Quote:
Originally Posted by vector
I agree the screen real estate is more valuable than the gyro but Apple took it too far with the retina. They did a disservice to customers by making it too high to be fully useful.
|
It's nonsensical to say that's a disservice unless there's a noticeable performance hit, decrease in battery life, cost increase, or sizing/scaling issues.
As far as performance goes, we don't know yet if iPhone4 will be fast enough to render all those pixels smoothly, but it is reportedly zippy.
The cost is known and isn't an issue.
Battery life is reportedly good.
That leaves scaling, and anyone who has used an iPhone or iPad knows that it's not an issue. Things were hard to read on my hx4705 and Axim X50v, but they didn't size webpages dynamically (or quickly and conveniently like iOS does; no worrying about font sizes... just drag and zoom) and because iPhone4 quadrupled the pixels, apps that don't scale well will simply be quadrupled (but look better due to the extra anti-aliasing for most text and graphics... having seen this in action on the iPad, I can tell you it works).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vector
I just think the retina is more proof that Apple is more marketing than engineering. They realized they were behind the game with their screen resolution. Steve J. insisted they had to be higher than everyone else.
|
Obviously the resolution was chosen to maintain compatibility with existing apps. They knew they had to step it up because of competition from high-end Android devices. But yes the term "retina" is more of Apple's puke inducing marketing (like "magical"). I don't think that supports your assertion that Apple is more marketing than engineering.
__________________
HP 48s, 200lx, USR Pilot 1k, Palm 3, V, M100, Handspring Visor, Sony N610c, T615c, T655c, HP iPAQ 1910, 2215, Palm T3, HP hx4705, Dell X50v, HP rx1955, Apple iPhone, 3G, 3GS, 4, Samsung Galaxy Nexus
|