are you even aware of how the curves in the casing adds to its structural intregrtity or is that also one of those engineering decisions that you believe is a form over function?




    I didn't say the case wouldn't need to change.  Nice mockup (how did you manage to fuck up the notch?), but you've wasted your time in your determination to miss the point.

    And again, I'm not complaining.  I like the form.  I'm also not in denial that it's form over function, and that sometimes that's an ok thing to be.
    smh. The entire existence of the notch is function over form. 
    Not entirely sure I'd agree with this tbh, it's more of a compromise.  An edge to edge screen is an aspiration for both form and function, but thefunction of the FaceId sensors make that an impossibility without a compromise of either a notch or a forehead.  A forehead would be uglier, but arguably more functional, since it wouldn't take a chunk out of the screen.  
  • Reply 44 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    crowley said:
    I don't understand why you put a rectangle over the image to make your point instead of extending existing lines.  Obscuring the image you're using to make your point, and weirdly cropping off the notch makes you look like a rank amateur.

    I didn't really pay that much attention to your method because you'd clearly missed the point anyway (you make a habit of it, though whether it's down to idiocy or dishonesty is a debateable matter).  I never said the case wouldn't need to be different from the one Apple shippied.
    1) "I didn't really pay that much attention to your method" is quite clear since you still don't understand why one use a rectangle to quickly create a shape with four straight sides and four right angles. For some reason you're confused by not having an additional layer to re-add the part of the notch that is obscured by a straight line—which isn't even part of the conversation. I thought by age 2 humans established object permanence so I didn't think it would confuse you to have one side of the rectangle going along the top of the display. My apologies for making that assumption about you.

    2) You say you like the iPhone X despite also claiming it's form over function with comment after comment bemoaning its very existence yet you still haven't shown how the device could have squared corners without a chin or forehead and still the same bezel thickness without any loss of functionality (i.e.: structural integrity afforded by the arc that you keep saying serves no functionality). I know how that could be achieved, but there are other tradeoffs, like reducing the amount of internal volume while also adding cost to the device, neither of which seem like good tradeoffs. Your entire argument is literally a desire for a specific form without a single reflection on how it could or would alter its function.
    edited August 2018 StrangeDays
  • Reply 45 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    slurpy said:
    Cue the outrage of those who claim that those few lost pixels in the corners are critical to their workflow..
    Ugh! I hope corner-gate doesn't happen, but if the internet has taught me anything is that if you can think of it then someone will complain about it.
    But this is a pure example of form over function, which you've railed against before?
    If after 11 months of being on the market you can't understand how the iPhone X maximizing as much of the front-face as possible with the display allows for a better user experience since the display is the primary UI then I don't think there's anything I can say that will ever make you understand how the iPhone X was designed with functionality in mind.
    How is this is relevant to rounded corners?

    The iPhone X (which I have, like, and am not complaining about) could have the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners. 

    Form over function.
    So you're complaining that the iPhone X casing wasn't made larger so that it could accommodate 90° angles at the display corners and you don't understand how increasing the size of the casing and removing the curves from the casing would affect the utility of the device? ߤ榺wj;♂️

    Because you're not one to do even a modicum of research of analysis to back up any point (being generous here) that you may have, I decided to create a mockup of the iPhone X that you say would be perfectly fine with "the same display size, resolution, and bezel depth, while not having rounded corners." I did my best to make sure the white rectangular box when up to the very edge of the display sides and top without crossing over into the bezels. Of course, that's not possible when dealing with a right angle display.

    So now that you have your display with the same resolution but with no rounded corners can you explain how the fuck that could be made without changing the casing so that it also has right angles so it could also keep, as you say, "the same […] bezel depth"? Are you even aware of how the curves in the casing adds to its structural intregrtity or is that also one of those engineering decisions that you believe is a form over function?




    I didn't say the case wouldn't need to change.  Nice mockup (how did you manage to fuck up the notch?), but you've wasted your time in your determination to miss the point.

    And again, I'm not complaining.  I like the form.  I'm also not in denial that it's form over function, and that sometimes that's an ok thing to be.
    smh. The entire existence of the notch is function over form. 
    Not entirely sure I'd agree with this tbh, it's more of a compromise.  An edge to edge screen is an aspiration for both form and function, but thefunction of the FaceId sensors make that an impossibility without a compromise of either a notch or a forehead.  A forehead would be uglier, but arguably more functional, since it wouldn't take a chunk out of the screen.  
    JFC, man! 🤦‍♂️
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 46 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,771member
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    I don't understand why you put a rectangle over the image to make your point instead of extending existing lines.  Obscuring the image you're using to make your point, and weirdly cropping off the notch makes you look like a rank amateur.

    I didn't really pay that much attention to your method because you'd clearly missed the point anyway (you make a habit of it, though whether it's down to idiocy or dishonesty is a debateable matter).  I never said the case wouldn't need to be different from the one Apple shippied.
    1) "I didn't really pay that much attention to your method" is quite clear since you still don't understand why one use a rectangle to quickly create a shape with four straight sides and four right angles. For some reason you're confused by not having an additional layer to re-add the part of the notch that is obscured by a straight line—which isn't even part of the conversation. I thought by age 2 humans established object permanence so I didn't think it would confuse you to have one side of the rectangle going along the top of the display. My apologies for making that assumption about you.

    2) You say you like the iPhone X despite also claiming it's form over function with comment after comment bemoaning its very existence yet you still haven't shown how the device could have squared corners without a chin or forehead and still the same bezel thickness without any loss of functionality (i.e.: structural integrity afforded by the arc that you keep saying serves no functionality). I know how that could be achieved, but there are other tradeoffs, like reducing the amount of internal volume while also adding cost to the device, neither of which seem like good tradeoffs. Your entire argument is literally a desire for a specific form without a single reflection on how it could or would alter its function.


    Obviously.
  • Reply 47 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    I don't understand why you put a rectangle over the image to make your point instead of extending existing lines.  Obscuring the image you're using to make your point, and weirdly cropping off the notch makes you look like a rank amateur.

    I didn't really pay that much attention to your method because you'd clearly missed the point anyway (you make a habit of it, though whether it's down to idiocy or dishonesty is a debateable matter).  I never said the case wouldn't need to be different from the one Apple shippied.
    1) "I didn't really pay that much attention to your method" is quite clear since you still don't understand why one use a rectangle to quickly create a shape with four straight sides and four right angles. For some reason you're confused by not having an additional layer to re-add the part of the notch that is obscured by a straight line—which isn't even part of the conversation. I thought by age 2 humans established object permanence so I didn't think it would confuse you to have one side of the rectangle going along the top of the display. My apologies for making that assumption about you.

    2) You say you like the iPhone X despite also claiming it's form over function with comment after comment bemoaning its very existence yet you still haven't shown how the device could have squared corners without a chin or forehead and still the same bezel thickness without any loss of functionality (i.e.: structural integrity afforded by the arc that you keep saying serves no functionality). I know how that could be achieved, but there are other tradeoffs, like reducing the amount of internal volume while also adding cost to the device, neither of which seem like good tradeoffs. Your entire argument is literally a desire for a specific form without a single reflection on how it could or would alter its function.


    Obviously.
    SMH. 🤦‍♂️

    For someone that says he hates “form over function” you sure seem to gravity toward it.
  • Reply 48 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,771member
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:
    I don't understand why you put a rectangle over the image to make your point instead of extending existing lines.  Obscuring the image you're using to make your point, and weirdly cropping off the notch makes you look like a rank amateur.

    I didn't really pay that much attention to your method because you'd clearly missed the point anyway (you make a habit of it, though whether it's down to idiocy or dishonesty is a debateable matter).  I never said the case wouldn't need to be different from the one Apple shippied.
    1) "I didn't really pay that much attention to your method" is quite clear since you still don't understand why one use a rectangle to quickly create a shape with four straight sides and four right angles. For some reason you're confused by not having an additional layer to re-add the part of the notch that is obscured by a straight line—which isn't even part of the conversation. I thought by age 2 humans established object permanence so I didn't think it would confuse you to have one side of the rectangle going along the top of the display. My apologies for making that assumption about you.

    2) You say you like the iPhone X despite also claiming it's form over function with comment after comment bemoaning its very existence yet you still haven't shown how the device could have squared corners without a chin or forehead and still the same bezel thickness without any loss of functionality (i.e.: structural integrity afforded by the arc that you keep saying serves no functionality). I know how that could be achieved, but there are other tradeoffs, like reducing the amount of internal volume while also adding cost to the device, neither of which seem like good tradeoffs. Your entire argument is literally a desire for a specific form without a single reflection on how it could or would alter its function.


    Obviously.
    SMH. 🤦‍♂️

    For someone that says he hates “form over function” you sure seem to gravity toward it.
    Never said that. Said pretty much the opposite in this very thread. And it's "gravitate".
Sign In or Register to comment.