> My eye doesn't have a zoom. I see things at their actual size and even holding my phone right up to my eye I can't get it as large as those images. Details that I can't see without artificial zoom are the same as details that I can't see period.
They're zoomed because it's the only way to demonstrate the difference when the display you're looking at almost certainly has a lower PPI. It's no different from having to zoom in on a print sample to show how clear a printer's text is on a monitor.
> Clearly, higher resolutions up to some point are better for display purposes, but there's tradeoffs involved. I believe smaller pixels means less light gets through, it's more work for your processors which means less battery life, etc.
Which makes it all the more impressive that iPhone 4 has four times the contrast ratio and better battery life than previous iPhones, with the speed of an iPad, in a physically smaller space. Given that everything has been improved, it's clearly not much of a tradeoff.
FYI, iOS is perfectly capable of running applications designed for other resolutions. It's not for lack of 'flexibility' on the operating system's part that Apple chose not to utilize intermediate resolutions for its hardware.
It's also a little strange to see Android phones' variety of resolutions being described as some sort of path that Android has trailblazed. For one thing, the operating system has nothing to do with it, and for another, that sort of thing has been standard practice for a long time now, whether you're considering computers in general or even just mobile handsets.
Your definition of trade-off seems broken. If I can make a car much bigger, or make it much more fuel efficient because I've got a new lightweight alloy body then that's still a trade-off even if I decide to make it a little bit bigger and a little bit more fuel efficient.
I personally think they've been forced to overshoot on screen density in return for platform homogeneity, the much lesser discussed cousin of the ever popular "fragmentation" and this will cost them money, performance and battery life. They are of course making lemonade from this particular lemon via marketing in an attempt to counteract the benefit that rivals will receive by choosing the screen with the best balance of quality/price/battery at any particular point in time for their devices.
Follow the pattern: processor speed: no comment (i.e. the same as everyone else, soon to be lower as new models are released), memory: no comment (i.e. half the flagship rivals, same as the rest), screen density: let's shout this metric from the rooftops because as any longtime Apple follower (like myself) knows, it's only "about the total experience" when you can't actually beat them on the raw figures. If you happen to be forced to use a spec that by your own marketing is higher than actually necessary or visible most of the time, then that figure becomes vitally important since no-one even wants to match it because they want to focus on the "total experience" rather than chase your metric.
Your definition of trade-off seems broken. If I can make a car much bigger,
or make it much more fuel efficient then that's still a trade-off even if I
decide to make it a little bit bigger and a little bit more fuel efficient.
There's nothing wrong with my definition of a trade-off. What you're pointing out here is that all design inherently involves trade-offs, which is just a simple fact. Your previous post, however, makes the FUDdy suggestion that people are going to get something worse than before ("I believe smaller pixels means less light gets through, it's more work for your processors which means less battery life etc.")
I guess it's possible that when you talked about "less light" and "less battery life", you were speaking in reference to theoretical maximums which Apple could have chosen to individually pursue at the expense of all other factors, as opposed to the display quality and battery life of existing phones. In which case, you were simply stating a practical fact and not offering a criticism. But it sure doesn't sound that way.
They are of course making lemonade from this particular lemon via marketing
in an attempt to counteract the benefit that rivals will receive by choosing
the screen with the best balance of quality/price/battery at any particular
point in time for their devices.
Where and what are those devices?
let's shout this metric from the rooftops because as any longtime Apple
follower (like myself) knows, it's only "about the total experience" when
you can't actually beat them on the raw figures.
You'll notice Apple continues to emphasize the experience here, which is why they bothered to talk about human optics rather than simply dumping the 326 ppi figure and moving on. And sure, they like to brag about specs when they can, but it's the fact that they're fundamentally about the total experience that gives them the highest customer satisfaction ratings.
If you happen to be forced to use a spec that by your own marketing is higher
than actually necessary or visible most of the time, then that figure becomes
vitally important since no-one even wants to match it because they want to
focus on the "total experience" rather than chase your metric.
Nobody was forced to do anything. 960x640 was a particularly convenient choice for two reasons: it allowed them to have maximally sharp text and images, while sidestepping problems that arise with scaling apps for previous devices by non-integer values.
They're zoomed because it's the only way to demonstrate the difference when the display you're looking at almost certainly has a lower PPI. It's no different from having to zoom in on a print sample to show how clear a printer's text is on a monitor.
> Clearly, higher resolutions up to some point are better for display purposes, but there's tradeoffs involved. I believe smaller pixels means less light gets through, it's more work for your processors which means less battery life, etc.
Which makes it all the more impressive that iPhone 4 has four times the contrast ratio and better battery life than previous iPhones, with the speed of an iPad, in a physically smaller space. Given that everything has been improved, it's clearly not much of a tradeoff.
FYI, iOS is perfectly capable of running applications designed for other resolutions. It's not for lack of 'flexibility' on the operating system's part that Apple chose not to utilize intermediate resolutions for its hardware.
It's also a little strange to see Android phones' variety of resolutions being described as some sort of path that Android has trailblazed. For one thing, the operating system has nothing to do with it, and for another, that sort of thing has been standard practice for a long time now, whether you're considering computers in general or even just mobile handsets.