7 ms·

The SuperAMOLED display is supposed to mitigate the sun factor, so it will be interesting to see how it works. I'm sure Apple has evaluated that tech, but choos

by edster 16y ago

The SuperAMOLED display is supposed to mitigate the sun factor, so it will be interesting to see how it works. I'm sure Apple has evaluated that tech, but chooses not to use it for some reason whether it's cost, availability or simply the fact that it's not yet good enough. Personally, when I use the iPhone in bed with my glasses off and I surf or watch something, I see pixels. I can't wait to see how the new screen performs. You characterize the fact that they went super high resolution to accommodate existing apps as a bad thing? How many other companies would have chosen the cheap and easy way out? I say most. This is one example of Apple's focus on the consumer that separates it from the competition.

ergo98 16y ago
>I'm sure Apple has evaluated that tech, but chooses not to use it for some reason The reason is almost certainly limited supply. If you want to sell millions upon millions of a device, and the premium part has limited supply, you simply don't use the premium part. The less obvious reason is that OLEDs simply don't come with that high of a density, so Apple would have had to increase the screen size or go with a lower resolution which, as mentioned in the following point, they didn't want to do (and it isn't to achieve some bogus "retina" quality). >You characterize the fact that they went super high resolution to accommodate existing apps as a bad thing? It's bad in that its covering a mistake. The iPhone SDK should have had density-independent pixels from the outset -- geez we've known about this problem for years -- but it didn't. It was remarkably shortsighted, and still they merely duct tape it. >How many other companies would have chosen the cheap and easy way out? Apple chose the easy way out, so not really sure what you're saying there. They went with a basic LCD display so I doubt the cost is all that great.
- gaiusparx 16y ago
  > In reality the 960x640 display was necessitated by the very limited adaptability of iPhone applications to varying screen densities. They couldn't just pixel double if they went to 800x480, for instance, but their hand was pretty much forced to double each axis. > It's bad in that its covering a mistake. The iPhone SDK should have had density-independent pixels from the outset -- geez we've known about this problem for years -- but it didn't. It was remarkably shortsighted, and still they merely duct tape it. Clearly shows you know nuts about the iPhone SDK.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Sure would be mighty good of you to clear this up for us then. I look forward to it. I know enough about the iPhone SDK to know it is very physical pixel-centric. Contrast this to the Android SDK that is very pixel agnostic (which is how it isn't a big deal that one device has 854x480 and another has 480x320. The former simply looks better. Just as it isn't a big deal if aspect ratios significantly change, whereas in iPhone world developers had to rush to make iPad specific apps, just as now they'll have to make iPhone 4 variants if they don't want simple pixel doubling. Nonetheless, I look forward to your clarification.
    - gaiusparx 16y ago
      iPhone SDK doc: "In iPhone OS there is a distinction between the coordinates you specify in your drawing code and the pixels of the underlying device. When using native drawing technologies such as Quartz, UIKit, and Core Animation, you specify coordinate values using a logical coordinate space, which measures distances in points. This logical coordinate system is decoupled from the device coordinate space used by the system frameworks to manage the pixels on the screen." I am not familiar with Android SDK. Do you mean you can write one UI code that runs on all Android devices irregardless of their screen resolution? Such as on Nexus one and a tablet running Android?

by edster 16y ago

ergo98 16y ago

>I'm sure Apple has evaluated that tech, but chooses not to use it for some reason The reason is almost certainly limited supply. If you want to sell millions upon millions of a device, and the premium part has limited supply, you simply don't use the premium part. The less obvious reason is that OLEDs simply don't come with that high of a density, so Apple would have had to increase the screen size or go with a lower resolution which, as mentioned in the following point, they didn't want to do (and it isn't to achieve some bogus "retina" quality). >You characterize the fact that they went super high resolution to accommodate existing apps as a bad thing? It's bad in that its covering a mistake. The iPhone SDK should have had density-independent pixels from the outset -- geez we've known about this problem for years -- but it didn't. It was remarkably shortsighted, and still they merely duct tape it. >How many other companies would have chosen the cheap and easy way out? Apple chose the easy way out, so not really sure what you're saying there. They went with a basic LCD display so I doubt the cost is all that great.

gaiusparx 16y ago
> In reality the 960x640 display was necessitated by the very limited adaptability of iPhone applications to varying screen densities. They couldn't just pixel double if they went to 800x480, for instance, but their hand was pretty much forced to double each axis. > It's bad in that its covering a mistake. The iPhone SDK should have had density-independent pixels from the outset -- geez we've known about this problem for years -- but it didn't. It was remarkably shortsighted, and still they merely duct tape it. Clearly shows you know nuts about the iPhone SDK.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Sure would be mighty good of you to clear this up for us then. I look forward to it. I know enough about the iPhone SDK to know it is very physical pixel-centric. Contrast this to the Android SDK that is very pixel agnostic (which is how it isn't a big deal that one device has 854x480 and another has 480x320. The former simply looks better. Just as it isn't a big deal if aspect ratios significantly change, whereas in iPhone world developers had to rush to make iPad specific apps, just as now they'll have to make iPhone 4 variants if they don't want simple pixel doubling. Nonetheless, I look forward to your clarification.
  - gaiusparx 16y ago
    iPhone SDK doc: "In iPhone OS there is a distinction between the coordinates you specify in your drawing code and the pixels of the underlying device. When using native drawing technologies such as Quartz, UIKit, and Core Animation, you specify coordinate values using a logical coordinate space, which measures distances in points. This logical coordinate system is decoupled from the device coordinate space used by the system frameworks to manage the pixels on the screen." I am not familiar with Android SDK. Do you mean you can write one UI code that runs on all Android devices irregardless of their screen resolution? Such as on Nexus one and a tablet running Android?