If that is the way things go, Apple should sell the OS to Intel (which would presumably take most of the OS people with it) and then just play around with "gadgets", which seems to be the current focus.
I think Apple will probably retain the OS so that it can continue to sell the iMac and the laptops, which are of course its main line of business now...
Of course, there's no guarantee that the OS itself won't go even further down the consumer eye-candy route. I guess in hindsight, Leopard's novelty 3D Dock was a sign of things to come?
At this stage, there's not much left of the Apple that I used to champion.
But getting back to the OT, I'm becoming increasingly worried that Apple will withdrawn from the pro display market. Of course they turn around tomorrow and announce a whole new generation of pro kit, but it's about 50/50 at the moment.
The iPhone and iPod Touch both use TFT displays with resolutions of around 160-ppi (if I recall correctly).
A couple years back, Jobs announced that new icons would add two new sizes: 256-ppi and 512-ppi.
Therefore, call me crazy, but I've concluded that Apple will again set a new standard by introducing high-resolution screens for their desktop displays, as well as their notebooks. A 512-ppi icon on the new screens wouldn't be much larger than the 128-ppi icons on the current displays (72-ppi).
The iPhone and iPod Touch both use TFT displays with resolutions of around 160-ppi (if I recall correctly).
A couple years back, Jobs announced that new icons would add two new sizes: 256-ppi and 512-ppi.
Therefore, call me crazy, but I've concluded that Apple will again set a new standard by introducing high-resolution screens for their desktop displays, as well as their notebooks. A 512-ppi icon on the new screens wouldn't be much larger than the 128-ppi icons on the current displays (72-ppi).
The new resolution would be incredible.
Simple, unscientific comparison...
Can you really describe an icon as being ppi? Wouldn't it just be the pixel size and the display would determine how large that actually is based on the ppi?
Can you really describe an icon as being ppi? Wouldn't it just be the pixel size and the display would determine how large that actually is based on the ppi?
Not if we're actually talking about resolution independence. That way, icons could maintain a given size while varying pixel density based on screen res. Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen.
Not if we're actually talking about resolution independence. That way, icons could maintain a given size while varying pixel density based on screen res. Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen.
Apple has included an Icon Composer.app in their Developer Tools for quite awhile. It has pixel sizes 16, 32, 128, 256, and 512 built into the app.
". . . Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen."
Pixel-mania.
Just to confirm ? yes, I meant that the relative size of a 512-ppi icon on a high-res display would be roughly the same size as a 128-ppi icon (not a 72-ppi icon) on a typical display available, and in use, for the past quarter-century.
Comments
If that is the way things go, Apple should sell the OS to Intel (which would presumably take most of the OS people with it) and then just play around with "gadgets", which seems to be the current focus.
I think Apple will probably retain the OS so that it can continue to sell the iMac and the laptops, which are of course its main line of business now...
Of course, there's no guarantee that the OS itself won't go even further down the consumer eye-candy route. I guess in hindsight, Leopard's novelty 3D Dock was a sign of things to come?
At this stage, there's not much left of the Apple that I used to champion.
But getting back to the OT, I'm becoming increasingly worried that Apple will withdrawn from the pro display market. Of course they turn around tomorrow and announce a whole new generation of pro kit, but it's about 50/50 at the moment.
I'm glad I got my Mac Pro and 30" ACD when I did!
...I'm glad I got my Mac Pro and 30" ACD when I did!
Make sure you've got your full 3 year AppleCare
Make sure you've got your full 3 year AppleCare
Oh yeah... they're covered!
- The iPhone and iPod Touch both use TFT displays with resolutions of around 160-ppi (if I recall correctly).
- A couple years back, Jobs announced that new icons would add two new sizes: 256-ppi and 512-ppi.
Therefore, call me crazy, but I've concluded that Apple will again set a new standard by introducing high-resolution screens for their desktop displays, as well as their notebooks. A 512-ppi icon on the new screens wouldn't be much larger than the 128-ppi icons on the current displays (72-ppi).The new resolution would be incredible.
Simple, unscientific comparison...
- The iPhone and iPod Touch both use TFT displays with resolutions of around 160-ppi (if I recall correctly).
- A couple years back, Jobs announced that new icons would add two new sizes: 256-ppi and 512-ppi.
Therefore, call me crazy, but I've concluded that Apple will again set a new standard by introducing high-resolution screens for their desktop displays, as well as their notebooks. A 512-ppi icon on the new screens wouldn't be much larger than the 128-ppi icons on the current displays (72-ppi).The new resolution would be incredible.
Simple, unscientific comparison...
Can you really describe an icon as being ppi? Wouldn't it just be the pixel size and the display would determine how large that actually is based on the ppi?
Can you really describe an icon as being ppi? Wouldn't it just be the pixel size and the display would determine how large that actually is based on the ppi?
Not if we're actually talking about resolution independence. That way, icons could maintain a given size while varying pixel density based on screen res. Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen.
Not if we're actually talking about resolution independence. That way, icons could maintain a given size while varying pixel density based on screen res. Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen.
Apple has included an Icon Composer.app in their Developer Tools for quite awhile. It has pixel sizes 16, 32, 128, 256, and 512 built into the app.
". . . Which I think is what he was saying-- that a 512 ppi icon taking advantage of RI on a specific high res screen would be roughly the same size as a 72 ppi icon on a specific lower res screen."
Pixel-mania.
Just to confirm ? yes, I meant that the relative size of a 512-ppi icon on a high-res display would be roughly the same size as a 128-ppi icon (not a 72-ppi icon) on a typical display available, and in use, for the past quarter-century.
It does seem a bit overdue for an upgrade.