[42n81]

quackadilly, on 16 June 2010 - 03:31 AM, said:

42n81, on 15 June 2010 - 05:45 AM, said:

quackadilly, on 14 June 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Brutally honest marketing campaigns... What a novel idea!

Imagine Microsoft claiming their share of the smartphone spotlight with a campaign that goes "Hey, what about us?"

Or a HP campaign that goes "Now you see it, now you don't. How's that for magical?"

Or JOO JOO's campaign: "Our tablet is just as pretty as Apple's"

Likewise . . . Apple could use the same slogan for home computing devices: "Hey, what about us?"

And with OSX, Apple could also use the slogan: "Now you see it, now you don't. How's that for magical?"

And Apple could do very similarly with the JOO JOO slogan: Maybe "Our tablet looks cool . . . yeah, it . . . it looks cool."


Every company has their fair share of the bad stuff . . . no need to get defensive.

Scenario #1

Apple fan says: "Every company has their fair share of the bad stuff"
Quackadilly's analysis: Just another insecure fanboi "defending" his cult at his leader's command.

Scenario #2

Quackadilly says: "Every company has their fair share of the bad stuff"
Quackadilly's analysis: If I said so, that's the way it is. (Did I just agree with an Apple "fanboi"?}

Pretty lame attempt at a witty response . . .


Let me show you the correct scenario:

Non Apple fanbois say: "Retina display? Marketing jargon"
Apple fanboi says: "You're just jealous, [negative stuff about non-Apple products]"
Non Apple fanbois say: [negative stuff about Apple products]
Apple fanboi says: [Random nonsense]



Have you ever tried proving your point instead of attacking everyone else who has different beliefs than you? You might see more positive responses from others.

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Anything larger than 4.5" diagonal (3.93" x 2.2") at 1280 x 720 would not have a 326 PPI pixel density. We're splitting hairs, but that's a very manageable display size given that newer designs are making use of increasing amounts of device real estate for the display. Anyhow, new smartphone designs with displays having a 326 PPI density would still only be catching up to the iPhone's specs.

Are you saying specs are valid now? Now that Apple FINALLY has some?

Expect to see more hardware comparisons in the future . . .

You agreed with my point in your previous post. Why would I continue trying to prove it?

As for positive responses, I'm not a politician, I don't need them. I'd rather get negative votes from people whose beliefs I challenge than get approval by pandering to the majority's opinion.

Your disappointment stems from my NOT trying to DISPROVE negative claims of Apple's marketing tactics. Why would I? Even you agree that everyone else does it, and while that doesn't make it right in an ideal world, some things are the way they are and in my opinion anyway, not worth trying to change someone's opinion about.

Case in point, iPhone 4's screen resolution. It is what it is and for most people iPhone 4 is going to offer one of the best displays they've ever seen.

FYI, I haven't said anything negative about anybody's product. If you feel otherwise, maybe the words you're reading are tainted by your preconceived belief that I am pro- this or anti- that.

We live in a technical world and specifications too are what they are, cold and hard. No major manufacturers would risk falsifying or embellishing laboratory verifiable fact.

Specifications, however, don't always translate into a directly proportional level of user experience. That's something we have all experienced. Marketing firms know that and use that disconnect between fact and past experience to their advantage.

As tecchies, we're "smarter" than that because we look at and understand the raw specifications, right? Know what? Firms trying to sell to tecchies know about that too and use it to their advantage.

So find the toy that best suits you, and use it to your full enjoyment until it gets obsoleted by the next greatest toy that comes along, probably within hours of unboxing your latest pride and joy.

[quackadilly]

42n81, on 16 June 2010 - 06:40 AM, said:

You agreed with my point in your previous post. Why would I continue trying to prove it?

As for positive responses, I'm not a politician, I don't need them. I'd rather get negative votes from people whose beliefs I challenge than get approval by pandering to the majority's opinion.

Your disappointment stems from my NOT trying to DISPROVE negative claims of Apple's marketing tactics. Why would I? Even you agree that everyone else does it, and while that doesn't make it right in an ideal world, some things are the way they are and in my opinion anyway, not worth trying to change someone's opinion about.

Case in point, iPhone 4's screen resolution. It is what it is and for most people iPhone 4 is going to offer one of the best displays they've ever seen.

FYI, I haven't said anything negative about anybody's product. If you feel otherwise, maybe the words you're reading are tainted by your preconceived belief that I am pro- this or anti- that.

We live in a technical world and specifications too are what they are, cold and hard. No major manufacturers would risk falsifying or embellishing laboratory verifiable fact.

Specifications, however, don't always translate into a directly proportional level of user experience. That's something we have all experienced. Marketing firms know that and use that disconnect between fact and past experience to their advantage.

As tecchies, we're "smarter" than that because we look at and understand the raw specifications, right? Know what? Firms trying to sell to tecchies know about that too and use it to their advantage.

So find the toy that best suits you, and use it to your full enjoyment until it gets obsoleted by the next greatest toy that comes along, probably within hours of unboxing your latest pride and joy.

What point was that? Was it perhaps the statement that I made about every company having it's fair share of the bad stuff?

MY disappointment does not come from your NOT trying to DISPROVE negative claims of Apple's marketing tactics. You're right. It stems from people like you that try to make everything other than the products they like look like crap.

No one is disputing that the new screen has an amazing dpi. The questionable piece of this is the BS marketing jargon. Hands down, Apple is the worst.

Right here buddy.

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Brutally honest marketing campaigns... What a novel idea!

Imagine Microsoft claiming their share of the smartphone spotlight with a campaign that goes "Hey, what about us?"

Or a HP campaign that goes "Now you see it, now you don't. How's that for magical?"

Or JOO JOO's campaign: "Our tablet is just as pretty as Apple's"

I don't think I've ever seen negative comments from you about Apple. It's always about the competitor.

Specifications might not be the sole input to user experience, but it does factor into it, and it's the Apple fanbois that ignore specs because they don't have them.





This isn't about me and you, or anyone else here on PCWorld.

This is about Apple's new (awesome) "retina" display on the iPhone and their excellent skills in the use of marketing buzz words and expressing their perceived self worth.

[42n81]

quackadilly, on 16 June 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

42n81, on 16 June 2010 - 06:40 AM, said:

You agreed with my point in your previous post. Why would I continue trying to prove it?

As for positive responses, I'm not a politician, I don't need them. I'd rather get negative votes from people whose beliefs I challenge than get approval by pandering to the majority's opinion.

Your disappointment stems from my NOT trying to DISPROVE negative claims of Apple's marketing tactics. Why would I? Even you agree that everyone else does it, and while that doesn't make it right in an ideal world, some things are the way they are and in my opinion anyway, not worth trying to change someone's opinion about.

Case in point, iPhone 4's screen resolution. It is what it is and for most people iPhone 4 is going to offer one of the best displays they've ever seen.

FYI, I haven't said anything negative about anybody's product. If you feel otherwise, maybe the words you're reading are tainted by your preconceived belief that I am pro- this or anti- that.

We live in a technical world and specifications too are what they are, cold and hard. No major manufacturers would risk falsifying or embellishing laboratory verifiable fact.

Specifications, however, don't always translate into a directly proportional level of user experience. That's something we have all experienced. Marketing firms know that and use that disconnect between fact and past experience to their advantage.

As tecchies, we're "smarter" than that because we look at and understand the raw specifications, right? Know what? Firms trying to sell to tecchies know about that too and use it to their advantage.

So find the toy that best suits you, and use it to your full enjoyment until it gets obsoleted by the next greatest toy that comes along, probably within hours of unboxing your latest pride and joy.

What point was that? Was it perhaps the statement that I made about every company having it's fair share of the bad stuff?

MY disappointment does not come from your NOT trying to DISPROVE negative claims of Apple's marketing tactics. You're right. It stems from people like you that try to make everything other than the products they like look like crap.

No one is disputing that the new screen has an amazing dpi. The questionable piece of this is the BS marketing jargon. Hands down, Apple is the worst.

Right here buddy.

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

Brutally honest marketing campaigns... What a novel idea!

Imagine Microsoft claiming their share of the smartphone spotlight with a campaign that goes "Hey, what about us?"

Or a HP campaign that goes "Now you see it, now you don't. How's that for magical?"

Or JOO JOO's campaign: "Our tablet is just as pretty as Apple's"

I don't think I've ever seen negative comments from you about Apple. It's always about the competitor.

Specifications might not be the sole input to user experience, but it does factor into it, and it's the Apple fanbois that ignore specs because they don't have them.





This isn't about me and you, or anyone else here on PCWorld.

This is about Apple's new (awesome) "retina" display on the iPhone and their excellent skills in the use of marketing buzz words and expressing their perceived self worth.

While you're welcome to express your own subjective opinion about Apple's marketing, you can't deny that a great many people consider Apple's marketing to be among the very best there is.

Most consumers don't buy specifications. They buy the user experience and that's what Apple gives them. It's not to everybody's liking, but when has that ever been the case with any piece of technology?

[quackadilly]

42n81, on 16 June 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

While you're welcome to express your own subjective opinion about Apple's marketing, you can't deny that a great many people consider Apple's marketing to be among the very best there is.

Most consumers don't buy specifications. They buy the user experience and that's what Apple gives them. It's not to everybody's liking, but when has that ever been the case with any piece of technology?

I consider Apple to have THE BEST marketing department. Apple could pass off a notepad as the next new tablet, and people would probably still buy it.


Question:

If "most" users buy the user experience [that apparently only Apple can give them], then why does Apple not own the computer market?


My opinion:

A lot of people buy based on price, a feature that Apple is lacking. If you take out the salesman, what will people buy if they aren't tech savvy? They don't know specs right? But they do know what money is.

[42n81]

quackadilly, on 17 June 2010 - 03:24 AM, said:

42n81, on 16 June 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

While you're welcome to express your own subjective opinion about Apple's marketing, you can't deny that a great many people consider Apple's marketing to be among the very best there is.

Most consumers don't buy specifications. They buy the user experience and that's what Apple gives them. It's not to everybody's liking, but when has that ever been the case with any piece of technology?

I consider Apple to have THE BEST marketing department. Apple could pass off a notepad as the next new tablet, and people would probably still buy it.


Question:

If "most" users buy the user experience [that apparently only Apple can give them], then why does Apple not own the computer market?

Why do you believe I meant that only Apple can give a great user experience? Like I mentioned in an earlier post, you're filtering my words through your preconceived idea that I'm pro- or anti- something.

User experience means different things to different people. If you pay attention to some of the posts you scan through in order to find something to argue about, you might learn what others consider important in THEIR user experience.

You're certainly allowed to have your own definition of a user experience, but by discounting those who see things differently as intellectually, technically or otherwise challenged, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Why does everybody else have to be "dumb" in order for you to feel "smart" ?

Quote

My opinion:

A lot of people buy based on price, a feature that Apple is lacking. If you take out the salesman, what will people buy if they aren't tech savvy? They don't know specs right? But they do know what money is.

Selling by price is yet another marketing tactic, one that is often used by those who believe they have nothing else to offer. No, Quack, they don't "give" the stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts.

People will buy whatever gives them the user experience they're looking for. One person might be thrilled by their new OLED display while the other will be ecstatic at having gotten a device for what they believe to be "free".

That's why no manufacturer "owns" the market.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 17 June 2010 - 04:18 AM

[quackadilly]

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 04:17 AM, said:

Why do you believe I meant that only Apple can give a great user experience? Like I mentioned in an earlier post, you're filtering my words through your preconceived idea that I'm pro- or anti- something.

User experience means different things to different people. If you pay attention to some of the posts you scan through in order to find something to argue about, you might learn what others consider important in THEIR user experience.

You're certainly allowed to have your own definition of a user experience, but by discounting those who see things differently as intellectually, technically or otherwise challenged, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Why does everybody else have to be "dumb" in order for you to feel "smart" ?

Selling by price is yet another marketing tactic, one that is often used by those who believe they have nothing else to offer. No, Quack, they don't "give" the stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts.

People will buy whatever gives them the user experience they're looking for. One person might be thrilled by their new OLED display while the other will be ecstatic at having gotten a device for what they believe to be "free".

That's why no manufacturer "owns" the market.

Surprise surprise . . . back to "me and you" . . .


The idea that Apple is the only "experience" comes from virtually all Apple fanatics, that is why I mention it. Every time I've mentioned the "Windows experience", Apple fans go crazy as if non-Apple users aren't allowed to enjoy their own products.

How long have I been saying that no 2 experiences are the same and you can't compare them? You're not the 1st one to come to that revelation you know . . .

I will have my own opinion of a good experience. You can have yours. Please show me where I've discounted others' experiences.

I don't need others to be dumb in order for me to feel smart. What gave you that idea? Or is it a feeble attempt at a personal attack?

Selling price is a marketing tactic? Really?!?! I never said that companies gave stuff away "out of the goodness of their heart". The sole purpose of a business is to make money. Giving stuff away just for the hell of it without expecting some sort of return just doesn't happen. I'm sorry.



I don't know why you're taking all of this personally, but again, this isn't about you and me . . . it's about the "retina" display and Apple's ability to market products.

CAN you stay on topic and away from personal discussions? Ir is it not in your capacity . . .

[42n81]

quackadilly, on 17 June 2010 - 10:04 AM, said:

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 04:17 AM, said:

Why do you believe I meant that only Apple can give a great user experience? Like I mentioned in an earlier post, you're filtering my words through your preconceived idea that I'm pro- or anti- something.

User experience means different things to different people. If you pay attention to some of the posts you scan through in order to find something to argue about, you might learn what others consider important in THEIR user experience.

You're certainly allowed to have your own definition of a user experience, but by discounting those who see things differently as intellectually, technically or otherwise challenged, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Why does everybody else have to be "dumb" in order for you to feel "smart" ?

Selling by price is yet another marketing tactic, one that is often used by those who believe they have nothing else to offer. No, Quack, they don't "give" the stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts.

People will buy whatever gives them the user experience they're looking for. One person might be thrilled by their new OLED display while the other will be ecstatic at having gotten a device for what they believe to be "free".

That's why no manufacturer "owns" the market.

Surprise surprise . . . back to "me and you" . . .


The idea that Apple is the only "experience" comes from virtually all Apple fanatics, that is why I mention it. Every time I've mentioned the "Windows experience", Apple fans go crazy as if non-Apple users aren't allowed to enjoy their own products.

How long have I been saying that no 2 experiences are the same and you can't compare them? You're not the 1st one to come to that revelation you know . . .

I will have my own opinion of a good experience. You can have yours. Please show me where I've discounted others' experiences.

I don't need others to be dumb in order for me to feel smart. What gave you that idea? Or is it a feeble attempt at a personal attack?

Selling price is a marketing tactic? Really?!?! I never said that companies gave stuff away "out of the goodness of their heart". The sole purpose of a business is to make money. Giving stuff away just for the hell of it without expecting some sort of return just doesn't happen. I'm sorry.



I don't know why you're taking all of this personally, but again, this isn't about you and me . . . it's about the "retina" display and Apple's ability to market products.

CAN you stay on topic and away from personal discussions? Ir is it not in your capacity . . .

You're funny.

You say that I'm taking it personally yet you're the one who repeatedly claims this discussion is about me and you. As far as I know, we're discussing your statements that Apple's marketing is the worst (or the best), depending on which of your posts one reads, and how it all relates to Apple's claim that iPhone 4 has a "retinal display" whatever the heck that means in real life.

I don't agree with your negative perspective and opinions relating to Apple. That's called a disagreement. Nothing more.

If you interpret disagreement as a personal attack, well what can I say? Oh, and if you're not absolutely sure whether something I said was a personal attack, believe me, it wasn't. My threshold is very high, my fuse is very short and my language is very clear.

By the way, this is no discussion about Apple's ABILITY to market products. Why? Because I don't think that anyone who doesn't also enjoy spitting, among other things, into the wind will put into question Apple's ABILITY to market products.

As for Apple's marketing techniques, depending on one's perspective, they are either sheer genius, completely unpalatable or somewhere in between.

Whether we like it or not, Apple's use of "Retinal Display" has generated way more discussion than "326PPI" would have, and that's a good thing for Apple.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 17 June 2010 - 01:03 PM

[quackadilly]

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 12:59 PM, said:

You're funny.

You say that I'm taking it personally yet you're the one who repeatedly claims this discussion is about me and you. As far as I know, we're discussing your statements that Apple's marketing is the worst (or the best), depending on which of your posts one reads, and how it all relates to Apple's claim that iPhone 4 has a "retinal display" whatever the heck that means in real life.

I don't agree with your negative perspective and opinions relating to Apple. That's called a disagreement. Nothing more.

If you interpret disagreement as a personal attack, well what can I say? Oh, and if you're not absolutely sure whether something I said was a personal attack, believe me, it wasn't. My threshold is very high, my fuse is very short and my language is very clear.

By the way, this is no discussion about Apple's ABILITY to market products. Why? Because I don't think that anyone who doesn't also enjoy spitting, among other things, into the wind will put into question Apple's ABILITY to market products.

As for Apple's marketing techniques, depending on one's perspective, they are either sheer genius, completely unpalatable or somewhere in between.

Whether we like it or not, Apple's use of "Retinal Display" has generated way more discussion than "326PPI" would have, and that's a good thing for Apple.

Post #104 by me, nothing about any individual.

Post #105 by you, you interject me into your post.

Do you need more help seeing it?

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 04:17 AM, said:

Why does everybody else have to be "dumb" in order for you to feel "smart" ?

Disagreement or attempt at a personal attack?



On topic:

No doubt Apple is good at marketing. I've never questioned it. Apple tends to embellish more than any other company . . . IMO. Thats my point.

Sheer genius? Sure.

Unpalatable? For some.

Misleading? Often.



Like I've said before, Jobs (Apple) is the best at marketing. Getting people to buy stuff without knowing exactly what it is . . . that deserves a medal.

[42n81]

waldojim, on 14 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Anything larger than 4.5" diagonal (3.93" x 2.2") at 1280 x 720 would not have a 326 PPI pixel density. We're splitting hairs, but that's a very manageable display size given that newer designs are making use of increasing amounts of device real estate for the display. Anyhow, new smartphone designs with displays having a 326 PPI density would still only be catching up to the iPhone's specs.

I don't know if you have looked at the evo or not, but the thing is freaking huge. All we are doing right now is getting larger and larger phones. With anything over 4.5" I doubt they could find people to buy it, as I doubt they can find pockets big enough to put them in. As it stands, even my Incredible dwarfs my Omnia, making me wish I had kept the smaller phone (incidentally - it also had better battery life). But as long as it is still portable enough that I can reasonably fit it into a pocket and not have to worry about it, then its ok.

Once phones stop fitting in your pocket - I'll call them a tablet.

Many of the new phones are getting really big, but if the displays are worth it, the trade-off may be acceptable. I haven't seen the EVO or many of the newer phones up close but I'll take a look next time I have a chance.

Just for comparison's sake, I pulled out my Nokia N810 which I bought a few years ago instead of an iPod at the time. Talk about features, it had everything one could want ... except a phone. It is surprisingly close to the EVO in overall size. Funny thing is I loved the N810, although it was kind of slow, but never carried it around with me, like I do with the iPod I eventually bought, because of its size. Loved the N810 as an e-book reader, transflective display and all. If it had a phone, though, it would have been with me 24/7.

Holding the N810 in my hand and thinking what it would be like to use a phone this size ... not that bad, but then I have fairly big hands.

So yeah, smartphone manufacturers are going into uncharted territory with the larger phones but they're betting that mobile computing is where the next tech boom is going to happen. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially in the 6 to 7" display sizes.

[42n81]

quackadilly, on 17 June 2010 - 01:35 PM, said:

On topic:

No doubt Apple is good at marketing. I've never questioned it. Apple tends to embellish more than any other company . . . IMO. Thats my point.

Sheer genius? Sure.

Unpalatable? For some.

Misleading? Often.



Like I've said before, Jobs (Apple) is the best at marketing. Getting people to buy stuff without knowing exactly what it is . . . that deserves a medal.

I can live with that. Great, we agree. High 5's.

[waldojim]

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

waldojim, on 14 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Anything larger than 4.5" diagonal (3.93" x 2.2") at 1280 x 720 would not have a 326 PPI pixel density. We're splitting hairs, but that's a very manageable display size given that newer designs are making use of increasing amounts of device real estate for the display. Anyhow, new smartphone designs with displays having a 326 PPI density would still only be catching up to the iPhone's specs.

I don't know if you have looked at the evo or not, but the thing is freaking huge. All we are doing right now is getting larger and larger phones. With anything over 4.5" I doubt they could find people to buy it, as I doubt they can find pockets big enough to put them in. As it stands, even my Incredible dwarfs my Omnia, making me wish I had kept the smaller phone (incidentally - it also had better battery life). But as long as it is still portable enough that I can reasonably fit it into a pocket and not have to worry about it, then its ok.

Once phones stop fitting in your pocket - I'll call them a tablet.

Many of the new phones are getting really big, but if the displays are worth it, the trade-off may be acceptable. I haven't seen the EVO or many of the newer phones up close but I'll take a look next time I have a chance.

Just for comparison's sake, I pulled out my Nokia N810 which I bought a few years ago instead of an iPod at the time. Talk about features, it had everything one could want ... except a phone. It is surprisingly close to the EVO in overall size. Funny thing is I loved the N810, although it was kind of slow, but never carried it around with me, like I do with the iPod I eventually bought, because of its size. Loved the N810 as an e-book reader, transflective display and all. If it had a phone, though, it would have been with me 24/7.

Holding the N810 in my hand and thinking what it would be like to use a phone this size ... not that bad, but then I have fairly big hands.

So yeah, smartphone manufacturers are going into uncharted territory with the larger phones but they're betting that mobile computing is where the next tech boom is going to happen. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially in the 6 to 7" display sizes.

but with a 6 or 7 inch display, is the thing still small enough to actually BE a phone? Or would it be like holding a first gen EeePC to your ear?

[42n81]

waldojim, on 17 June 2010 - 04:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

waldojim, on 14 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Anything larger than 4.5" diagonal (3.93" x 2.2") at 1280 x 720 would not have a 326 PPI pixel density. We're splitting hairs, but that's a very manageable display size given that newer designs are making use of increasing amounts of device real estate for the display. Anyhow, new smartphone designs with displays having a 326 PPI density would still only be catching up to the iPhone's specs.

I don't know if you have looked at the evo or not, but the thing is freaking huge. All we are doing right now is getting larger and larger phones. With anything over 4.5" I doubt they could find people to buy it, as I doubt they can find pockets big enough to put them in. As it stands, even my Incredible dwarfs my Omnia, making me wish I had kept the smaller phone (incidentally - it also had better battery life). But as long as it is still portable enough that I can reasonably fit it into a pocket and not have to worry about it, then its ok.

Once phones stop fitting in your pocket - I'll call them a tablet.

Many of the new phones are getting really big, but if the displays are worth it, the trade-off may be acceptable. I haven't seen the EVO or many of the newer phones up close but I'll take a look next time I have a chance.

Just for comparison's sake, I pulled out my Nokia N810 which I bought a few years ago instead of an iPod at the time. Talk about features, it had everything one could want ... except a phone. It is surprisingly close to the EVO in overall size. Funny thing is I loved the N810, although it was kind of slow, but never carried it around with me, like I do with the iPod I eventually bought, because of its size. Loved the N810 as an e-book reader, transflective display and all. If it had a phone, though, it would have been with me 24/7.

Holding the N810 in my hand and thinking what it would be like to use a phone this size ... not that bad, but then I have fairly big hands.

So yeah, smartphone manufacturers are going into uncharted territory with the larger phones but they're betting that mobile computing is where the next tech boom is going to happen. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially in the 6 to 7" display sizes.

but with a 6 or 7 inch display, is the thing still small enough to actually BE a phone? Or would it be like holding a first gen EeePC to your ear?

No, I don't think it would be a phone in the traditional sense once you get to that size. I'm thinking more along the lines of a mobile "base station" for lack of a better word, with a bluetooth headset for music and phone conversations. Maybe even a minimal clip-on/slid-out bluetooth detachable handset/headset, very thin, very light, somewhat like the new aluminium Apple remote for actually making calls or taking pictures.

Don't ask me how we're going carry these things around, I'm not there yet. Maybe some fashion designer will solve that problem for us.

I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but at the rate component miniaturization is progressing it should be possible soon.

This is going to be an amazing decade and it's just beginning. I think I hear opportunity knocking.

Either that or someone will just come out with a $15.00 fresnel lens screen protector that will turn ANY smartphone display into a virtual 24" screen...

[waldojim]

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 05:06 PM, said:

waldojim, on 17 June 2010 - 04:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 17 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

waldojim, on 14 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

Anything larger than 4.5" diagonal (3.93" x 2.2") at 1280 x 720 would not have a 326 PPI pixel density. We're splitting hairs, but that's a very manageable display size given that newer designs are making use of increasing amounts of device real estate for the display. Anyhow, new smartphone designs with displays having a 326 PPI density would still only be catching up to the iPhone's specs.

I don't know if you have looked at the evo or not, but the thing is freaking huge. All we are doing right now is getting larger and larger phones. With anything over 4.5" I doubt they could find people to buy it, as I doubt they can find pockets big enough to put them in. As it stands, even my Incredible dwarfs my Omnia, making me wish I had kept the smaller phone (incidentally - it also had better battery life). But as long as it is still portable enough that I can reasonably fit it into a pocket and not have to worry about it, then its ok.

Once phones stop fitting in your pocket - I'll call them a tablet.

Many of the new phones are getting really big, but if the displays are worth it, the trade-off may be acceptable. I haven't seen the EVO or many of the newer phones up close but I'll take a look next time I have a chance.

Just for comparison's sake, I pulled out my Nokia N810 which I bought a few years ago instead of an iPod at the time. Talk about features, it had everything one could want ... except a phone. It is surprisingly close to the EVO in overall size. Funny thing is I loved the N810, although it was kind of slow, but never carried it around with me, like I do with the iPod I eventually bought, because of its size. Loved the N810 as an e-book reader, transflective display and all. If it had a phone, though, it would have been with me 24/7.

Holding the N810 in my hand and thinking what it would be like to use a phone this size ... not that bad, but then I have fairly big hands.

So yeah, smartphone manufacturers are going into uncharted territory with the larger phones but they're betting that mobile computing is where the next tech boom is going to happen. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially in the 6 to 7" display sizes.

but with a 6 or 7 inch display, is the thing still small enough to actually BE a phone? Or would it be like holding a first gen EeePC to your ear?

No, I don't think it would be a phone in the traditional sense once you get to that size. I'm thinking more along the lines of a mobile "base station" for lack of a better word, with a bluetooth headset for music and phone conversations. Maybe even a minimal clip-on/slid-out bluetooth detachable handset/headset, very thin, very light, somewhat like the new aluminium Apple remote for actually making calls or taking pictures.

Don't ask me how we're going carry these things around, I'm not there yet. Maybe some fashion designer will solve that problem for us.

I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but at the rate component miniaturization is progressing it should be possible soon.

This is going to be an amazing decade and it's just beginning. I think I hear opportunity knocking.

Either that or someone will just come out with a $15.00 fresnel lens screen protector that will turn ANY smartphone display into a virtual 24" screen...

How about we just start selling our phones (in the US) with a Pico projector instead? That way you can keep a smaller screen (I think 4" is more than enough) and still have a 30" projection screen where ever you go! is that as ideal as a nice OLED display? Probably not, due to the lack of highly reflective surfaces available. But I can see that being more reasonable... I don't really feel like carrying around a 7" 2 lb device tethered to my hip.

[42n81]

waldojim, on 17 June 2010 - 06:24 PM, said:

How about we just start selling our phones (in the US) with a Pico projector instead? That way you can keep a smaller screen (I think 4" is more than enough) and still have a 30" projection screen where ever you go! is that as ideal as a nice OLED display? Probably not, due to the lack of highly reflective surfaces available. But I can see that being more reasonable... I don't really feel like carrying around a 7" 2 lb device tethered to my hip.

Twenty years ago, nobody thought we would all be carrying portable phones with us everywhere we go because they were so big and heavy. Portable computers of about that period, with a 5" screen no less, weighed around 40 pounds and didn't run on battery power. Imagine trying to tell people back then about the devices we have now. It would probably have taken more than fifteen years for the laughter to subside.

Of those who weren't laughing, some lost their shirts, some made fortunes, and some did both, although not always in the right order.

Larger devices might not have to be so heavy in the near future. Wasn't somebody talking about "wearable" electronics?

Imagine, wipe your feet on a carpet to recharge the battery!

[COMALiteJ]

I know I’m a bit late to this party, but if anyone’s still reading, it seems like everyone who has posted here, both pro- and anti-Apple, and the article author himself, have all missed the point.

If the iPhone 4 display truly qualifies as a “retina” display (and given some math shown in the comments, I believe it does, though perhaps due to the NyQuist principle it may actually have to double the resolution of the retina to be truly at the point where any higher pixel density would be pointless at normal viewing densities [for the same reason that CD audio is 44.1kHz and most modern digital audio is 48kHz even though normal human hearing only goes up to around 20kHz at best]), it is a major breakthrough indeed.

Why? You’ve heard of “jaggies,” right? Anti-aliasing? Microsoft^® ClearType™? What do all of those have in common? The first term is one of the problems, and the second two are band-aid “solutions,” of having pixel density that is too low.

Jaggies, of course, are visible pixels along the edges of curves and diagonal lines, including those that make up text characters. We don’t like jaggies. They’re ugly. They make text hard to read. They make lines and curves in games look annoying, especially when they’re moving. They make the edges of 3D surfaces and objects in games look less than realistic.

So, over the years, we came up with ways to try to hide the jaggies. Anti-aliasing means carefully shading the colors of pixels along edges so that they appear to blend in to the background, giving the illusion of having more resolution than you actually have. ClearType™ is a similar technology that takes advantage of the red, green, and blue sub-pixels in an LCD flat-panel display and the fact that by carefully setting the colors of the anti-aliased pixels, those sub-pixels can be individually targeted, but only on flat-panel displays set to their native resolution.

Anti-aliasing takes memory and CPU horsepower. Basically, if you want to anti-alias to using up to two levels of intermediate color between the foreground and the background colors, you have to render the text or lines or 3D or whatever to an internal buffer at twice the actual resolution (in both dimensions), requiring 4× the memory and CPU time, then basically shrink that image down to the final size and put it on the screen (requiring still more memory and CPU time). And even then, the results are only a modest improvement. For better results, you need to render the intermediate buffer at 4× the linear resolution = 16× the area resolution, RAM, and CPU time. That gives you 14 intermediate shades of color for anti-aliasing, and somewhat better results. 8× the linear resolution = 64× the area resolution, RAM, and CPU time, for 62 intermediate shades of color, and so on.

There are tricks to mitigate the amount of RAM and CPU time required, but they involve special computing hardware such as GPUs, SSE, etc. Indeed, most video card chipsets include special circuitry dedicated to speeding up anti-aliasing! This extra hardware also generates heat, uses up battery power, etc., not to mention costs money.

But especially in regards to text, all anti-aliasing, including ClearType, even when used with specially tuned fonts such as the ones that come with Windows Vista, 7, and Office 2007 (e.g. Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Corbel, Consolas, Constantia, Segoe UI, etc.), works by effectively “blurring” the edges of the text to obscure the jaggies. This is a legibility trade-off: the idea being that the loss of legibility from this blurring (and color-fringing in the case of ClearType and other similar positional-color sub-pixel rendering schemes) is (hopefully) less than the loss of legibility that the unblurred jaggies would cause.

With a true retina display, anti-aliasing is no longer needed. The text can simply be rendered as-is. It will look every bit as sharp as it would on paper. The “jaggies,” while still present, would be too small for normal human eyeballs to see at the normal viewing distance.

That means that no CPU power nor RAM is taken up in the extra rendering and buffering of enlarged versions of the drawn text or graphics or whatever. It means that no special circuitry is needed to speed this up and otherwise mitigate the impact, which in turn means improved battery life.

Those of you who play 3D games know the tradeoffs of activating 8× Anisotropic Anti-aliasing on your video card, when it comes to the impact on frame rates. You have to decide whether to live with the “jaggies” ruining your immersive gaming experience, or settle for frame rates so slow that (when playing human opponents online) you die more often because your opponent can literally see faster than you can, or even frame rates so slow that the game turns from a movie-like experience into a slide-show-like experience.

Imagine not having to make that trade-off anymore. That’s what a true retina display would mean for gaming!

Does the iPhone 4 truly qualify? Looks like it does. Does Apple take full advantage of this? Have they disabled all anti-aliasing throughout, making for sharper text and other displays as well as reduced CPU and memory usage, and thus extended battery life? I dunno.

This is not just a gimmick, though. It truly is a significant breakthrough. It’s apparently the first true retina device available to the mass market. Prior to that, you’d have to go back to the IBM T220/T221 monitors, which had double the linear and quadruple the area resolution of the Apple 23" HD monitor but in about the same size display (in fact, the same relationship that the iPhone 4 has to the iPhone 3G[S]), and that cost well into the five figures and was mainly used in the scientific, engineering, and medical fields, not the general mass market. Even then, its pixel density was far less than the iPhone 4, but still greater than that of, say, a fine-mode fax but with millions of colors instead of black-and-white only. It did qualify as “retinal” at the typical distance that one would sit away from a 23" desktop monitor (as opposed to the 3½" iPhone 4).

The Kopin 2227-ppi VGA display mentioned in the Wikipedia article is intended for use in projectors (which use a very small frame and project it onto a much larger surface). Note that it is very, very tiny, at about 0.44" square — way smaller even than the tiny “lid” monitors common on flip phones.

[Poop]

I barely understood that. To sum it with my knowledge it does have retina display but it wasn't patented when apple came out with the 4. But it does and retina display I a normal mp just split into four making t smaller.