5 ms·

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

• ergo98 16y ago
  >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.
  • refulgentis 16y ago
    Few quick notes while I'm sitting in class: - 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!
    • ergo98 16y ago
      >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.
      • edster 16y ago
        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.