16 ms·

Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display (which, by the way, I've always considered gorg

Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display (which, by the way, I've always considered gorgeous)? I mean, does anyone actually notice the difference? Because if that difference means I'm paying $100-200 extra for a better screen, a better graphics chip etc, and it means my battery life is reduced, I really just don't get it. I elaborated a bit on this question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8459761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8459761 Anyway... my biggest gripe is really price point. The Nexus 4, 5, 7 weren't any more interesting than devices coming out from Samsung or HTC. What made them unique was a sick performance/price ratio, the best mid-level entry device range for people who aren't interested in $500 a year fees for their phone+plan, yet like running the latest android on a nice device. Now we seem to get another high-range flagship-type phone and tablet. I kinda get it, you want a benchmark device and you've got moto filling the lower-mid range quite nicely, but I really wish they'd have kept the Nexus series below the $500 range. Love the thickness by the way. 10mm or so is great. Not a thick slab, but it's got some real grip to it. iPhone 6's thickness really sucks for me. (although it's a slightly different story when you add a case, I did like the thickness of the iphone 6 with a case when I tried it)

toyg 12y ago
> does anyone actually notice the difference Yes.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  You notice pixel density between 400 and 450, or 450 and 500 when holding the phone normally (at say a bit less than an arm's length usually) I mean, I notice FPS changes from 60 to 90, but I wouldn't pay even a dollar extra for it. I'm not actually wondering if you can notice, I'm wondering if it makes an actual impact on your viewing experience. And if so, if that impact (however big or small, feel free to elaborate) is worth the extra money we can all assume it costs to buy hardware capable of pushing a lot of extra pixels smoothly. And lastly, if that different not only is worth the price, but also the hit to battery life we can all assume exists. That, to me, just seems like a really tall order. (if anyone has some insights as to how big the impact is on viewing experience, cost and battery, feel free to add! I've got no real clue).
  - tracker1 12y ago
    I'm far sighted anyways, so I do appreciate the bigger screen... though I'd be happy with 720p at the 6" size, because without my reading glasses on, I won't notice the difference, and tend to set my phones to larger fonts mode.
  - toyg 12y ago
    I don't have any studies or stats to back me up, am just going by personal experience here. I'd rather spend a few dollars more for a higher-res screen than for a few hours of battery. The impact on my quality of life (less eyestrain, less migraines) has been really noticeable since I managed to get "retina-like" resolutions on all my devices, and since then I've been a true believer in the benefits of the race for pixel density. I just wish they'd blast a little less light at me (e-ink is still in another league), but I guess one can't have it all (yet).
    - bryanlarsen 12y ago
      AMOLED helps a lot with the "blast a little less light" aspect. It's not a significant difference in a bright room, but the difference is huge in a dim or dark one. It doesn't say whether the Nexus 6 is AMOLED or LCD. I'm hoping for AMOLED, but I suspect it's LCD.
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
> I mean, does anyone actually notice the difference? Absolutely.
- StavrosK 12y ago
  Really? Your eye can resolve the difference between 300 ppi and 500 ppi at arm's length? Also, don't be a stranger.
  - genericuser 12y ago
    You use your phone at arms length? I am usually holding mine at like 6 inches to 1 foot from my face. I could very much tell the difference between the 318 ppi of the nexus 4 vs the 445 ppi of the nexus 5 with my usage patterns. I am skeptical that I would notice further improvements though.
    - StavrosK 12y ago
      Huh. Yeah, I usually have it about two feet away. Not arm outstretched, like my dad, but only slightly bent.
      - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
        > Not arm outstretched, like my dad LOL, didn't know my brother was on hackernews, too. What's up man!
    - dingaling 12y ago
      > I am usually holding mine at like 6 inches to 1 foot from my face Question: how do you type / swype with your device so close? I've just tried and my focus kept shifting from the back of my typing hand to the screen and back, very tiring.
      - genericuser 12y ago
        I scroll/swipe left or right with my thumb, most of my use is reading comics or watching videos, video being where the resolution most matters doesn't really require much interaction at all. As far as typing I hardly look at the screen then and ppi don't really matter then. If I am just checking my notifications it barely comes out of my pocket. But when we are in a discussion of ppi being useful, I assume we are talking about the uses where you are actually looking at the screen. Edit: Just realized that when I type longer messages or emails I tend to hold it 2 handed landscape and hold it pretty close(around 1 foot away) and tap it out with my thumbs because I find it more accurate. So I guess that is how one would type with it that close.
jp555 12y ago
Did your gorgeous 27" display cost more than $500? I'm not quite clear why you think $500 for a very decent computer that fits into a (big) pocket is unreasonable.
- StavrosK 12y ago
  He's asking why not just keep the same screen, which looks perfect anyway, and make it cheaper/last longer. I have exactly the same question, that's why I ordered a Sony Z3.
- yid 12y ago
  OP has a reasonable point, not sure what yours is. > Did your gorgeous 27" display cost more than $500? Actually, they're going for about $300 on NewEgg, and are currently on sale for $200 at Best Buy.
  - balls187 12y ago
    > Actually, they're going for about $300 on NewEgg, and are currently on sale for $200 at Best Buy. Are you sure those are 2560 x 1440 res? Usually those prices are for 1080p screens at 27"
    - desdiv 12y ago
      The NewEgg one, at least, is 2560 x 1440. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1NB1871 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1NB18...
      - balls187 12y ago
        Interesting. Looks like it's a VA panel, which is better perf than TN, but less than IPS. Which would explain the low price, yet high res.
  - jp555 12y ago
    And I'm sure there are plenty of ~6" Android smartphones available for less than $500. My point was for a device that will be used "every 19 minutes" for years, and it's network access will cost several times the price of the hardware, I don't see why $500 vs. $400 so important. Especially if it means lower quality hardware in a computer that gets a LOT of abuse (compared to a laptop or desktop). If you want a Nexus 6, you need to buy a Nexus 6.
experimental- 12y ago
Correction: a piss poor 27 inch display. "Quad HD" is way too little for that size; you need to at least quadruple the amount of pixels to get anything resembling print quality. And I don't understand why we shouldn't strive for that. After all, (for me at least), much what I do on a computer is reading, and that benefits from a higher-resolution display up to a point much more than images.
- harshreality 12y ago
  Defect rates are per unit area, aren't they? If you're trying to make a 6" screen and a 27" screen at the same dpi and aspect ratio, and the 6" have unacceptable defects 1% of the time, the 27" screens will be defective at 4.5^2 times that rate, or about 20%.
chrisBob 12y ago
I am not sure if I would notice if a pixel count changed by a factor of 1.2, but when you double the resolution (4x the pixels) the difference is dramatic. The screens on my iPad2 and iPad4 are very different, and while I didn't mind it when it was new, the iPad2 now has painfully low resolution.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  > he screens on my iPad2 and iPad4 are very different, and while I didn't mind it when it was new, the iPad2 now has painfully low resolution. Absolutely! But that's going from 132 PPI to 264 PPI. Obviously there's diminishing returns at play here. The difference between 1000 million PPI and 2000 PPI, I'd wager, isn't going to make an actual impact on someone's viewing experience. And I really wonder if a change from 350 up to near 500 would. Surely there's a change, but I'd say a minor one, and given you're pushing way more pixels, the cost to battery / hardware might not be so trivial. If anyone can substantiate this last point with some numbers, I'd be very curious to hear.
  - chrisBob 12y ago
    To some degree it depends on your vision. The 264 PPI is about my resolution limit. My boss probably couldn't tell the difference with more than 100PPI. I should be able to tell you the theoretical diffraction limit based on a 5mm pupil at 18", but unfortunately...
untog 12y ago
I'm all for pushing as many pixels as we can, but not at the expense of battery life. I'll happily take a 720p screen if it buys me even a mediocre improvement in battery life.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  Brightness and total screen size matter more for battery life than resolution...
  - ihsw 12y ago
    Whatever the hell the technical issue is -- more battery life is far more preferable to better displays.
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      Dumbphones had great battery life. Yet we use smartphones... Anyhow, my Nexus 5 lasts the day, I plug it in at night. That's good enough. And I like the screen. Battery life only matters to a point - after that features and niceties matter more...
      - untog 12y ago
        Agreed, but what "feature" does a 1080p display provide over a 720p one? The smartphone/dumbphone comparison doesn't really work - there are no new features here.
        Mikeb85 12y ago
        For one, reading text is much more pleasant.
        untog 12y ago
        For me, slightly more pleasant text reading is not worth battery life. Reading text on 720p is absolutely fine.
pessimizer 12y ago
Luxury technology shares a lot of characteristics with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest It's easier to see how you compare to other people with a quantitative measurement. All you can do with a qualitative measurement is try to relate it to the mean MSRP of devices that share that quality, which is a bit too much math for conspicuous consumption. It also sounds like an app dev opportunity.
imaginenore 12y ago
Thin about printers. Even the cheap ones print at 600dpi. The good ones go 2400dpi, 4800dpi. Resolution does make a difference.
- MiguelHudnandez 12y ago
  Density isn't everything. A good 4800dpi printer probably prints at 300 or 600dpi most of the time, unless specifically tell it to do a high quality print. In any case, it's not often that one digs through their printouts with a magnifying glass to be able to tell the difference. For a phone or tablet, I would trade pixel density above 300ppi for a higher framerate or better battery life. My Nexus 4 has choppy animations, and that is much more annoying than being able to see pixels.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  > Resolution does make a difference. I'm not arguing that resolution inherently makes absolutely no difference. Yes, 100 PPI is markedly different from 400 PPI. As for your comment on printers, it's apples and oranges. For example, you can print a 150 PPI image at 600 DPI, and each pixel will be 16 dots. Secondly, dots aren't a uniform unit, you can have many different type of dots for different printers. Lastly, it really, really depends what you're printing. Newspapers go below 90 DPI and billboards even below 45 DPI. In short, any number is extremely dependent on context. Your numbers are kind of meaningless. But as for my actual question, it's not whether resolution matters. Of course it does. Battery life matters, too, but having 1 century of battery life on your phone that you replace every few years, or 2 centuries, doesn't really matter, you'll agree. There's diminishing returns. And there's a cost factor. So what I'm wondering: does the difference between 400 to 450 to 500 PPI create such an improvement to viewing experience, that it's worth the hit to battery life and the more expensive hardware you inevitably end up with when trying to push almost a million extra pixels. I'm not so sure, I'd much rather get a 720p display that's cheaper and lasts longer.
  - lbruder 12y ago
    The main difference is graphics vs text. While bitmaps won't profit from a better resolution, text will. Sharper letters, no more blurring around the edges. It's a big difference in readability.
higherpurpose 12y ago
It's a real drag on both battery life and performance. Maybe not at first, but benchmarks showing "performance degradation" can show how quickly the 1440p phones get a penalty in performance.
mesozoic 12y ago
Basically you can see more pixels because you hold it closer to your face than a monitor typically. That said they may be getting beyond the point of visual perception for most reasonable distances now.
- eswat 12y ago
  Didn’t Apple claim they had already hit that limit at 326ppi with iPhone 4? Seems we’re enter ludicrous ranges now…
  - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
    I do really have trouble making out pixels on my old iPhone 4. My gf's nexus 5 is really nice (although it probably has more to do with non-resolution aspects of the screen) but that's lower 400s range. The nexus 6 is basically 500 PPI, I just don't get that range or beyond which we'll surely see next year.
noazark 12y ago
My guess is that the industry is in a rush to get some where in regards to screen size, who ever gets their first can then work on battery life. Its still all about spec wars.
tracker1 12y ago
Honestly, for a lower price point, you're better off looking into a Moto e/g/x which seem to be the better options for the lower price points. I'm a little shocked that they're breaking the $400 mark at the lower end, which seemed to be where the past few phones started... and that the n9 will be more than a bit pricier than the n7 was. I may actually be considering just getting nVidia's tablet this generation. My last n7 was stolen, as was the one before it... So paying so much more than the $200 price really isn't something that appeals to me.
- Pxtl 12y ago
  Moto G is not sold directly through Motorola here in Canada, which means dealing with the terrible support provided by phone companies if you want an unlocked handset. I would happily by a 2014 Moto G direct from Motorola if they would let me. I would not go through buying one from Koodo and dealing with their weaker warranty.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    You can't get one direct from Google's play store, or via Amazon there? I'm slightly, but not completely surprised about that.
    - Pxtl 12y ago
      Nope. Play Store in Canada still only lists the 5, 7, and 10(‽) as available Android devices. Obviously the 10 is out of stock, as it has been for about a year. Amazon.ca only offers the 2013 device, although Staples Office Depot is promising to sell the 2014 device for $250 this month.
DCKing 12y ago
> Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display (which, by the way, I've always considered gorgeous)? I mean, does anyone actually notice the difference? Because if that difference means I'm paying $100-200 extra for a better screen, a better graphics chip etc, and it means my battery life is reduced, I really just don't get it. There are several reasons: 1. Display quality is very important to (high end) phone users. People use these things for a lot of text-heavy, image-heavy and video-heavy stuff. And the higher resolution makes a lot of difference, particularly for text. I'm not saying resolution and display quality are the same thing, but resolution is definitely a contributing factor. 2. Because they can. Display manufacturing price scales with surface area, but much less so with resolution. Although higher res phone screens are more expensive, they are not that much more expensive. You don't pay $100-200 extra for a better screen, the manufacturer pays maybe $30-50 more when compared to a 1080p screen. 3. Because people can still see the difference. People still claim Apple made the end-all solution when with the retina displays "you couldn't see the pixels". As it turns out, not being able to make out individual pixels does not mean higher PPI stops adding value. Returns are diminishing, sure, but I sure as hell prefer my text rendered on 500ppi devices compared to 300ppi devices. 4. There is in fact a resolution arms race going on mobile phones. That much is true. I don't think it will continue much longer, though.
- Raphael 12y ago
  When considering displays, it would be best to figure out the pixel density per angle of view, which depends on the expected distance between your eyes and the screen. So if a screen is 1800px wide and you position it such that it takes up 90 degrees of view, then it is 20px per degree, or 0.05 degrees per pixel. So a phone may end up needing a higher resolution than a larger monitor because you hold it closer. Although I haven't run the actual numbers.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Not to mention that red lining (aligning to pixel boundaries to eliminate anti-aliasing artifacts) becomes less of an issue the more pixels you have, which makes it easier for developers to build decent looking apps.
- 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
munificent 12y ago
Users are increasingly using their phones for looking at photos (which are themselves being taken at increasing resolution). Bumping the display resolution makes those photos seems sharper, richer, and more "there", which is a huge part of the user experience. It really does matter.
- sirkneeland 12y ago
  And yet, a photo is more "there" on a working 720p screen than it is on a 1080p screen with a dead battery...
  - cloakandswagger 12y ago
    Everywhere I go I see people charging their phones: at work, at the airport, in coffee shops, in the subway station.. Modern consumers seem to be perfectly fine with trading all-day battery life for better display, and manufacturers are perfectly fine with the higher margins that come with better displays.
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      "Modern consumers seem to be perfectly fine with trading all-day battery life for better display" No, they're not. Plenty of people bitch about how frequently they need to charge their phone, and only tech-savvy people realise how large of a factor screen choice is on this battery drain.
      - lacksconfidence 12y ago
        you've got that backwards, bigger phones with bigger screens also have longer battery life. The increase in battery capacity by using a larger case is more than the decrease due to the extra screen space which needs to be lit up.
        ZenoArrow 12y ago
        Not true though is it. Let's use the Nexus line as a case in point. Galaxy Nexus, great phone, terrible battery life. Nexus 4, another solid phone, bigger screen, bad battery life. Nexus 5, the pattern repeats again. Thankfully Motorola tend to understand battery life better than most and have bumped the mAh specs up nicely on the Nexus 6. Or put a different way, default Nexus 4 battery was 2100mAh, default Nexus 5 battery was 2300mAh. People were already complaining about battery life on the Nexus 4, so why did they only bump up the battery capacity by so little for the Nexus 5? For comparison, note that a phone known for great battery life, Motorola Droid Razr Maxx, came with a 3300mAh battery and was still a slim phone. My point is, just because it's the right thing to do to bump up battery life when using a bigger screen, doesn't mean that the manufacturers will go far enough when doing so.
lvillani 12y ago
> Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display. I agree. I can barely discern pixels on my rMBP (227 dpi) and find little difference between that and the iPhone (~300 dpi), or even the Nexus 5 (445 dpi) and I am quite sensitive to fuzzy text. 400 dpi looks better on the spec sheet but I believe it is just wasteful and puts unnecessary (or, at least, with marginal returns) strain on the hardware to push all those pixels to screen.
radley 12y ago
Two words: "print resolution". 300dpi is common, but for line art you want 600dpi (like laser printers).
- wmf 12y ago
  You can't directly compare dots per inch on a printer to pixels per inch on a screen.

toyg 12y ago

> does anyone actually notice the difference Yes.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago
You notice pixel density between 400 and 450, or 450 and 500 when holding the phone normally (at say a bit less than an arm's length usually) I mean, I notice FPS changes from 60 to 90, but I wouldn't pay even a dollar extra for it. I'm not actually wondering if you can notice, I'm wondering if it makes an actual impact on your viewing experience. And if so, if that impact (however big or small, feel free to elaborate) is worth the extra money we can all assume it costs to buy hardware capable of pushing a lot of extra pixels smoothly. And lastly, if that different not only is worth the price, but also the hit to battery life we can all assume exists. That, to me, just seems like a really tall order. (if anyone has some insights as to how big the impact is on viewing experience, cost and battery, feel free to add! I've got no real clue).
- tracker1 12y ago
  I'm far sighted anyways, so I do appreciate the bigger screen... though I'd be happy with 720p at the 6" size, because without my reading glasses on, I won't notice the difference, and tend to set my phones to larger fonts mode.
- toyg 12y ago
  I don't have any studies or stats to back me up, am just going by personal experience here. I'd rather spend a few dollars more for a higher-res screen than for a few hours of battery. The impact on my quality of life (less eyestrain, less migraines) has been really noticeable since I managed to get "retina-like" resolutions on all my devices, and since then I've been a true believer in the benefits of the race for pixel density. I just wish they'd blast a little less light at me (e-ink is still in another league), but I guess one can't have it all (yet).
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    AMOLED helps a lot with the "blast a little less light" aspect. It's not a significant difference in a bright room, but the difference is huge in a dim or dark one. It doesn't say whether the Nexus 6 is AMOLED or LCD. I'm hoping for AMOLED, but I suspect it's LCD.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

> I mean, does anyone actually notice the difference? Absolutely.

StavrosK 12y ago
Really? Your eye can resolve the difference between 300 ppi and 500 ppi at arm's length? Also, don't be a stranger.
- genericuser 12y ago
  You use your phone at arms length? I am usually holding mine at like 6 inches to 1 foot from my face. I could very much tell the difference between the 318 ppi of the nexus 4 vs the 445 ppi of the nexus 5 with my usage patterns. I am skeptical that I would notice further improvements though.
  - StavrosK 12y ago
    Huh. Yeah, I usually have it about two feet away. Not arm outstretched, like my dad, but only slightly bent.
    - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
      > Not arm outstretched, like my dad LOL, didn't know my brother was on hackernews, too. What's up man!
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > I am usually holding mine at like 6 inches to 1 foot from my face Question: how do you type / swype with your device so close? I've just tried and my focus kept shifting from the back of my typing hand to the screen and back, very tiring.
    - genericuser 12y ago
      I scroll/swipe left or right with my thumb, most of my use is reading comics or watching videos, video being where the resolution most matters doesn't really require much interaction at all. As far as typing I hardly look at the screen then and ppi don't really matter then. If I am just checking my notifications it barely comes out of my pocket. But when we are in a discussion of ppi being useful, I assume we are talking about the uses where you are actually looking at the screen. Edit: Just realized that when I type longer messages or emails I tend to hold it 2 handed landscape and hold it pretty close(around 1 foot away) and tap it out with my thumbs because I find it more accurate. So I guess that is how one would type with it that close.

jp555 12y ago

Did your gorgeous 27" display cost more than $500? I'm not quite clear why you think $500 for a very decent computer that fits into a (big) pocket is unreasonable.

StavrosK 12y ago
He's asking why not just keep the same screen, which looks perfect anyway, and make it cheaper/last longer. I have exactly the same question, that's why I ordered a Sony Z3.
yid 12y ago
OP has a reasonable point, not sure what yours is. > Did your gorgeous 27" display cost more than $500? Actually, they're going for about $300 on NewEgg, and are currently on sale for $200 at Best Buy.
- balls187 12y ago
  > Actually, they're going for about $300 on NewEgg, and are currently on sale for $200 at Best Buy. Are you sure those are 2560 x 1440 res? Usually those prices are for 1080p screens at 27"
  - desdiv 12y ago
    The NewEgg one, at least, is 2560 x 1440. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1NB1871 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1NB18...
    - balls187 12y ago
      Interesting. Looks like it's a VA panel, which is better perf than TN, but less than IPS. Which would explain the low price, yet high res.
- jp555 12y ago
  And I'm sure there are plenty of ~6" Android smartphones available for less than $500. My point was for a device that will be used "every 19 minutes" for years, and it's network access will cost several times the price of the hardware, I don't see why $500 vs. $400 so important. Especially if it means lower quality hardware in a computer that gets a LOT of abuse (compared to a laptop or desktop). If you want a Nexus 6, you need to buy a Nexus 6.

experimental- 12y ago

Correction: a piss poor 27 inch display. "Quad HD" is way too little for that size; you need to at least quadruple the amount of pixels to get anything resembling print quality. And I don't understand why we shouldn't strive for that. After all, (for me at least), much what I do on a computer is reading, and that benefits from a higher-resolution display up to a point much more than images.

harshreality 12y ago
Defect rates are per unit area, aren't they? If you're trying to make a 6" screen and a 27" screen at the same dpi and aspect ratio, and the 6" have unacceptable defects 1% of the time, the 27" screens will be defective at 4.5^2 times that rate, or about 20%.

chrisBob 12y ago

I am not sure if I would notice if a pixel count changed by a factor of 1.2, but when you double the resolution (4x the pixels) the difference is dramatic. The screens on my iPad2 and iPad4 are very different, and while I didn't mind it when it was new, the iPad2 now has painfully low resolution.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago
> he screens on my iPad2 and iPad4 are very different, and while I didn't mind it when it was new, the iPad2 now has painfully low resolution. Absolutely! But that's going from 132 PPI to 264 PPI. Obviously there's diminishing returns at play here. The difference between 1000 million PPI and 2000 PPI, I'd wager, isn't going to make an actual impact on someone's viewing experience. And I really wonder if a change from 350 up to near 500 would. Surely there's a change, but I'd say a minor one, and given you're pushing way more pixels, the cost to battery / hardware might not be so trivial. If anyone can substantiate this last point with some numbers, I'd be very curious to hear.
- chrisBob 12y ago
  To some degree it depends on your vision. The 264 PPI is about my resolution limit. My boss probably couldn't tell the difference with more than 100PPI. I should be able to tell you the theoretical diffraction limit based on a 5mm pupil at 18", but unfortunately...

untog 12y ago

I'm all for pushing as many pixels as we can, but not at the expense of battery life. I'll happily take a 720p screen if it buys me even a mediocre improvement in battery life.

Mikeb85 12y ago
Brightness and total screen size matter more for battery life than resolution...
- ihsw 12y ago
  Whatever the hell the technical issue is -- more battery life is far more preferable to better displays.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    Dumbphones had great battery life. Yet we use smartphones... Anyhow, my Nexus 5 lasts the day, I plug it in at night. That's good enough. And I like the screen. Battery life only matters to a point - after that features and niceties matter more...
    - untog 12y ago
      Agreed, but what "feature" does a 1080p display provide over a 720p one? The smartphone/dumbphone comparison doesn't really work - there are no new features here.
      - Mikeb85 12y ago
        For one, reading text is much more pleasant.
        untog 12y ago
        For me, slightly more pleasant text reading is not worth battery life. Reading text on 720p is absolutely fine.

pessimizer 12y ago

Luxury technology shares a lot of characteristics with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Quest It's easier to see how you compare to other people with a quantitative measurement. All you can do with a qualitative measurement is try to relate it to the mean MSRP of devices that share that quality, which is a bit too much math for conspicuous consumption. It also sounds like an app dev opportunity.

imaginenore 12y ago

Thin about printers. Even the cheap ones print at 600dpi. The good ones go 2400dpi, 4800dpi. Resolution does make a difference.

MiguelHudnandez 12y ago
Density isn't everything. A good 4800dpi printer probably prints at 300 or 600dpi most of the time, unless specifically tell it to do a high quality print. In any case, it's not often that one digs through their printouts with a magnifying glass to be able to tell the difference. For a phone or tablet, I would trade pixel density above 300ppi for a higher framerate or better battery life. My Nexus 4 has choppy animations, and that is much more annoying than being able to see pixels.
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
> Resolution does make a difference. I'm not arguing that resolution inherently makes absolutely no difference. Yes, 100 PPI is markedly different from 400 PPI. As for your comment on printers, it's apples and oranges. For example, you can print a 150 PPI image at 600 DPI, and each pixel will be 16 dots. Secondly, dots aren't a uniform unit, you can have many different type of dots for different printers. Lastly, it really, really depends what you're printing. Newspapers go below 90 DPI and billboards even below 45 DPI. In short, any number is extremely dependent on context. Your numbers are kind of meaningless. But as for my actual question, it's not whether resolution matters. Of course it does. Battery life matters, too, but having 1 century of battery life on your phone that you replace every few years, or 2 centuries, doesn't really matter, you'll agree. There's diminishing returns. And there's a cost factor. So what I'm wondering: does the difference between 400 to 450 to 500 PPI create such an improvement to viewing experience, that it's worth the hit to battery life and the more expensive hardware you inevitably end up with when trying to push almost a million extra pixels. I'm not so sure, I'd much rather get a 720p display that's cheaper and lasts longer.
- lbruder 12y ago
  The main difference is graphics vs text. While bitmaps won't profit from a better resolution, text will. Sharper letters, no more blurring around the edges. It's a big difference in readability.

higherpurpose 12y ago

It's a real drag on both battery life and performance. Maybe not at first, but benchmarks showing "performance degradation" can show how quickly the 1440p phones get a penalty in performance.

mesozoic 12y ago

Basically you can see more pixels because you hold it closer to your face than a monitor typically. That said they may be getting beyond the point of visual perception for most reasonable distances now.

eswat 12y ago
Didn’t Apple claim they had already hit that limit at 326ppi with iPhone 4? Seems we’re enter ludicrous ranges now…
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  I do really have trouble making out pixels on my old iPhone 4. My gf's nexus 5 is really nice (although it probably has more to do with non-resolution aspects of the screen) but that's lower 400s range. The nexus 6 is basically 500 PPI, I just don't get that range or beyond which we'll surely see next year.

noazark 12y ago

My guess is that the industry is in a rush to get some where in regards to screen size, who ever gets their first can then work on battery life. Its still all about spec wars.

tracker1 12y ago

Honestly, for a lower price point, you're better off looking into a Moto e/g/x which seem to be the better options for the lower price points. I'm a little shocked that they're breaking the $400 mark at the lower end, which seemed to be where the past few phones started... and that the n9 will be more than a bit pricier than the n7 was. I may actually be considering just getting nVidia's tablet this generation. My last n7 was stolen, as was the one before it... So paying so much more than the $200 price really isn't something that appeals to me.

Pxtl 12y ago
Moto G is not sold directly through Motorola here in Canada, which means dealing with the terrible support provided by phone companies if you want an unlocked handset. I would happily by a 2014 Moto G direct from Motorola if they would let me. I would not go through buying one from Koodo and dealing with their weaker warranty.
- tracker1 12y ago
  You can't get one direct from Google's play store, or via Amazon there? I'm slightly, but not completely surprised about that.
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    Nope. Play Store in Canada still only lists the 5, 7, and 10(‽) as available Android devices. Obviously the 10 is out of stock, as it has been for about a year. Amazon.ca only offers the 2013 device, although Staples Office Depot is promising to sell the 2014 device for $250 this month.

DCKing 12y ago

> Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display (which, by the way, I've always considered gorgeous)? I mean, does anyone actually notice the difference? Because if that difference means I'm paying $100-200 extra for a better screen, a better graphics chip etc, and it means my battery life is reduced, I really just don't get it. There are several reasons: 1. Display quality is very important to (high end) phone users. People use these things for a lot of text-heavy, image-heavy and video-heavy stuff. And the higher resolution makes a lot of difference, particularly for text. I'm not saying resolution and display quality are the same thing, but resolution is definitely a contributing factor. 2. Because they can. Display manufacturing price scales with surface area, but much less so with resolution. Although higher res phone screens are more expensive, they are not that much more expensive. You don't pay $100-200 extra for a better screen, the manufacturer pays maybe $30-50 more when compared to a 1080p screen. 3. Because people can still see the difference. People still claim Apple made the end-all solution when with the retina displays "you couldn't see the pixels". As it turns out, not being able to make out individual pixels does not mean higher PPI stops adding value. Returns are diminishing, sure, but I sure as hell prefer my text rendered on 500ppi devices compared to 300ppi devices. 4. There is in fact a resolution arms race going on mobile phones. That much is true. I don't think it will continue much longer, though.

Raphael 12y ago
When considering displays, it would be best to figure out the pixel density per angle of view, which depends on the expected distance between your eyes and the screen. So if a screen is 1800px wide and you position it such that it takes up 90 degrees of view, then it is 20px per degree, or 0.05 degrees per pixel. So a phone may end up needing a higher resolution than a larger monitor because you hold it closer. Although I haven't run the actual numbers.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Not to mention that red lining (aligning to pixel boundaries to eliminate anti-aliasing artifacts) becomes less of an issue the more pixels you have, which makes it easier for developers to build decent looking apps.
12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

munificent 12y ago

Users are increasingly using their phones for looking at photos (which are themselves being taken at increasing resolution). Bumping the display resolution makes those photos seems sharper, richer, and more "there", which is a huge part of the user experience. It really does matter.

sirkneeland 12y ago
And yet, a photo is more "there" on a working 720p screen than it is on a 1080p screen with a dead battery...
- cloakandswagger 12y ago
  Everywhere I go I see people charging their phones: at work, at the airport, in coffee shops, in the subway station.. Modern consumers seem to be perfectly fine with trading all-day battery life for better display, and manufacturers are perfectly fine with the higher margins that come with better displays.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    "Modern consumers seem to be perfectly fine with trading all-day battery life for better display" No, they're not. Plenty of people bitch about how frequently they need to charge their phone, and only tech-savvy people realise how large of a factor screen choice is on this battery drain.
    - lacksconfidence 12y ago
      you've got that backwards, bigger phones with bigger screens also have longer battery life. The increase in battery capacity by using a larger case is more than the decrease due to the extra screen space which needs to be lit up.
      - ZenoArrow 12y ago
        Not true though is it. Let's use the Nexus line as a case in point. Galaxy Nexus, great phone, terrible battery life. Nexus 4, another solid phone, bigger screen, bad battery life. Nexus 5, the pattern repeats again. Thankfully Motorola tend to understand battery life better than most and have bumped the mAh specs up nicely on the Nexus 6. Or put a different way, default Nexus 4 battery was 2100mAh, default Nexus 5 battery was 2300mAh. People were already complaining about battery life on the Nexus 4, so why did they only bump up the battery capacity by so little for the Nexus 5? For comparison, note that a phone known for great battery life, Motorola Droid Razr Maxx, came with a 3300mAh battery and was still a slim phone. My point is, just because it's the right thing to do to bump up battery life when using a bigger screen, doesn't mean that the manufacturers will go far enough when doing so.

lvillani 12y ago

> Can anyone explain to me what the fetish is with pushing the same amount of pixels as a freaking 27 inch display. I agree. I can barely discern pixels on my rMBP (227 dpi) and find little difference between that and the iPhone (~300 dpi), or even the Nexus 5 (445 dpi) and I am quite sensitive to fuzzy text. 400 dpi looks better on the spec sheet but I believe it is just wasteful and puts unnecessary (or, at least, with marginal returns) strain on the hardware to push all those pixels to screen.

radley 12y ago

Two words: "print resolution". 300dpi is common, but for line art you want 600dpi (like laser printers).

wmf 12y ago
You can't directly compare dots per inch on a printer to pixels per inch on a screen.