The Nexus 4, Nexus 10, Galaxy S3, S4, One X and One displays are all better so that obviously isn't the case...:o
The S3 and Nexus 4 screens are not better at all, and the S3 screen is PenTile and is dog awful over saturated cheap crud.
Anyone who thinks a Pentile screen is better than a Retina display needs a lobotomy. Other phones may have larger screens but none produce a crisp clear sharp image even comparable to a Retina display.
I have likewise no idea why you feel the need to change the retina decree which is specific for each device into some general rule of thumb.
Anyway you ignore any post you can't answer and continue with the apple mantra.. You really are lost
Not sure if you edited that or if I missed it.
I still don't know what this "retina decree" is that you keep wanging on about.
The rule of thumb is that the larger the display, the greater the typical viewing distance.
Because of that rule of thumb, the pixel density of a device will depend on the typical viewing distance of that device.
I'm at a loss as to which part of that you don't understand, or exactly what part of anything Apple have said about pixel density and viewing distance is inaccurate or unreasonable.
Because any time I ask you about that you ignore me, and either wang on about the "retina decree" or about how I am lost or some other such nonsense.
So 12 is too close 13 Is ok... And twelve is too close says who exactly? So viewing distances are defined by you now yes?
Take a mac book retina... Regardless of a lap top screen size because of ergonomics and the need to type regardless of screen size a laptop will be the same distance from your eyes agreed?
13 and 15 mac book however for them both to be compliant with retina they need to be different distances from your eyes simply not logical... Having set the 13 up to meet retina I then have to adjust for the 15 to be retina.
Finally there is no scientific proof that any claims about the ability of the human eye claimed by Apple are actually true which should be enough to stop you in your tracks alone.
In any event this subject been some to death you clearly won't or refuse to see so little point.
Seems some carriers are now slightly panicky. They are contracted to fully pay for and sell a quota over a fixed period. That weird LTE thing also made it a bit of an Animal Farm.
Hard bargaining or is it really antitrust?
edit - Obviously now, much of this part stems from that LTE hard bargaining that no doubt went on. It was totally absurd that Apple needed to test the quality of the networks LTE.
So 12 is too close 13 Is ok... And twelve is too close says who exactly? So viewing distances are defined by you now yes?
Take a mac book retina... Regardless of a lap top screen size because of ergonomics and the need to type regardless of screen size a laptop will be the same distance from your eyes agreed?
13 and 15 mac book however for them both to be compliant with retina they need to be different distances from your eyes simply not logical... Having set the 13 up to meet retina I then have to adjust for the 15 to be retina.
Finally there is no scientific proof that any claims about the ability of the human eye claimed by Apple are actually true which should be enough to stop you in your tracks alone.
In any event this subject been some to death you clearly won't or refuse to see so little point.
I didn't say it was too close.
I said it was likely to be closer than most people would typically hold it for any length of time.
I don't quite get your point about the 13" and 15" laptops - the viewing distance for each will be approximately the same. What adjustment is it you think you need to make?
I don't need flipping scientific proof to tell me something, when I can see it with my own eyes, is widely accepted, and can even be demonstrated by mathematics anyway.
It is you, not me, who is ignoring all of that.
In other news, i usually comes before e after c. This is like you trying to argue that is't true, by pointing out that i sometimes comes after the e.
Pointing out the exception to a rule, does not disprove the rule generally.
All it does is show that you are hellbent on purposely missing the point.
All it does is show that you are hellbent on purposely missing the point.
Retina doesn't have a rule or a specific specification. Therefore, it's anything Apple want it to be. They could release a smartphone with an 100PPI display and call it Retina.
The rule is that the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
So they could not release a smartphone with a 100PPI display and call it retina, because the pixel density would not be sufficiently high to render individual pixels invisible under typical use.
This is such a simple thing to grasp, I do wonder if this is just a wind up.
With my small cheap 3.5" SF I tend to squint very close at the screen to see text.
Whilst it would be natural to hold the bigger iPhone 5 further away I would surely end up squinting even closer than my SF.
It's also why I think 720p is fine for 5" with 1080p not being a major advantage.
Bigger screens simply mean I am happy holding them further and further away, all depending on eye-sight and situation.
The rule is that the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
So they could not release a smartphone with a 100PPI display and call it retina, because the pixel density would not be sufficiently high to render individual pixels invisible under typical use.
This is such a simple thing to grasp, I do wonder if this is just a wind up.
But Apple initially said it was any device with 300PPI or greater. The iPad 3 had 264PPI. They change it to suit themselves.
With my small cheap 3.5" SF I tend to squint very close at the screen to see text.
Whilst it would be natural to hold the bigger iPhone 5 further away I would surely end up squinting even closer than my SF.
It's also why I think 720p is fine for 5" with 1080p not being a major advantage.
Bigger screens simply mean I am happy holding them further and further away, all depending on eye-sight and situation.
Yes, I think there is.
In this case, "typical use" covers just about anything that isn't uncomfortably close.
No, but they did change the minimum specifications. Meaning Retina means nothing.
I don't know why you keep saying it doesn't mean anything, when it means the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
Did you read the article? No, probably not.
Did you look at an iPad and come back and tell us how pixellated it looks? No.
You said there was no science and none was needed.
And any screen apple make can be retina if apple so decide. From one inch to 100 inches with any ppi apple choose as long as it is viewed from a distance apple decide makes pixels invisible, that is a simple FACT regardless how unlikely it may or how much you argue against it, it does not change the FACT.
You said there was no science and none was needed.
And any screen apple make can be retina if apple so decide. From one inch to 100 inches with any ppi apple choose as long as it is viewed from a distance apple decide makes pixels invisible, that is a simple FACT regardless how unlikely it may or how much you argue against it, it does not change the FACT.
That is why it is utter cobblers my friend
Do you realise your viewable posting history is 496 posts of slating Apple and everything about Apple. You really need to get a life, its very weird and boredline obsessive.
Apple is just a tech company advertising their products so they can keep in business keep people in jobs and make profit. They use advertising terms, these are not an all out attack on YOU personally. Just relax.
You accuse anyone who likes Apple of being an Apple nut, but I challenge you to find any Apple user on this forum who slates Android, Samsung, Google anywhere near as much as you slate Apple. Apple users really are not the nuts here, I mean someone here has actually called their own father a Apple nut job simply for using the phones.
Understand this- People buy Apple because they like them, thats all, they like the look feel and way the work. They don't love them or cherish them or think they're amazing. They just use them and like the way they work.
I don't know why you keep saying it doesn't mean anything, when it means the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
Did you read the article? No, probably not.
Did you look at an iPad and come back and tell us how pixellated it looks? No.
Do you realise your viewable posting history is 496 posts of slating Apple and everything about Apple. You really need to get a life, its very weird and boredline obsessive.
Apple is just a tech company advertising their products so they can keep in business keep people in jobs and make profit. They use advertising terms, these are not an all out attack on YOU personally. Just relax.
You accuse anyone who likes Apple of being an Apple nut, but I challenge you to find any Apple user on this forum who slates Android, Samsung, Google anywhere near as much as you slate Apple. Apple users really are not the nuts here, I mean someone here has actually called their own father a Apple nut job simply for using the phones.
Understand this- People buy Apple because they like them, thats all, they like the look feel and way the work. They don't love them or cherish them or think they're amazing. They just use them and like the way they work.
Actually, it happens quite frequently from Apple users. There adamant Apple is the best. Their also convinced Apple's constant lawsuits are fine too :rolleyes:
Do you realise your viewable posting history is 496 posts of slating Apple and everything about Apple. You really need to get a life, its very weird and boredline obsessive.
Apple is just a tech company advertising their products so they can keep in business keep people in jobs and make profit. They use advertising terms, these are not an all out attack on YOU personally. Just relax.
You accuse anyone who likes Apple of being an Apple nut, but I challenge you to find any Apple user on this forum who slates Android, Samsung, Google anywhere near as much as you slate Apple. Apple users really are not the nuts here, I mean someone here has actually called their own father a Apple nut job simply for using the phones.
Understand this- People buy Apple because they like them, thats all, they like the look feel and way the work. They don't love them or cherish them or think they're amazing. They just use them and like the way they work.
Could you possibly bore me any more ... the only way would be to actually read what you post.
Think I preferred you when you were bitching like a little girl (although you may be actually by all accounts) about how I and others got you banned.
Comments
Hmm great questions of the universe... Like why does everything you post bore me to tears :yawn:
The S3 and Nexus 4 screens are not better at all, and the S3 screen is PenTile and is dog awful over saturated cheap crud.
Anyone who thinks a Pentile screen is better than a Retina display needs a lobotomy. Other phones may have larger screens but none produce a crisp clear sharp image even comparable to a Retina display.
You would be surprised I've heard rumours some apple users think ios maps are good so anything is possible.
Not sure if you edited that or if I missed it.
I still don't know what this "retina decree" is that you keep wanging on about.
The rule of thumb is that the larger the display, the greater the typical viewing distance.
Because of that rule of thumb, the pixel density of a device will depend on the typical viewing distance of that device.
I'm at a loss as to which part of that you don't understand, or exactly what part of anything Apple have said about pixel density and viewing distance is inaccurate or unreasonable.
Because any time I ask you about that you ignore me, and either wang on about the "retina decree" or about how I am lost or some other such nonsense.
What I just said.
The rule of thumb is that the larger the display, the greater the typical viewing distance.
Or do you disagree with that?
Because of that rule of thumb, the required pixel density of a device will depend on the typical viewing distance of that device.
Or do you disagree with that?
Could you please summarise what it is you think Apple are saying, and why you think it is wrong or unreasonable?
Because I'm having difficulty in understanding exactly what it is you are trying to say.
If I use an Ipad is it unreasonable for me to hold it 12" from my eyes yes or no?
I'm getting then from common sense and practical experience.
Do you agree that the larger the display, the greater the typical viewing distance, or don't you?
Do you agree that the required pixel density of a device will depend on the typical viewing distance of that device, or don't you?
I would think that 12" is closer than most people would typically hold a tablet in front of them for any length of time.
And even then, 12" is only 1" closer then the 13" cited in the article I linked to.
Do you have a 9/10" tablet? Do you typically hold it that close to your eyes?
I get the impression that you keep ignoring these questions, because its difficult to do so without conceding the point.
So instead you dance this merry dance, expecting some sort of empirical / mathematical proof of something that should be blindingly obvious to anyone.
Take a mac book retina... Regardless of a lap top screen size because of ergonomics and the need to type regardless of screen size a laptop will be the same distance from your eyes agreed?
13 and 15 mac book however for them both to be compliant with retina they need to be different distances from your eyes simply not logical... Having set the 13 up to meet retina I then have to adjust for the 15 to be retina.
Finally there is no scientific proof that any claims about the ability of the human eye claimed by Apple are actually true which should be enough to stop you in your tracks alone.
In any event this subject been some to death you clearly won't or refuse to see so little point.
"Antitrust"
"Apple’s practice of telling carriers how many phones they must sell and threatening to penalize them shows just how powerful the iPhone has become as a bargaining chip."
Seems some carriers are now slightly panicky. They are contracted to fully pay for and sell a quota over a fixed period. That weird LTE thing also made it a bit of an Animal Farm.
Hard bargaining or is it really antitrust?
edit - Obviously now, much of this part stems from that LTE hard bargaining that no doubt went on. It was totally absurd that Apple needed to test the quality of the networks LTE.
I didn't say it was too close.
I said it was likely to be closer than most people would typically hold it for any length of time.
I don't quite get your point about the 13" and 15" laptops - the viewing distance for each will be approximately the same. What adjustment is it you think you need to make?
I don't need flipping scientific proof to tell me something, when I can see it with my own eyes, is widely accepted, and can even be demonstrated by mathematics anyway.
It is you, not me, who is ignoring all of that.
In other news, i usually comes before e after c. This is like you trying to argue that is't true, by pointing out that i sometimes comes after the e.
Pointing out the exception to a rule, does not disprove the rule generally.
All it does is show that you are hellbent on purposely missing the point.
Retina doesn't have a rule or a specific specification. Therefore, it's anything Apple want it to be. They could release a smartphone with an 100PPI display and call it Retina.
The rule is that the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
So they could not release a smartphone with a 100PPI display and call it retina, because the pixel density would not be sufficiently high to render individual pixels invisible under typical use.
This is such a simple thing to grasp, I do wonder if this is just a wind up.
With my small cheap 3.5" SF I tend to squint very close at the screen to see text.
Whilst it would be natural to hold the bigger iPhone 5 further away I would surely end up squinting even closer than my SF.
It's also why I think 720p is fine for 5" with 1080p not being a major advantage.
Bigger screens simply mean I am happy holding them further and further away, all depending on eye-sight and situation.
But Apple initially said it was any device with 300PPI or greater. The iPad 3 had 264PPI. They change it to suit themselves.
Yes, I think there is.
In this case, "typical use" covers just about anything that isn't uncomfortably close.
They can't change the science involved.
Go and look at an iPad at a normal viewing distance, then come back and tell us how pixellated the display looks.
And this article might help too.
No, but they did change the minimum specifications. Meaning Retina means nothing.
I don't know why you keep saying it doesn't mean anything, when it means the pixel density is sufficiently high that under typical use individual pixels cannot be distinguished.
Did you read the article? No, probably not.
Did you look at an iPad and come back and tell us how pixellated it looks? No.
My SF is often uncomfortably close. And the iPhone 5 would end up even closer.
You said there was no science and none was needed.
And any screen apple make can be retina if apple so decide. From one inch to 100 inches with any ppi apple choose as long as it is viewed from a distance apple decide makes pixels invisible, that is a simple FACT regardless how unlikely it may or how much you argue against it, it does not change the FACT.
That is why it is utter cobblers my friend
Do you realise your viewable posting history is 496 posts of slating Apple and everything about Apple. You really need to get a life, its very weird and boredline obsessive.
Apple is just a tech company advertising their products so they can keep in business keep people in jobs and make profit. They use advertising terms, these are not an all out attack on YOU personally. Just relax.
You accuse anyone who likes Apple of being an Apple nut, but I challenge you to find any Apple user on this forum who slates Android, Samsung, Google anywhere near as much as you slate Apple. Apple users really are not the nuts here, I mean someone here has actually called their own father a Apple nut job simply for using the phones.
Understand this- People buy Apple because they like them, thats all, they like the look feel and way the work. They don't love them or cherish them or think they're amazing. They just use them and like the way they work.
Define 'normal'. It's too vague.
Actually, it happens quite frequently from Apple users. There adamant Apple is the best. Their also convinced Apple's constant lawsuits are fine too :rolleyes:
Could you possibly bore me any more ... the only way would be to actually read what you post.
Think I preferred you when you were bitching like a little girl (although you may be actually by all accounts) about how I and others got you banned.