3 ms·
It's a great piece, but I don't agree that Jobs focuses on specs. Apple is great in that they do their utmost to explain what is good about their products and s
by kmfrk 16y ago
It's a great piece, but I don't agree that Jobs focuses on specs. Apple is great in that they do their utmost to explain what is good about their products and simplifying the purchase and customization options for the user.
The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discern the pixels.
The Android handset manufacturers are losing the marketing battle partly because they get caught up in numbers and data: x megapixel cameras, y RAM, z megahertz. To the average consumer, all these extra parameters to consider before buying a product makes it all the less likely and rewarding to pick out your next phone.
- nooneelse 16y ago> "The iPhone 4 wasn't interesting because it had x more DPI clocking in at a total of y; it was interesting, because they had achieved so many DPI that the average person would not be able to discern the pixels." That measure of achievement is entirely dependent on the distance between the eyes and the screen. I went around measuring a couple of days, many people with smart phones already had non-discernible pixels at the distance they held them in late 2009, before the iPhone4 (by Apple's measure of non-discernible). Why pick one arbitrary distance over another and call that the interesting transition?