I'm no expert in what to look for in magnified screens, but it looks to me like the "Galaxy Note" is the best, with the iPhone coming in second.
Which technology is in the upper left-hand corner? It looks better than both the Galaxy S2 and the iPhone. Which phone is the Galaxy Note?
Indeed, except if it was the same picture used in the comparison why is it all green instead of white for the Galaxy Note?
Also, it's not really green, unless there's some ultra-high-res texture it's trying to display from the original image... you can see a kind of "crochet" patterning to the "green".
Don't get me wrong, I like the bigger (Super, Duper, Whatever) AMOLED screens for sheer impact from what little I've played around with it. But in the long run and for value of the device, I'll stick to iPhone for now. How good or bad the AMOLED is in the long run, I may never know.
Yea, Samsung is behind of at least 25% of iPhone parts. Samsung may also manufacture an unknown share of other 50% of iPhone parts which probably include processor and some LCDs and touchscreens and the bigger share of LCD shipments apparently come from LG.
So while iPhone software comes from Apple, the electronics are largely Korean.
At some point Apple will have to follow the trend (latest Super AMOLED Samsung, Moto, Nokia phones) and move to AMOLED display technology. The Galaxy S3 expected to use Super AMOLED+ HD displays.
Yea, Samsung is behind of at least 25% of iPhone parts. Samsung may also manufacture an unknown share of other 50% of iPhone parts which probably include processor and some LCDs and touchscreens and the bigger share of LCD shipments apparently come from LG.
So while iPhone software comes from Apple, the electronics are largely Korean.
Samsung can not simply stop shipping to Apple. Even if their contract allows it (which isn't likely), their shareholders would revolt and file a class action suit against the management.
Furthermore, how do you know that Apple doesn't have a backup plan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99
At some point Apple will have to follow the trend (latest Super AMOLED Samsung, Moto, Nokia phones) and move to AMOLED display technology. The Galaxy S3 expected to use Super AMOLED+ HD displays.
LCD is running out of steam and soon it will be old tech.
Whether that's true or not, it's meaningless. Apple doesn't have to use LCD. They don't have to use AMOLED. They can use whatever they want. At any given stage of development, Apple chooses the components that best fit their needs and which offer the best balance of performance and cost. If that balance switches from LCD to AMOLED, then nothing at all stops Apple from making the switch.
Of course, the fact that Apple can shell out a few billion dollars for advance purchases and preferred availability might make that very uncomfortable for other phone manufacturers if it happens.
Whether that's true or not, it's meaningless. Apple doesn't have to use LCD. They don't have to use AMOLED. They can use whatever they want. At any given stage of development, Apple chooses the components that best fit their needs and which offer the best balance of performance and cost. If that balance switches from LCD to AMOLED, then nothing at all stops Apple from making the switch.
The fact that mercury99 quotes Engadget as the source of his opinion pretty much summed it up for me.
Seriously, sites like Engadget and Gizmodo should change their name to 'Technology Orgasm Blog'.
Easily, show black text on a white background on an Amoled pentile display and compare it to the IPS LCD retina display of an iPhone.
The difference is huge!
Now the question is, do I spend more time looking at completely black images or looking at screens of text?
PenTile SUCKS at least to my eyes.
Now, Super AMOLED "Plus" is not like PenTile displays. No fuzzy text. It's probably the king of display tech now.
Note that the comparison of the screens in this thread is worthless because it appears the iPhone 4 screen is significantly smaller than the other three. Thus, how can you compare them, of course smaller will look sharper.
hill60 you mentioned the text vs. background. Interesting you mentioned that...wouldn't it be cool if all phones (Android, iPhone, etc) had a "night mode". I know some apps do on both but it would be cool system-wide....if it was just as easy as Cmd-Shift-Control-8 on MacOS X. And for proper citation, I have to give credit to Tallest Skil I believe for pointing that cool trick out last week! Try it!
That 2,000,000 : 1 on your TV is dynamic contrast ratio, which is a completely useless spec. TV manufacturers use it to fool customers.
However, iPhone's 800:1 and Super AMOLED's 100,000:1 are both values for static contrast ratios. And the difference is clearly visible.
Anything below about .2 cd/m2 will look pretty damn black on any screen . I can't find a verifiable number for the maximum brightness of the iphone or any data on its contrast stability at reduced brightness levels. Anyway measuring the quality of a display by contrast ratio is just manufacturer kool-aid. You can have good or bad displays and it's not limited to which has the higher contrast ratio. If one has higher contrast but crushes the shadow detail or uses too much sharpening to achieve this, I don't really see this as a positive thing. You really need to examine the display for what it is whether it's for a desktop, laptop, phone, or tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
You're right it gets to a point where the difference becomes less noticeable. How many people can really tell the difference between .1 cd/m2 and .01 especially with excess ambient lighting. Go ahead and turn off your television or display. That is about as black as it's going to get. Just like the ghz wars with processors, and the megapixel race with digital cameras, manufacturers will have to find a better way to compare their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Using that same logic, to label the pixel density or color accuracy as worst is "extremely misleading at best" as well.
What that site doesnt know is OLED's inherent nature of color reproduction produces in excess of NTSC's standard broadcast levels.
Most LCD's only product at max around 82% of the color gamut of a NTSC color gamut.
AMOLED's produce 100% of the NTSC color gamut.
That site has absolutely NO credibility nor does it have any documented scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
The picture in the comparison is that of the OLD Pentile display and not the NEW Pentile display.
LCD displays have been trending towards wider gamuts for some time. One of the issues is how that is controlled. If it's not controlled well, you just end up with overly saturated colors which has been a complaint on wider gamut displays in the past (those that significantly exceed an srgb-ish standard although lcds never matched up with srgb exactly as it's a much older standard dating back to the 90s).
The point being that a wider gamut display on a consumer device isn't necessarily a feature. It's kind of becoming the norm, but they still don't integrate perfectly.
This is Appleinsider after all. So specs only matter when the iPhone is beating out Android. If the iPhone isn't beating it, then its not relevant because obviously it's bad for the user experience. People should bookmark the comments here on NFC and come back to them when the next iPhone has an NFC chip in it. And it's funny how we measure the metrics too. People will argue on and on about pixel density and pooh-pooh things that really matter to real-life users: like price. In fact, most here will go so far as to mock users who are actually concerned about price. Somehow the price to play is not part of the "user experience" for a lot of fanboys (to be distinguished from real life users who have real limitations on disposable income).
Here's my prediction, 99% of users won't care about whether any phone has a pentile matrix. Three generations of iPhones sold before the Retina display came along. A whackload of Android phones have sold with worse displays after the iPhone 4 has come along. The 3GS is selling by the boatload right now, without a Retina display. And there have been millions of sales of Android devices with pentile displays sold. Individual consumers don't care about subpixels. They look at the screens in the store and decide if it's worthwhile. They look at the screen as part of a whole host of other requirements they have (not in the least is the cost committment).
It's nice that fanboys get something to argue about....gotta feed the hyenas. In reality, nobody but fanboys (on both sides) care about specs (though it is laughably ironic that iPhone fans are starting to argue about specs like Android fans have for the longest time). This phone will still get some nice sales (even if it will never sell out any individual iPhone model). Heck, it probably won't beat out other Android phones in sales (almost guaranteed actually). And that's still not a big deal. Because that's not the point of the Nexus devices. The purpose of the Nexus devices is simple. Show OEMs the direction technology is heading. And provide developers a tool to give them a head start to on developing apps for hardware that will be standard in 6 months to a year from now. There's going to be no other Android 4.0 phones for at least another 3-6 months. This is lead time for OEMs and developers to develop hardware that takes advantage of the changes in ICS and for developers to optimize existing apps to run on said hardware.
This is Appleinsider after all. So specs only matter when the iPhone is beating out Android. If the iPhone isn't beating it, then its not relevant because obviously it's bad for the user experience.
Since no Android-based smartphone brand has even come close to beating the iPhone brand in unit sales I guess specs matter. But really they only matter in terms of the overall user experience. I know you're nonplussed by the non-plussed Super AMOLED displays but know they do offer a worse user experience than Super AMOLED+.
Quote:
Here's my prediction, 99% of users won't care about whether any phone has a pentile matrix. Three generations of iPhones sold before the Retina display came along. A whackload of Android phones have sold with worse displays after the iPhone 4 has come along. The 3GS is selling by the boatload right now, without a Retina display. And there have been millions of sales of Android devices with pentile displays sold. Individual consumers don't care about subpixels. They look at the screens in the store and decide if it's worthwhile. They look at the screen as part of a whole host of other requirements they have (not in the least is the cost committment).
Sure, you're saying customers go for the user experience, not raw specs. That's the argument that you seem to be disagree with and now agree with.
The problem with user experiences is that you're okay with what you typically OK with what you have until you have something better. For those going from a less device then the 3GS or Galaxy Nexus displays maybe perfectly adequate — or even great — but for those that have experienced better going back to an inferior tech isn't likely a desirable option.
Major hypocrites here. When Apple does it, it's fine. When the compeittors do it, they are the worst thing in the world.
Let Android release Siri in beta....
1) What hypocrites? I recall many complaints by regular posters here over Apple putting a TN panel over IPS in the iPod Touch, even though it was a Retina Display.
2) What does Siri in beta have to do with with the flagship Android phone using a worse display their competitors?
Since no Android-based smartphone brand has even come close to beating the iPhone brand in unit sales I guess specs matter.
What? Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But really they only matter in terms of the overall user experience. I know you're nonplussed by the non-plussed Super AMOLED displays but know they do offer a worse user experience than Super AMOLED+.
I agree. And it would have been better if they had used a SAMOLED+ display. Personally, I think Samsung gimped the phone by doing the bare minimum possible for this year's Nexus, so that they can beat it with the SGSIII. They did the same thing on the Nexus S.
And I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. What would the other Android OEMs think if the Nexus phone came in at the most top end tech with an incredibly low price (Nexus phones are usually reasonably priced for outright pricing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Sure, you're saying customers go for the user experience, not raw specs.
Yep. And Apple and its fans are right in arguing this. It's certainly the reason we buy Apple products. But it's also the reason people buy Android products (I'll elaborate on the next point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
That's the argument that you seem to be disagree with and now agree with.
I'm being consistent (at least in my own mind). To me (and I figure most regular joes), the user experience is far more than the device or even its ecosystem. In real life, I have to worry about contracts, device pricing, carrier reliability. To the average, everyday person this is part of the user experience. Think of people who won't switch carriers for phone. Guess what. For them, the specs of a device don't matter. And while Apple's service is legendary, there's many places in the world (like India with its billion+ population) where Apple's presence and support is atrocious. And that support is certainly part of the user experience. Then add in, individual needs which define user experience. Somebody who's as blind as a bat (to use colloquialism...I don't mean it in the legal sense) might need bigger screens. For them, the iPhone could well offer a terrible user experience despite having more ppi, because they just want something that's easier to read. In that context, ppi can only get you so far. So yes, specs matter and they don't. The reality is that different specs matter to different people. This is why arguing over sub-pixel densities is just childish, when there's been no demonstrable concern from consumers about phones with pentile displays. Looking at just the Android ecosystem, have any phones with pentile displays suffered worse sales than their direct Android competitors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The problem with user experiences is that you're okay with what you typically OK with what you have until you have something better. For those going from a less device then the 3GS or Galaxy Nexus displays maybe perfectly adequate ? or even great ? but for those that have experienced better going back to an inferior tech isn't likely a desirable option.
Sure. But there's more ways than one to skin a cat. There's no guarantee that a 3GS owner (who for argument sake is not fully invested in the Apple ecosystem) goes to a phone shop is looking for the highest subpixel density to committ his dollars to. He may well decide that a bigger display is preferable. Apple offers him just one interpretation of what could be an improved user experience. Pre-existing loyalties aside, there's no way to tell what that individual would define as an improved user experience.
More broadly speaking, we all know that with or without the Retina display, the iPhone 4 would likely still have sold as close to as many phones as it did. Somehow, I highly doubt that the Retina Display was the deciding factor for the vast majority if iP4 buyers. I am willing to bet that the OS, availability of apps, the form factor and design were all much bigger factors than the display itself. I would argue that it will be the same thing with Android ICS phones going forward. Not all of them will have "Retina" displays. But it won't matter. It won't the deciding factor for most shoppers.
1) What hypocrites? I recall many complaints by regular posters here over Apple putting a TN panel over IPS in the iPod Touch, even though it was a Retina Display.
2) What does Siri in beta have to do with with the flagship Android phone using a worse display their competitors?
1.) I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about a lot of people here when it comes to specs. Oh, Retina display is so awesome, look at how many pixels. As soon as a quad core Android phone comes out, that's stupid....it's not need it, it's just a phone, etc.
2. I'm not talking about displays. I'm talking about how people say everything on apple 'just works' and everything on apple is finished, refined etc...
Oh, Retina display is so awesome, look at how many pixels. As soon as a quad core Android phone comes out, that's stupid....it's not need it, it's just a phone, etc.
1) Retina Display is awesome, but it also came with a better backlight and IPS panel. These were all important features to making it a great display.
2) The beauty of Retina Display is that you can't look and see how many pixels with the naked eye. Well, at least pretty much everyone. There is really only one more doubling Apple can take with their iPhone display before it becomes a fairly pointless endeavour that far exceeds printed text. Even now it's more important for Apple to work on color accuracy, the power efficiency, thinness and longterm reliability of the display unit.
3) Android-based devices (and the iPhone) could really use better usage times so putting in a quad-core processor and doubling the RAM each year at the risk of power efficiency so you can differentiate yourself from other Android-based vendors isn't something I look upon fondly. When did Android get GPU acceleration of the UI? That and other OS refinements should be down than simply adding HW to a spec sheet. Unfortunately they aren't as easily advertised to customers so this won't change. It's the Windows PC scenario all over again which ended up being a race to the bottom with Apple taking the lion's share of PC profits.
Retina Display is too small for me. My Galaxy S is bigger, but blurrier. Ah, just make a 4'' SuperAMOLED RETINA DISPLAY. PLEASE. YOU GUYS ARE ALREADY BUSINESS PARTNAS!
I also, I find it weird that I can now *see* the pixels on my Vibrant. Weird.
1) Retina Display is awesome, but it also came with a better backlight and IPS panel. These were all important features to making it a great display.
2) The beauty of Retina Display is that you can't look and see how many pixels with the naked eye. Well, at least pretty much everyone. There is really only one more doubling Apple can take with their iPhone display before it becomes a fairly pointless endeavour that far exceeds printed text. Even now it's more important for Apple to work on color accuracy, the power efficiency, thinness and longterm reliability of the display unit.
3) Android-based devices (and the iPhone) could really use better usage times so putting in a quad-core processor and doubling the RAM each year at the risk of power efficiency so you can differentiate yourself from other Android-based vendors isn't something I look upon fondly. When did Android get GPU acceleration of the UI? That and other OS refinements should be down than simply adding HW to a spec sheet. Unfortunately they aren't as easily advertised to customers so this won't change. It's the Windows PC scenario all over again which ended up being a race to the bottom with Apple taking the lion's share of PC profits.
I see your points. Playing Infinity Blade and stuff really shows off the beauty of Retina. Ironically, the UI/Homescreen doesn't show it off aas much. Some apps REALLY take advantge.
Comments
I'm no expert in what to look for in magnified screens, but it looks to me like the "Galaxy Note" is the best, with the iPhone coming in second.
Which technology is in the upper left-hand corner? It looks better than both the Galaxy S2 and the iPhone. Which phone is the Galaxy Note?
Indeed, except if it was the same picture used in the comparison why is it all green instead of white for the Galaxy Note?
Also, it's not really green, unless there's some ultra-high-res texture it's trying to display from the original image... you can see a kind of "crochet" patterning to the "green".
Don't get me wrong, I like the bigger (Super, Duper, Whatever) AMOLED screens for sheer impact from what little I've played around with it. But in the long run and for value of the device, I'll stick to iPhone for now. How good or bad the AMOLED is in the long run, I may never know.
Is it true that Apple's A5 chipset and their "Retina" displays were made and are manufactured by Samsung and LG ?
Two of the best features of my iPhone 4S are made by Samsung, LG? OMG....!!
"Apple relies on Samsung for chips despite patent wars" : UK Times
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/23308...-iphone-4s.htm
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...e-A5-processor
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/07...by-lg-samsung/
Yea, Samsung is behind of at least 25% of iPhone parts. Samsung may also manufacture an unknown share of other 50% of iPhone parts which probably include processor and some LCDs and touchscreens and the bigger share of LCD shipments apparently come from LG.
So while iPhone software comes from Apple, the electronics are largely Korean.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/sam...phone-4-parts/
At some point Apple will have to follow the trend (latest Super AMOLED Samsung, Moto, Nokia phones) and move to AMOLED display technology. The Galaxy S3 expected to use Super AMOLED+ HD displays.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/10/d...z-dual-core-c/
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii-4238.php
LCD is running out of steam and soon it will be old tech.
500 ppi is borderline pointless (no pun intended). Apple set the mark right regarding pixel density.
No way. Did you see the photos in the article comparing the screens?
High density can be used for many, many applications. If Apple had tech as good at this, my guess is that lots of folks would be crowing about it.
Instead, the response is "Apple's low-tech screen is 'Good Enough'". Twas ever thus.
Yea, Samsung is behind of at least 25% of iPhone parts. Samsung may also manufacture an unknown share of other 50% of iPhone parts which probably include processor and some LCDs and touchscreens and the bigger share of LCD shipments apparently come from LG.
So while iPhone software comes from Apple, the electronics are largely Korean.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/sam...phone-4-parts/
So? Who cares?
Samsung can not simply stop shipping to Apple. Even if their contract allows it (which isn't likely), their shareholders would revolt and file a class action suit against the management.
Furthermore, how do you know that Apple doesn't have a backup plan?
At some point Apple will have to follow the trend (latest Super AMOLED Samsung, Moto, Nokia phones) and move to AMOLED display technology. The Galaxy S3 expected to use Super AMOLED+ HD displays.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/10/d...z-dual-core-c/
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii-4238.php
LCD is running out of steam and soon it will be old tech.
Whether that's true or not, it's meaningless. Apple doesn't have to use LCD. They don't have to use AMOLED. They can use whatever they want. At any given stage of development, Apple chooses the components that best fit their needs and which offer the best balance of performance and cost. If that balance switches from LCD to AMOLED, then nothing at all stops Apple from making the switch.
Of course, the fact that Apple can shell out a few billion dollars for advance purchases and preferred availability might make that very uncomfortable for other phone manufacturers if it happens.
Apple chooses the components that best fit their needs and which offer the best balance of performance and cost.
I'd love it if Apple were to start a high end division. Kind of like the way Lexus is to Toyata.
These days Apple products remind me of the Camry - plenty good enough or even great - for most people.
But some of us would like more.
I don't predict that anything like that will ever happen. Apple makes as much (probably more) off its iPhones and iPads as Toyota makes off the Camry.
But we can always hope.
Or sheep.
easy on the sheep jokes...
Whether that's true or not, it's meaningless. Apple doesn't have to use LCD. They don't have to use AMOLED. They can use whatever they want. At any given stage of development, Apple chooses the components that best fit their needs and which offer the best balance of performance and cost. If that balance switches from LCD to AMOLED, then nothing at all stops Apple from making the switch.
The fact that mercury99 quotes Engadget as the source of his opinion pretty much summed it up for me.
Seriously, sites like Engadget and Gizmodo should change their name to 'Technology Orgasm Blog'.
easy on the sheep jokes...
Easy on the sheep, uh, Shep.
Easily, show black text on a white background on an Amoled pentile display and compare it to the IPS LCD retina display of an iPhone.
The difference is huge!
Now the question is, do I spend more time looking at completely black images or looking at screens of text?
PenTile SUCKS at least to my eyes.
Now, Super AMOLED "Plus" is not like PenTile displays. No fuzzy text. It's probably the king of display tech now.
Note that the comparison of the screens in this thread is worthless because it appears the iPhone 4 screen is significantly smaller than the other three. Thus, how can you compare them, of course smaller will look sharper.
hill60 you mentioned the text vs. background. Interesting you mentioned that...wouldn't it be cool if all phones (Android, iPhone, etc) had a "night mode". I know some apps do on both but it would be cool system-wide....if it was just as easy as Cmd-Shift-Control-8 on MacOS X. And for proper citation, I have to give credit to Tallest Skil I believe for pointing that cool trick out last week! Try it!
That 2,000,000 : 1 on your TV is dynamic contrast ratio, which is a completely useless spec. TV manufacturers use it to fool customers.
However, iPhone's 800:1 and Super AMOLED's 100,000:1 are both values for static contrast ratios. And the difference is clearly visible.
Anything below about .2 cd/m2 will look pretty damn black on any screen
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
You're right it gets to a point where the difference becomes less noticeable. How many people can really tell the difference between .1 cd/m2 and .01 especially with excess ambient lighting. Go ahead and turn off your television or display. That is about as black as it's going to get. Just like the ghz wars with processors, and the megapixel race with digital cameras, manufacturers will have to find a better way to compare their products.
Using that same logic, to label the pixel density or color accuracy as worst is "extremely misleading at best" as well.
What that site doesnt know is OLED's inherent nature of color reproduction produces in excess of NTSC's standard broadcast levels.
Most LCD's only product at max around 82% of the color gamut of a NTSC color gamut.
AMOLED's produce 100% of the NTSC color gamut.
That site has absolutely NO credibility nor does it have any documented scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
The picture in the comparison is that of the OLD Pentile display and not the NEW Pentile display.
LCD displays have been trending towards wider gamuts for some time. One of the issues is how that is controlled. If it's not controlled well, you just end up with overly saturated colors which has been a complaint on wider gamut displays in the past (those that significantly exceed an srgb-ish standard although lcds never matched up with srgb exactly as it's a much older standard dating back to the 90s).
The point being that a wider gamut display on a consumer device isn't necessarily a feature. It's kind of becoming the norm, but they still don't integrate perfectly.
samsung won't sell 4 million of these in the first 3 days....
What does that have to screen quality?
This is Appleinsider after all. So specs only matter when the iPhone is beating out Android. If the iPhone isn't beating it, then its not relevant because obviously it's bad for the user experience. People should bookmark the comments here on NFC and come back to them when the next iPhone has an NFC chip in it. And it's funny how we measure the metrics too. People will argue on and on about pixel density and pooh-pooh things that really matter to real-life users: like price. In fact, most here will go so far as to mock users who are actually concerned about price. Somehow the price to play is not part of the "user experience" for a lot of fanboys (to be distinguished from real life users who have real limitations on disposable income).
Here's my prediction, 99% of users won't care about whether any phone has a pentile matrix. Three generations of iPhones sold before the Retina display came along. A whackload of Android phones have sold with worse displays after the iPhone 4 has come along. The 3GS is selling by the boatload right now, without a Retina display. And there have been millions of sales of Android devices with pentile displays sold. Individual consumers don't care about subpixels. They look at the screens in the store and decide if it's worthwhile. They look at the screen as part of a whole host of other requirements they have (not in the least is the cost committment).
It's nice that fanboys get something to argue about....gotta feed the hyenas. In reality, nobody but fanboys (on both sides) care about specs (though it is laughably ironic that iPhone fans are starting to argue about specs like Android fans have for the longest time). This phone will still get some nice sales (even if it will never sell out any individual iPhone model). Heck, it probably won't beat out other Android phones in sales (almost guaranteed actually). And that's still not a big deal. Because that's not the point of the Nexus devices. The purpose of the Nexus devices is simple. Show OEMs the direction technology is heading. And provide developers a tool to give them a head start to on developing apps for hardware that will be standard in 6 months to a year from now. There's going to be no other Android 4.0 phones for at least another 3-6 months. This is lead time for OEMs and developers to develop hardware that takes advantage of the changes in ICS and for developers to optimize existing apps to run on said hardware.
Meh.
This is Appleinsider after all. So specs only matter when the iPhone is beating out Android. If the iPhone isn't beating it, then its not relevant because obviously it's bad for the user experience.
Since no Android-based smartphone brand has even come close to beating the iPhone brand in unit sales I guess specs matter. But really they only matter in terms of the overall user experience. I know you're nonplussed by the non-plussed Super AMOLED displays but know they do offer a worse user experience than Super AMOLED+.
Here's my prediction, 99% of users won't care about whether any phone has a pentile matrix. Three generations of iPhones sold before the Retina display came along. A whackload of Android phones have sold with worse displays after the iPhone 4 has come along. The 3GS is selling by the boatload right now, without a Retina display. And there have been millions of sales of Android devices with pentile displays sold. Individual consumers don't care about subpixels. They look at the screens in the store and decide if it's worthwhile. They look at the screen as part of a whole host of other requirements they have (not in the least is the cost committment).
Sure, you're saying customers go for the user experience, not raw specs. That's the argument that you seem to be disagree with and now agree with.
The problem with user experiences is that you're okay with what you typically OK with what you have until you have something better. For those going from a less device then the 3GS or Galaxy Nexus displays maybe perfectly adequate — or even great — but for those that have experienced better going back to an inferior tech isn't likely a desirable option.
Let Android release Siri in beta....
Major hypocrites here. When Apple does it, it's fine. When the compeittors do it, they are the worst thing in the world.
Let Android release Siri in beta....
1) What hypocrites? I recall many complaints by regular posters here over Apple putting a TN panel over IPS in the iPod Touch, even though it was a Retina Display.
2) What does Siri in beta have to do with with the flagship Android phone using a worse display their competitors?
Since no Android-based smartphone brand has even come close to beating the iPhone brand in unit sales I guess specs matter.
What? Why?
But really they only matter in terms of the overall user experience. I know you're nonplussed by the non-plussed Super AMOLED displays but know they do offer a worse user experience than Super AMOLED+.
I agree. And it would have been better if they had used a SAMOLED+ display. Personally, I think Samsung gimped the phone by doing the bare minimum possible for this year's Nexus, so that they can beat it with the SGSIII. They did the same thing on the Nexus S.
And I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. What would the other Android OEMs think if the Nexus phone came in at the most top end tech with an incredibly low price (Nexus phones are usually reasonably priced for outright pricing).
Sure, you're saying customers go for the user experience, not raw specs.
Yep. And Apple and its fans are right in arguing this. It's certainly the reason we buy Apple products. But it's also the reason people buy Android products (I'll elaborate on the next point).
That's the argument that you seem to be disagree with and now agree with.
I'm being consistent (at least in my own mind). To me (and I figure most regular joes), the user experience is far more than the device or even its ecosystem. In real life, I have to worry about contracts, device pricing, carrier reliability. To the average, everyday person this is part of the user experience. Think of people who won't switch carriers for phone. Guess what. For them, the specs of a device don't matter. And while Apple's service is legendary, there's many places in the world (like India with its billion+ population) where Apple's presence and support is atrocious. And that support is certainly part of the user experience. Then add in, individual needs which define user experience. Somebody who's as blind as a bat (to use colloquialism...I don't mean it in the legal sense) might need bigger screens. For them, the iPhone could well offer a terrible user experience despite having more ppi, because they just want something that's easier to read. In that context, ppi can only get you so far. So yes, specs matter and they don't. The reality is that different specs matter to different people. This is why arguing over sub-pixel densities is just childish, when there's been no demonstrable concern from consumers about phones with pentile displays. Looking at just the Android ecosystem, have any phones with pentile displays suffered worse sales than their direct Android competitors?
The problem with user experiences is that you're okay with what you typically OK with what you have until you have something better. For those going from a less device then the 3GS or Galaxy Nexus displays maybe perfectly adequate ? or even great ? but for those that have experienced better going back to an inferior tech isn't likely a desirable option.
Sure. But there's more ways than one to skin a cat. There's no guarantee that a 3GS owner (who for argument sake is not fully invested in the Apple ecosystem) goes to a phone shop is looking for the highest subpixel density to committ his dollars to. He may well decide that a bigger display is preferable. Apple offers him just one interpretation of what could be an improved user experience. Pre-existing loyalties aside, there's no way to tell what that individual would define as an improved user experience.
More broadly speaking, we all know that with or without the Retina display, the iPhone 4 would likely still have sold as close to as many phones as it did. Somehow, I highly doubt that the Retina Display was the deciding factor for the vast majority if iP4 buyers. I am willing to bet that the OS, availability of apps, the form factor and design were all much bigger factors than the display itself. I would argue that it will be the same thing with Android ICS phones going forward. Not all of them will have "Retina" displays. But it won't matter. It won't the deciding factor for most shoppers.
1) What hypocrites? I recall many complaints by regular posters here over Apple putting a TN panel over IPS in the iPod Touch, even though it was a Retina Display.
2) What does Siri in beta have to do with with the flagship Android phone using a worse display their competitors?
1.) I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about a lot of people here when it comes to specs. Oh, Retina display is so awesome, look at how many pixels. As soon as a quad core Android phone comes out, that's stupid....it's not need it, it's just a phone, etc.
2. I'm not talking about displays. I'm talking about how people say everything on apple 'just works' and everything on apple is finished, refined etc...
Ah, forget it.
Oh, Retina display is so awesome, look at how many pixels. As soon as a quad core Android phone comes out, that's stupid....it's not need it, it's just a phone, etc.
1) Retina Display is awesome, but it also came with a better backlight and IPS panel. These were all important features to making it a great display.
2) The beauty of Retina Display is that you can't look and see how many pixels with the naked eye. Well, at least pretty much everyone. There is really only one more doubling Apple can take with their iPhone display before it becomes a fairly pointless endeavour that far exceeds printed text. Even now it's more important for Apple to work on color accuracy, the power efficiency, thinness and longterm reliability of the display unit.
3) Android-based devices (and the iPhone) could really use better usage times so putting in a quad-core processor and doubling the RAM each year at the risk of power efficiency so you can differentiate yourself from other Android-based vendors isn't something I look upon fondly. When did Android get GPU acceleration of the UI? That and other OS refinements should be down than simply adding HW to a spec sheet. Unfortunately they aren't as easily advertised to customers so this won't change. It's the Windows PC scenario all over again which ended up being a race to the bottom with Apple taking the lion's share of PC profits.
I also, I find it weird that I can now *see* the pixels on my Vibrant. Weird.
1) Retina Display is awesome, but it also came with a better backlight and IPS panel. These were all important features to making it a great display.
2) The beauty of Retina Display is that you can't look and see how many pixels with the naked eye. Well, at least pretty much everyone. There is really only one more doubling Apple can take with their iPhone display before it becomes a fairly pointless endeavour that far exceeds printed text. Even now it's more important for Apple to work on color accuracy, the power efficiency, thinness and longterm reliability of the display unit.
3) Android-based devices (and the iPhone) could really use better usage times so putting in a quad-core processor and doubling the RAM each year at the risk of power efficiency so you can differentiate yourself from other Android-based vendors isn't something I look upon fondly. When did Android get GPU acceleration of the UI? That and other OS refinements should be down than simply adding HW to a spec sheet. Unfortunately they aren't as easily advertised to customers so this won't change. It's the Windows PC scenario all over again which ended up being a race to the bottom with Apple taking the lion's share of PC profits.
I see your points. Playing Infinity Blade and stuff really shows off the beauty of Retina. Ironically, the UI/Homescreen doesn't show it off aas much. Some apps REALLY take advantge.