Well, neither iPhone, nor Magic Mouse support your point.
You're confusing energy efficiency with design trade-offs.
The iPhone isn't inefficient; it could simply benefit from a higher capacity battery to support its capabilities. But that would then make it bigger and fatter, and people ? including me, by the way! ? would then complain about it being porky. I can do something about keeping the battery charged, but I don't want it to be fatter or heavier, things I wouldn't be able to change.
I use lithium batteries in the Magic Mouse, and they're lasting long enough that I don't have to pay much attention to that. But again, it's a design trade-off, not an efficiency question. The MM is very slender, so there's no room for big honking batteries in it. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that Apple's Bluetooth implementation is any less efficient than anyone else's. Do you?
I am sticking my bet on OLED. If I lose I believe I will owe someone a penny.
OLED would work very nicely considering my intended usage. I'm still thinking I'd prefer a 7" screen but lets ignore that for a bit.
What I don't understand about this blurb is how would the head of the association know what Apple and its suppliers are up to? Seriously would Apple and its partners share info with an association designed to promote the technology, in effect a loose lips department.
Also the article was very focused on AMOLED screens which is fine but there are other technologies to consider too. OLED technology is under very active development, even support circuitry is seeing novel implementations with announcements as recent as a couple of weeks ago.
Further I'm not sure where the obsession with high prices in relation to OLED screens come from. The prices are a bit higher but at the same time we are talking new tech so that is a certainty.
Given all f that Apple may go LCD with some of the recent patented technology incorporated. It would be especially impressive if they could deliver an IPS panel with that built in touch sensing that was exposed in a recent patent. A panel like that though would be similarly expensive as it is effectively new technology also.
In the end I'm of the opinion that offering a choice is the smart move here. As long as that choice isn't an excuse to apply an outlandish price on the OLED based device. I'm still concerned that Apple will take their traditional approach of pricing the unit irrationally and the wonder why the sales roll off so bad after the fambois stop buying.
Whether one likes it or not, the best screen for viewing in in-direct bright light, e.g., sunny day outdoors, indoors near a window, etc., is on a glossy back-lit. Non-glossy back-lits are second.
AMOLED's are nearly invisible in bright light and are notedly atrocious no matter how much one tries to position the monitor to reduce reflection in these situations.
They are no worse than a TFT LCD screen in direct sunlight. I have a Samsung phone with an OLED screen and just last week I was skiing in direct sunlight using it to take videos and I could see the image on the screen to compose the shots - while moving rapidly - with no problem.
Quote:
Walking around with AMOLED display would be a nightmare.
It isn't. I have had TFT LCD screen phones that were much worse.
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
The video was deceptive. Read the comments that accompany it.
No screen technology that relies principally on the emission of light and is powered by tiny batteries is going to be able to compete directly with the Sun. Not OLED or TFT LCD.
Who at Apple said it was going to be sensibly priced?
If an OLED TV costs $5000 then a tablet is only going to be somewhere north of that figure.
That's the price of two MacBook Pros. Apple products are expensive but good value for money. A $5000-6000 tablet would not be good value for money. It would be commercial suicide even for Apple. Can you imagine how fast Apple's stock would tank if they announced a tablet for that price?
The video was deceptive. Read the comments that accompany it.
No screen technology that relies principally on the emission of light and is powered by tiny batteries is going to be able to compete directly with the Sun. Not OLED or TFT LCD.
There will certainly be varying qualities/configurations of the screen tech that cause different results. I've seen a number of reviews that show poor OLED performance in sunlight and worse than the iphone screen side by side. I think there was one with the Zune HD.
There's an example here where the AMOLED screen looks much better than the LCD in sunlight at the angle shown about 1:40:
Like I say, just the viewing angles and clarity of OLED are enough to sell it. If the screen does suffer in bright sunlight, I guess we'll just have to find something else to do on a warm sunny day than play with electronic gadgets. Not sure what though.
An AMOLED sounds interesting, but from what i've seen and heard its not as great as one would think.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
So are the vast majority of LCD's. A sunlight readable OLED screen can happen, they just need to light up the pixels enough to deal with the sunlight. Like on LCD's a bigger pixel might help.
Quote:
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
Saturation isn't the cause of of a poor color rendition. Color pop and color accuracy kinda go hand in hand. For your creative side saturated colors that mimic real life are exactly what you are looking for. Well I should say are what I'm looking for, which highlights the different needs.
In the case of the tablet if it can be properly calibrated then groovy. Otherwise it is not a machine we even need to discuss in the sense of serious color reproduction.
Quote:
AMOLED does pose several problems, but maybe Apple could fix that issue with an invention of their own, or stick with the conventional LED-backlit LCD panels.
I'm not sure why everybody is focused on AMOLEDs. There are other technologies beyond the Active Matrix set. Ignoring that though I think it is a mistake to look at a hand set OLED screen and thing that will represent what is available in larger formats. Especially in the case of Zune which appears to have a standard OLED display built for a panel tech that has been around for awhile. If Apple does go the OLED route I fully expect them to introduce a new technology.
Of course OLED might not be designed in then we have the probability of a LCD screen. This is still suboptimal for some but there is also huge potential with the latest LCD tech. Finally they might introduce something totally different in the way of display tech.
I'll stick with ya on that bet too. Apple has to do something special with the display because it's going to be an extremely important part of this product's success.
more 'extremely important' than usability or price point?
The one out now aren't that energy efficient. Only when most of the display is black.
Efficiency doesn't exactly mean the quantity of consumed energy. It's rather about how well available energy is utilised (as compared to competing devices in the same test under equal conditions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Just because a company is interested doesn't mean it's possible.
We all want bigger screens, more powerful cpus and gpus, more memory etc. That all consumes more power.
First, consumers used to know minimum about future Apple products. It's not too much important what they all want at that moment.
Second, upon having released 3 generations of iPhone Apple is still not paying any good attention to iPhone users complaining about the battery life. This point holds in each next version wish list.
What is not understandable about the product already known and tested by consumers is their priorities in development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's also one reason why Apple has been holding off on multitasking.
I'm with Apple on this point. One backdoor for thieves less, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What would you consider to be satisfactory?
I believe the new 12" Joo Joo tablet has about 5 hours of battery life. Is that satisfactory?
What would be for a full color graphics accelerated device?
Be realistic. Remember that the far less capable B&N product has only about 12 to 14 hours of battery life,
and that's with a mostly "E-ink" screen.
I tell you when I see specs and how device is supposed to be used. Secrecy is perfect; we even can't tell the class of the device for sure.
You're confusing energy efficiency with design trade-offs.
It's just way too simplistic to state trade-offs never impact efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
The iPhone isn't inefficient; it could simply benefit from a higher capacity battery to support its capabilities. But that would then make it bigger and fatter, and people — including me, by the way! — would then complain about it being porky. I can do something about keeping the battery charged, but I don't want it to be fatter or heavier, things I wouldn't be able to change.
iPhone was built on the base of the broadband chipset, which is not the best when it comes to energy consumption. This is called inefficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
I use lithium batteries in the Magic Mouse, and they're lasting long enough that I don't have to pay much attention to that. But again, it's a design trade-off, not an efficiency question. The MM is very slender, so there's no room for big honking batteries in it. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that Apple's Bluetooth implementation is any less efficient than anyone else's. Do you?
Oh, I didn't want to tell you, I must respect my hosts, you know... But I have to admit I use unobtanium cells. You just can't buy such a classy thing in the States or anywhere else.
This is ugly and tasteless, but this is kinda tradition of the board, I should warn the counterpart (why anyway?) I have several Magic Mouses in my household, I did researches in their behavior, which you just fail to imagine, and I know about them so much more than you, that there's hardly the point to discuss.
Of course, I can provide the evidence, but I have to be sure you've got a solid background to discuss (expected me to bring evidence for you to judge,eh? sorry, mate, we've already got good guys who would judge).
Did I say it was more important than usability or price point? And what the hell kind of english is "more 'extremely important'" ???
Indeed do you think not.
'extremely' important as you stated it seems to imply that it's a make or break situation. what in your opinion is more important than the 'extremely important' OLED screen?
sorry you didn't get my poking fun at your extreme hyperbole...
Wide viewing angle, vivid colours and deep blacks are other advantages. An OLED screen is like a KURO Plasma.
I had to login to make a comment on this. OLED is better than a Kuro display. I own a Kuro. Small OLED screens are usually around 100,000:1 contrast. Whereas the new range of Kuro's are a good bit less than 20,000:1. So when it comes to blacks for example, OLED are let's say for argument 5X better than Kuro. Even if they were less, say 4X better. That's 4 times better. And Kuro's are pretty good.
Comments
Well, neither iPhone, nor Magic Mouse support your point.
You're confusing energy efficiency with design trade-offs.
The iPhone isn't inefficient; it could simply benefit from a higher capacity battery to support its capabilities. But that would then make it bigger and fatter, and people ? including me, by the way! ? would then complain about it being porky. I can do something about keeping the battery charged, but I don't want it to be fatter or heavier, things I wouldn't be able to change.
I use lithium batteries in the Magic Mouse, and they're lasting long enough that I don't have to pay much attention to that. But again, it's a design trade-off, not an efficiency question. The MM is very slender, so there's no room for big honking batteries in it. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that Apple's Bluetooth implementation is any less efficient than anyone else's. Do you?
There will be an OLED screen. That's what the color splatters on the invitation are about.
I'm with you on this Buck. I still believe that Apple will do something special and unexpected for the screen of this device.
It just CAN'T be just a run of the mill LCD.
I'm with you on this Buck. I still believe that Apple will do something special and unexpected for the screen of this device.
It just CAN'T be just a run of the mill LCD.
I won't say it can't, but I don't want it to be. I have seen OLED, I have seen the light.
I won't say it can't, but I don't want it to be. I have seen OLED, I have seen the light.
Yup. Any problems OLED might currently be having is just growing pains that will, and is, quickly being solved.
LCDs are yesterday's news!
I am sticking my bet on OLED. If I lose I believe I will owe someone a penny.
OLED would work very nicely considering my intended usage. I'm still thinking I'd prefer a 7" screen but lets ignore that for a bit.
What I don't understand about this blurb is how would the head of the association know what Apple and its suppliers are up to? Seriously would Apple and its partners share info with an association designed to promote the technology, in effect a loose lips department.
Also the article was very focused on AMOLED screens which is fine but there are other technologies to consider too. OLED technology is under very active development, even support circuitry is seeing novel implementations with announcements as recent as a couple of weeks ago.
Further I'm not sure where the obsession with high prices in relation to OLED screens come from. The prices are a bit higher but at the same time we are talking new tech so that is a certainty.
Given all f that Apple may go LCD with some of the recent patented technology incorporated. It would be especially impressive if they could deliver an IPS panel with that built in touch sensing that was exposed in a recent patent. A panel like that though would be similarly expensive as it is effectively new technology also.
In the end I'm of the opinion that offering a choice is the smart move here. As long as that choice isn't an excuse to apply an outlandish price on the OLED based device. I'm still concerned that Apple will take their traditional approach of pricing the unit irrationally and the wonder why the sales roll off so bad after the fambois stop buying.
Dave
Whether one likes it or not, the best screen for viewing in in-direct bright light, e.g., sunny day outdoors, indoors near a window, etc., is on a glossy back-lit. Non-glossy back-lits are second.
AMOLED's are nearly invisible in bright light and are notedly atrocious no matter how much one tries to position the monitor to reduce reflection in these situations.
They are no worse than a TFT LCD screen in direct sunlight. I have a Samsung phone with an OLED screen and just last week I was skiing in direct sunlight using it to take videos and I could see the image on the screen to compose the shots - while moving rapidly - with no problem.
Walking around with AMOLED display would be a nightmare.
It isn't. I have had TFT LCD screen phones that were much worse.
Oh, we should have heard something about that for sure....
P.S. The only evident OLED advantage is energy efficiency. Since when is Apple concerned for energy efficiency?
Wide viewing angle, vivid colours and deep blacks are other advantages. An OLED screen is like a KURO Plasma.
Yeah the outdoor performance is quite bad with AMOLED:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVYI4ko6_E0
Indoors they look really vibrant and have great viewing angles though.
I personally rarely use the phone outdoors beyond calling people and the screen looks usable for that so I'd be happy with AMOLED. I prefer over-saturated colors generally too.
Apple just need to find a way to get IPS-like technology into mobile screens and even laptop ones. If AMOLED tech is the only way that quality will come then we'll have to suffer the downsides.
The video was deceptive. Read the comments that accompany it.
No screen technology that relies principally on the emission of light and is powered by tiny batteries is going to be able to compete directly with the Sun. Not OLED or TFT LCD.
It's a total surprise
Who at Apple said it was going to be sensibly priced?
If an OLED TV costs $5000 then a tablet is only going to be somewhere north of that figure.
That's the price of two MacBook Pros. Apple products are expensive but good value for money. A $5000-6000 tablet would not be good value for money. It would be commercial suicide even for Apple. Can you imagine how fast Apple's stock would tank if they announced a tablet for that price?
The video was deceptive. Read the comments that accompany it.
No screen technology that relies principally on the emission of light and is powered by tiny batteries is going to be able to compete directly with the Sun. Not OLED or TFT LCD.
There will certainly be varying qualities/configurations of the screen tech that cause different results. I've seen a number of reviews that show poor OLED performance in sunlight and worse than the iphone screen side by side. I think there was one with the Zune HD.
There's an example here where the AMOLED screen looks much better than the LCD in sunlight at the angle shown about 1:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICAHsE_enE
Like I say, just the viewing angles and clarity of OLED are enough to sell it. If the screen does suffer in bright sunlight, I guess we'll just have to find something else to do on a warm sunny day than play with electronic gadgets. Not sure what though.
An AMOLED sounds interesting, but from what i've seen and heard its not as great as one would think.
First, it is almost invisible in broad daylight. Imagine just how much of an inconvenience that could be for many customers.
So are the vast majority of LCD's. A sunlight readable OLED screen can happen, they just need to light up the pixels enough to deal with the sunlight. Like on LCD's a bigger pixel might help.
Second, it has a reputation of being overly saturated (ex. Nexus One). I'm pretty sure nobody wants color mania on their screen as actor's faces suddenly turn into a sunburnt orange color. Color accuracy is definitely more important than color pop.
Saturation isn't the cause of of a poor color rendition. Color pop and color accuracy kinda go hand in hand. For your creative side saturated colors that mimic real life are exactly what you are looking for. Well I should say are what I'm looking for, which highlights the different needs.
In the case of the tablet if it can be properly calibrated then groovy. Otherwise it is not a machine we even need to discuss in the sense of serious color reproduction.
AMOLED does pose several problems, but maybe Apple could fix that issue with an invention of their own, or stick with the conventional LED-backlit LCD panels.
I'm not sure why everybody is focused on AMOLEDs. There are other technologies beyond the Active Matrix set. Ignoring that though I think it is a mistake to look at a hand set OLED screen and thing that will represent what is available in larger formats. Especially in the case of Zune which appears to have a standard OLED display built for a panel tech that has been around for awhile. If Apple does go the OLED route I fully expect them to introduce a new technology.
Of course OLED might not be designed in then we have the probability of a LCD screen. This is still suboptimal for some but there is also huge potential with the latest LCD tech. Finally they might introduce something totally different in the way of display tech.
Dave
If an OLED TV costs $5000 then a tablet is only going to be somewhere north of that figure.
That reminds me of "Coming to America".
Son, I'm only going to tell you this one time. Do yourself a favour and stay off the drugs.
I'll stick with ya on that bet too. Apple has to do something special with the display because it's going to be an extremely important part of this product's success.
more 'extremely important' than usability or price point?
i think not.
more 'extremely important' than usability or price point?
i think not.
*sigh* Here we go.
Did I say it was more important than usability or price point? And what the hell kind of english is "more 'extremely important'" ???
Indeed do you think not.
That reminds me of "Coming to America".
Son, I'm only going to tell you this one time. Do yourself a favour and stay off the drugs.
What gloating dance do you want me to do when you've proven wrong?
The one out now aren't that energy efficient. Only when most of the display is black.
Efficiency doesn't exactly mean the quantity of consumed energy. It's rather about how well available energy is utilised (as compared to competing devices in the same test under equal conditions).
Just because a company is interested doesn't mean it's possible.
We all want bigger screens, more powerful cpus and gpus, more memory etc. That all consumes more power.
First, consumers used to know minimum about future Apple products. It's not too much important what they all want at that moment.
Second, upon having released 3 generations of iPhone Apple is still not paying any good attention to iPhone users complaining about the battery life. This point holds in each next version wish list.
What is not understandable about the product already known and tested by consumers is their priorities in development.
It's also one reason why Apple has been holding off on multitasking.
I'm with Apple on this point. One backdoor for thieves less, too.
What would you consider to be satisfactory?
I believe the new 12" Joo Joo tablet has about 5 hours of battery life. Is that satisfactory?
What would be for a full color graphics accelerated device?
Be realistic. Remember that the far less capable B&N product has only about 12 to 14 hours of battery life,
and that's with a mostly "E-ink" screen.
I tell you when I see specs and how device is supposed to be used. Secrecy is perfect; we even can't tell the class of the device for sure.
You're confusing energy efficiency with design trade-offs.
It's just way too simplistic to state trade-offs never impact efficiency.
The iPhone isn't inefficient; it could simply benefit from a higher capacity battery to support its capabilities. But that would then make it bigger and fatter, and people — including me, by the way! — would then complain about it being porky. I can do something about keeping the battery charged, but I don't want it to be fatter or heavier, things I wouldn't be able to change.
iPhone was built on the base of the broadband chipset, which is not the best when it comes to energy consumption. This is called inefficiency.
I use lithium batteries in the Magic Mouse, and they're lasting long enough that I don't have to pay much attention to that. But again, it's a design trade-off, not an efficiency question. The MM is very slender, so there's no room for big honking batteries in it. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that Apple's Bluetooth implementation is any less efficient than anyone else's. Do you?
Oh, I didn't want to tell you, I must respect my hosts, you know... But I have to admit I use unobtanium cells. You just can't buy such a classy thing in the States or anywhere else.
This is ugly and tasteless, but this is kinda tradition of the board, I should warn the counterpart (why anyway?) I have several Magic Mouses in my household, I did researches in their behavior, which you just fail to imagine, and I know about them so much more than you, that there's hardly the point to discuss.
Of course, I can provide the evidence, but I have to be sure you've got a solid background to discuss (expected me to bring evidence for you to judge,eh? sorry, mate, we've already got good guys who would judge).
Wide viewing angle, vivid colours and deep blacks are other advantages. An OLED screen is like a KURO Plasma.
I doubt Apple will factor all that in.
*sigh* Here we go.
Did I say it was more important than usability or price point? And what the hell kind of english is "more 'extremely important'" ???
Indeed do you think not.
'extremely' important as you stated it seems to imply that it's a make or break situation. what in your opinion is more important than the 'extremely important' OLED screen?
sorry you didn't get my poking fun at your extreme hyperbole...
Wide viewing angle, vivid colours and deep blacks are other advantages. An OLED screen is like a KURO Plasma.
I had to login to make a comment on this. OLED is better than a Kuro display. I own a Kuro. Small OLED screens are usually around 100,000:1 contrast. Whereas the new range of Kuro's are a good bit less than 20,000:1. So when it comes to blacks for example, OLED are let's say for argument 5X better than Kuro. Even if they were less, say 4X better. That's 4 times better. And Kuro's are pretty good.