[42n81]

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Yeah, why doesn't Apple stick to using more appropriate names, such as "AMAZING", "maXTouch", "EXTREME", "A855" or "DROID" ?

The latter makes me think of Celtic priests and Star Wars for some reason.

now can you tell the difference between a buzzword - eg retina display and a product name eg Droid?

They're just names. Marketingspeak. If you pay attention, it's prevalent. Most people learn to take it for what it is.

For what it's worth, people are talking and arguing about the display because some find the name "controversial". Maybe we can keep posting and blogging until the entire world knows that the iPhone 4 has the highest pixel density on the market. All without Apple having to spend a penny in advertising.

Isn't marketing wonderful?

[waldojim]

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Yeah, why doesn't Apple stick to using more appropriate names, such as "AMAZING", "maXTouch", "EXTREME", "A855" or "DROID" ?

The latter makes me think of Celtic priests and Star Wars for some reason.

now can you tell the difference between a buzzword - eg retina display and a product name eg Droid?

They're just names. Marketingspeak. If you pay attention, it's prevalent. Most people learn to take it for what it is.

For what it's worth, people are talking and arguing about the display because some find the name "controversial". Maybe we can keep posting and blogging until the entire world knows that the iPhone 4 has the highest pixel density on the market. All without Apple having to spend a penny in advertising.

Isn't marketing wonderful?

that may be try this week. What about next week? What about when phones ship with 1280x720 displays? Then Retina Display means what? Nothing. But Driod still speaks volumes in reference to a family of phones.

[quackadilly]

bporada, on 10 June 2010 - 02:54 AM, said:

waldojim, on 10 June 2010 - 12:42 AM, said:

Umm... multitasking is great, in fact, one of the few things I LOVE about smartphones. I can use my phone to handle my torrenting for the night, and consume a whole whopping 10watts/hr VS my PC at 200Watts/hr idle! and I can still use my phones for other tasks, like music, movies, etc. There are uses for multitasking, weather or not YOU need them. Now that is certainly not to say that everyone needs or even wants it... I learned quickly with the driod phones, multitasking has its down side... with more than 30 apps running a battery doesn't last long! But I think as my usage levels off into my typical "pattern" even that will become less of an issue.

You almost prove his point. Just by looking at your signature anyone can tell you are not the average person because the average person can't comprehend your skilled computer wizardry. Most people will only use very limited multitasking and if kept unchecked would snowball on them. We must remember all the dummies out there and keep em safe.

About the display I don't see the problem with apple using a fancy term for such a fancy display. If it truly is so crisp that pixels are undetectable then why not call is something special cause that sounds pretty special seeing as no other phone screen has this kind of clarity. And anyone complaining about apple using "gimmicks" is obviously some sort of non-apple troll whining as usual about whatever they can. Funny sometimes to see what they come up with...

So if the average person will only use "very limited" multitasking you have to ask the questions . . .

Do the "dummies" actually need a smartphone?

Can the "dummies" actually comprehend the benefits of a smart phone?



If they are "dummies", shouldn't they stick to the "dummy" phones?

[Sensi23]

I think that we will now see all the future iPhone 4 (where is the G for 4G? Gone with AT&T?) users here holding their phone at a mandatory 18 inch distance, just to make the misleading marketing from Jobs appears, to their eyes, real. Yet it will not be the first time one of their hyperbolic claims is considered blatantly misleading and condemned by the authorities regulating advertising...

[42n81]

Sensi23, on 12 June 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

I think that we will now see all the future iPhone 4 (where is the G for 4G? Gone with AT&T?) users here holding their phone at a mandatory 18 inch distance, just to make the misleading marketing from Jobs appears, to their eyes, real. Yet it will not be the first time one of their hyperbolic claims is considered blatantly misleading and condemned by the authorities regulating advertising...

...while everyone else holds their screen at 24" so they can claim their display is just as good..

[Sensi23]

42n81, on 13 June 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

Sensi23, on 12 June 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

I think that we will now see all the future iPhone 4 (where is the G for 4G? Gone with AT&T?) users here holding their phone at a mandatory 18 inch distance, just to make the misleading marketing from Jobs appears, to their eyes, real. Yet it will not be the first time one of their hyperbolic claims is considered blatantly misleading and condemned by the authorities regulating advertising...

...while everyone else holds their screen at 24" so they can claim their display is just as good..

Maybe everyone else don't care that much about claiming or supporting the marketing fallacies of their hardware manufacturers.

[nonseq]

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

that may be try this week. What about next week? What about when phones ship with 1280x720 displays? Then Retina Display means what? Nothing. But Driod still speaks volumes in reference to a family of phones.

As does iPhone, Jim. And, while I have not seen testing to verify this, I suspect that the "iPhone" brand enjoys a huge advantage over the multiplicity of devices and versions of the "Droid" brand. It's going to be fun to see how this all turns out.

About Retina Display, even when 1280x720 displays come out the iPhone 4 display will still be a retina display to 95% of the buying public and, if executed well the 1280x720 will be as well.

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 13 June 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

that may be try this week. What about next week? What about when phones ship with 1280x720 displays? Then Retina Display means what? Nothing. But Driod still speaks volumes in reference to a family of phones.

As does iPhone, Jim. And, while I have not seen testing to verify this, I suspect that the "iPhone" brand enjoys a huge advantage over the multiplicity of devices and versions of the "Droid" brand. It's going to be fun to see how this all turns out.

About Retina Display, even when 1280x720 displays come out the iPhone 4 display will still be a retina display to 95% of the buying public and, if executed well the 1280x720 will be as well.

you are very right that the iPhone name carries quite a name. I never said it didn't. Only that marketing gimmicks like "Retina Display" are very short term catch phrases that mean little to nothing in the end.

[42n81]

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Yeah, why doesn't Apple stick to using more appropriate names, such as "AMAZING", "maXTouch", "EXTREME", "A855" or "DROID" ?

The latter makes me think of Celtic priests and Star Wars for some reason.

now can you tell the difference between a buzzword - eg retina display and a product name eg Droid?

They're just names. Marketingspeak. If you pay attention, it's prevalent. Most people learn to take it for what it is.

For what it's worth, people are talking and arguing about the display because some find the name "controversial". Maybe we can keep posting and blogging until the entire world knows that the iPhone 4 has the highest pixel density on the market. All without Apple having to spend a penny in advertising.

Isn't marketing wonderful?

that may be try this week. What about next week? What about when phones ship with 1280x720 displays? Then Retina Display means what? Nothing. But Driod still speaks volumes in reference to a family of phones.

Last time I checked, the discussion was about pixel density, PPI, and not display size, pixels. Without a physical display size, the total number of pixels you indicate is meaningless in a discussion about pixel density.

Some other manufacturer will no doubt come out with a higher resolution display and give it some equally meaningless name.

[42n81]

Sensi23, on 13 June 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

42n81, on 13 June 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

Sensi23, on 12 June 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

I think that we will now see all the future iPhone 4 (where is the G for 4G? Gone with AT&T?) users here holding their phone at a mandatory 18 inch distance, just to make the misleading marketing from Jobs appears, to their eyes, real. Yet it will not be the first time one of their hyperbolic claims is considered blatantly misleading and condemned by the authorities regulating advertising...

...while everyone else holds their screen at 24" so they can claim their display is just as good..

Maybe everyone else don't care that much about claiming or supporting the marketing fallacies of their hardware manufacturers.

Quite possibly, NOBODY cares about that.

[waldojim]

42n81, on 13 June 2010 - 06:35 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 June 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

42n81, on 11 June 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Yeah, why doesn't Apple stick to using more appropriate names, such as "AMAZING", "maXTouch", "EXTREME", "A855" or "DROID" ?

The latter makes me think of Celtic priests and Star Wars for some reason.

now can you tell the difference between a buzzword - eg retina display and a product name eg Droid?

They're just names. Marketingspeak. If you pay attention, it's prevalent. Most people learn to take it for what it is.

For what it's worth, people are talking and arguing about the display because some find the name "controversial". Maybe we can keep posting and blogging until the entire world knows that the iPhone 4 has the highest pixel density on the market. All without Apple having to spend a penny in advertising.

Isn't marketing wonderful?

that may be try this week. What about next week? What about when phones ship with 1280x720 displays? Then Retina Display means what? Nothing. But Driod still speaks volumes in reference to a family of phones.

Last time I checked, the discussion was about pixel density, PPI, and not display size, pixels. Without a physical display size, the total number of pixels you indicate is meaningless in a discussion about pixel density.

Some other manufacturer will no doubt come out with a higher resolution display and give it some equally meaningless name.

How big would the screen have to be, in order for the PPI of a 1280x720 display to actually get UNDER 326PPI? Do you think they are going to try and sell a PHONE the size of a freaking tablet? A little common sense here please. You are trying to shove off a MINOR technicality in how I phrased the upcoming problem for Apple. This is why you Apple fanatics are so freaking hard to deal with. No common sense at all.

[42n81]

waldojim, on 13 June 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

How big would the screen have to be, in order for the PPI of a 1280x720 display to actually get UNDER 326PPI? Do you think they are going to try and sell a PHONE the size of a freaking tablet? A little common sense here please. You are trying to shove off a MINOR technicality in how I phrased the upcoming problem for Apple. This is why you Apple fanatics are so freaking hard to deal with. No common sense at all.

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.

[WinTard]

All this is bull marketing crap!

Any display supporting a resolution of 960x640 in a 3^1/2" display will have a pixel density of 326 PPI. And it can come from anybody. As a matter of fact Apple doesn't manufacture any displays. Foxconn does. And Foxconn also is a member of the Open Handset Alliance supporting Android. Which means Foxconn (and other real display manufacturers) will simply integrate this other OEM 'part' into any of their phone lines.

Wow, big deal!

Wikipedia said:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pixel_density
Computer displays

The PPI of a computer display is related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions. This measurement is often referred to as dots per inch, though that measurement more accurately refers to the resolution of a computer printer.

For example, a 15 inch (38 cm) display, whose dimensions work out to 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide by 9 inches (22.86 cm) high, capable of a maximum 1024×768 (or XGA) pixel resolution can display around 85 PPI in both the horizontal and vertical directions. This figure is determined by dividing width (or height) of the display area in pixels, by width (or height) of the display area in inches. It is possible for a display’s horizontal and vertical PPI measurements to be different (e.g. a typical 4:3 ratio CRT monitor showing a 1280×1024 mode computer display at maximum size, which is a 5:4 ratio, not quite the same as 4:3). The apparent PPI of a monitor depends upon the screen resolution (that is, number of pixels) and the size of the screen in use; a monitor in 800×600 mode has a lower PPI than the same monitor at 1024×768 or 1280×960 mode.

The dot pitch of a computer display determines the absolute limit of possible pixel density. Typical circa-2000 cathode ray tube or LCD computer displays range from 67–130 PPI.

The IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors marketed from 2001–2005 reached 204 PPI.

The Toshiba Portégé G900 Windows Mobile 6 Professional phone, launched in mid 2007, came with a 3″ WVGA LCD having “print-quality” pixel density of 313 PPI.^[1]

In June 2010, Apple Computer announced and launched the iPhone 4, with its “Retina” LED-backlit LCD boasting 326 PPI (960×640, 3½″ diagonal, each pixel only 78 μm), arguably the highest display pixel density actually available to the general public in a mass market device to date, if not all that much higher than the Toshiba Portégé G900.^{[2] [3]}

In January 2008, Kopin Corp. announced a 0.44″ (1.12 cm) SVGA LCD with an astonishing pixel density of 2272 PPI (each pixel only 11¼ μm).^[4][5] According to the manufacturer, the LCD was designed to be optically magnified to yield a vivid image and therefore expected to find use in high-resolution eye-wear devices.

Basically, more typical Apple hype over substance. Soon enough, all smartphones will have similar or even higher quality displays as well.

~~~~~~~~~~
Compassion is the basis of all morality.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

[42n81]

WinTard, on 14 June 2010 - 07:44 AM, said:

All this is bull marketing crap!

Any display supporting a resolution of 960x640 in a 3^1/2" display will have a pixel density of 326 PPI. And it can come from anybody. As a matter of fact Apple doesn't manufacture any displays. Foxconn does. And Foxconn also is a member of the Open Handset Alliance supporting Android. Which means Foxconn (and other real display manufacturers) will simply integrate this other OEM 'part' into any of their phone lines.

Wow, big deal!

Wikipedia said:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pixel_density
Computer displays

The PPI of a computer display is related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions. This measurement is often referred to as dots per inch, though that measurement more accurately refers to the resolution of a computer printer.

For example, a 15 inch (38 cm) display, whose dimensions work out to 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide by 9 inches (22.86 cm) high, capable of a maximum 1024×768 (or XGA) pixel resolution can display around 85 PPI in both the horizontal and vertical directions. This figure is determined by dividing width (or height) of the display area in pixels, by width (or height) of the display area in inches. It is possible for a display’s horizontal and vertical PPI measurements to be different (e.g. a typical 4:3 ratio CRT monitor showing a 1280×1024 mode computer display at maximum size, which is a 5:4 ratio, not quite the same as 4:3). The apparent PPI of a monitor depends upon the screen resolution (that is, number of pixels) and the size of the screen in use; a monitor in 800×600 mode has a lower PPI than the same monitor at 1024×768 or 1280×960 mode.

The dot pitch of a computer display determines the absolute limit of possible pixel density. Typical circa-2000 cathode ray tube or LCD computer displays range from 67–130 PPI.

The IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors marketed from 2001–2005 reached 204 PPI.

The Toshiba Portégé G900 Windows Mobile 6 Professional phone, launched in mid 2007, came with a 3″ WVGA LCD having “print-quality” pixel density of 313 PPI.^[1]

In June 2010, Apple Computer announced and launched the iPhone 4, with its “Retina” LED-backlit LCD boasting 326 PPI (960×640, 3½″ diagonal, each pixel only 78 μm), arguably the highest display pixel density actually available to the general public in a mass market device to date, if not all that much higher than the Toshiba Portégé G900.^{[2] [3]}

In January 2008, Kopin Corp. announced a 0.44″ (1.12 cm) SVGA LCD with an astonishing pixel density of 2272 PPI (each pixel only 11¼ μm).^[4][5] According to the manufacturer, the LCD was designed to be optically magnified to yield a vivid image and therefore expected to find use in high-resolution eye-wear devices.

Basically, more typical Apple hype over substance. Soon enough, all smartphones will have similar or even higher quality displays as well.

~~~~~~~~~~
Compassion is the basis of all morality.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

Of course, other manufacturers will eventually catch up. Maybe they'll even call the technology "virtual paper" or "tru-font" or "HD Extreme" or the "Incredisplay" or "PixelMax".

I eagerly await your opinion on the correctness of their marketing campaigns. Or not.

[quackadilly]

42n81, on 14 June 2010 - 08:21 AM, said:

WinTard, on 14 June 2010 - 07:44 AM, said:

All this is bull marketing crap!

Any display supporting a resolution of 960x640 in a 3^1/2" display will have a pixel density of 326 PPI. And it can come from anybody. As a matter of fact Apple doesn't manufacture any displays. Foxconn does. And Foxconn also is a member of the Open Handset Alliance supporting Android. Which means Foxconn (and other real display manufacturers) will simply integrate this other OEM 'part' into any of their phone lines.

Wow, big deal!

Wikipedia said:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pixel_density
Computer displays

The PPI of a computer display is related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions. This measurement is often referred to as dots per inch, though that measurement more accurately refers to the resolution of a computer printer.

For example, a 15 inch (38 cm) display, whose dimensions work out to 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide by 9 inches (22.86 cm) high, capable of a maximum 1024×768 (or XGA) pixel resolution can display around 85 PPI in both the horizontal and vertical directions. This figure is determined by dividing width (or height) of the display area in pixels, by width (or height) of the display area in inches. It is possible for a display’s horizontal and vertical PPI measurements to be different (e.g. a typical 4:3 ratio CRT monitor showing a 1280×1024 mode computer display at maximum size, which is a 5:4 ratio, not quite the same as 4:3). The apparent PPI of a monitor depends upon the screen resolution (that is, number of pixels) and the size of the screen in use; a monitor in 800×600 mode has a lower PPI than the same monitor at 1024×768 or 1280×960 mode.

The dot pitch of a computer display determines the absolute limit of possible pixel density. Typical circa-2000 cathode ray tube or LCD computer displays range from 67–130 PPI.

The IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors marketed from 2001–2005 reached 204 PPI.

The Toshiba Portégé G900 Windows Mobile 6 Professional phone, launched in mid 2007, came with a 3″ WVGA LCD having “print-quality” pixel density of 313 PPI.^[1]

In June 2010, Apple Computer announced and launched the iPhone 4, with its “Retina” LED-backlit LCD boasting 326 PPI (960×640, 3½″ diagonal, each pixel only 78 μm), arguably the highest display pixel density actually available to the general public in a mass market device to date, if not all that much higher than the Toshiba Portégé G900.^{[2] [3]}

In January 2008, Kopin Corp. announced a 0.44″ (1.12 cm) SVGA LCD with an astonishing pixel density of 2272 PPI (each pixel only 11¼ μm).^[4][5] According to the manufacturer, the LCD was designed to be optically magnified to yield a vivid image and therefore expected to find use in high-resolution eye-wear devices.

Basically, more typical Apple hype over substance. Soon enough, all smartphones will have similar or even higher quality displays as well.

~~~~~~~~~~
Compassion is the basis of all morality.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

Of course, other manufacturers will eventually catch up. Maybe they'll even call the technology "virtual paper" or "tru-font" or "HD Extreme" or the "Incredisplay" or "PixelMax".

I eagerly await your opinion on the correctness of their marketing campaigns. Or not.

Could also be marketed as "same quality [as Apple] for less money" display . . . which would hold true for many many other products as well.




Maybe Apple's campaign (to be brutally honest) should be "same stuff as everyone else, you just pay more".

[42n81]

[quote name='quackadilly' date='14 June 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1276534224' post='367391']
[quote name='42n81' date='14 June 2010 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1276532518' post='367381']

Could also be marketed as "same quality [as Apple] for less money" display . . . which would hold true for many many other products as well.




Maybe Apple's campaign (to be brutally honest) should be "same stuff as everyone else, you just pay more".
[/quote]

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"

[waldojim]

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.

[quackadilly]

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

quackadilly, on 14 June 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

Could also be marketed as "same quality [as Apple] for less money" display . . . which would hold true for many many other products as well.




Maybe Apple's campaign (to be brutally honest) should be "same stuff as everyone else, you just pay more".

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.

This post has been edited by quackadilly: 14 June 2010 - 05:28 PM

[42n81]

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

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

quackadilly, on 14 June 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

Could also be marketed as "same quality [as Apple] for less money" display . . . which would hold true for many many other products as well.




Maybe Apple's campaign (to be brutally honest) should be "same stuff as everyone else, you just pay more".

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"?}

[quackadilly]

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:

quackadilly, on 14 June 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

Could also be marketed as "same quality [as Apple] for less money" display . . . which would hold true for many many other products as well.




Maybe Apple's campaign (to be brutally honest) should be "same stuff as everyone else, you just pay more".

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 . . .

This post has been edited by quackadilly: 16 June 2010 - 03:39 AM