41–50 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a side note, doesn't the guy talking to the woman with the baby look like a younger and chubbier steve jobs? You know iClone is coming soon. Everyone will get a hot model. Hell with Microsoft, I'm switching for sure when that happens.
I'm thinking that Jonathan Ives is turning in to Steve Jobs.
Also, none of my friends are as attractive as the models used on the Facetime page. Stop faking my friends. Apple, please fix this.
Models used in advertising have always been more attractive on average. Even the comparatively unattractive models are more photogenic on average. And what does this have to do with the topic?
Stop cluttering HN with petty complaints about Apple.
Also, none of my friends are as attractive as the models used on the Facetime page. Stop faking my friends. Apple, please fix this.
What on earth are you expecting? Should Apple load pictures of your friends off Facebook or Flickr? Models used in advertising have always been more attractive on average. Even the comparatively un attractive models are more photogenic on average. And what does this have to do with the topic? Stop cluttering HN with petty complaints about Apple.
Hint: you are agreeing with the post you are replying to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with DVD vs Blu-Ray
Can you actually see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray? It may just be me, but it appears that they are not much sharper than the DVDs (unlike the DVD vs VHS change) and most of it is marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What on earth are you expecting? Should Apple load pictures of your friends off Facebook or Flickr? Models used in advertising have always been more attractive on average. Even the comparatively un attractive models are more photogenic on average. And what does this have to do with the topic? Stop cluttering HN with petty complaints about Apple.
Do you know what sarcasm is? If not, read up on that, then reread the post you replied to. Hint: you are agreeing with the post you are replying to.
It's only obvious this is sarcasm after reading the last line of the OP. Without that context, it's indistinguishable from the petty complaints around here. Therefore, misdirected anger remains. Rargh.
I also don't think the OP is making a petty complaint (even if it probably got upvoted for petty reasons), as the representation IS potentially misleading, despite there being good reasons for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with DVD vs Blu-Ray
Can you actually see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray? It may just be me, but it appears that they are not much sharper than the DVDs (unlike the DVD vs VHS change) and most of it is marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with DVD vs Blu-Ray
Can you actually see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray? It may just be me, but it appears that they are not much sharper than the DVDs (unlike the DVD vs VHS change) and most of it is marketing.
It is very, very, very easy to put yourself in a situation where 1080 is useless. The cutoff for where your 1080 40" TV might as well be a 720 TV is 7 to 8 feet; further away than that and you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720. At about 12 feet you've lost HD entirely. Many people have setups that fail these criteria. And this is a continuum, not a sharp cutoff, so if you're on the far side you may be able to tell a difference but not think it's worth it.
Now, all that said, well-upsampled DVDs are much closer to BluRay than people selling BluRay would like to admit. It isn't the same, but I couldn't call it "night and day", certainly.
People always seem to forget that this is marketing . They're trying to show what the difference is like , they don't need to be exact.
"I'm not lying about how big the fish was, just giving you the effect of what it was like to catch it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with DVD vs Blu-Ray
Can you actually see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray? It may just be me, but it appears that they are not much sharper than the DVDs (unlike the DVD vs VHS change) and most of it is marketing.
I also posted this on the article: No one that sees these videos or ads on the web will be using a 300dpi screen so they need to overcompensate. A more interesting comparison will be what resolution they show in their print ads.
1- Whether or not this is, in fact, the case is not relevant.