I worked in retail as a college job back when [color] inkjet printers came about. The baseline was 300 DPI then came 600 DPI, which was a noticeable improvement for black text and shading. Then came 1,200, 2,400, 4,800, and even 9,600. There may have been a few that advertised DPI ratings even higher than that. Assuming a small drop size and accurate placement, there was virtually no improvement beyond 600 DPI. Back in this time period, HP's color inkjets topped out at 600 DPI while Epson had introduced the Stylus Color with 1,200 DPI and a smaller drop size. As a salesperson, it was tough explaining to customers why they should buy the 600 DPI HP over the 1,200 DPI Epson - they simply couldn't understand how 1,200 was not better than 600. However, when I would print identical sample images, it was clear there was no advantage to the Epson and that the 600 DPI image from the HP looked superior. Worst was a now-defunct brand called DEC that claimed 4,800 DPI and looked worse than a 300 DPI printer from HP. "It's not always about how many of something you have - it's sometimes about how you use them."
No reasonable person can say the 4.7 iPhone6 is huge.
NEXT.
It's too big for me to be carrying it around in my pocket especially if I want to put a military grade protective case on it. Maybe its fine for people who carry purses and backpacks everywhere.
It may be more efficient to just present the movie in 4K resolution than to downsample?
And also, it's possible that airplay will display 4K so you'd want true 4K mirrored on a 4K monitor.
Remember, iPhones are getting more powerful and can do a lot more. It will eventually become a "PC".
I have a friend who only uses his Samsung S6 for everything - productivity, social, movies, and work. He connects it to his 4K monitor and does all his work on his phone. He said he doesn't miss his laptop anymore.
I'm glad I'm on the S cycle, but I'm going to see if i can skip the 6 altogether. Such an ugly and huge for it's screen size device.
I was at Verizon with a friend yesterday and the Samsung and most other phones looked better, even the 5C
I'm really surprised by this. I care and think a lot about aesthetics, and to me the iPhone 6 is one of the best-looking phones ever made, maybe the best. I find its size a little awkward to use, but most of that is the fault of some choices in the OS. I love the thinness, the curved edges, the shiny rounded screen glass and how it runs into the matte aluminum of the case at the edge. The protruding camera doesn't even bother me.
A close second for me was the 4/4S. My least-favorite design was the 5S, mostly due to the shiny "chamfered edge" which I think made it look cheap.
It's interesting to be reminded once in a while how subjective these kinds of opinions are.
I've had my iPhone 6 (4.7") for the better part of a year now and I still long for the ease of one-handed use I enjoyed with my 4s for a couple of years before getting the 6. I never kept my 4s in a case and I never dropped it. The 6 I've dropped several times. I have other devices with larger displays when I need such a thing. Apple really needs make the full line up-- small, medium, AND large! Also- insane pixel densities on phones is the new megapixel race. Can I see the pixels on my 326dpi display? Sure, if I put it right in front of my face, but I'll take Apple's balanced approach to design over the d**k compensation nonsense of the competitors any day of the week and twice on Sunday!
Apple is reportedly testing the notion of reverting to G/G (glass-to-glass) touch panels for 2016 iPhone models, out of alleged frustration with obstacles presented by the in-cell technology the company has been using in recent years.
Panel suppliers have started sending fully-laminated G/G samples, and glassmakers Corning and Asahi Glass have sent samples of their own, DigiTimes said on Wednesday. Apple is allegedly sticking with the in-cell format for its 2015 iPhones, which should be announced at the company's Sept. 9 event.
Although in-cell technology allows for thinner displays, it's also allegedly creating production bottlenecks for Apple that are impeding new features and higher resolutions. The iPhone 6 Plus sports a 1920x1080-resolution display, but some competing smartphones are already at quad HD resolution (2560x1440), and the future may be 4K.
The publication claims that Apple's hope is a slimmed-down version of G/G could replace in-cell panels without adding bulk. It could also potentially enable bezel-free phones, since in-cell panels reportedly have problems with sensitivity around their edges.
That's the dumbest fracking thing I'Ve ever heard. Competing phones have crap battery life and slow screens... BECAUSE they have those idiot overwrought screens. That's the main reason why Apple has kept its resolution lower, not that idiotic explanation.
They may have production issue, but that's not the reason they haven't made the screen bigger.
Also, 4 fracking K on a 5.3 inch phone... Good grief!!! Nobody should be doing this unless they have so much GPU power and battery life they don'T know what to do with it! Basically, do it for kicks when it has no impact on device's other specs.
No reasonable person can say the 4.7 iPhone6 is huge.
NEXT.
It's Apple. You expect a premium product all around, great design included. And yeah, for the size of the screen, it is humongous. Whereas other device makers made the top, bottom as sides smaller, Apple merely blew up their standard phone. It's not just unnecessarily big, but looks ridiculous to boot.
Maybe I'll upgrade my 5s, I don't know yet, but I expect far better from Apple.
I do too. The 5C might not have been as sexy or high-end looking as the 5S, 6, and 6+ but it is so much nicer to hold, and doesn't need a case. The aluminum case is way too slippery, and the larger devices make it harder to grip with one hand. I use the leather case on my 6. Have used the 6 since December and I already want to go back to the 5s. If it weren't for the specs and the camera, i probably would have returned it back then after a month. I gave the larger screen the good old college try and honest effort, but i still prefer the ergonomics and the single-handed use of the 4" screens. I wanted the 5C when it came out, but considering it was the previous year's model in a new case, and no touch ID, I disappointedly decided to get the 5s.
I'm really surprised by this. I care and think a lot about aesthetics, and to me the iPhone 6 is one of the best-looking phones ever made, maybe the best. I find its size a little awkward to use, but most of that is the fault of some choices in the OS. I love the thinness, the curved edges, the shiny rounded screen glass and how it runs into the matte aluminum of the case at the edge. The protruding camera doesn't even bother me.
A close second for me was the 4/4S. My least-favorite design was the 5S, mostly due to the shiny "chamfered edge" which I think made it look cheap.
It's interesting to be reminded once in a while how subjective these kinds of opinions are.
I think the original first generation is the most beautiful design-wise. Then the 4 and the 5. All are such beautiful and elegant devices. The 6 to looks like something from BigLots or a 99cent store. More so now than last year. It's design is not holding up well.
I think the original first generation is the most beautiful design-wise. Then the 4 and the 5. All are such beautiful and elegant devices. The 6 to looks like something from BigLots or a 99cent store. More so now than last year. It's design is not holding up well.
They all had their ugly features. Gen 1 had the awful black plastic window on the back (necessary but huge). The 3G (some people) didn't like the all plastic or the chrome ring around the display. Personally, I thought it was the nicest design to hold and operate (the 5C being a close 2nd). I hated the 4 because of the glass back (i'm an Anti-case person, but the later phones forced my hand). The 5 and 5s i hated because of the metal back and plastic-feeling windows on the back; the chamfered edged also i felt was too sharp. The 6 and 6+ are so slippery without a case. they look like the Gen 1 but slimmer. In all, I personally think the most "Apple" looking phone was the iPhone 4/4s. It's a classic. I hated the glass back and sharper edges but it is the nicest looking of all the design, 2nd place would be the Gen 1. But, my personal favorite will always be the 3G/GS because of how it felt in the hand. The perfect size and shape for me.
What's that say about the force touch rumours? Force touch is a very bad idea anyway. The Nokia N97 had it and after a while it made the experience awful.
I would press an icon on the bottom of the screen and icons at the top were selected. Needless to say that's when I changed over to the iPhone.
And Huawei just announced a new phone with...wait for it..."force touch". Can accompany get any more pathetic ripping off another company's marketing term? Force touch is not an industry-standard term it's a marketing term from Apple. The fact that Huawei would rip off that name is absolutely pathetic.
Force touch is a very bad idea anyway. The Nokia N97 had it and after a while it made the experience awful.
I would press an icon on the bottom of the screen and icons at the top were selected. Needless to say that's when I changed over to the iPhone.
You're absolutely insane if you think the Nokia N7 "had it", or anywhere close to the same thing, or if you think hat kind of ridiculous thing has any chance of happening in Apple's implementation. I swear, it's as if some of you believe that Apple has become so successful by pure dumb luck, if you believe your own rhetoric.
They all had their ugly features. Gen 1 had the awful black plastic window on the back (necessary but huge). The 3G (some people) didn't like the all plastic or the chrome ring around the display. Personally, I thought it was the nicest design to hold and operate (the 5C being a close 2nd). I hated the 4 because of the glass back (i'm an Anti-case person, but the later phones forced my hand). The 5 and 5s i hated because of the metal back and plastic-feeling windows on the back; the chamfered edged also i felt was too sharp. The 6 and 6+ are so slippery without a case. they look like the Gen 1 but slimmer. In all, I personally think the most "Apple" looking phone was the iPhone 4/4s. It's a classic. I hated the glass back and sharper edges but it is the nicest looking of all the design, 2nd place would be the Gen 1. But, my personal favorite will always be the 3G/GS because of how it felt in the hand. The perfect size and shape for me.
I like the 3G/GS also. I haven't disliked an Apple design until the 6. I liked the black window on the back of the original iPhone. It was understood it was necessary yet broke up the design pleasantly for me.
You're absolutely insane if you think the Nokia N7 "had it", or anywhere close to the same thing, or if you think hat kind of ridiculous thing has any chance of happening in Apple's implementation. I swear, it's as if some of you believe that Apple has become so successful by pure dumb luck, if you believe your own rhetoric.
he Nokia N97 had resistive touch. Which is basically the same thing. I didn't say that Apple would stuff it up, but I still don't like the idea of it. It's a massive over statement in saying that " people think Apple is successful by pure dumb luck" take a chill pill.
he Nokia N97 had resistive touch. Which is basically the same thing. I didn't say that Apple would stuff it up, but I still don't like the idea of it. It's a massive over statement in saying that " people think Apple is successful by pure dumb luck" take a chill pill.
I think you are mixing up "resistive" touch with "capacitive" touch, which were the two dominant types of touchscreens around the time of the N97 (2009).
Neither has anything to do with "force touch," which is a touchscreen that registers progressive finger force instead of binary force. This is new to phones.
I think you are mixing up "resistive" touch with "capacitive" touch, which were the two dominant types of touchscreens around the time of the N97 (2009).
Neither has anything to do with "force touch," which is a touchscreen that registers progressive finger force instead of binary force. This is new to phones.
esistive and force touch are almost identical in function. The only difference is force touch can tell the amount of pressure being applied. Big deal!
esistive and force touch are almost identical in function. The only difference is force touch can tell the amount of pressure being applied. Big deal!
True, in function.
And the N97 didn't have a progressive touchscreen. It had a resistive (binary) touchscreen with some form of haptic feedback. Maybe the haptic part made you think it was progressive touch.
I can't find whether Apple's Force Touch uses resistive or capacitive touchscreen technology, or something different.
R
esistive and force touch are almost identical in function. The only difference is force touch can tell the amount of pressure being applied. Big deal!
I also do. I don't know if I'm reasonable. I can be reasoned with, though, or bought off if the price is right.
Agreed. Going from 4s to 5s was skeptical, but once I held a friends I thought it was nice. Holding the 6 in one hand just feels to wide. I thought it might be a similar transition where I'd be ok with it but I can honestly say 4.7 is too big for me. I'd probably have been ok with 4.0-4.5ish.
Comments
I worked in retail as a college job back when [color] inkjet printers came about. The baseline was 300 DPI then came 600 DPI, which was a noticeable improvement for black text and shading. Then came 1,200, 2,400, 4,800, and even 9,600. There may have been a few that advertised DPI ratings even higher than that. Assuming a small drop size and accurate placement, there was virtually no improvement beyond 600 DPI. Back in this time period, HP's color inkjets topped out at 600 DPI while Epson had introduced the Stylus Color with 1,200 DPI and a smaller drop size. As a salesperson, it was tough explaining to customers why they should buy the 600 DPI HP over the 1,200 DPI Epson - they simply couldn't understand how 1,200 was not better than 600. However, when I would print identical sample images, it was clear there was no advantage to the Epson and that the 600 DPI image from the HP looked superior. Worst was a now-defunct brand called DEC that claimed 4,800 DPI and looked worse than a 300 DPI printer from HP. "It's not always about how many of something you have - it's sometimes about how you use them."
It's too big for me to be carrying it around in my pocket especially if I want to put a military grade protective case on it. Maybe its fine for people who carry purses and backpacks everywhere.
And also, it's possible that airplay will display 4K so you'd want true 4K mirrored on a 4K monitor.
Remember, iPhones are getting more powerful and can do a lot more. It will eventually become a "PC".
I have a friend who only uses his Samsung S6 for everything - productivity, social, movies, and work. He connects it to his 4K monitor and does all his work on his phone. He said he doesn't miss his laptop anymore.
I'm really surprised by this. I care and think a lot about aesthetics, and to me the iPhone 6 is one of the best-looking phones ever made, maybe the best. I find its size a little awkward to use, but most of that is the fault of some choices in the OS. I love the thinness, the curved edges, the shiny rounded screen glass and how it runs into the matte aluminum of the case at the edge. The protruding camera doesn't even bother me.
A close second for me was the 4/4S. My least-favorite design was the 5S, mostly due to the shiny "chamfered edge" which I think made it look cheap.
It's interesting to be reminded once in a while how subjective these kinds of opinions are.
I've had my iPhone 6 (4.7") for the better part of a year now and I still long for the ease of one-handed use I enjoyed with my 4s for a couple of years before getting the 6. I never kept my 4s in a case and I never dropped it. The 6 I've dropped several times. I have other devices with larger displays when I need such a thing. Apple really needs make the full line up-- small, medium, AND large! Also- insane pixel densities on phones is the new megapixel race. Can I see the pixels on my 326dpi display? Sure, if I put it right in front of my face, but I'll take Apple's balanced approach to design over the d**k compensation nonsense of the competitors any day of the week and twice on Sunday!
Apple is reportedly testing the notion of reverting to G/G (glass-to-glass) touch panels for 2016 iPhone models, out of alleged frustration with obstacles presented by the in-cell technology the company has been using in recent years.
Panel suppliers have started sending fully-laminated G/G samples, and glassmakers Corning and Asahi Glass have sent samples of their own, DigiTimes said on Wednesday. Apple is allegedly sticking with the in-cell format for its 2015 iPhones, which should be announced at the company's Sept. 9 event.
Although in-cell technology allows for thinner displays, it's also allegedly creating production bottlenecks for Apple that are impeding new features and higher resolutions. The iPhone 6 Plus sports a 1920x1080-resolution display, but some competing smartphones are already at quad HD resolution (2560x1440), and the future may be 4K.
The publication claims that Apple's hope is a slimmed-down version of G/G could replace in-cell panels without adding bulk. It could also potentially enable bezel-free phones, since in-cell panels reportedly have problems with sensitivity around their edges.
That's the dumbest fracking thing I'Ve ever heard. Competing phones have crap battery life and slow screens... BECAUSE they have those idiot overwrought screens. That's the main reason why Apple has kept its resolution lower, not that idiotic explanation.
They may have production issue, but that's not the reason they haven't made the screen bigger.
Also, 4 fracking K on a 5.3 inch phone... Good grief!!! Nobody should be doing this unless they have so much GPU power and battery life they don'T know what to do with it! Basically, do it for kicks when it has no impact on device's other specs.
So you buy smartphones based on looks? LOL.
No reasonable person can say the 4.7 iPhone6 is huge.
NEXT.
It's Apple. You expect a premium product all around, great design included. And yeah, for the size of the screen, it is humongous. Whereas other device makers made the top, bottom as sides smaller, Apple merely blew up their standard phone. It's not just unnecessarily big, but looks ridiculous to boot.
Maybe I'll upgrade my 5s, I don't know yet, but I expect far better from Apple.
I do, and I'm reasonable!
I do too. The 5C might not have been as sexy or high-end looking as the 5S, 6, and 6+ but it is so much nicer to hold, and doesn't need a case. The aluminum case is way too slippery, and the larger devices make it harder to grip with one hand. I use the leather case on my 6. Have used the 6 since December and I already want to go back to the 5s. If it weren't for the specs and the camera, i probably would have returned it back then after a month. I gave the larger screen the good old college try and honest effort, but i still prefer the ergonomics and the single-handed use of the 4" screens. I wanted the 5C when it came out, but considering it was the previous year's model in a new case, and no touch ID, I disappointedly decided to get the 5s.
I'm really surprised by this. I care and think a lot about aesthetics, and to me the iPhone 6 is one of the best-looking phones ever made, maybe the best. I find its size a little awkward to use, but most of that is the fault of some choices in the OS. I love the thinness, the curved edges, the shiny rounded screen glass and how it runs into the matte aluminum of the case at the edge. The protruding camera doesn't even bother me.
A close second for me was the 4/4S. My least-favorite design was the 5S, mostly due to the shiny "chamfered edge" which I think made it look cheap.
It's interesting to be reminded once in a while how subjective these kinds of opinions are.
I think the original first generation is the most beautiful design-wise. Then the 4 and the 5. All are such beautiful and elegant devices. The 6 to looks like something from BigLots or a 99cent store. More so now than last year. It's design is not holding up well.
I think the original first generation is the most beautiful design-wise. Then the 4 and the 5. All are such beautiful and elegant devices. The 6 to looks like something from BigLots or a 99cent store. More so now than last year. It's design is not holding up well.
They all had their ugly features. Gen 1 had the awful black plastic window on the back (necessary but huge). The 3G (some people) didn't like the all plastic or the chrome ring around the display. Personally, I thought it was the nicest design to hold and operate (the 5C being a close 2nd). I hated the 4 because of the glass back (i'm an Anti-case person, but the later phones forced my hand). The 5 and 5s i hated because of the metal back and plastic-feeling windows on the back; the chamfered edged also i felt was too sharp. The 6 and 6+ are so slippery without a case. they look like the Gen 1 but slimmer. In all, I personally think the most "Apple" looking phone was the iPhone 4/4s. It's a classic. I hated the glass back and sharper edges but it is the nicest looking of all the design, 2nd place would be the Gen 1. But, my personal favorite will always be the 3G/GS because of how it felt in the hand. The perfect size and shape for me.
Force touch is a very bad idea anyway. The Nokia N97 had it and after a while it made the experience awful.
I would press an icon on the bottom of the screen and icons at the top were selected. Needless to say that's when I changed over to the iPhone.
And Huawei just announced a new phone with...wait for it..."force touch". Can accompany get any more pathetic ripping off another company's marketing term? Force touch is not an industry-standard term it's a marketing term from Apple. The fact that Huawei would rip off that name is absolutely pathetic.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/2/9244015/huawei-mate-s-force-touch-availability-price
And Illegal.
What's that say about the force touch rumours?
Force touch is a very bad idea anyway. The Nokia N97 had it and after a while it made the experience awful.
I would press an icon on the bottom of the screen and icons at the top were selected. Needless to say that's when I changed over to the iPhone.
You're absolutely insane if you think the Nokia N7 "had it", or anywhere close to the same thing, or if you think hat kind of ridiculous thing has any chance of happening in Apple's implementation. I swear, it's as if some of you believe that Apple has become so successful by pure dumb luck, if you believe your own rhetoric.
They all had their ugly features. Gen 1 had the awful black plastic window on the back (necessary but huge). The 3G (some people) didn't like the all plastic or the chrome ring around the display. Personally, I thought it was the nicest design to hold and operate (the 5C being a close 2nd). I hated the 4 because of the glass back (i'm an Anti-case person, but the later phones forced my hand). The 5 and 5s i hated because of the metal back and plastic-feeling windows on the back; the chamfered edged also i felt was too sharp. The 6 and 6+ are so slippery without a case. they look like the Gen 1 but slimmer. In all, I personally think the most "Apple" looking phone was the iPhone 4/4s. It's a classic. I hated the glass back and sharper edges but it is the nicest looking of all the design, 2nd place would be the Gen 1. But, my personal favorite will always be the 3G/GS because of how it felt in the hand. The perfect size and shape for me.
I like the 3G/GS also. I haven't disliked an Apple design until the 6. I liked the black window on the back of the original iPhone. It was understood it was necessary yet broke up the design pleasantly for me.
I would rate them this way,
OG iPhone
iPhone 4/s
iPhone 5/s
iPhone 3g/s
iPhone 5c
iPhone 6/s
T
he Nokia N97 had resistive touch. Which is basically the same thing. I didn't say that Apple would stuff it up, but I still don't like the idea of it. It's a massive over statement in saying that " people think Apple is successful by pure dumb luck" take a chill pill.
I think you are mixing up "resistive" touch with "capacitive" touch, which were the two dominant types of touchscreens around the time of the N97 (2009).
http://www.knowyourmobile.com/products/7401/touchscreen-lowdown-capacitive-vs-resistive
Neither has anything to do with "force touch," which is a touchscreen that registers progressive finger force instead of binary force. This is new to phones.
R
esistive and force touch are almost identical in function. The only difference is force touch can tell the amount of pressure being applied. Big deal!
True, in function.
And the N97 didn't have a progressive touchscreen. It had a resistive (binary) touchscreen with some form of haptic feedback. Maybe the haptic part made you think it was progressive touch.
I can't find whether Apple's Force Touch uses resistive or capacitive touchscreen technology, or something different.
Big deal?!!!
Wtf are you smoking man?!!??!
Agreed. Going from 4s to 5s was skeptical, but once I held a friends I thought it was nice. Holding the 6 in one hand just feels to wide. I thought it might be a similar transition where I'd be ok with it but I can honestly say 4.7 is too big for me. I'd probably have been ok with 4.0-4.5ish.