 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Now, imagine watching a movie on a screen that's so tiny that you have
> >> to hold it a few inches in front of your face to even be able to /see/
> >> it.
> >
> > And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.
> What makes you think this is an exaggeration?
"A few inches" is something like 3 to 5 inches. That's like 10 cm.
Holding anything that close would make it hard to see anything. Nobody
does that, if for nothing else, then for that reason alone.
If you are watching something like a TV series or a music video, it's
perfectly comfortable wathing it like you would read a book. There's
nothing to it. You don't keep a book 10 cm from your face when you read,
do you?
So yes, "you have to hold it a few inches in front of your face" is a
huge exaggeration.
It seems to me that you have never actually *tried* using an iPhone,
you are just talking from your behind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At least with cars, there are few enough of them that applying different
> body styling might actually make your new product stand out. That's
> really not going to work with a phone; there's millions of them!
The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
millions of other phones were available.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
> millions of other phones were available.
It's curious how innovative Apple was with the iPhone, and how
successful those ideas were.
The iPhone might not have been the first portable device with a
touch-screen (usable with fingers rather than a stylus) in history,
but it was very certainly the first one produced for the masses.
When Apple announced this, many people doubted its usability, and many
even laughed at it (a common criticism being "it doesn't even have a
keyboard".)
But Apple did everything just right: Rather than going with a cheap,
low-resolution touch-screen on a device that can be used for 2 hours,
they really invested in it and put a really, really high-quality, accurate
and responsive touch screen with a very decent pixel resolution (at least
at that time) that keeps working properly no matter how dirty the screen
gets, and they put a lot of effort on the software side to make it as
usable as possible. And you can actually use the device for quite a long
time without recharging.
Before the iPhone many people laughed at the concept. After the iPhone
and its huge success, every single cellphone manufacturer has created
their own clone of it. Many of them of abysmal quality (really inaccurate
finger tracking, extremely prone to misbehave when the screen gets even
slightly dirty, and so on.)
Touchscreens are the new black.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:54:41 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The screen is 1.5 inches across by 2 inches tall.
That's small by modern smartphone standards.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 03/10/2012 01:59 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There's more multimedia out there than just Lord of the Rings movies.
>> Things like TV series, documentaries, comedy routines and so on do not
>> require a movie theater sized screen. They can very well be enjoyed from
>> a 4-inch screen while sitting on a train.
>
> I was about to make some comment about how excruciatingly loud trains
> are - and then I remembered, that's only UK trains. Other parts of the
> world have a train system with actual /investment/...
>
>>> Now, imagine watching a movie on a screen that's so tiny that you have
>>> to hold it a few inches in front of your face to even be able to /see/
>>> it.
>>
>> And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.
>
> What makes you think this is an exaggeration?
>
Because no one is seriously talking about watching movies on the screen
of a 5 year old flip-phone.
As mentioned multiple times already, the screen size and resolution on
newer smart phones is at least 4 times as big as your dinosaur's, which
makes it more than easily viewable at a comfortable distance.
Exhibit A:
http://clicktechnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/mw1.jpg
Exhibit B:
http://sp.life123.com/bm.pix/how-to-put-movies-on-iphone.s600x600.jpg
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-10-03 10:13, Warp wrote:
> "A few inches" is something like 3 to 5 inches. That's like 10 cm.
> Holding anything that close would make it hard to see anything. Nobody
> does that, if for nothing else, then for that reason alone.
>
> If you are watching something like a TV series or a music video, it's
> perfectly comfortable wathing it like you would read a book. There's
> nothing to it. You don't keep a book 10 cm from your face when you read,
> do you?
>
> So yes, "you have to hold it a few inches in front of your face" is a
> huge exaggeration.
I hold my phone that close when I'm trying to watch a video on it or
read some text...
...but I'm way nearsighted.
That's my excuse, anyways.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Exhibit C:
http://tinyurl.com/9emeeee
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 2:40 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> The rule of thumb for Internet browsing is:
> 3 minutes on a phone.
> 30 minutes on a tablet.
> 3 hrs on a computer.
>
Only 3 hours? o_O
> I suspect it would be the same for watching movies.
Mind you, I have seen people watch the small screens on the back of an
airliner's seat for hours and hours.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/10/2012 04:25 PM, scott wrote:
>> At least with cars, there are few enough of them that applying different
>> body styling might actually make your new product stand out. That's
>> really not going to work with a phone; there's millions of them!
>
> The iPhone managed to somehow work very well out of nowhere when
> millions of other phones were available.
Sure. But /not/ just by putting some slightly different styling on a
basically identical unit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.
>>
>> What makes you think this is an exaggeration?
>
> Because no one is seriously talking about watching movies on the screen
> of a 5 year old flip-phone.
>
> As mentioned multiple times already, the screen size and resolution on
> newer smart phones is at least 4 times as big as your dinosaur's, which
> makes it more than easily viewable at a comfortable distance.
And as *I* pointed out, the screen /cannot/ be of a reasonable size,
because then it wouldn't fit in your pocket.
I'm sure you could quite happily watch TV on an iPad. But you can't put
that in your pocket.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
