Because the iPad is on a massive screen the size of a book and the iPod is still what.... 2x4 inches?
Have you actually seen what the iPad does when you go to 2x mode?
It's mapping 480x320 to 960x640... but across 8 or so inches.
With the new iPhone resolution you'd be mapping twice as many pixels to a space that is half the size.
So what? That's just a problem of whether or not you can squeeze the pixels onto the screen, not a problem of visibility.
If they can make a 960x640 screen that's 2x4 inches, everything is still going to be just as visible, because it'll either A) be redesigned with the higher resolution in mind, or use the old design (made for a 480x320 screen) with all the pixels doubled and be exactly the same size as before.
Yes but that doubling looks pretty crappy, really.
If you have something that's 50x50 and you make it 100x100, even if it's still 10mmx10mm physically, you can tell there's been darkness going on there.
At least
You can if you've spent the last 5 years QAing graphics work at the pixel level detail.
My point is that your point, A), is a huge pain in the ass.
One of the big things that is haunting Android is its screen size inconsistencies, because of this very same problem. Well, one of the same things, which is bitmapping. Android is also plagued by ratio inconsistencies, but the point is that fragmenting your platform into multiple screen standards should be avoided at all costs. If this happens then Apple devs go from supporting 1 screen to 3 screens inside of a few months.
Jasconius on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Condescend more, please, it really hides the fact that you've been talking out your ass.
don't want to derail this too far into a discussion of the morality of what Gizmodo did to get this exclusive, but the main editor just outed on twitter that they paid $5,000 to get the exclusive, stating that "their obligation is to their readers." It will be interesting to see what action, if any, Apple takes against Gizmodo for paying for what is stolen property.
Anyways, back to the device, I like the new form factor a lot. It reminds me of my Samsung Eternity (current phone) which has always felt better in my hand than the curved iPhone. I also imagine that it will be a ton more pocket-friendly as a result of this
Doubling resolution is a legit concern from a developer perspective. And I was offering it as a counterpoint to a potential screen change. That was my point.
But continue masturbating on your new toy. What the fuck ever.
If this happens then Apple devs go from supporting 1 screen to 3 screens inside of a few months.
This was going to happen no matter what. They can't stick to 480x320 indefinitely just because that's what the apps were originally developed for. Other hardware manufacturers have already moved on to much higher resolution screens and Apple needs to as well if they want their phones to remain competitive.
Besides, super-high-density screens look freakin' fantastic. I hope they bring this screen to this year's iPod touch as well. I would snap that up in a heartbeat.
don't want to derail this too far into a discussion of the morality of what Gizmodo did to get this exclusive, but the main editor just outed on twitter that they paid $5,000 to get the exclusive, stating that "their obligation is to their readers." It will be interesting to see what action, if any, Apple takes against Gizmodo for paying for what is stolen property.
Anyways, back to the device, I like the new form factor a lot. It reminds me of my Samsung Eternity (current phone) which has always felt better in my hand than the curved iPhone. I also imagine that it will be a ton more pocket-friendly as a result of this
I don't think it's really much of a legal issue. It doesn't have a "property of Apple, Inc" sticker or label on it, asking anyone who finds it to return it to the company. It was found by a random person, who supposedly had intentions of returning it, until Apple wiped it. Apple wiped the phone rather than calling it, trying to recover it. It was reported to have been missing for a few weeks before the guy sold it.
Granted, the guy could have returned it to an Apple store, but would anyone there really know what to do with it? He tried calling corporate and no one there would acknowledge him. I figure after all of that, the hardware itself is fair game. The only thing he didn't do was file a police report of found property, which unless Apple made a police report of lost property, I don't know if the police would have anything to do with it either.
I think it's fair game to accept payment and pay for a piece of hardware that was found, just as finding money on the ground is fair game if no one claims it after a while and you make an effort to return it.
Jasc, the real issue with your argument is the assumption that Apple cares about developers.
Sure they do. Arguments to the contrary are pandering to sentiment.
They certainly care more about their developers than the Android team does. Android is already a nightmare compared to what iPhone developers have to work with.
Jasc, the real issue with your argument is the assumption that Apple cares about developers.
Sure they do. Arguments to the contrary are pandering to sentiment.
They certainly care more about their developers than the Android team does. Android is already a nightmare compared to what iPhone developers have to work with.
Who said anything about Android?
My point was more that consumers are far more important than developers to consider. That's the way ther market works. If they change the device in a way that grows the insane user base even larger, developers will adapt, because there is a crazy ammount of money to be made there, more than enough to make the effort worthwhile.
This is true, but at some point you need to facilitate universal support for your applications in a way that is sensible and consistent. Apple gains nothing from making it, for example, really easy to build an iPhone app but really hard to port it to the iPad using the same binary. Which... it is bordering on right now. They are trying to promote the new device, not kill it. They have a revenue interest in improving the flow of creating universal binaries.
Meanwhile, Google doesn't have a whole lot of stake in the same, except for Android licensing fees which they are probably getting by default right now just so guys like HTC can get *something* to market. 'specially with Palm going down in flames.
California law disagrees with you. I've seen that a couple other places as well. Not being a lawyer myself, my uneducated opinion is that proving a case of theft would be difficult given the information that has been made public so far. However, I'm pretty sure Giz is going to have to give it back. Besides, what the hell is it worth fighting for at this point? They've gotten as much out of it as they're going to given the SW wipe. Also, while I definitely see where some people are coming from suggesting this was a deliberate leak for press, I seriously doubt it. The manner this all went down is grossly different than other situations the past few years where that might have been true.
Edit: I think I misunderstood your post, so clarified. It's not a legal issue as long as Giz gives it back which they are going to do apparently. Also, did anyone notice the tone of that letter from Apple? Considering some of the no-nonsense fuck-you letters we've seen from that department, the tone of that letter smells of "shameface" all over the place to me.
Apple gains nothing from making it, for example, really easy to build an iPhone app but really hard to port it to the iPad using the same binary.
Not directly, but they could gain something by doing something else that also has that indirect effect.
Right. A prime example of that would be expanding the iPhone resolution.
I just don't believe that's pre-ordained.
They could just as easily elect to take it mass(er) market by sticking with the old screen, getting it on Verizon (which has been hinted more strongly) and dropping the entry price by 50 or 100 bucks.
Apple gains nothing from making it, for example, really easy to build an iPhone app but really hard to port it to the iPad using the same binary.
Not directly, but they could gain something by doing something else that also has that indirect effect.
Right. A prime example of that would be expanding the iPhone resolution.
I just don't believe that's pre-ordained.
They could just as easily elect to take it mass(er) market by sticking with the old screen, getting it on Verizon (which has been hinted more strongly) and dropping the entry price by 50 or 100 bucks.
and then when a person sees the resolution side by side with a Droid or Incredible on a store shelf?
There is an arms race that they have to keep pace with.
edit: forget this. I'm not in an iphone thread to talk about android. My point is that the market standard resolution is becoming larger, and it is absurd to think that Apple isn't going to try to keep up or exceed.
I don't think it's really much of a legal issue. It doesn't have a "property of Apple, Inc" sticker or label on it, asking anyone who finds it to return it to the company. It was found by a random person, who supposedly had intentions of returning it, until Apple wiped it. Apple wiped the phone rather than calling it, trying to recover it. It was reported to have been missing for a few weeks before the guy sold it.
Gizmodo is probably safe in criminal court, but could lose big in civil court. Although the guy who sold it is potentially much more liable.
I don't think it's really much of a legal issue. It doesn't have a "property of Apple, Inc" sticker or label on it, asking anyone who finds it to return it to the company. It was found by a random person, who supposedly had intentions of returning it, until Apple wiped it. Apple wiped the phone rather than calling it, trying to recover it. It was reported to have been missing for a few weeks before the guy sold it.
Gizmodo is probably safe in criminal court, but could lose big in civil court. Although the guy who sold it is potentially much more liable.
I don't see Gizmodo losing anything here. Their response letter to Apple says all the right things, and as long as they don't do anything to make the return difficult, they have fine plausible deniability.
Doubling resolution is a legit concern from a developer perspective. And I was offering it as a counterpoint to a potential screen change. That was my point.
But continue masturbating on your new toy. What the fuck ever.
If you give an iPhone 4x as many pixels (since that's what we're really talking about by 'doubling' the resolution), and then take each 'pixel' (as output by a current iPhone app for the old resolution) to be equivalent to 4 actual hardware pixels, you're looking at (original number of pixels * 4) / 4 'pixels', which will give you the exact same PPI when viewed on a 3.5" screen that the app would on a regular old iPhone. Realistically, if this wasn't the case Apple would just pick a resolution that wasn't so nonstandard and weird.
The potential problem with a screen change isn't "old/current apps are going to look hideous", it's "if we're supporting pre-iPhone 4G devices, we now need to maintain art assets for two separate resolutions, plus maybe a third iPad-specific interface on top of that".
Doubling resolution is a legit concern from a developer perspective. And I was offering it as a counterpoint to a potential screen change. That was my point.
But continue masturbating on your new toy. What the fuck ever.
If you give an iPhone 4x as many pixels (since that's what we're really talking about by 'doubling' the resolution), and then take each 'pixel' (as output by a current iPhone app for the old resolution) to be equivalent to 4 actual hardware pixels, you're looking at (original number of pixels * 4) / 4 'pixels', which will give you the exact same PPI when viewed on a 3.5" screen that the app would on a regular old iPhone. Realistically, if this wasn't the case Apple would just pick a resolution that wasn't so nonstandard and weird.
The potential problem with a screen change isn't "old/current apps are going to look hideous", it's "if we're supporting pre-iPhone 4G devices, we now need to maintain art assets for two separate resolutions, plus maybe a third iPad-specific interface on top of that".
No way dude. He's a graphics something something for years. It'll look terrible!
Doubling resolution is a legit concern from a developer perspective. And I was offering it as a counterpoint to a potential screen change. That was my point.
But continue masturbating on your new toy. What the fuck ever.
If you give an iPhone 4x as many pixels (since that's what we're really talking about by 'doubling' the resolution), and then take each 'pixel' (as output by a current iPhone app for the old resolution) to be equivalent to 4 actual hardware pixels, you're looking at (original number of pixels * 4) / 4 'pixels', which will give you the exact same PPI when viewed on a 3.5" screen that the app would on a regular old iPhone. Realistically, if this wasn't the case Apple would just pick a resolution that wasn't so nonstandard and weird.
The potential problem with a screen change isn't "old/current apps are going to look hideous", it's "if we're supporting pre-iPhone 4G devices, we now need to maintain art assets for two separate resolutions, plus maybe a third iPad-specific interface on top of that".
Basically for old iPhone Apps, instead of a pixel ebing a pixel it will be a 2x2 pixel square. Which, seeing as the ratio is exactly the same, will look exactly the same as it does on the current iphone.
It's a very clever way to get around the increase in resolution.
I don't believe the story behind this "leak" for a goddamn minute. I think Apple sent Gizmodo a pre-bricked prototype with instructions to act as if it was lost at a bar or some shit.
don't want to derail this too far into a discussion of the morality of what Gizmodo did to get this exclusive, but the main editor just outed on twitter that they paid $5,000 to get the exclusive, stating that "their obligation is to their readers." It will be interesting to see what action, if any, Apple takes against Gizmodo for paying for what is stolen property.
Anyways, back to the device, I like the new form factor a lot. It reminds me of my Samsung Eternity (current phone) which has always felt better in my hand than the curved iPhone. I also imagine that it will be a ton more pocket-friendly as a result of this
Lost-and-found property isn't stolen property. So far Apple hasn't even made a public claim that this phone is (a) real and (b) belongs to them. Seems to me that it really wouldn't be in their interest to either--as soon as they do that everyone will know for a fact that this is the real iPhone 4. All the rumor and speculation is free advertising for them--why shut it down?
I don't believe the story behind this "leak" for a goddamn minute. I think Apple sent Gizmodo a pre-bricked prototype with instructions to act as if it was lost at a bar or some shit.
I find the fact that Gizmodo now has a story on the guy who "lost" it pretty suspicious. However, the guys over at the Gawker family of sites seem to take their journalistic integrity pretty seriously. I find it very unlikely that the editors at Gizmodo would actively collude with Apple to leak something like this.
California law disagrees with you. I've seen that a couple other places as well. Not being a lawyer myself, my uneducated opinion is that proving a case of theft would be difficult given the information that has been made public so far. However, I'm pretty sure Giz is going to have to give it back. Besides, what the hell is it worth fighting for at this point? They've gotten as much out of it as they're going to given the SW wipe. Also, while I definitely see where some people are coming from suggesting this was a deliberate leak for press, I seriously doubt it. The manner this all went down is grossly different than other situations the past few years where that might have been true.
Edit: I think I misunderstood your post, so clarified. It's not a legal issue as long as Giz gives it back which they are going to do apparently. Also, did anyone notice the tone of that letter from Apple? Considering some of the no-nonsense fuck-you letters we've seen from that department, the tone of that letter smells of "shameface" all over the place to me.
That article is just a horrible piece of legal analysis. I'm not going to go into details and hijack this thread for a discussion of property law, but it's just wrong on multiple levels. Gizmodo did nothing wrong by buying the phone, and they have no responsibility to seek out the possible true owner if they don't know who it is.
RUNN1NGMAN on
0
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
I don't believe the story behind this "leak" for a goddamn minute. I think Apple sent Gizmodo a pre-bricked prototype with instructions to act as if it was lost at a bar or some shit.
I find the fact that Gizmodo now has a story on the guy who "lost" it pretty suspicious. However, the guys over at the Gawker family of sites seem to take their journalistic integrity pretty seriously. I find it very unlikely that the editors at Gizmodo would actively collude with Apple to leak something like this.
I don't believe the story behind this "leak" for a goddamn minute. I think Apple sent Gizmodo a pre-bricked prototype with instructions to act as if it was lost at a bar or some shit.
I find the fact that Gizmodo now has a story on the guy who "lost" it pretty suspicious. However, the guys over at the Gawker family of sites seem to take their journalistic integrity pretty seriously. I find it very unlikely that the editors at Gizmodo would actively collude with Apple to leak something like this.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait, you're not being serious are you?
Um...just because someone writes for a website, doesn't mean they're willing to lie about how they came into possession of something, or make a back-room deal with a company that they cover. For one thing, they would lose all credibility if they were found out.
I don't believe the story behind this "leak" for a goddamn minute. I think Apple sent Gizmodo a pre-bricked prototype with instructions to act as if it was lost at a bar or some shit.
I find the fact that Gizmodo now has a story on the guy who "lost" it pretty suspicious. However, the guys over at the Gawker family of sites seem to take their journalistic integrity pretty seriously. I find it very unlikely that the editors at Gizmodo would actively collude with Apple to leak something like this.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait, you're not being serious are you?
Um...just because someone writes for a website, doesn't mean they're willing to lie about how they came into possession of something, or make a back-room deal with a company that they cover. For one thing, they would lose all credibility if they were found out.
Journalistic integrity is not a term that should be applied to people who would post the name, facebook page, and a brief potentially fictional story about the guy who lost the prototype that they paid for based on the story given to them by the guy who "found the iPhone prototype in a bar".
They're sleazy and they always have been. They would pay Apple for an exclusive like this if it meant they had to lie about the origins of the story, because it generated them tons of revenue and exposure. Gawker sites are no more interested in integrity than The National Inquirer, they just happen to blog about things that actually exist.
Credibility isn't something they're interested in. Any time Gizmodo covers an unfounded rumor, posts flat out bullshit, or otherwise has to redact a portion of an article, they're in the comments with the defense "It's a blog, not a news site."
yep, cause AT&T has a 4G network to make use of. And 4G has and will have such a huge coverage map in the next 12 months.
I suspect keeping the cost of manufacturing down AND letting the technology mature is a good idea here. Maybe 4G will make sense in a year or two, but outside of a very small number of markets its currently just epeen.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
So what? That's just a problem of whether or not you can squeeze the pixels onto the screen, not a problem of visibility.
If they can make a 960x640 screen that's 2x4 inches, everything is still going to be just as visible, because it'll either A) be redesigned with the higher resolution in mind, or
If you have something that's 50x50 and you make it 100x100, even if it's still 10mmx10mm physically, you can tell there's been darkness going on there.
At least
You can if you've spent the last 5 years QAing graphics work at the pixel level detail.
My point is that your point, A), is a huge pain in the ass.
One of the big things that is haunting Android is its screen size inconsistencies, because of this very same problem. Well, one of the same things, which is bitmapping. Android is also plagued by ratio inconsistencies, but the point is that fragmenting your platform into multiple screen standards should be avoided at all costs. If this happens then Apple devs go from supporting 1 screen to 3 screens inside of a few months.
Anyways, back to the device, I like the new form factor a lot. It reminds me of my Samsung Eternity (current phone) which has always felt better in my hand than the curved iPhone. I also imagine that it will be a ton more pocket-friendly as a result of this
Doubling resolution is a legit concern from a developer perspective. And I was offering it as a counterpoint to a potential screen change. That was my point.
But continue masturbating on your new toy. What the fuck ever.
This was going to happen no matter what. They can't stick to 480x320 indefinitely just because that's what the apps were originally developed for. Other hardware manufacturers have already moved on to much higher resolution screens and Apple needs to as well if they want their phones to remain competitive.
Besides, super-high-density screens look freakin' fantastic. I hope they bring this screen to this year's iPod touch as well. I would snap that up in a heartbeat.
They can't all be true!
I don't think it's really much of a legal issue. It doesn't have a "property of Apple, Inc" sticker or label on it, asking anyone who finds it to return it to the company. It was found by a random person, who supposedly had intentions of returning it, until Apple wiped it. Apple wiped the phone rather than calling it, trying to recover it. It was reported to have been missing for a few weeks before the guy sold it.
Granted, the guy could have returned it to an Apple store, but would anyone there really know what to do with it? He tried calling corporate and no one there would acknowledge him. I figure after all of that, the hardware itself is fair game. The only thing he didn't do was file a police report of found property, which unless Apple made a police report of lost property, I don't know if the police would have anything to do with it either.
I think it's fair game to accept payment and pay for a piece of hardware that was found, just as finding money on the ground is fair game if no one claims it after a while and you make an effort to return it.
Sure they do. Arguments to the contrary are pandering to sentiment.
They certainly care more about their developers than the Android team does. Android is already a nightmare compared to what iPhone developers have to work with.
Who said anything about Android?
My point was more that consumers are far more important than developers to consider. That's the way ther market works. If they change the device in a way that grows the insane user base even larger, developers will adapt, because there is a crazy ammount of money to be made there, more than enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Meanwhile, Google doesn't have a whole lot of stake in the same, except for Android licensing fees which they are probably getting by default right now just so guys like HTC can get *something* to market. 'specially with Palm going down in flames.
Not directly, but they could gain something by doing something else that also has that indirect effect.
California law disagrees with you. I've seen that a couple other places as well. Not being a lawyer myself, my uneducated opinion is that proving a case of theft would be difficult given the information that has been made public so far. However, I'm pretty sure Giz is going to have to give it back. Besides, what the hell is it worth fighting for at this point? They've gotten as much out of it as they're going to given the SW wipe. Also, while I definitely see where some people are coming from suggesting this was a deliberate leak for press, I seriously doubt it. The manner this all went down is grossly different than other situations the past few years where that might have been true.
Edit: I think I misunderstood your post, so clarified. It's not a legal issue as long as Giz gives it back which they are going to do apparently. Also, did anyone notice the tone of that letter from Apple? Considering some of the no-nonsense fuck-you letters we've seen from that department, the tone of that letter smells of "shameface" all over the place to me.
PSN: TheScrublet
Right. A prime example of that would be expanding the iPhone resolution.
I just don't believe that's pre-ordained.
They could just as easily elect to take it mass(er) market by sticking with the old screen, getting it on Verizon (which has been hinted more strongly) and dropping the entry price by 50 or 100 bucks.
and then when a person sees the resolution side by side with a Droid or Incredible on a store shelf?
There is an arms race that they have to keep pace with.
I am a rebel, though.
Gizmodo is probably safe in criminal court, but could lose big in civil court. Although the guy who sold it is potentially much more liable.
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
I don't see Gizmodo losing anything here. Their response letter to Apple says all the right things, and as long as they don't do anything to make the return difficult, they have fine plausible deniability.
If you give an iPhone 4x as many pixels (since that's what we're really talking about by 'doubling' the resolution), and then take each 'pixel' (as output by a current iPhone app for the old resolution) to be equivalent to 4 actual hardware pixels, you're looking at (original number of pixels * 4) / 4 'pixels', which will give you the exact same PPI when viewed on a 3.5" screen that the app would on a regular old iPhone. Realistically, if this wasn't the case Apple would just pick a resolution that wasn't so nonstandard and weird.
The potential problem with a screen change isn't "old/current apps are going to look hideous", it's "if we're supporting pre-iPhone 4G devices, we now need to maintain art assets for two separate resolutions, plus maybe a third iPad-specific interface on top of that".
No way dude. He's a graphics something something for years. It'll look terrible!
Basically, this?
It's a very clever way to get around the increase in resolution.
Lost-and-found property isn't stolen property. So far Apple hasn't even made a public claim that this phone is (a) real and (b) belongs to them. Seems to me that it really wouldn't be in their interest to either--as soon as they do that everyone will know for a fact that this is the real iPhone 4. All the rumor and speculation is free advertising for them--why shut it down?
I find the fact that Gizmodo now has a story on the guy who "lost" it pretty suspicious. However, the guys over at the Gawker family of sites seem to take their journalistic integrity pretty seriously. I find it very unlikely that the editors at Gizmodo would actively collude with Apple to leak something like this.
That article is just a horrible piece of legal analysis. I'm not going to go into details and hijack this thread for a discussion of property law, but it's just wrong on multiple levels. Gizmodo did nothing wrong by buying the phone, and they have no responsibility to seek out the possible true owner if they don't know who it is.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait, you're not being serious are you?
Um...just because someone writes for a website, doesn't mean they're willing to lie about how they came into possession of something, or make a back-room deal with a company that they cover. For one thing, they would lose all credibility if they were found out.
Journalistic integrity is not a term that should be applied to people who would post the name, facebook page, and a brief potentially fictional story about the guy who lost the prototype that they paid for based on the story given to them by the guy who "found the iPhone prototype in a bar".
They're sleazy and they always have been. They would pay Apple for an exclusive like this if it meant they had to lie about the origins of the story, because it generated them tons of revenue and exposure. Gawker sites are no more interested in integrity than The National Inquirer, they just happen to blog about things that actually exist.
Credibility isn't something they're interested in. Any time Gizmodo covers an unfounded rumor, posts flat out bullshit, or otherwise has to redact a portion of an article, they're in the comments with the defense "It's a blog, not a news site."
yep, cause AT&T has a 4G network to make use of. And 4G has and will have such a huge coverage map in the next 12 months.
I suspect keeping the cost of manufacturing down AND letting the technology mature is a good idea here. Maybe 4G will make sense in a year or two, but outside of a very small number of markets its currently just epeen.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Although that decision is not as good as waiting 5 years.
Wheras I will have owned at least one of every generation of iPhone at one point or another.
And now that I am developing apps, I need me a new one to test on.
For testing purposes.
Super serial.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...