6 ms·

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in control

Having queued for 7 hours yesterday to get my iPhone 4, I can confirm that the display actually exceeded my expectations. All natively rendered text in controls, etc., looks like it was printed in a magazine. This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros.

amichail 16y ago
What is the resolution for touch sensitivity in the iPhone 4?
- cpr 16y ago
  Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.
  - qwzybug 16y ago
    Not quite. Apple's HIG recommends allotting 44pts for hit targets (about 90px on the new screen) for usability's sake, but you can hit much smaller targets if you're careful about it.
    - cpr 16y ago
      Right, I just meant your finger tip covered about that much. You can hit smaller targets, but not easily.
    - hboon 16y ago
      176 pixels, rather than 90.
masklinn 16y ago
> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1920. We're talking about a resolution usually found on 30" computer screens here, and those things are still pretty much all between $1000 and $2000...). The 13.3" macbook pro would have a 3712x2320 screen, the 15.4" would move up to 4200x2625 and the 17" would be sporting a 4000x3000 screen.
- gthank 16y ago
  I agree with you, but I'm still sad that I don't get a 300dpi screen.
- grinich 16y ago
  People not that long ago believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years?
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years? I'm not quite saying that. I'm saying the birth of those screens is so far away the current brands will very likely have been replaced a long time ago. Those densities on > 10"displays are pie in the sky dreams right now.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Never is a mighty long time! Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. That's not entirely correct. 24" at 1920x1200 and 30" at 2560x1600 is something that's been there for years, and these days laptops are regressing rather than progressing: in 2005 I had colleagues with 15" laptops in 1920x1200, these days the majority seems to be 16/9 screens in stupid resolutions (1366x768 seems really common these days in entry-level laptops) > Never is a mighty long time! My never stands for the Macbooks, and probably the iPad as well. By the time we reach the ability to create such densities with acceptable yields on panes bigger than 10 inches, the current names will long have been retired.
elai 16y ago
I've heard the cost in lcds is far more about the size of the display vs the resolution. Ive seen replacement lcds for projectors, very small lcds with very high resolutions for faily cheap prices.

amichail 16y ago

What is the resolution for touch sensitivity in the iPhone 4?

cpr 16y ago
Smaller than you could ever experience with your finger (about a 90-pixel square area on the iPhone 4), and better than any other phones on the market, apparently.
- qwzybug 16y ago
  Not quite. Apple's HIG recommends allotting 44pts for hit targets (about 90px on the new screen) for usability's sake, but you can hit much smaller targets if you're careful about it.
  - cpr 16y ago
    Right, I just meant your finger tip covered about that much. You can hit smaller targets, but not easily.
  - hboon 16y ago
    176 pixels, rather than 90.

masklinn 16y ago

> This display is going to be huge news once it hits the iPad and MacBook Pros. Which is probably never. Those don't even reach the pixel density of the 2G/3G/3GS. 326ppi? That's already going to be pretty tall order on a 10" screen (the iPad currently stands at 132 ppi, assuming the form factor doesn't change we're talking about increasing the resolution by a factor of 2.5, pumping the resolution to an insane 2560x1920. We're talking about a resolution usually found on 30" computer screens here, and those things are still pretty much all between $1000 and $2000...). The 13.3" macbook pro would have a 3712x2320 screen, the 15.4" would move up to 4200x2625 and the 17" would be sporting a 4000x3000 screen.

gthank 16y ago
I agree with you, but I'm still sad that I don't get a 300dpi screen.
grinich 16y ago
People not that long ago believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years?
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Never is a very long time. Is it really impossible that large high-DPI screens will exist in 5-10 years? I'm not quite saying that. I'm saying the birth of those screens is so far away the current brands will very likely have been replaced a long time ago. Those densities on > 10"displays are pie in the sky dreams right now.
gojomo 16y ago
Never is a mighty long time! Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. There's no reason for that trend to stop until all displays reach 'retinal indifference' at their usual viewing distance. I would not be surprised to see 4000x3000 LCDs in laptops in the next decade.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Both handhelds and desktops have been increasing in resolution, and decreasing in cost, for years. That's not entirely correct. 24" at 1920x1200 and 30" at 2560x1600 is something that's been there for years, and these days laptops are regressing rather than progressing: in 2005 I had colleagues with 15" laptops in 1920x1200, these days the majority seems to be 16/9 screens in stupid resolutions (1366x768 seems really common these days in entry-level laptops) > Never is a mighty long time! My never stands for the Macbooks, and probably the iPad as well. By the time we reach the ability to create such densities with acceptable yields on panes bigger than 10 inches, the current names will long have been retired.

elai 16y ago

I've heard the cost in lcds is far more about the size of the display vs the resolution. Ive seen replacement lcds for projectors, very small lcds with very high resolutions for faily cheap prices.