3 ms·

> Smaller size is a feature to me. I agree. I deferred buying the S9+ precisely because it is even bigger than my S7 edge, which is already stretching the limi

> Smaller size is a feature to me. I agree. I deferred buying the S9+ precisely because it is even bigger than my S7 edge, which is already stretching the limits of usability. However the SE errs on the side of "too small" for me. Moreover, the screen is positively coarse, regardless of the physical size. There aren't enough pixels on it.

tambourine_man 8y ago
Pixel density on the SE is 326 ppi. Better than most photo prints and the same as the iPhone 7 and 8. You need a magnifying glass to see them.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  I don't think that's correct. I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. In any case, as I said, the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone. Back to the main point, TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. I think the SE screen is physically and logically too small.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    >I don't think that's correct. It is: https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ >I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. You are probably confusing it with a 3GS or something else. Apple has been selling “Retina Displays” ever since the iPhone 4. You can't see the pixels in any such screens at any reasonable viewing distance. >…the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone That's not a statement of fact. The SE sells very well and not only because of its price. >TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. That's not how responsive design works, that's just bad design. There's no technical reason to specify a minimum/maximum size and work within that range. And that's not what they did either. Their CSS is responsive, they just added a <table> element (which is notoriously bad on mobile) that can't scale beneath 334px with current font/padding/border settings. That's just laziness or ignorance.

tambourine_man 8y ago

Pixel density on the SE is 326 ppi. Better than most photo prints and the same as the iPhone 7 and 8. You need a magnifying glass to see them.

dingo_bat 8y ago
I don't think that's correct. I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. In any case, as I said, the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone. Back to the main point, TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. I think the SE screen is physically and logically too small.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  >I don't think that's correct. It is: https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ >I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. You are probably confusing it with a 3GS or something else. Apple has been selling “Retina Displays” ever since the iPhone 4. You can't see the pixels in any such screens at any reasonable viewing distance. >…the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone That's not a statement of fact. The SE sells very well and not only because of its price. >TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. That's not how responsive design works, that's just bad design. There's no technical reason to specify a minimum/maximum size and work within that range. And that's not what they did either. Their CSS is responsive, they just added a <table> element (which is notoriously bad on mobile) that can't scale beneath 334px with current font/padding/border settings. That's just laziness or ignorance.