![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
WWDC 2010 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter KaosDG
- Start date
I was planning to grab a 64Gb one to replace my 3GS 32Gb. So much so I already put the iPod 80gb up for sale so I could just carry one device with me. 32Gb is about enough for half my compressed music and leaves me with no room for anything else. Very disappointed between the lack of a 64Gb model and no OS X 10.7 at WWDC.
I hope with Apple pushing the advantages of ~300DPI displays we might see some desktop displays at a decent DPI with scalable vector-based GUI in OS X one of these days before I die of old age. That and replace the terrible TN displays in the MBPs with IPS - for being 'Pro' 6bits per channel with dithering is just awful.
Edit: Safari State of the Union session started apparently with Safari 5 and extensions. Maybe I can ditch the non-native look and feel of Chrome at last?
Last edited:
DarkLegacy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,097
Two years would be more realistic. The 3GS was the first major jump from what the original iphone was & that took two years. The iphone 4G is pretty much the 3GS with a handful of new features. The internals are the same & it may have slightly better battery life. Which is just an assumption at the moment as that has to be proven. It will sell since people tend to flock to the shiny new thing that has an apple logo on it but it won't be the top handset out for to long. It'll just be the " popular " one.
I'd call the new screen a significant change.
I'd call the new screen something I want in every display. >300 DPI and IPS on an iPad and all of my computer displays, yes please.
I'd call the new screen something I want in every display. >300 DPI and IPS on an iPad and all of my computer displays, yes please.
Yes. One nice thing about this is that its likely going to get Motorola and HTC to take a look at the iPhone's screen and try to match or beat it on their high end phones. I assume the new iTouch later this will will use some of the iPhone 4 features as well, hopefully the screen. If next year's iPad doesn't use this screen, or a better one, I will be highly disappointed and simply wait another year to get one. If they go a similar route with the new Macbooks Apple may have a chance of convincing me to get one.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
Just like Apple had to match or beat the 800x480 AMOLED screen in the Nexus One. Business as usual.
Indeed. All this back and forth is good for us consumers.
umm, I'd call new processor, better screen, n-wireless, 5MP v. 3MP camera, front camera, gyroscope and totally different case more than "pretty much a 3GS" with the same internals.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/iphone-4-vs-iphone-3gs-the-tale-of-the-tape/
Agreed. By 'same' if they mean a mobile device capable of making phone calls and a multitude of other web-related and interesting/useful/fun/etc features, then sure.
"Match or beat" precisely what about it? Besides the resolution, it's a pretty crummy screen compared to the 3GS'. Its sensors are less precise and its color reproduction is poor.
Probably the main reason behind the denser and better screen is Apple's e-reading push. That's the main reason why the iPad has an IPS display, after all.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
OK then we can compare the iPhone screen to the Droid, EVO, HD2, ETC ETC ETC ETC. Even my Curve 8900 has a higher res screen than the iPhone.
There's more to a screen than resolution. But either way, the iPhone has taken the lead in that particular comparison column, so what exactly are you complaining about?
Apple A4 chip = Arm Cortex A8
Does it not?
And what is in a 3gs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4
They share similar architectures, but the A4's clock speed is faster too. 1GHz vs 800MHz (which the 3GS down-clocks to 600MHz I believe)
Not really. The A4 is based on the Cortex A8, but they've customized it specifically to iOS and bumped up the clock speed. In the end, the performance gain speaks for itself.
iPad = 1024x768
iPhone 4 = 960x640
Aside from the dot pitch/pixel density, the iPad wins hands down. I don't see an issue here...
So they mentioned new radios in the iPhone 4 to support AT&T's 7.2 network. Do the current phones (3G and 3GS) not support this network? Couple of coworkers got the EVO 4G, and they are getting about 4Mbps down on the 4G network. If it's only the new iPhone on the 7.2 network, I think it will be interesting to see a speed comparison between both.
I don't see why they didn't just make the screen such a tiny amount larger - 1/8" on each diagonal would give them a full 3.75" and easily 1024x768 which would match the iPad pixel for pixel - now THAT I would have said would have been damned impressive, but kneecapping it at 960x640... I simply have no clue where the hell that came from even in spite of it being basic pixel doubling (twice as wide, twice as high, for a fourfold increase in actual pixels).
Now the question I'd ask is: even with the "new" higher resolution, will applications written specifically for the iPhone be required to continue being written at 320x480 portrait, or will they allow for higher resolution up to the full 640x960 and then just upscale such apps on the iPad...
The increase in resolution and pixel density is a gimmick, really. "4x the resolution of the original iPhones, and the highest resolution on a phone today" means nothing to me considering it's still just 3.5" diagonal.
This debate will go on forever I suppose. They could have left the resolution exactly the same at 320x480 portrait and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference in the long run - it's shouldn't be considered a major selling point but, that's my opinion. Hell, leaving the original 320x480 LCD panels but making them IPS might even have helped increase battery life to some degree, who knows.
Now the question I'd ask is: even with the "new" higher resolution, will applications written specifically for the iPhone be required to continue being written at 320x480 portrait, or will they allow for higher resolution up to the full 640x960 and then just upscale such apps on the iPad...
The increase in resolution and pixel density is a gimmick, really. "4x the resolution of the original iPhones, and the highest resolution on a phone today" means nothing to me considering it's still just 3.5" diagonal.
This debate will go on forever I suppose. They could have left the resolution exactly the same at 320x480 portrait and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference in the long run - it's shouldn't be considered a major selling point but, that's my opinion. Hell, leaving the original 320x480 LCD panels but making them IPS might even have helped increase battery life to some degree, who knows.
iPad = 1024x768
iPhone 4 = 960x640
Aside from the dot pitch/pixel density, the iPad wins hands down. I don't see an issue here...
That's a pretty big "aside". The iPhone 4 has 80% of the pixels of an iPad in a display only a quarter of the size.
I know the next thing I want in an iPad: >300 DPI on its 10" display. Then I want to see it on a desktop display, ditto Macbook Pros (hell, just make them IPS and I'll be happy, you pretty much never see those in notebooks).
Larger screen means larger iPhone. The iPhone 3G/3Gs is right before the point where it is "too big". Making it smaller is a good thing. I dunno, I'd rather not carry a brick in my pocket (I got something else in my pocket taking up a bunch of room, har har).
Text will be much much sharper and easier on the eyes. It isn't e-paper but getting such high DPIs out of an LCD is a huge step towards closing the gap with e-paper display technology.
The debate will be case closed once people see how awesome extremely high DPI displays are. This sort of thing is the future and it will trickle up into other products.
Regardless of whatever resolution the iPhone 4 has, regardless of whatever pixel density it has, you're still going to be zooming in just as often to read content on web pages in the long run as you would if the display was still 320x480 portrait.
The post I just made above about the 1/8" on the diagonals to get the full 1024x768 applies here as well: websites have been retooling for months now creating 1024 column wide content geared for viewing on the iPad itself - will 960 wide isn't that far off (and most websites that claim 1024 wide are actually offering content at 960 wide) that could be part of the reason. Lop off the "borders" on some websites and wham, you've got 960 pixels of content.
Even in spite of that, and the insane pixel density of this new LCD, I can't imagine trying to read such content on a 3.5" LCD... I've got an Axim X51v with a 3.5" 480x640 portrait screen, I've got a N800 Internet Tablet at 4.3" with 800x480, and a few other devices with similar resolutions on 3.5" to 4.3" screens.
It's nice, yes, but is it all cracked up to be what Apple is making it out to be? Not even...
The post I just made above about the 1/8" on the diagonals to get the full 1024x768 applies here as well: websites have been retooling for months now creating 1024 column wide content geared for viewing on the iPad itself - will 960 wide isn't that far off (and most websites that claim 1024 wide are actually offering content at 960 wide) that could be part of the reason. Lop off the "borders" on some websites and wham, you've got 960 pixels of content.
Even in spite of that, and the insane pixel density of this new LCD, I can't imagine trying to read such content on a 3.5" LCD... I've got an Axim X51v with a 3.5" 480x640 portrait screen, I've got a N800 Internet Tablet at 4.3" with 800x480, and a few other devices with similar resolutions on 3.5" to 4.3" screens.
It's nice, yes, but is it all cracked up to be what Apple is making it out to be? Not even...
This was my biggest disappointment. I was expecting a 64GB model but it didn't happen. From what I've heard, they still don't have 64GB on a single chip, at least in any significant quantities. The iPod Touch can get away with it since the space used by the additional hardware of the iPhone can be used just to throw a second 32GB chip in there, no big deal.
Unless things change in the flash memory world, it seems like 64GB will remain the high end in the iPod Touch. When they finally do crack this, we'll have 64GB iPhones and (wow) 128GB iPod Touches.
Last edited:
That's an oversimplification. A lower pixel pitch means greater readability at lower text sizes. If you were to print a page of text at 100 DPI, you would have a more difficult time making out individual characters at a given distance than if the page had been printed at 300 DPI . Same deal here.
We haven't even seen this display. All we know is that it's an LED-backlit IPS display at 326 PPI.
Everyone who's had any hands-on time with the phone has spoken very positively about its display, some of them commenting specifically that you don't need to zoom in to read through full web pages. I see no reason, at this point, not to get excited about that, and I find it pretty fascinating how so many people are trying so desperately to downplay it.
Do you know the differences?
Of course there is a speed advantage, take the same CPU, and overclock it by 40%, and unsurprisingly it becomes almost 2x as fast... GENIUS!!!
Where in Mr. Jobs press conference did he say the processor in the iphone4 would be running at 1ghz. I missed that part. I am not saying it isn't, but you are making massive fanboy assumptions right now. An A4 at 600mhz like the 3gs, isn't going to provide much of a difference. Heck, just using safari, i don't see a huge difference even when using my iPad... i still get checkerboards on the same webpages my 3gs does.
I also find it fascinating too, fanboyism at its finest. If you had similar DPI in an HTC handset you wouldn't hear the end of it from the same people that are downplaying it in Apple's device.
Very high DPI is the holy grail of displays. Eliminating jaggies in text and high res images will bring displays up to the same level as print. Again, something like this is something only the most diehard fanboy can downplay.
I want it in everything.
But HTC wouldn't dare put such insane DPI/PPI in a 3.5" display, that's the point of the downplaying as it is.
But HTC wouldn't dare put such insane DPI/PPI in a 3.5" display, that's the point of the downplaying as it is.
Haha, just watch, everything is going to go this way, HTC's handsets included. The same Fan-Droids (saw this term for the first time last night and had to laugh) that are downplaying high-DPI displays are going to post about how awesome they are when they end up in HTC's handsets in a year, tops. I've seen it time and time again, so predictable. HTC makes a couple nice handsets but their lower res non-IPS displays are definitely lagging at this point.
Higher DPI is always better, I said this when I first saw the Blackberry Bold's higher pixel density display which is much higher than an iPhone's. Same with the crazy high 110 PPI 27" displays you're seeing in the new iMacs and new Dells. I have one next to a standard 94PPI 24" LCD and the difference is huge. Resolution independence becoming a reality is what makes this workable without people going blind. Eventually displays will be indistinguishable from printed text and images. How is this a bad thing?
The iPhone 4 doubles the resolution and DPI over previous models which allows existing applications to scale up 1:4 pixels with no need for interpolation and crapping on the IQ of rasterized graphics. The iPad's display is not double so you would have artifacts and it would look awful - like trying to upscale a game or video at any resolution that doesn't fall under a 1:4-8-16-etc ratio. Play with the hidden scaling options for the GUI in OS X or change the DPI in Windows for a good example of this in action. With fonts and vectors its non-issue and they will look better regardless.
Always better? At some point more DPI will be essentially indistinguishable (that point is around 300dpi at close viewing, beyond 200dpi is probably diminishing returns where most people wouldn't notice a difference). Even 75 DPI is overkill on a TV you sit 8feet away from.
If you can't see it, it isn't better, it is a waste of resources (bandwidth, GPU power etc..).
As far as resolution independence, I have seen that great an implementation of it yet...
This is correct and I should clarify my point.
There is a point of diminishing returns with DPI. However, that is only a function of how close you interact with a display. A 60" HDTV is generally viewed from 7'-10' away. A computer monitor is viewed from 3' away. A cell phone is viewed from eight inches away. Big difference in all cases.
What matters though is that the threshold for not being able to discern individual pixels still hasn't been crossed in most cases. I have a 1920x1200 24" LCD at 94PPI sitting next to a 27" with 2560x1440 at 109PPI. 30" LCDs have a pixel density of 100PPI, for comparison. The difference in the way they look side-by-side is huge. The 24", which I used to be totally cool with until my 27" spoiled me, renders fonts that look chunky while the other looks totally smooth. This is from an only 15% increase in pixel density. Take PPI even further and you'll get something that's closer to printed images than what we're dealing with now.
Now, the PPI required to get that effect differs from display to display, simply because different displays get used at different distances, but that's different from saying that current displays won't benefit from continuing to increase their pixel density. They just have different thresholds. We're still a ways off from getting to that point where LCDs appears as smooth as print, but we're getting closer every year.
I can't wait for that.
We have it in mobile devices now and it'll (finally) be working 100% in desktops at some point. It is inevitable.
I was obviously talking about the 2x mode in iPad.
If you take the center 960x640 area of the iPad, it's no different than that of iPhone 4.
Except currently the iPad scales it by 2 without "redrawing text and UI elements in full resolution," it just resizes the 480x320 version.
I don't think anyone uses anything at 8 inches from their eyes by choice, that sounds a lot more like an interface that is poorly designed. 8 inches doesn't sound like a comfortable focus distance for many adults (especially anyone over 40).
Where is the resolution independence in mobile devices? Certainly not in Apples where they resort to all kinds of tricks to resize old applications on the ipad and now on the iphone 4 where they certainly chose the resolution with a eye to easy resizing, so there would be little downside for old applications. There are some elements rendered by the OS in the new resolution, but this isn't resolution independence, it is codeing to deal with one resolution change from old half resolution to new resolution.