Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
I did not say that they need to re-invent the phone every year or they're screwed.
I said that their stock price might dip, which I think would be a great buying opportunity.
Some of you people are really mental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Nice concern trolling and hand-wringing. Not every model needs to make the previous look obsolete. There aren't an infinite stream of meaningful hardware additions like TouchID that they can just keep adding. I have literally zero complaints about my iPhone 6, and can't think of a SINGLE thing I'd want changes. Sure, there's always gonna be the spec improvements, but stock acting as if Apple needs to completely re-invent the phone every year or else they're screwed.
4K does offer zooming, panning, cropping. That does not automatically translate into a better picture.
Agreed. You can pan, zoom and crop video in any editing software with any video standard. If you are transitioning to 4K because of that then it's time to get a new production crew. IMO, unless you're getting released in digital theaters 4K, at this point, is about future-proofing today's content.
What you don't seem to realize is that the lack of RAM is a serious problem on iOS devices especially the iPhone.
what Chicken Little nonsense. You don't even have a modern iPhone yet you claim it has a serious problem with ram? Get real. Here in the real world of real users, most people don't have a problem with its ram. Most users don't even know what ram does. They just know their iPhone does what it's supposed to and works well. Even myself as a power user rarely into an issue with Safari on it, because I don't use it like I do an iPad or desktop.
Many people are just gullible. I've held off upgrading my iPhone simply because the lack of RAM rubs me the wrong way. It is a very real case of Apple being stingy at the detriment of its customers.
The iPad is another matter altogether you really need 4GB of RAM on that machine if some of the rumors about future iOS capabilities are true. In general though I have to wonder just how people are using their iOS devices if they believe 1GB is enough, like I said elsewhere it is obvious to anybody with a background in computer science that the devices are being limited due to the lack of RAM.
You're pretty close to going into the troll bucket.
If you believe ram was the only reason to upgrade from a 4 then you've missed out on a bunch of functionality and value.
As for your comment about com sci -- I doubt you have much to do with it. I'm a professional dev and I don't feel my phone is lacking due to ram. It's not an android device. get a clue and stop making nonsense generalizations.
The same as with Snow Leopard. Everybody was crying for the lack of features, yet it was one of the greatest OS X Apple did.
If the 6s and 6s plus will be "only" about better battery, better CPU (and GPU) better camera and so on, then it will be a great improvement. I think Apple still has something up its sleeve in terms of new functionality to entice buyers, but as it stands, the iPhone 6 might be the first iPhone that I own for more than a year. It is a great phone. (plus I like my concrete cover)
Except they do. They'll tell you how many new pixels are in the new MacBook display or the improvement in graphics performances with the A8X chips. The only spec they don't seem to want to talk about is RAM in iOS devices.
They never advertise iOS clock speeds, and I have no idea what mine operate at.
There are a significant number of people that upgrade every year. It is worth Apple's time, effort, and $$$ to differentiate the "S" models to the best extent they can.
I actually don't believe that. Phone nerds upgrade annually, most normal people in the U.S. don't, and upgrade according to their two year carrier plan or longer.
plist, xml and JSON are all used for different purposes and are not necessarily interchangeable in all circumstances. The biggest advantage of XML is not the human readability but instead the ubiquitous compatibility of it. XML parsing is universally supported. Plists are generally used for UNIX-like app configuration parameters when first launched. Not a very good format for data interchange communications. JSON is most useful for request response communication and handling errors within the communication. Similar to XML but more specialized. JSON doesn't keep the requests in order, is only used in http or tcp protocols and does not nest key pairs like XML. In my opinion XML is an excellent data format for general purposes which is probably why it is so widely used.
JSON can nest k/v pairs just fine, it's a great way for organizing data in compact, OO format. It has a different purpose than xml, which as you say is best suited for interchange and document description.
Even once it is, 1080 is probably "retina level" at the kinds of viewing distances most people watch a 50 inch TV from. So if you add more content, it still wouldn't matter.
Broadcast HD was grafted onto the older NTSC broadcast standard. It was a way to simulcast both SD and HD in away that would not require expensive equipment upgrades.
The result though is today the quality of broadcast HD is mediocre at best.
A switch to UHD would require expensive equipment and infrastructure upgrades that would radically improve quality, so it could be argued a properly implementation of UHD (in contrast to what we have today) would be a noticeable improvement in quality.
Broadcast television ratings are on a steep decline, the investment in UHD isn't likely to turn that around.
4K capture is what is important here. Whether you view it in 4K (UHD) or downsample it to HD for a tighter image, is up to you.
Obviously there is more that goes into an image than just resolution, but why not 4K? We're already dealing with sensors that can do it. It's just a matter of using the whole sensor versus a cropped area of it like they use now. Add to that H.265 (which Apple is already using for facetime) and storage space won't be as much of a concern either.
The only real benefit to sticking with HD is that they can use those extra pixels around the 2MP center crop they currently use in the 8MP sensor for doing electronic image stabilization. So you lose that unless you go to an even higher megapixel sensor or implement it in the lens like they do on the Plus model.
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
Agreed. You can pan, zoom and crop video in any editing software with any video standard. If you are transitioning to 4K because of that then it's time to get a new production crew. IMO, unless you're getting released in digital theaters 4K, at this point, is about future-proofing today's content.
While movie theatre's have 4K projectors, movie studios don't deliver 4K movies - they deliver 2K movies. Most people don't know the difference.
Producing a 4K deliverable to movie theaters is a lot more expensive, and would not likely equate to more people buying tickets for the movie.
I am use to watch ing videos in 1080p not near 720p(326ppi). Yes it is burry viewing videos at near 720p! I love the thrill of beginning the first post too! With the S6 having 14nm SoC(less power consumption by 25%); there no reason for Apple to still have it the same resolution as the iPhone 4! That like 4 years at the same screen resolution while many screens are now at least 2K and 4.7" is not even 1K!
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
I think you might have missed my point. They don't have to do anything to the pixels. Just allow the whole sensor to be used. It's already basically 4K. Maybe they increase the size of the sensor a tad to allow the .3 megapixels needed for true UHD.
Like i said, you lose the electronic image stabilization, but just make it optical anyway. Put it in the lens like the Plus model.
I think you might have missed my point. They don't have to do anything to the pixels. Just allow the whole sensor to be used. It's already basically 4K. Maybe they increase the size of the sensor a tad to allow the .3 megapixels needed for true UHD.
Like i said, you lose the electronic image stabilization, but just make it optical anyway. Put it in the lens like the Plus model.
Yup.
I see what you are saying though its doesn't quite work that way either. Really you'd want double or triple the number of pixels needed to create a 4K image. Depending on the sensor design not all of the photo-sites are used for picture.
A lot of information is lost in the optical low bypass filter, debayering, and A/D process, so you need to start out with much more than you end up with.
I am use to watch ing videos in 1080p not near 720p(326ppi). Yes it is burry viewing videos at near 720p! I love the thrill of beginning the first post too! With the S6 having 14nm SoC(less power consumption by 25%); there no reason for Apple to still have it the same resolution as the iPhone 4! That like 4 years at the same screen resolution while many screens are now at least 2K and 4.7" is not even 1K!
I take it you missed all the comments where we discussed how pointless it is to have a resolution on your phone that exceeds your eyes' ability to notice a difference? I'm guessing you are dreaming of a day when we have phones with 8K displays.
I think 4k on a phone screen would be ridiculous. However I absolutely want my next iPhone to capture in 4k source. Not so much for the resolution, but "4k" will become shorthand for a technology generation that includes wide gamut, more color depth, and actual HDR. That's what I think will make a bigger difference in realism, and would be very natural for Apple strengths.
While movie theatre's have 4K projectors, movie studios don't deliver 4K movies - they deliver 2K movies. Most people don't know the difference.
Producing a 4K deliverable to movie theaters is a lot more expensive, and would not likely equate to more people buying tickets for the movie.
I'd like to see a reference, please, such as this one. Second, I don't understand how this reply has anything to do with what I said or what I quoted you as saying which dealt with picture size and the flexibility to fix basic things like shot composition in post.
Comments
Reading comprehension people. Read what's in front of you, not in your imaginations.
I did not say that they need to re-invent the phone every year or they're screwed.
I said that their stock price might dip, which I think would be a great buying opportunity.
Some of you people are really mental.
Quote:
Nice concern trolling and hand-wringing. Not every model needs to make the previous look obsolete. There aren't an infinite stream of meaningful hardware additions like TouchID that they can just keep adding. I have literally zero complaints about my iPhone 6, and can't think of a SINGLE thing I'd want changes. Sure, there's always gonna be the spec improvements, but stock acting as if Apple needs to completely re-invent the phone every year or else they're screwed.
4K does offer zooming, panning, cropping. That does not automatically translate into a better picture.
Agreed. You can pan, zoom and crop video in any editing software with any video standard. If you are transitioning to 4K because of that then it's time to get a new production crew. IMO, unless you're getting released in digital theaters 4K, at this point, is about future-proofing today's content.
Soooo ... who get's the 4S this year??
I got one :-)
what Chicken Little nonsense. You don't even have a modern iPhone yet you claim it has a serious problem with ram? Get real. Here in the real world of real users, most people don't have a problem with its ram. Most users don't even know what ram does. They just know their iPhone does what it's supposed to and works well. Even myself as a power user rarely into an issue with Safari on it, because I don't use it like I do an iPad or desktop.
You're pretty close to going into the troll bucket.
If you believe ram was the only reason to upgrade from a 4 then you've missed out on a bunch of functionality and value.
As for your comment about com sci -- I doubt you have much to do with it. I'm a professional dev and I don't feel my phone is lacking due to ram. It's not an android device. get a clue and stop making nonsense generalizations.
If the 6s and 6s plus will be "only" about better battery, better CPU (and GPU) better camera and so on, then it will be a great improvement. I think Apple still has something up its sleeve in terms of new functionality to entice buyers, but as it stands, the iPhone 6 might be the first iPhone that I own for more than a year. It is a great phone. (plus I like my concrete cover)
They never advertise iOS clock speeds, and I have no idea what mine operate at.
I actually don't believe that. Phone nerds upgrade annually, most normal people in the U.S. don't, and upgrade according to their two year carrier plan or longer.
We do not represent normal.
JSON can nest k/v pairs just fine, it's a great way for organizing data in compact, OO format. It has a different purpose than xml, which as you say is best suited for interchange and document description.
Even once it is, 1080 is probably "retina level" at the kinds of viewing distances most people watch a 50 inch TV from. So if you add more content, it still wouldn't matter.
Broadcast HD was grafted onto the older NTSC broadcast standard. It was a way to simulcast both SD and HD in away that would not require expensive equipment upgrades.
The result though is today the quality of broadcast HD is mediocre at best.
A switch to UHD would require expensive equipment and infrastructure upgrades that would radically improve quality, so it could be argued a properly implementation of UHD (in contrast to what we have today) would be a noticeable improvement in quality.
Broadcast television ratings are on a steep decline, the investment in UHD isn't likely to turn that around.
4K capture is what is important here. Whether you view it in 4K (UHD) or downsample it to HD for a tighter image, is up to you.
Obviously there is more that goes into an image than just resolution, but why not 4K? We're already dealing with sensors that can do it. It's just a matter of using the whole sensor versus a cropped area of it like they use now. Add to that H.265 (which Apple is already using for facetime) and storage space won't be as much of a concern either.
The only real benefit to sticking with HD is that they can use those extra pixels around the 2MP center crop they currently use in the 8MP sensor for doing electronic image stabilization. So you lose that unless you go to an even higher megapixel sensor or implement it in the lens like they do on the Plus model.
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
Speak for yourself. I'll watch 6 feet from my TV for iTunes and blu-ray @1080p.
This is exactly my point the vast majority of content is 1080P not 4K.
Agreed. You can pan, zoom and crop video in any editing software with any video standard. If you are transitioning to 4K because of that then it's time to get a new production crew. IMO, unless you're getting released in digital theaters 4K, at this point, is about future-proofing today's content.
While movie theatre's have 4K projectors, movie studios don't deliver 4K movies - they deliver 2K movies. Most people don't know the difference.
Producing a 4K deliverable to movie theaters is a lot more expensive, and would not likely equate to more people buying tickets for the movie.
I am use to watch ing videos in 1080p not near 720p(326ppi). Yes it is burry viewing videos at near 720p! I love the thrill of beginning the first post too! With the S6 having 14nm SoC(less power consumption by 25%); there no reason for Apple to still have it the same resolution as the iPhone 4! That like 4 years at the same screen resolution while many screens are now at least 2K and 4.7" is not even 1K!
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
UHD/4K is just a hair over 8 megapixels...
There are always trade offs in one way or another. To increase the pixel count by 4 times either requires making a larger sensor or making the pixels smaller. Smaller pixels compromise low light capability and make A/D processing somewhat more complex.
Then there is the question is going through all of that worth the result in the end?
I think you might have missed my point. They don't have to do anything to the pixels. Just allow the whole sensor to be used. It's already basically 4K. Maybe they increase the size of the sensor a tad to allow the .3 megapixels needed for true UHD.
Like i said, you lose the electronic image stabilization, but just make it optical anyway. Put it in the lens like the Plus model.
UHD/4K is just a hair over 8 megapixels...
Yup.
I think you might have missed my point. They don't have to do anything to the pixels. Just allow the whole sensor to be used. It's already basically 4K. Maybe they increase the size of the sensor a tad to allow the .3 megapixels needed for true UHD.
Like i said, you lose the electronic image stabilization, but just make it optical anyway. Put it in the lens like the Plus model.
Yup.
I see what you are saying though its doesn't quite work that way either. Really you'd want double or triple the number of pixels needed to create a 4K image. Depending on the sensor design not all of the photo-sites are used for picture.
A lot of information is lost in the optical low bypass filter, debayering, and A/D process, so you need to start out with much more than you end up with.
I am use to watch ing videos in 1080p not near 720p(326ppi). Yes it is burry viewing videos at near 720p! I love the thrill of beginning the first post too! With the S6 having 14nm SoC(less power consumption by 25%); there no reason for Apple to still have it the same resolution as the iPhone 4! That like 4 years at the same screen resolution while many screens are now at least 2K and 4.7" is not even 1K!
I take it you missed all the comments where we discussed how pointless it is to have a resolution on your phone that exceeds your eyes' ability to notice a difference? I'm guessing you are dreaming of a day when we have phones with 8K displays.
While movie theatre's have 4K projectors, movie studios don't deliver 4K movies - they deliver 2K movies. Most people don't know the difference.
Producing a 4K deliverable to movie theaters is a lot more expensive, and would not likely equate to more people buying tickets for the movie.
I'd like to see a reference, please, such as this one. Second, I don't understand how this reply has anything to do with what I said or what I quoted you as saying which dealt with picture size and the flexibility to fix basic things like shot composition in post.