Can we please say "higher resolution" or "higher density" rather than an abomination like "more retina"?
[deleted]
Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
41–50 of 51 posts
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, Windows Phone has failed to gain traction in the marketplace and therefore lacks a proper app ecosystem. Could you expand on what you see as a proper app ecosystem? - It can't be the tooling, Visual Studio and .NET have a pretty huge install bases. - Is it the distribution channel? - Is it that there aren't 60,000,000 apps like for Android? If so that number should be reduced down to about the ~5000 apps that…
> What is Microsoft missing that would make it "proper"? Apps on par with Android and iOS. Sure WP has a Twitter app, but it's ancient. Several other popular "must-have" apps are there, but are not at feature parity with competing platforms. I think that's the one big thing Windows Phone is missing: versions of apps that don't suck, and don't lag features behind competing platforms. Outside the Microsoft crowd, devel…
In my experience of having used a WP7 phone for the last two months, I'd say a twitter app is almost useless on the windows phone. Twitter is already baked into the the people hub, as is facebook. I would appreciate a proper Google+ app though.
I can't speak to all the competing apps. I do wish there were a version of DragonBox algebra for WP. That's the only one I've pined for that wasn't available, although I am looking forward to the new Evernote mobile features making their way over to me eventually.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, seriously, there is absolutely no need to increase pixel density Isn't that what they said in 2010, and 2005, and 2000? When we have a display that's "retina" when being held 1 mm in front of sharp eyes you might be able to say there's "no need." Until then, the market will decide.
I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me. Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old.
> I don't think anyone was saying that there's no need to increase pixel density in 2000 or 2005, at least not to me.
Well, there's that Apple marketing page that in 2004 said 100 ppi was the "ideal resolution" (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011130432/http://www.apple.c...). I'm sure internally they wouldn't have minded a 220 ppi MBPwRd display with around 100 ppi effective, but they weren't saying that - they were saying higher density causes eye strain.
> Can you even focus 1mm in front of your eyes? I can't, but I'm old.
Arbitrarily small distance. Vast majority of people physically can't hold a screen that close in front of their face, so a "retina at 1 mm" display would be retina for all feasible uses - unlike the current "retina at 25 cm."
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does retina mean? Can you explain to us? Do we really need a term for "high PPI"? If iPhone 4 is retina, then what is Xperia S? It is certainly not retina, because it would be insulting to call it retina when its pixels are even more indistinguishable. What about Galaxy Nexus? It is 316 PPI, slightly less than iPhone. Is it enough for being retina or not? Who determines?
The original contention is that it is the absolute (useful) peak of screen resolution, as in, at the distance the screen is normally viewed from, the individual pixels are imperceptible to the human eye, and adding more will not result in any perceptible difference. Similar to print media, where beyond a certain dpi your eyes just can't tell the difference if you added more dots.
Your definition of retina is based on 2 assumptions:
1) Everyone has the same eyes.
2) Everyone holds their phone at the same distance.
Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Therefore, a display that is retina to you, may not be retina to me. It is therefore meaningless to talk about whether a display is retina or not (unless a specific human and a specific distance is specified).
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Windows Phone has failed to gain traction in the marketplace and therefore lacks a proper app ecosystem. Second, I think the WP8 UI very divisive. You either love it or you don't. Personally, I think it's a Pepsi. Sweet on first impression, but cumbersome to use every day. Too much scrolling (can't use muscle memory) and giant typography which distract from the content.
> Well, Windows Phone has failed to gain traction in the marketplace and therefore lacks a proper app ecosystem. Can you even buy a WP8 phone yet? Give it a year after it's released before passing judgment on its app ecosystem. You're confusing the old with the new. Their whole deal here is that they are re-inventing the product line. It's not the old WP flop anymore. > Personally, I think it's a Pepsi. Sweet on firs…
I was referring to the Windows Phone app ecosystem. There is no app ecosystem for WP8 yet, and I assume that it will allow you to run WP7 apps.
And I did use WP7 for a week. My impressions of the Metro-style are that it is love-or-hate and I fall into the latter. WP8 is a continuation the Metro design language.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original contention is that it is the absolute (useful) peak of screen resolution, as in, at the distance the screen is normally viewed from, the individual pixels are imperceptible to the human eye, and adding more will not result in any perceptible difference. Similar to print media, where beyond a certain dpi your eyes just can't tell the difference if you added more dots.
Your definition of retina is based on 2 assumptions: 1) Everyone has the same eyes. 2) Everyone holds their phone at the same distance. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Therefore, a display that is retina to you, may not be retina to me. It is therefore meaningless to talk about whether a display is retina or not (unless a specific human and a specific distance is specified).
Your argument is faulty, and here is why:
You are confusing with "these assumptions are not true 100% of the time" with "these assumptions are not true most of the time". In fact, just like sound perception, motion perception, and eyesight resolution, the vast, vast, vast majority of the world is tightly clustered around a maximum.
There are a small number of humans who can hear above 20kHz, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the world can't - in fact, most adults sit closer to 16Hz. Ditto, for the vast, vast majority of the people on this fair planet, framerates above somewhere between 70-80Hz become imperceptible, with a lot of people sitting closer to 60Hz.
Both audio and video equipment are engineered with these limits in mind, and there is no fundamental problem with engineering screens with the limitations of the ultramajority in mind.
The fact that there are a few extraordinary individuals whose sensory abilities far exceed that of the rest of the population, does not make it "meaningless" as a concept. What is "retina" as defined above, is retina to everyone but the statistical outliers.
To address your original post, it seems like you're taking out your Apple rage against a concept that is older than Apple. "Retina" as Apple uses in its own advertising is really whatever the damn hell Apple feels like calling retina, but the concept predates Apple's usage of it and has validity. The Xperia S, the Galaxy Nexus, are all "retina" in the non-Apple-marketing sense of the word.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why mention it? Isn't retina just an Apple specific marketing term for a high resolution screen?
One that has succeeded, and more people know what it means than "High PPI". I'd say leap on it, and argue in court that people don't associate it with Apple, they associate it with not noticing pixels.
Which is even worse, because no other company can use this term that people "associate with not noticing pixels". Even when their devices outdo iPhone in terms of PPI, they will never be able to market it as retina.
If we really are going to use a term for "high PPI", it should be a standard word that nobody has trademarked.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Windows 8 on a Nokia is like taking a camel to a horse race. What are you basing this statement on?
Well, Windows Phone has failed to gain traction in the marketplace and therefore lacks a proper app ecosystem. Second, I think the WP8 UI very divisive. You either love it or you don't. Personally, I think it's a Pepsi. Sweet on first impression, but cumbersome to use every day. Too much scrolling (can't use muscle memory) and giant typography which distract from the content.
> Second, I think the WP8 UI very divisive
On the desktop this is the case. But on phones and tablets it has been universally praised, except by Android fanboys.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
What have you heard negative about it? Seems pretty slick.
Will they seamlessly let you use Google services in a non-hackish way? I don't want to use Bing, Live, Sky, etc. I'm afraid unless I buy an open source OS, I'll be pushed into an ecosystem without choice.
Yes they will. Problem solved.
Re: Nokia Lumia 920 is more retina than the iPhone 4S
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had the exact same thought while watching the conference. The problem does not come from the hardware, it comes from the software.
What have you heard negative about it? Seems pretty slick.
I don't like this endless vertical list of application, even with the search feature. Also, the transitions feel slow with all these animations.