If that is a problem for his perhaps a larger display is the solution for him, but it's not an "aspect ratio issue" which would only increase the width of the iPhone by 0.14" if they maintained 3.5" on the diagonal.
Well, it's good to see my finger method of calculation was pretty close; only off by a 0.14". I think that MAY be enough to make a bit of a difference, but not all that much. Smaller screens will make no difference at all, really.
I was hoping that Apple would have squeaked a bit larger screen in the phone this time.
Quote:
Android still hasn't gotten it right in v2.2. I do wish they'd offer a rich System Notification service. I find WebOS' implementation to be excellent, hopefully they are using their recent hire of the WebOS guy to work on that, I just hope I don't have to wait until iOS v5.0 to get it.
I thought that Apple would have done something on notifications this time. I was slightly disappointed there. Maybe that guy will work on it. Possibly, we may see something before next year.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
I don't think that'd really work. I'd love to have hdmi on my iPhone to show off a media portfolio, but I get annoyed enough when a call interrupts my song while I'm on the road listening to my iPhone through my car stereo. I couldn't stand for that to happen part way through a movie. Or have a text come in while watching YouTube videos.
I don't think that'd really work. I'd love to have hdmi on my iPhone to show off a media portfolio, but I get annoyed enough when a call interrupts my song while I'm on the road listening to my iPhone through my car stereo. I couldn't stand for that to happen part way through a movie. Or have a text come in while watching YouTube videos.
I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.
Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.
If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" of 20/12 eyesight, which really isn't the case scenario of known human vision.
He's not actually correct on this one. I think it's a good name, and a marketting concept that will resonate with people etc, but on a purely pedantic and anal assessment he is wrong. All this talk of 20/20 vision, your average persons eyesight, perfect eyesight etc isn't a part of the equation. What Jobs was was that around 300 (Let's give him +- 10% and go for 270 - 330 ppi was "the limit" of the human retina. The limit, not the average.
Now, if you ask me the limit of human speed so far is Usain Bolt. However your average man is probably 50% slower than him over 100 meters.
So it's a great marketing term, that whilst not being 100% accurate is probably good enough to stand up to it's claims. I think this is where Apple shine. They've taken a vastly complex subject (as proven by the pseudo-scientific back and forth arguments and discussions) and distilled it into a non technical message - 4 times more detail than your existing phone, so good your eyes can't pick fault. Compare that to some of the android manufacturers who still blind the public with science and specs. OK, Apple use terms like IPS etc during their keynotes (audience of geeks) but when it get's to the high street, that's all gone and they sell on the features, not the specs. We all know what OLED is, jonny highstreet might not, and might not care to. Meanwhile everyone understands Apple's message.
That's come across a bit fanboy, but I think it's true. There is a lot of fair discussion to be made on the relative merits of LCD/OLED, contrast ratios, colour reproduction and all that, but 95% of consumers don't care about the how, just about the what. And Apple tends to distill and clarify the message in ways everyone else don't understand is even important yet.
Tech kit eh? Reviewed by geeks, but bought by your dad.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
I think the content creators should adapt to these mobile times we live in and author more fluid layouts.
Apple now has iOS devices with 3 resolutions out there. I wonder whether they will just let 320x480 die or if they will continue to use it on a smaller iPhone. Smaller display with slightly higher ppi, smaller bezel - iPhone nano. In many situation the regular iPhone is too big and too "precious" to carry around, I would love to have an alternative.
You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.
We aren't nearly as sensitive to resolution with moving images as we are with still images.
You're not going to hold the phone at the ideal distance for resolution. You're going to hold it at the most comfortable distance.
I 100% agree, but I think that games and text will be stunning on such a high res definition, even on a small screen. About games, the only way to "hide pixels" is to use an anti alias filter. This filter is not easy to be handled by a graphic chip but an antialiased polygon looks ten times better than a non antialiased one. The only alternative way to "hide pixels" is to increase the resolution, and this is what the so called "retina" display does.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
I think you are so incredibly right that I think Apple must be building an *app* named 'Apple TV' and going to do exactly what you propose.
More in general, I think next holiday everything should be in place for Apple to start offering Apple TV not as a device, but as a concept. The hardware you still need to buy then should depend on the hardware you already have in place.
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
Yeah. What a strange quote. The iPad has the worst PPI of any iOS device Apple sells. According to that list, it at least matches or beats most of Apple's laptop or desktop displays, but I don't think that's what they meant.
I think you are so incredibly right that I think Apple must be building an app named 'Apple TV' and going to do exactly what you propose.
More in general, I think next holiday everything should be in place for Apple to start offering Apple TV not as a device, but as a concept. The hardware you still need to buy then should depend on the hardware you already have in place.
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
An app called Apple TV: I LOVE IT AND I WANT IT!!! even if I already have an Apple Tv
Cool, so all my HD apps on my iPad should work on the new iPhone 4, right?
Even if they did, you'd need cosmetic surgery to sharpen your finger tips to be 10x more precise.
Touch interfaces are defined by the size of the touchable areas. The resolution (dpi) of the device doesn't matter, you'll end up with a sharper interface with a higher dpi.
A bigger display allows you to have more touchable area on the screen, and thus more interface elements.
When displaying iPhone apps on the iPad, the touch areas become a lot larger (in 2x zoom mode), which is okay, even if it makes the application appear a bit like a Duplo version. Hopefully iOS 4 apps will be allows to scale to the iPad display as well in zoomed mode
So what will become of iPad 'HD' apps, that will end up just using all their assets virtually unchanged from (presumably much cheaper) iPhone source apps?
Hopefully we'll just see every app becoming a universal app, smart enough to format properly for any device.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
The iPhone is 16:10, IIRC. It is very close to a regular screen, with a little more height in landscape.
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
That is way too complex for Apple's target demographic.
Apple sells you one device with one i/o that hooks up one way. Their new target customers are the people who constantly had 12:00 flashing on their VCR.
The iPhone is 16:10, IIRC. It is very close to a regular screen, with a little more height in landscape.
16:10? are u sure... I think 16:10 is even larger than a 16:9... 1900 x 1200 is a 16:10 ration... and downscaling it should get a 320 x 202 but I'm not 100% sure...
16:10? are u sure... I think 16:10 is even larger than a 16:9... 1900 x 1200 is a 16:10 ration... and downscaling it should get a 320 x 202 but I'm not 100% sure...
Somebody check me out. I did the arithmetic, and I come up with 16:10.667
Comments
To be specific...If that is a problem for his perhaps a larger display is the solution for him, but it's not an "aspect ratio issue" which would only increase the width of the iPhone by 0.14" if they maintained 3.5" on the diagonal.
Well, it's good to see my finger method of calculation was pretty close; only off by a 0.14". I think that MAY be enough to make a bit of a difference, but not all that much. Smaller screens will make no difference at all, really.
I was hoping that Apple would have squeaked a bit larger screen in the phone this time.
Android still hasn't gotten it right in v2.2. I do wish they'd offer a rich System Notification service. I find WebOS' implementation to be excellent, hopefully they are using their recent hire of the WebOS guy to work on that, I just hope I don't have to wait until iOS v5.0 to get it.
I thought that Apple would have done something on notifications this time. I was slightly disappointed there. Maybe that guy will work on it. Possibly, we may see something before next year.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
I don't think that'd really work. I'd love to have hdmi on my iPhone to show off a media portfolio, but I get annoyed enough when a call interrupts my song while I'm on the road listening to my iPhone through my car stereo. I couldn't stand for that to happen part way through a movie. Or have a text come in while watching YouTube videos.
I don't think that'd really work. I'd love to have hdmi on my iPhone to show off a media portfolio, but I get annoyed enough when a call interrupts my song while I'm on the road listening to my iPhone through my car stereo. I couldn't stand for that to happen part way through a movie. Or have a text come in while watching YouTube videos.
Turn on airplane mode.
I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.
Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" of 20/12 eyesight, which really isn't the case scenario of known human vision.
He's not actually correct on this one. I think it's a good name, and a marketting concept that will resonate with people etc, but on a purely pedantic and anal assessment he is wrong. All this talk of 20/20 vision, your average persons eyesight, perfect eyesight etc isn't a part of the equation. What Jobs was was that around 300 (Let's give him +- 10% and go for 270 - 330 ppi was "the limit" of the human retina. The limit, not the average.
Now, if you ask me the limit of human speed so far is Usain Bolt. However your average man is probably 50% slower than him over 100 meters.
So it's a great marketing term, that whilst not being 100% accurate is probably good enough to stand up to it's claims. I think this is where Apple shine. They've taken a vastly complex subject (as proven by the pseudo-scientific back and forth arguments and discussions) and distilled it into a non technical message - 4 times more detail than your existing phone, so good your eyes can't pick fault. Compare that to some of the android manufacturers who still blind the public with science and specs. OK, Apple use terms like IPS etc during their keynotes (audience of geeks) but when it get's to the high street, that's all gone and they sell on the features, not the specs. We all know what OLED is, jonny highstreet might not, and might not care to. Meanwhile everyone understands Apple's message.
That's come across a bit fanboy, but I think it's true. There is a lot of fair discussion to be made on the relative merits of LCD/OLED, contrast ratios, colour reproduction and all that, but 95% of consumers don't care about the how, just about the what. And Apple tends to distill and clarify the message in ways everyone else don't understand is even important yet.
Tech kit eh? Reviewed by geeks, but bought by your dad.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
I think the content creators should adapt to these mobile times we live in and author more fluid layouts.
You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.
We aren't nearly as sensitive to resolution with moving images as we are with still images.
You're not going to hold the phone at the ideal distance for resolution. You're going to hold it at the most comfortable distance.
I 100% agree, but I think that games and text will be stunning on such a high res definition, even on a small screen. About games, the only way to "hide pixels" is to use an anti alias filter. This filter is not easy to be handled by a graphic chip but an antialiased polygon looks ten times better than a non antialiased one. The only alternative way to "hide pixels" is to increase the resolution, and this is what the so called "retina" display does.
This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.
Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.
People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
I think you are so incredibly right that I think Apple must be building an *app* named 'Apple TV' and going to do exactly what you propose.
More in general, I think next holiday everything should be in place for Apple to start offering Apple TV not as a device, but as a concept. The hardware you still need to buy then should depend on the hardware you already have in place.
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
Actually, all the older iPhones and Touch, as well as any classic iPod beat the PPI of the iPad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sity#Apple_Inc.
Yeah. What a strange quote. The iPad has the worst PPI of any iOS device Apple sells. According to that list, it at least matches or beats most of Apple's laptop or desktop displays, but I don't think that's what they meant.
I think you are so incredibly right that I think Apple must be building an app named 'Apple TV' and going to do exactly what you propose.
More in general, I think next holiday everything should be in place for Apple to start offering Apple TV not as a device, but as a concept. The hardware you still need to buy then should depend on the hardware you already have in place.
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
An app called Apple TV: I LOVE IT AND I WANT IT!!!
Cool, so all my HD apps on my iPad should work on the new iPhone 4, right?
Even if they did, you'd need cosmetic surgery to sharpen your finger tips to be 10x more precise.
Touch interfaces are defined by the size of the touchable areas. The resolution (dpi) of the device doesn't matter, you'll end up with a sharper interface with a higher dpi.
A bigger display allows you to have more touchable area on the screen, and thus more interface elements.
When displaying iPhone apps on the iPad, the touch areas become a lot larger (in 2x zoom mode), which is okay, even if it makes the application appear a bit like a Duplo version. Hopefully iOS 4 apps will be allows to scale to the iPad display as well in zoomed mode
You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.
I think it will make a huge difference. We'll see when the new iPhone debuts.
Given everything Apple is all about, I think the iPhone deserves to have the best screen in the industry.
According to Dr. Soneira's calculations everyone can hold the iPhone 3GS 3 feet away from their eyes before they can no longer differentiate a pixel.
.
I don't think his report talked about anything that everybody can see. I think he was talking about the effects upon normal vision.
Hopefully we'll just see every app becoming a universal app, smart enough to format properly for any device.
Well, there are many times i'm reading on the iPhone. Some web pages and PDF files (etc) cram too many characters per line to read at all, even in landscape mode. So, I end up zooming to the point where I have to scroll back and forth to read each line. If the screen were the same width but came in a 16:9 ratio, I would be more likely to be able to read a full line in landscape mode without zooming/panning.
The iPhone is 16:10, IIRC. It is very close to a regular screen, with a little more height in landscape.
As the iPhone's screen is more precise it should even be more useable.
Is the new screen more precise? Is the digitizer different?
Depending on if you already have an iMac, a MacBook, a Mac mini, an iPad or an iPhone or no TV and Apple hardware at all, you might be buying an AirPort device with or without some memory, a dock, a video adapter, an alleged track pad, or the alleged complete Apple TV set.
That is way too complex for Apple's target demographic.
Apple sells you one device with one i/o that hooks up one way. Their new target customers are the people who constantly had 12:00 flashing on their VCR.
The iPhone is 16:10, IIRC. It is very close to a regular screen, with a little more height in landscape.
16:10? are u sure... I think 16:10 is even larger than a 16:9... 1900 x 1200 is a 16:10 ration... and downscaling it should get a 320 x 202 but I'm not 100% sure...
16:10? are u sure... I think 16:10 is even larger than a 16:9... 1900 x 1200 is a 16:10 ration... and downscaling it should get a 320 x 202 but I'm not 100% sure...
Somebody check me out. I did the arithmetic, and I come up with 16:10.667
And for a lot of people, the 3GS is a retina display, eh?
For AVERAGE people, it is not. For average people, the iPhone 4 does have pixels smaller than the eye can resolve.
See the difference?