One surprising thing about the iPhone (and about the iPad) is that it still only comes with 256MB of RAM. They seem to accomplish a heck of a lot with that, yet still that is very constricted once you start talking about multitasking and the like.
It is a pretty major update, but really the Giz leaks among others did take some steam out of it. It isn't as big of news simply because it isn't news - we long knew about it.
“Another key concept is ‘think small’. We have not begun to reach the limits of what can be done with 64K bytes of memory and a single mass storage device. It is important to hold to these limitations in order to keep the project from burgeoning into a huge, expensive and time consuming effort.”
-- Jef Raskin, during the design of the first Macintosh
The point remains valid: the iPhone software absolutely screams, and in many cases achieves better UI performance on Android hardware that is twice as fast. There's something to be said for not writing everything in Java ;)
We don't have the hardware problem so well licked that we can disregard it. IMHO programming phones like we program desktops is a serious mistake, and seriously hamper what we can do with mobiles (e.g., bloatier code results in need for faster hardware with little performance gain for it, thus raising battery, heat, device size problems).
I've heard this 256MB limit that you see on all the smartphones now is because the ARM A8 architecture they are based on only has 256MB of RAM on the die. I think this is the biggest limitation that these devices have right now. I love my iPad, but it kills me to have the occasional "crash to desktop" just because Safari ran out of memory.
My prediction - next year we'll see A9 based smartphones/tablets with 512MB-1GB of RAM and these memory starvation issues will be a thing of the past. It certainly doesn't bode well in the short term for early adopters though.
The post PC era is upon us - too bad the hardware (and software) is still in it's infancy.
>I've heard this 256MB limit that you see on all the smartphones now is because the ARM A8 architecture they are based on only has 256MB of RAM on the die
Possible, though the Evo 4G, Nexus One, HTC Dream, among a variety of other Android devices are coming with 512MB these days. One weird thing, though, is that one of the feature notes of Android 2.2 is "HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB", so not sure how that plays into this.
Android 2.1 and earlier shipped with a kernel that could only see 256MB of RAM, and 2.2 fixes this. A bunch of HTC Passion/Desire/Incredible/Evo users are about to get a performance boost with Dalvik JIT and double the RAM.
You act as if "first movers" ever don't get screwed by Apple. I understand that technology is constantly evolving and that by time I buy a phone, a better one is being produced, but I can't shake the feeling that Apple schedules their releases and features in ways that maximize their revenue. I suppose I can't really blame them for that. It just makes the whole thing seem less "magical" the way some act like Apple is just the most innovative and new company in the whole wide world.
Also, I still can't help but laugh at this moniker of the "post PC era". The rest of us are still doing real work in Windows, Mac, Linux and the smartphone/tablets are accessories.
It's not entirely inappropriate when you consider how the economics work.
Most people who use computers really don't do much beyond browsing the web, reading e-mail, and balancing their checkbooks. Ergo, they consume content and use web apps.
Most of the people for whom mobile devices like the iPad are inadequate for doing their job are creating content (e.g. games, movies, books, etc) and web applications.
Revenue from the internet is from people using applications, viewing and clicking on ads, and buying content. You don't need a PC for that. We're not quite at the point where an average user doesn't need a personal computer no matter the OS, but we're close.
Did you read what I wrote? I get screwed every time my iPad crashes to desktop because Safari ran out of memory. It's still a great device though and the out of memory situation is rare, so I keep using it.
This about sums up my opinion of iPhone 4. My N1 is still a wonderful phone and for the features I use, I still don't think I'd want to trade it (back) in for an iPhone just yet.
I think the key phrase there is "for the features I use," however. If I were younger and cared more about video chat, I might be wanting to seriously hop on this phone.
I still think that since Android 2.1 was released the momentum in terms of software development is still in Android's favor, while Apple's last development cycle seems to be all about making a seriously slick looking piece of hardware.
Well, in Australia we've had video chat over 3G for about 6 years now. Everyone has a 3G phone (it's standard) and everyone can use video chat. The thing is, people don't. I've never once received a video call apart from when we all first got them and there was novelty in calling a guy who was sitting 2 metres away from you.
Video chat is awkward because it means your contact is on speakerphone so everyone can hear you, and I don't really need to see who I'm talking to anyway.
I assume you can do this with other phones too, though I've never tried it. The video call quality you get over 3G is fairly poor too - iPhone's implementation seems to have much better quality based on the promo videos. However, it still has some major flaws - only to other iPhones (for the moment) and only when you're on Wifi - that requires quite a bit of coordination to make sure the person on the other end is ready for your call.
I honestly don't see this catching on - the trend I see is away from actual human interaction (SMS, Facebook updates and IM) rather than towards it.
And more ... I'm usually talking on the phone when I'm also doing something else ... driving, walking, taking a sh*t (sorry, but it's true) ... those are perfect times to get in touch and have long talks.
I'm never standing still unless I work or relax, in which case I don't want to answer phone-calls. Even when I happen to take long bus-drives, it's usually crowded, I'm standing on my feet and I can't hold that phone focused on my face for long (I know because I've been trying to read on my ebook).
The only use-case I'd have for video-chat is to talk with my family if I were far away from home, but then a video-call is much more expensive than a regular call (I have hundreds of voice-minutes included for a few bucks per month), and all family members have computers anyway ... which means I prefer using a laptop to also transfer pictures and links or whatever, and Skype is OK for that.
I don't know ... maybe with slick phones like iPhone4 and with lower prices on 3G connections it could appeal to me, but not right now that's for sure. And I hope it comes with an open standard, because buying iPhones for every member of the family is expensive.
I think a big advantage that the iPhone has over Android is that Apple is able to synchronize hardware and software development since it exists within the same company. I imagine Google works with handset vendors but there must be inherent inefficiencies in communicating across multiple companies. Apple can maintain a yearly drumbeat of putting out a polished product where the software and hardware dovetail nicely.
I don't understand why that's an advantage? It's just another of Apple's control vices. The hardware of the phone functions independently of the software and vice versa. Maybe for things like fragmentation or updates it makes sense, but I don't really see Google putting on the brakes because they don't make the hardware. Ironically that's the very thing leading to the so called "fragmentation problem".
A good example is upgrading the quality of the iPhone video recording and simultaneously releasing iMovie to go with it. So you get a hardware upgrade and a much more practical way of using the hardware. For many people syncing videos off the phone and editing them on a PC (especially Windows) is just too much of a hassle. Android phones have had video this quality of video recording for months but don't have anything like iMovie which might make the hardware capabilities less appealing to someone. Another example is the front facing camera which you can presently get in the Sprint Evo. How many Android apps support switching camera sources? They're relying on Qik for video chat which has experienced major problems since the Evo's release. Who's accountable for that? Not Google, Not HTC, not even Sprint. They just throw the stuff out there and hope it works right. Hardware has to be accessible to people via software or it's just a geek fetish.
But in the land of pure unbundledness and light, the upcoming hardware improvements would have been made known to all simultaneously, and more than one group could have been making software for it. Possibly giving you more choice on the first day the hardware was available. So the thinking goes.
I agree, plus the different Android phone vendors are also competing against each other. Oneupmanship shows up in the devices with a myriad of sometimes semi-incompatible device features.
It's not so different than the PC world, but it increases the complexity of the ecosystem so much that sometimes the tight integration that Apple offers suffers on other platforms.
Just wait until the Creative Labs Zii EGG device gets released and updated a revision or two .. this thing kicks ass and has had all the key features of iPhone 4 already - HD video, front-facing camera, etc. Okay, its not a phone (yet) but it sure does have the chance to steal a bit of thunder .. c'mon Creative, release it already!
I have to say that I'll be very disappointed if the iPhone 4 comes with only 256MB of RAM. You would think the iPad experience would have taught them that 256MB is not enough RAM to accommodate the significantly increased amount of RAM needed to back the higher resolution display. It's a world of difference between my 3GS and the iPad, where the iPad can't seem to keep more than one page in memory at a time. It's really annoying.
I think the author is quite wrong in thinking that Android will have hardware parity in 4 months. For one, Apple has probably consumed all available supply for the display hardware. Not to mention the disconnect the author himself pointed out between software and hardware. Vendors are finalizing now the hardware that will be shipping in 4 months. It will be months before comparable hardware is spec'ed out, and 8-12 before it starts shipping. the 900 pixel OLED screens most Android handsets have is nowhere near comparable to the 900 pixel IPS LCD display.
>I have to say that I'll be very disappointed if the iPhone 4 comes with only 256MB of RAM
Be disappointed. They built the A4 SoC with 256MB of RAM, and that's what they're delivering.
>I think the author is quite wrong in thinking that Android will have hardware parity in 4 months
I would say that there is already hardware parity. An Evo 4G and a iPhone 4 have middling differences -- is 960 vertical pixels really that much huger than 800? No -- though the former has double the RAM. The Evo doesn't have the DPI, though it's humorous how important that suddenly has become (whereas previously the iPad was "gooorrrrrgeous" with it's very low DPI).
>the 900 pixel OLED screens most Android handsets have is nowhere near comparable to the 900 pixel IPS LCD display
You know it's weird how when Apple does something, suddenly it's considered superior. I keep reading people hilariously holding up IPS as some sort of ultra-tech compared to "inexpensive" OLED. It, of course, is absolutely wrong.
The iPhone's 800:1 contrast is terrible, but that's what you get with LCD. All IPS adds to the plate is better off-axis viewing (not that it really matters), but that's a non-problem with OLED.
I'll take a SuperAMOLED any day of the week. It beats LCD on virtually every metric.
Apple does make the most of what they do have though. See that Android prior to 2.2 had horrific banding in the Gallery app because it did ridiculous processing of the color bands, completely undermining the massive colour capabilities of the AMOLED screen.
- 960 is 20% bigger than 800, and that's not accounting for the fact that the screen is much smaller, which makes a big difference in DPI.
- the argument that the iPad didn't have as good a DPI as an Evo and people didn't complain then is a straw man. The iPhone 4's display is clearer more impressive, numerous media outlets have said it's the best display they've ever seen.
- Have you tried using an OLED screen? You can't read it at all in sunlight. I know LCDs aren't amazing, but I can at least see what's on the screen and interact with it. maybe I don't know enough about newer OLED technology though, I haven't had a chance to play with an Evo
- That's the problem with Android, or maybe their development team: they simply don't have the resources or smarts to focus on specific features of the OS. They couldn't get the color band processing right on a first-party device until 6 months after launch!
>the argument that the iPad didn't have as good a DPI as an Evo and people didn't complain then is a straw man.
The iPad display was widely regarded as gorgeous, and suitable for a great eReader where DPI really matters most. It has 130DPI, and is meant to be used at the same sort of distances as a smart phone.
So why didn't a "retina" (honest - gag) display matter for the iPad? Is the iPad junk now?
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.
All I'm pointing out is that the sudden demand for pixel density rings a bit hollow.
>Have you tried using an OLED screen? You can't read it at all in sunlight.
The Evo actually uses an LCD.
And yes, I use an AMOLED every day. It is horrible in the sun, and the car dock is almost a joke because it is essentially unusable. That's why Samsung (who makes many of the parts for the iPad and iPhone, as a side note) made SuperAMOLED coming on the Galaxy S, among other models. It solves the visibility in the sun issue, although it's quite a bit more expensive of a part than going with an old school LCD.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
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?
It's beautiful hardware and beautiful software. I'll take functionality any day though.
This is the divide. I have two geeky friends. One is OCD and well dressed. He likes things to work smoothly and look good. He is very happy with his iPhone and is excited to upgrade. My other friend is like me, he loves to hack and is a fan of Google's services.
Google needs to put Matias Duarte to work. Gallery3D is beautiful, there's no reason those GUI elements couldn't be more standard/accessible to the avg dev.
Google seems to have problems hanging on to top design talent; Doug Bowman's post on leaving Google, and on the culture at the company, was rather revealing for me on that point.
And I think you misunderstood my point: it seems likely that Google simply does not value design talent all that much, and thus that the way to improve Android UI is not simply to hire talented designers, but rather to completely change that aspect of Google's corporate culture.
OK, what did I do? When Doug Bowman left Google he wrote a rather revealing critique of their attitude toward design, and the general disregard for it in their corporate culture:
Given that, is it really all that unreasonable to point out that Google's UI problems probably are not going to be solved by one person, no matter how much the general community likes him (after all, Bowman's pretty well-loved in the design community, and look what happened to him)?
> "He likes things to work smoothly and look good. He is very happy with his iPhone and is excited to upgrade. My other friend is like me, he loves to hack and is a fan of Google's services."
Can we not have both? I don't buy the dichotomy that a hacker-friendly device must be jerky and ugly. IMHO what Android lacks is integration - the odd fusion of hardware and software that Apple seems uniquely able to pull off. With the exception of the Nexus One (for probably obvious reasons), every Android phone I've used feels very discretely disconnected between software and hardware.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that we can't have both. I completely hope that Matias (the UI/UX guy from Palm that everyone juices over) can come in and beautify android.
But I expected to walk out of San Francisco’s Moscone
Center yesterday longing for the next iPhone despite my
current allegiance to Android. That didn’t happen.
It did not happen, because it simply couldn't. After reading the article I cannot imagine what could Apple offer to satisfy him it apart from shipping iPhone 4 with Android OS.
Really, if you dismiss all the good points as not so important, what's left? Rainbows and ponies?
He prefers Android, that's OK but Apple just cannot satisfy him then, no matter what they do. That's OK too, that's why we have a choice.
Sure it could. I think a lot of people expected Apple to pull a rabbit out of hat (because they've done that time and time again), but instead it's just a relatively minor (compared to the state of the art) upgrade to the iPhone.
I would call the custom build glass for the front and back of the iPhone, along with the multi-purpose custom alloy bezel, and the other hardware innovations to be the definition of state of the art. What other vendor is putting this level of detail and innovation into their products?
Never say never. Froyo currently runs (in very crude form; drivers need work, as does power management) on an iPhone 3G today, dual-booting iPhone OS. (I'm currently experimenting with Android 1.6 on my 3G.) As long as the phone can be jailbroken, you can run another OS on it.
(For me, it's a perfect marriage. Apple makes incredible hardware; full-stop. Android is a vastly better operating system and developer ecosystem. The only unfortunate part is AT&T, but at least T-Mobile is available as an option for unlockers.)
Apple saying their going to stop ruling the AppStore like a dictatorship and introducing an open-protocol voice chat that they could champion? It would definitely get a second look from me.
A higher density screen that is only slightly better than current Android phones, a lack luster multitasking architechture, video chat that ONLY works with other iPhone 4 users... not "game changing" in my opinion.
Facetime is the one that just bugs me. What is Jobs thinking? Why would you not call it iChat and allow it to work with desktop-iChat? Even then it would still be a joke. With Qik, any Android phone, or more important any phone period has the ability to communicate with other Qik users regardless of their phone. How does he expect Facetime to take off? Apple spearheading an open video chat platform would be ... cool. I still am not sure I would jump to the word "revolutionary".
What's lackluster about it? I'm been working with SDK4 for a while now, and it seems remarkable to me. This is the only multitasking architecture out there where the user doesn't have to treat his phone like a device with processing/memory limits.
You don't have to treat Android phones like devices with memory limits either; the only things that run in the "background" are services that explicitly request the ability to run something in the background, and most apps don't do this. Please stop spreading FUD.
> video chat that ONLY works with other iPhone 4 users...
Built on open formats and which they clearly said they were going to submit as an open protocol.
> Why would you not call it iChat and allow it to work with desktop-iChat?
because it's apparently not an IM application, and Skype will have to take care of that part.
> With Qik, any Android phone, or more important any phone period has the ability to communicate with other Qik users regardless of their phone.
Uh not really, unless they've fixed the 20s lag (each way). And it's not like Qik can't update their iPhone client. You know, the one which already exists.
It's possible iChat will get this feature sometime in the future or that Qik for the iPhone will be able to use the front facing camera and offer that level of interoperability you're looking for. Who knows? It's a bit early to jump to conclusions I think.
One pretty disappointing thing from my perspective was no-iTunes related announcements. Using iTunes as your generalized device sync hub is terrible and Apple hasn't given any hints on what it plans to do about it.
The cloud sync stuff Google showed off was impressive and that's their strength. Apple has a lot of catching up to do and they need to get to it pretty soon.
It is pretty rad. I had to swap out my Nexus One a while back and upon logging in to my new device all my contacts, applications and even wallpapers were downloaded automatically. There were a few hiccups like missing custom ringtones but overall the syncing works as advertised.
I was also pretty impressed with the upgrades. Froyo was 44mb, installed in about 5 mins and kept all settings/data.
Contrast that with the iPhone update I did from 3.1.2 to 3.1.3 - first a huge 300+ MB download, then erasing the device, then overwriting everything and finally syncing back countless gigs of data. ugh.
61 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadOne surprising thing about the iPhone (and about the iPad) is that it still only comes with 256MB of RAM. They seem to accomplish a heck of a lot with that, yet still that is very constricted once you start talking about multitasking and the like.
It is a pretty major update, but really the Giz leaks among others did take some steam out of it. It isn't as big of news simply because it isn't news - we long knew about it.
-- Jef Raskin, during the design of the first Macintosh
(from http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/macintosh-project-genesis-an... )
We don't have the hardware problem so well licked that we can disregard it. IMHO programming phones like we program desktops is a serious mistake, and seriously hamper what we can do with mobiles (e.g., bloatier code results in need for faster hardware with little performance gain for it, thus raising battery, heat, device size problems).
My prediction - next year we'll see A9 based smartphones/tablets with 512MB-1GB of RAM and these memory starvation issues will be a thing of the past. It certainly doesn't bode well in the short term for early adopters though.
The post PC era is upon us - too bad the hardware (and software) is still in it's infancy.
Possible, though the Evo 4G, Nexus One, HTC Dream, among a variety of other Android devices are coming with 512MB these days. One weird thing, though, is that one of the feature notes of Android 2.2 is "HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB", so not sure how that plays into this.
Also, I still can't help but laugh at this moniker of the "post PC era". The rest of us are still doing real work in Windows, Mac, Linux and the smartphone/tablets are accessories.
Most people who use computers really don't do much beyond browsing the web, reading e-mail, and balancing their checkbooks. Ergo, they consume content and use web apps.
Most of the people for whom mobile devices like the iPad are inadequate for doing their job are creating content (e.g. games, movies, books, etc) and web applications.
Revenue from the internet is from people using applications, viewing and clicking on ads, and buying content. You don't need a PC for that. We're not quite at the point where an average user doesn't need a personal computer no matter the OS, but we're close.
I do wish that my Droid had a video camera on the same side of the phone as the screen for video Skype, but that will probably be in a later release.
I think the key phrase there is "for the features I use," however. If I were younger and cared more about video chat, I might be wanting to seriously hop on this phone.
I still think that since Android 2.1 was released the momentum in terms of software development is still in Android's favor, while Apple's last development cycle seems to be all about making a seriously slick looking piece of hardware.
Video chat is awkward because it means your contact is on speakerphone so everyone can hear you, and I don't really need to see who I'm talking to anyway.
About that: You can use an earpiece.
I honestly don't see this catching on - the trend I see is away from actual human interaction (SMS, Facebook updates and IM) rather than towards it.
I'm never standing still unless I work or relax, in which case I don't want to answer phone-calls. Even when I happen to take long bus-drives, it's usually crowded, I'm standing on my feet and I can't hold that phone focused on my face for long (I know because I've been trying to read on my ebook).
The only use-case I'd have for video-chat is to talk with my family if I were far away from home, but then a video-call is much more expensive than a regular call (I have hundreds of voice-minutes included for a few bucks per month), and all family members have computers anyway ... which means I prefer using a laptop to also transfer pictures and links or whatever, and Skype is OK for that.
I don't know ... maybe with slick phones like iPhone4 and with lower prices on 3G connections it could appeal to me, but not right now that's for sure. And I hope it comes with an open standard, because buying iPhones for every member of the family is expensive.
It's not so different than the PC world, but it increases the complexity of the ecosystem so much that sometimes the tight integration that Apple offers suffers on other platforms.
I think the author is quite wrong in thinking that Android will have hardware parity in 4 months. For one, Apple has probably consumed all available supply for the display hardware. Not to mention the disconnect the author himself pointed out between software and hardware. Vendors are finalizing now the hardware that will be shipping in 4 months. It will be months before comparable hardware is spec'ed out, and 8-12 before it starts shipping. the 900 pixel OLED screens most Android handsets have is nowhere near comparable to the 900 pixel IPS LCD display.
Be disappointed. They built the A4 SoC with 256MB of RAM, and that's what they're delivering.
>I think the author is quite wrong in thinking that Android will have hardware parity in 4 months
I would say that there is already hardware parity. An Evo 4G and a iPhone 4 have middling differences -- is 960 vertical pixels really that much huger than 800? No -- though the former has double the RAM. The Evo doesn't have the DPI, though it's humorous how important that suddenly has become (whereas previously the iPad was "gooorrrrrgeous" with it's very low DPI).
>the 900 pixel OLED screens most Android handsets have is nowhere near comparable to the 900 pixel IPS LCD display
You know it's weird how when Apple does something, suddenly it's considered superior. I keep reading people hilariously holding up IPS as some sort of ultra-tech compared to "inexpensive" OLED. It, of course, is absolutely wrong.
The iPhone's 800:1 contrast is terrible, but that's what you get with LCD. All IPS adds to the plate is better off-axis viewing (not that it really matters), but that's a non-problem with OLED.
I'll take a SuperAMOLED any day of the week. It beats LCD on virtually every metric.
Apple does make the most of what they do have though. See that Android prior to 2.2 had horrific banding in the Gallery app because it did ridiculous processing of the color bands, completely undermining the massive colour capabilities of the AMOLED screen.
- 960 is 20% bigger than 800, and that's not accounting for the fact that the screen is much smaller, which makes a big difference in DPI.
- the argument that the iPad didn't have as good a DPI as an Evo and people didn't complain then is a straw man. The iPhone 4's display is clearer more impressive, numerous media outlets have said it's the best display they've ever seen.
- Have you tried using an OLED screen? You can't read it at all in sunlight. I know LCDs aren't amazing, but I can at least see what's on the screen and interact with it. maybe I don't know enough about newer OLED technology though, I haven't had a chance to play with an Evo
- That's the problem with Android, or maybe their development team: they simply don't have the resources or smarts to focus on specific features of the OS. They couldn't get the color band processing right on a first-party device until 6 months after launch!
The iPad display was widely regarded as gorgeous, and suitable for a great eReader where DPI really matters most. It has 130DPI, and is meant to be used at the same sort of distances as a smart phone.
So why didn't a "retina" (honest - gag) display matter for the iPad? Is the iPad junk now?
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.
All I'm pointing out is that the sudden demand for pixel density rings a bit hollow.
>Have you tried using an OLED screen? You can't read it at all in sunlight.
The Evo actually uses an LCD.
And yes, I use an AMOLED every day. It is horrible in the sun, and the car dock is almost a joke because it is essentially unusable. That's why Samsung (who makes many of the parts for the iPad and iPhone, as a side note) made SuperAMOLED coming on the Galaxy S, among other models. It solves the visibility in the sun issue, although it's quite a bit more expensive of a part than going with an old school LCD.
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.
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.
Clearly shows you know nuts about the iPhone SDK.
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.
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?
This is the divide. I have two geeky friends. One is OCD and well dressed. He likes things to work smoothly and look good. He is very happy with his iPhone and is excited to upgrade. My other friend is like me, he loves to hack and is a fan of Google's services.
Google needs to put Matias Duarte to work. Gallery3D is beautiful, there's no reason those GUI elements couldn't be more standard/accessible to the avg dev.
I'm not sure about Google's ability to retain talent... but I'm hopeful that Matias can bring Android some UI/UX love.
http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html
Given that, is it really all that unreasonable to point out that Google's UI problems probably are not going to be solved by one person, no matter how much the general community likes him (after all, Bowman's pretty well-loved in the design community, and look what happened to him)?
Can we not have both? I don't buy the dichotomy that a hacker-friendly device must be jerky and ugly. IMHO what Android lacks is integration - the odd fusion of hardware and software that Apple seems uniquely able to pull off. With the exception of the Nexus One (for probably obvious reasons), every Android phone I've used feels very discretely disconnected between software and hardware.
Really, if you dismiss all the good points as not so important, what's left? Rainbows and ponies?
He prefers Android, that's OK but Apple just cannot satisfy him then, no matter what they do. That's OK too, that's why we have a choice.
Sure it could. I think a lot of people expected Apple to pull a rabbit out of hat (because they've done that time and time again), but instead it's just a relatively minor (compared to the state of the art) upgrade to the iPhone.
(For me, it's a perfect marriage. Apple makes incredible hardware; full-stop. Android is a vastly better operating system and developer ecosystem. The only unfortunate part is AT&T, but at least T-Mobile is available as an option for unlockers.)
A higher density screen that is only slightly better than current Android phones, a lack luster multitasking architechture, video chat that ONLY works with other iPhone 4 users... not "game changing" in my opinion.
Facetime is the one that just bugs me. What is Jobs thinking? Why would you not call it iChat and allow it to work with desktop-iChat? Even then it would still be a joke. With Qik, any Android phone, or more important any phone period has the ability to communicate with other Qik users regardless of their phone. How does he expect Facetime to take off? Apple spearheading an open video chat platform would be ... cool. I still am not sure I would jump to the word "revolutionary".
Or is it just a sale gimmick?
What's lackluster about it? I'm been working with SDK4 for a while now, and it seems remarkable to me. This is the only multitasking architecture out there where the user doesn't have to treat his phone like a device with processing/memory limits.
Built on open formats and which they clearly said they were going to submit as an open protocol.
> Why would you not call it iChat and allow it to work with desktop-iChat?
because it's apparently not an IM application, and Skype will have to take care of that part.
> With Qik, any Android phone, or more important any phone period has the ability to communicate with other Qik users regardless of their phone.
Uh not really, unless they've fixed the 20s lag (each way). And it's not like Qik can't update their iPhone client. You know, the one which already exists.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apples_biggest_news_vid...
Thanks for the heads up.
The cloud sync stuff Google showed off was impressive and that's their strength. Apple has a lot of catching up to do and they need to get to it pretty soon.
Contrast that with the iPhone update I did from 3.1.2 to 3.1.3 - first a huge 300+ MB download, then erasing the device, then overwriting everything and finally syncing back countless gigs of data. ugh.