AppleSince1976

About

Username
AppleSince1976
Joined
Visits
20
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
292
Badges
1
Posts
110

Reactions

152Like8Informative

  • Apple scrutinized for 'Find My' restrictions placed on third-party developers

    AppleSince1976AppleSince1976
    DAalseth said:
    I love the irony.
    Developers are upset that Apple is holding them to tight standards as to what they can and can't do with this feature. It's almost like they don't trust them.
    We find out about it because one of the developers violates their NDA and leaks the agreement.
    Guess Apple is right to not trust these people.
    Precisely!
    killroywatto_cobraDetnator

  • Lawsuit claims Apple 'perpetuates' iTunes gift card scams

    AppleSince1976AppleSince1976
    Rayz2016 said:

    [snip]

    There ya go: by attempting to fix one problem, I’ve created ten other problems each of which is ten times worse.  I think I’ve just written my first EU technical directive. 
    Boy, ain't dat da trufe!!!  ;)
    watto_cobra

  • Apple works to avoid screen burn-in on Apple Watches

    AppleSince1976AppleSince1976
    CloudTalkin said:
    elijahg said:
    dysamoria said:
    Which current display technologies still suffer this problem?
    OLED can. The blue pixel especially, which is why the blue pixel is twice the size of the green the older AW at least. Might be the same size on the newer ones due to improved tech.
    But for modern OLED devices to suffer burn-in these days, the act would almost have to be intentional.  Pixel-shifting (which is what this patent seems to be describing) has been a mitigating technique against image retention for some time now.  I can't think of an OLED panel user that doesn't use the technique.  Apple has been using pixel shifting on iPhones starting with the X. 

    The difference here, regarding the patent and the AW, seems to be localized pixel shifting instead of the entire screen shifting in a standard pixel shift scenario.  I think the net result of what Apple is doing increases the efficiency of pixel shifting (only shifting the necessary pixels and not the entire screen) while being less taxing on the battery.  Mind you, this is just my opinion.  
    I think you are right. It may be less perceptible, too.

     But back in 2008, When I was employed as an embedded designer of primarily motor controls, I was planning on putting an OLED display on a new controller, replacing the LED displays we usually used.

    Even back then, it was suggested that a “random walk” of the display-image be employed, to cut down on burn-in.

    So the basic idea isn’t new; but Apple’s methods might be more efficient, less noticeable, and/or more effective, than the more widely-used anti-burn-in techiques.

    My feeling is that it is easier on battery-life; by only having to recalculate a small number of pixel-positions at any one time.


    watto_cobra

  • Apple works to avoid screen burn-in on Apple Watches

    AppleSince1976AppleSince1976
    MplsP said:
    randominternetperson said:
    I appreciate the flying toaster easter egg.
    Totally - it brought back memories of After Dark!

    They should just have the watch use the same 3D effect that the iPhone does so as you change the orientation of the watch the image shifts. solves the burn-in problem and adds a cool effect

    I think that would be too compute-intensive, thus compromising battery life.

    Also, I’m not sure the “display-walk” would be random (or wide) enough to accomplish its intended purpose.
    watto_cobra

  • Apple silicon Mac documentation suggests third-party GPU support in danger

    AppleSince1976AppleSince1976
    tmay said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Mmm. I’d sort of assumed they’d be doing their own GPUs. 
    Kind of makes me wonder if Apple is even going to use PCI express in their desktop models, instead creating their own expansion bus.
    I am pretty sure they wouldn't do that, especially not right after releasing the new Mac Pro.

    No way could they get Avid on-board with a custom bus for their I/O cards, unless maybe if it was just insanely more capable than PCIe.

    Plus, isn't Thunderbolt pretty-much wedded to PCIe?
    spliff monkeywatto_cobra