I'm not using the G4 iPhone and talking about it. I'm stating that it uses less RAM than v3.1.3. What trade secrets does that violate? Are competitors going "Why didn't we think to make our systems more resource efficient with each revision?" after reading my post? Even if Apple did have my name I think I'd be fine.
Oh admit it. You just forgot to start your post with "Rumor has it that..." instead of "My testing.."
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
The Zune is a great example. Apple can't simply adopt a tech even if it is better on all relevant fronts if it's impossible for the tech to produced in quantities that satisfy Apple's needs. If you look at the Q&A this article links to they specifically state that SMD couldn't barely fill half of Apple's needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
By the way, I've responded to the other posts using my iPad, but was required to respond to this one using my computer, because the scroll bar at the right side of the text box doesn't appear, and so there is no way to scroll the text down.
Is this like the iPhone and the text box, where you have to put your finger on text in the box and then drag down to get to the end? If so, it is a bit of pain and still less than ideal and slower than I would expect.
If we do, I'd expect that we'll see a much darker UI emerge.
I looked for such markers in the current Betas but found none so I have to assume they either kept it very quiet (unlike the front-facign camera code) or that LCD will be used again this year.
There is a bit of a logistical issue here if Apple switches and the tech is still overly power-hungry for whites. 3rd-party devs will have to accommodate for the change in display technology.
AMOLEDs are improving along with every other LED technology. It's expected that by sometime 2011 they will be much better. The current generation is already better than the one used in the Zune.
Quote:
Google it. Outdoor use, overall power consumption (when not using heavy blacks to compensate), and true colour recreation are just a few of the areas I find more important than buying on buzzwords.
For the AMOLEDs that don't use the tech used in the Samsung display, and therefor the one from the Nexus One, color isn't a problem of the display itself. It's a problem of the way the display is being driven.
It's similar to when going into a store that sells Tvs where the saturation is turned up so that skin tones look orange. A lot of people like high saturation even though it isn't accurate. I prefer accuracy. It isn't as impressive to most people who don't know better, but it's much better in the long run.
... That said, I wonder why Apple didn't go Super AMOLED. Those screens have overcome most of the flaws of OLED technology.
I don't think this is really true though.
- AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the power requirements problem, and the refresh rate problem but that's all.
- "Super" AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the problem of the display being unreadable in direct sunlight, but the last I heard they weren't even close to the performance of a good IPS panel on the same issue.
The main issues with OLED displays from Apple's point of view are poor colour reproduction, poor readability of text specifically, and poor readability in direct sunlight. Only the third issue has been *somewhat* mitigated by the very latest and best Super AMOLED screens. The technology really just isn't there yet.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
So what happens is Apple remains mostly silent on the issue. This means a lot of consumers are looking at the OLED screens (which may look great to them) and wondering why Apple isn't using them. The reason they aren't using them is that the colours are all over-saturated and the and the contrast is wonky, but no one wants to say it out loud. (except me! )
PS - I am seriously not trying to be offensive to anyone who likes OLED here, but instead trying to explain some of the background motivations as I see them.
On the other side of that, I'm still shocked that the iPad only came with 256MB RAM.
Yes, I've posted on that too. Despite some here who knee jerk support every decision Apple makes, this wasn't one of their best. On my iPad, I can see running out of RAM using just one program, if it's a photo editor. That's likely one reason why Apple has limited, so far, the size of the images it will use and display, and why some programs such as the otherwise superb Sketchbook Pro are limited to 1024 x 1024 images.
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
There's a big difference between what the market leader has to do, and what a losing company has to do. MS needed to make a big splash with the Zune HD, and so the newer "cool" technology of an AMOLED was just the thing. Apple doesn't need to use something to try to keep their products selling well. While the Zune competes with the iPod Touch, the iPod Touch doesn't compete with the Zune, if you know what I mean. And that's already a generation behind.
Same thing for the phone. I much prefer Apple use the best tech, not the latest. There's plenty of time for that when it's up to snuff.
If Apple is going to the IPS screen then most of the objections will has disappeared. The only real difference will be in the blacks, and even there, IPS is better than other LCD tech. The LCD will still be more readable outdoors, where even my aging 3G works ok when at the setting I use it at, and decent at the highest one. That's better than any current AMOLED, and more important than better blacks indoors.
If they started "at the end of 2008" then getting it to shelves 6 month later would be phenomenally fast. So any committee and team Apple starts at the end of 2010 for the iPhone will be or the 2012 iPhone, at the earliest.
Yeah, I guess you are right there. But the other hand, the time for a car to go from launching the idea to the car at the dealer is 18 months ... Sounds weird that it should be about the same time for a phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Historically, 3 generations of iPhones have all gone on sale within about a month's range of each other for the past 3 years. While this can change if components and production are halted for various logistical reasons, it's unlikely that Apple would halt production of the 3G and 3GS if the G4 iPhone was not, indeed, inevitable within a short time.
I get it now, good thinking by the way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This can be easily researched. For example, iPhone v3.0 when GM on 08-JUNE-2009 and the 3G hit stores on 17-JUNE-2009. That is a 9 days.
They would have been making these devices for some time and then installing the OS after they get the go ahead, then boxing them up to ship.
I'm expecting another Beta this week as the last one was just a over a week now. It could even go GM now as far as I'm concerned.
The date for the GM last year, was that the day they build it or they released it? Because the last beta was released in early may (IIRC it was on the 9th). So there was plenty of time to build the thing and install it on the phones.
Is this like the iPhone and the text box, where you have to put your finger on text in the box and then drag down to get to the end? If so, it is a bit of pain and still less than ideal and slower than I would expect.
Doesn't work. You have an iPad; try it. The entire screen scrolls down instead. I can't find a way to do it.
In addition, PCmag's site has a problem as well. You know they have two scrolling areas. The top one is a horizontal scroll, where you click on the arrow at either end of the scrolling display. That works with a tap.
But, the bottom vertical scroll bar at the right side doesn't work at all. If you tap it, for a moment it highlights to show it was tapped, but nothing happens. You can't drag it down, as again, the whole screen scrolls. I've written about it but no response.
Web designers are going to need to fix these problems as touch devices become more prevalent.
ps.
I just went back to that post on my iPad. Some other odd things. In addition to the scroll bar not showing up, odd in itself, and not being able to scroll the text in the box, even odder, there is something else.
If I hold the iPad vertically, and use two fingers (I thought that maybe if I touched the screen outside the box, and tried to scroll with another inside the box, the text would scroll, but it doesn't), then the screen also scrolls vertically. If the iPad is horizontal, the screen enlarges, just like using two fingers to do that as one is moving away from the other.
But, in the vertical mode, if I tap the box for the cursor and the keyboard pops up, the the screen also enlarges with two fingers being used. Weird!
They've been field testing the next-generation design for months. If they had some supply constraints, they'd simply delay the international release, just like they did with the iPad and as they have done before with previous iPhones.
Steve has already reassured one person by e-mail that WWDC is going to be "awesome."
You don't provide "awesome" by shipping a minor upgrade to last year's design. We have seen the handset that Steve should be announcing in a few weeks.
If anything, this alleged 3GS-like prototype is a respin of the current model, destined to be the entry-level offering.
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
Maybe because Apple doesn't play the game of "other people are doing x, so we must do x even if it's bad for our customers".
Apple is focused on the quality of the customer experience. They're not going to adopt a technology simply because some other product uses it. They're ESPECIALLY not going to adopt a technology simply because a loser like Zune uses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Yes, I've posted on that too. Despite some here who knee jerk support every decision Apple makes, this wasn't one of their best. On my iPad, I can see running out of RAM using just one program, if it's a photo editor. That's likely one reason why Apple has limited, so far, the size of the images it will use and display, and why some programs such as the otherwise superb Sketchbook Pro are limited to 1024 x 1024 images.
Maybe because that's not what the iPad is designed for? While it's possible to use it for other tihngs, Apple has no obligation to do things to make it easier for things that it wasn't meant to do.
There would be a significant tradeoff if they doubled the amount of RAM. First, the cost would go up (if they can even get 512 MB in the form that they're using as part of the A4 chip). Then, power consumption would go up, reducing battery life. Finally, heat generation would go up. Since the RAM is part of the A4 chip, that might require reducing the clock speed of the processor to avoid overheating.
It's easy to say "MORE RAM". It's harder to actually do it - and deal with the compromises.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their newer laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Maybe because that's not what the iPad is designed for? While it's possible to use it for other tihngs, Apple has no obligation to do things to make it easier for things that it wasn't meant to do.
There would be a significant tradeoff if they doubled the amount of RAM. First, the cost would go up (if they can even get 512 MB in the form that they're using as part of the A4 chip). Then, power consumption would go up, reducing battery life. Finally, heat generation would go up. Since the RAM is part of the A4 chip, that might require reducing the clock speed of the processor to avoid overheating.
It's easy to say "MORE RAM". It's harder to actually do it - and deal with the compromises.
It's obviously designed to do much more than the iPhone/Touch is. Don't agree with Apple when they make bad decisions.
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available. Apple obviously decided to do this to save some money, likely the same reason why there's no camera yet.
What compromises? There aren't any, technologically.
Until Apple has a dual core Cortex 9 running at 1.25GHZ or higher, we won't see virtual memory used which would obviate the need for more RAM. So we need more RAM. We're seeing it in a number of newer phones, as much as 1GB. It eases multitasking, even the semi version that Apple has implemented. Why limit what can be done, unless they're just trying to protect their MacBook sales?
And Apple says they don't do that. I'm not sure I believe it.
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Well, it depends on whom the computers are intended for. The 24" iMac had an IPS display since it first came out, and a lot of pros use it for photo and movie editing. The smaller models aren't used that way, so Apple had a good reason for not bothering to use the much more expensive panels in them. But IPS panels have come down in price as have all display panels. So they now cost the same as the worse TN displays used to. The speed of IPS displays, always a weak point, has also improved markedly. Apple normally gives more for the same price over time, and this fits within their usual upgrade policy.
The same thing is true for laptops. As display panel prices continue to drop, at any given price point, Apple can give better IQ parts.
I bought and sold the nexus 1 inside of a month due the oled screen. Beautiful in ideal lighting conditions but nearly useless outside. Nice piece of hardware otherwise.
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
I've had the HTC Incredible for about a month and I thought the screen was dim in sunlight when I first tried to use it outside but the auto brightness wasn't on and it was set about halfway. Once I turned on the auto brightness it hasn't been an issue.
Comments
I'm not using the G4 iPhone and talking about it. I'm stating that it uses less RAM than v3.1.3. What trade secrets does that violate? Are competitors going "Why didn't we think to make our systems more resource efficient with each revision?" after reading my post? Even if Apple did have my name I think I'd be fine.
Oh admit it. You just forgot to start your post with "Rumor has it that..." instead of "My testing.."
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
The Zune is a great example. Apple can't simply adopt a tech even if it is better on all relevant fronts if it's impossible for the tech to produced in quantities that satisfy Apple's needs. If you look at the Q&A this article links to they specifically state that SMD couldn't barely fill half of Apple's needs.
By the way, I've responded to the other posts using my iPad, but was required to respond to this one using my computer, because the scroll bar at the right side of the text box doesn't appear, and so there is no way to scroll the text down.
Is this like the iPhone and the text box, where you have to put your finger on text in the box and then drag down to get to the end? If so, it is a bit of pain and still less than ideal and slower than I would expect.
Oh admit it. You just forgot to start your post with "Rumor has it that..." instead of "My testing.."
Yes, lets go with that. "Rumor has it..." is what I meant I write. I'm not even aware that v4.0 is in Betas yet.
If we do, I'd expect that we'll see a much darker UI emerge.
I looked for such markers in the current Betas but found none so I have to assume they either kept it very quiet (unlike the front-facign camera code) or that LCD will be used again this year.
There is a bit of a logistical issue here if Apple switches and the tech is still overly power-hungry for whites. 3rd-party devs will have to accommodate for the change in display technology.
AMOLEDs are improving along with every other LED technology. It's expected that by sometime 2011 they will be much better. The current generation is already better than the one used in the Zune.
Google it. Outdoor use, overall power consumption (when not using heavy blacks to compensate), and true colour recreation are just a few of the areas I find more important than buying on buzzwords.
For the AMOLEDs that don't use the tech used in the Samsung display, and therefor the one from the Nexus One, color isn't a problem of the display itself. It's a problem of the way the display is being driven.
It's similar to when going into a store that sells Tvs where the saturation is turned up so that skin tones look orange. A lot of people like high saturation even though it isn't accurate. I prefer accuracy. It isn't as impressive to most people who don't know better, but it's much better in the long run.
... That said, I wonder why Apple didn't go Super AMOLED. Those screens have overcome most of the flaws of OLED technology.
I don't think this is really true though.
- AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the power requirements problem, and the refresh rate problem but that's all.
- "Super" AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the problem of the display being unreadable in direct sunlight, but the last I heard they weren't even close to the performance of a good IPS panel on the same issue.
The main issues with OLED displays from Apple's point of view are poor colour reproduction, poor readability of text specifically, and poor readability in direct sunlight. Only the third issue has been *somewhat* mitigated by the very latest and best Super AMOLED screens. The technology really just isn't there yet.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
So what happens is Apple remains mostly silent on the issue. This means a lot of consumers are looking at the OLED screens (which may look great to them) and wondering why Apple isn't using them. The reason they aren't using them is that the colours are all over-saturated and the and the contrast is wonky, but no one wants to say it out loud. (except me!
PS - I am seriously not trying to be offensive to anyone who likes OLED here, but instead trying to explain some of the background motivations as I see them.
It does seem unlikely.
On the other side of that, I'm still shocked that the iPad only came with 256MB RAM.
Yes, I've posted on that too. Despite some here who knee jerk support every decision Apple makes, this wasn't one of their best. On my iPad, I can see running out of RAM using just one program, if it's a photo editor. That's likely one reason why Apple has limited, so far, the size of the images it will use and display, and why some programs such as the otherwise superb Sketchbook Pro are limited to 1024 x 1024 images.
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
There's a big difference between what the market leader has to do, and what a losing company has to do. MS needed to make a big splash with the Zune HD, and so the newer "cool" technology of an AMOLED was just the thing. Apple doesn't need to use something to try to keep their products selling well. While the Zune competes with the iPod Touch, the iPod Touch doesn't compete with the Zune, if you know what I mean. And that's already a generation behind.
Same thing for the phone. I much prefer Apple use the best tech, not the latest. There's plenty of time for that when it's up to snuff.
If Apple is going to the IPS screen then most of the objections will has disappeared. The only real difference will be in the blacks, and even there, IPS is better than other LCD tech. The LCD will still be more readable outdoors, where even my aging 3G works ok when at the setting I use it at, and decent at the highest one. That's better than any current AMOLED, and more important than better blacks indoors.
If they started "at the end of 2008" then getting it to shelves 6 month later would be phenomenally fast. So any committee and team Apple starts at the end of 2010 for the iPhone will be or the 2012 iPhone, at the earliest.
Yeah, I guess you are right there. But the other hand, the time for a car to go from launching the idea to the car at the dealer is 18 months ... Sounds weird that it should be about the same time for a phone.
Historically, 3 generations of iPhones have all gone on sale within about a month's range of each other for the past 3 years. While this can change if components and production are halted for various logistical reasons, it's unlikely that Apple would halt production of the 3G and 3GS if the G4 iPhone was not, indeed, inevitable within a short time.
I get it now, good thinking by the way!
This can be easily researched. For example, iPhone v3.0 when GM on 08-JUNE-2009 and the 3G hit stores on 17-JUNE-2009. That is a 9 days.
They would have been making these devices for some time and then installing the OS after they get the go ahead, then boxing them up to ship.
I'm expecting another Beta this week as the last one was just a over a week now. It could even go GM now as far as I'm concerned.
The date for the GM last year, was that the day they build it or they released it? Because the last beta was released in early may (IIRC it was on the 9th). So there was plenty of time to build the thing and install it on the phones.
Is this like the iPhone and the text box, where you have to put your finger on text in the box and then drag down to get to the end? If so, it is a bit of pain and still less than ideal and slower than I would expect.
Doesn't work. You have an iPad; try it. The entire screen scrolls down instead. I can't find a way to do it.
In addition, PCmag's site has a problem as well. You know they have two scrolling areas. The top one is a horizontal scroll, where you click on the arrow at either end of the scrolling display. That works with a tap.
But, the bottom vertical scroll bar at the right side doesn't work at all. If you tap it, for a moment it highlights to show it was tapped, but nothing happens. You can't drag it down, as again, the whole screen scrolls. I've written about it but no response.
Web designers are going to need to fix these problems as touch devices become more prevalent.
ps.
I just went back to that post on my iPad. Some other odd things. In addition to the scroll bar not showing up, odd in itself, and not being able to scroll the text in the box, even odder, there is something else.
If I hold the iPad vertically, and use two fingers (I thought that maybe if I touched the screen outside the box, and tried to scroll with another inside the box, the text would scroll, but it doesn't), then the screen also scrolls vertically. If the iPad is horizontal, the screen enlarges, just like using two fingers to do that as one is moving away from the other.
But, in the vertical mode, if I tap the box for the cursor and the keyboard pops up, the the screen also enlarges with two fingers being used. Weird!
Doesn't work. You have an iPad; try it. The entire screen scrolls down instead. I can't find a way to do it.
I wish I could, but I returned mine. The issue with Safari reloading pages was a deal breaker.
They've been field testing the next-generation design for months. If they had some supply constraints, they'd simply delay the international release, just like they did with the iPad and as they have done before with previous iPhones.
Steve has already reassured one person by e-mail that WWDC is going to be "awesome."
You don't provide "awesome" by shipping a minor upgrade to last year's design. We have seen the handset that Steve should be announcing in a few weeks.
If anything, this alleged 3GS-like prototype is a respin of the current model, destined to be the entry-level offering.
Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.
Just do it.
Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.
Maybe because Apple doesn't play the game of "other people are doing x, so we must do x even if it's bad for our customers".
Apple is focused on the quality of the customer experience. They're not going to adopt a technology simply because some other product uses it. They're ESPECIALLY not going to adopt a technology simply because a loser like Zune uses it.
Yes, I've posted on that too. Despite some here who knee jerk support every decision Apple makes, this wasn't one of their best. On my iPad, I can see running out of RAM using just one program, if it's a photo editor. That's likely one reason why Apple has limited, so far, the size of the images it will use and display, and why some programs such as the otherwise superb Sketchbook Pro are limited to 1024 x 1024 images.
Maybe because that's not what the iPad is designed for? While it's possible to use it for other tihngs, Apple has no obligation to do things to make it easier for things that it wasn't meant to do.
There would be a significant tradeoff if they doubled the amount of RAM. First, the cost would go up (if they can even get 512 MB in the form that they're using as part of the A4 chip). Then, power consumption would go up, reducing battery life. Finally, heat generation would go up. Since the RAM is part of the A4 chip, that might require reducing the clock speed of the processor to avoid overheating.
It's easy to say "MORE RAM". It's harder to actually do it - and deal with the compromises.
I wish I could, but I returned mine. The issue with Safari reloading pages was a deal breaker.
Really? That's such a minor thing. I hardly notice it.
I don't think this is really true though.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their newer laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Maybe because that's not what the iPad is designed for? While it's possible to use it for other tihngs, Apple has no obligation to do things to make it easier for things that it wasn't meant to do.
There would be a significant tradeoff if they doubled the amount of RAM. First, the cost would go up (if they can even get 512 MB in the form that they're using as part of the A4 chip). Then, power consumption would go up, reducing battery life. Finally, heat generation would go up. Since the RAM is part of the A4 chip, that might require reducing the clock speed of the processor to avoid overheating.
It's easy to say "MORE RAM". It's harder to actually do it - and deal with the compromises.
It's obviously designed to do much more than the iPhone/Touch is. Don't agree with Apple when they make bad decisions.
It's easy to add more RAM. This isn't some major research project, just buy bigger chips, they're available. Apple obviously decided to do this to save some money, likely the same reason why there's no camera yet.
What compromises? There aren't any, technologically.
Until Apple has a dual core Cortex 9 running at 1.25GHZ or higher, we won't see virtual memory used which would obviate the need for more RAM. So we need more RAM. We're seeing it in a number of newer phones, as much as 1GB. It eases multitasking, even the semi version that Apple has implemented. Why limit what can be done, unless they're just trying to protect their MacBook sales?
And Apple says they don't do that. I'm not sure I believe it.
You mean like the way Apple defenders a while back were claiming that nobody can see the difference between a 6 bits-per-color display or 8 bits-per-color display, and anybody who claimed that Apple was using inferior LCD panels were just whiners? Now that Apple seems to have changed their tune and now they specifically mention wide gamut displays in their laptops, are Apple defenders going to change their story as well?
Well, it depends on whom the computers are intended for. The 24" iMac had an IPS display since it first came out, and a lot of pros use it for photo and movie editing. The smaller models aren't used that way, so Apple had a good reason for not bothering to use the much more expensive panels in them. But IPS panels have come down in price as have all display panels. So they now cost the same as the worse TN displays used to. The speed of IPS displays, always a weak point, has also improved markedly. Apple normally gives more for the same price over time, and this fits within their usual upgrade policy.
The same thing is true for laptops. As display panel prices continue to drop, at any given price point, Apple can give better IQ parts.
Apple definitely made the right decision here.
I bought and sold the nexus 1 inside of a month due the oled screen. Beautiful in ideal lighting conditions but nearly useless outside. Nice piece of hardware otherwise.
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
The Nexus One is suppoed to have a super AMOLED from Samsung.
It's my understanding that it's AMOLED not Super AMOLED.
It's my understanding that it's AMOLED not Super AMOLED.
And it's mine that it uses the Samsung screen.
I'd question "useless". It's legible if you turn up the brightness. But I will grant that with the brightness down to the lowest settings, it's useless in direct sunglight.
And even there it's a trade-off. Indoors, I'd take the Nexus One screen over the iPhone 3GS anyday. It'll be interesting to see how much better the iPhone 4G screen is (compared to the competition).
I've had the HTC Incredible for about a month and I thought the screen was dim in sunlight when I first tried to use it outside but the auto brightness wasn't on and it was set about halfway. Once I turned on the auto brightness it hasn't been an issue.