- 06-08-2010, 04:14 PM #2
Most biased article I have ever seen.
The anti-aliasing bull crap is not even worth saying. There's literally zero difference between what was presented and what they came up with.
Really disappointed in Gizmodo for featuring that, I guess after Apple rightfully burned them, all journalistic integrity flew out the window.
- 06-08-2010, 06:08 PM #4
- 06-08-2010, 06:25 PM #5
- 06-08-2010, 06:29 PM #6
Wow, even the headlines of these articles are totally ridiculous
"Apple Apologizes for Snubbing Poor Person"
"Why Apple Refused a Poor Disabled Woman's Business"
Are you serious!!!???
What the fvck!? They didn't turn her away because she's poor, they turned her away because they (at that time) were not accepting cash for iPads! You'd think people who reported the story could use an accurate headline.
And a little update on a Foxconn suicide was tagged "apple"?? I highly doubt they tagged it "dell" or "hp", or any of the other myriad of companies whom actually use Foxconn MORE than Apple does, and are doing LESS for the workers!
- 06-08-2010, 06:37 PM #7
Digital Society » Blog Archive » Apple faking 489 to 815 PPI on iPhone 4 ads
Look, you only destroy your own credibility when you defend Apple blindly in the face of proof that they lied about the Anti-Aliasing published by someone who has no axe to grind. (former ZDNet technical director George Ou).
You impress no one being a blind fanboy. Its sooo yesterday.
Instead of calling it a biased article prove it wrong. Back up your claim. Remember, this is the same man who claimed Total Kidney Failure was a hormonal imbalance. He has serious issues with the truth.
- 06-08-2010, 07:06 PM #8
Just tested it myself, as a designer I'm curious if he was actually correct.
Here's what I did:
Create one document at 326dpi.
Create another at 163dpi (iPhone 3GS dpi).
Make a 10pt "a" in both documents.
Rasterize the "a" in the 163dpi document, then increase the size of the document to 326dpi with "Nearest Neighbour" resampling, to show the accurate pixels.
Place the 2 "a"s side by side.
Seems to me it is not unlike Apple's demonstration.
Also, the increased dpis for the presentation and videos are because it is supposed to be an enlarged representation of what your eye would see. A human eye can not distinguish past 300 dpi, so it is accurate because it will appear smooth to you whether or not it actually is.
Last edited by Jellotime91; 06-08-2010 at 07:18 PM.
- 06-08-2010, 08:22 PM #9
- 06-08-2010, 09:22 PM #10
- 06-08-2010, 09:47 PM #11
- 06-08-2010, 09:53 PM #12
- 06-08-2010, 09:55 PM #13
- 06-08-2010, 10:20 PM #14
Yeah it just gets me pi$$ed off I've seen it so many times they write something about Apple and when you defend it even if you present supporting info the response is always "you're just a fanboy" so I'm like why the f did you post the information then?
Last edited by Ipheuria; 06-08-2010 at 10:20 PM. Reason: spelling
- 06-08-2010, 11:19 PM #15
- 06-08-2010, 11:44 PM #16
I actually thought Steve's demonstration of the two letter a's was just to explain what pixel density meant in simple terms. I didn't really take it to mean that it looked exactly like what he was showing.
In any case, the article suggests that Apple is lying about the 960 x 640 and that is simply wrong. I think we can all appreciate that the new screen is going to be WAAAAAY better.
- 06-09-2010, 01:27 AM #17
- 06-09-2010, 01:41 AM #18
- 06-09-2010, 01:49 AM #19
- 06-09-2010, 02:38 AM #20
Okay so I just now read the article. Are you freaking kidding me? The author of this article is completely full of hate towards Apple and it shows in the lack of any kind of fact checking, I mean heck he has not even held the thing in his hand and his math is all wrong.
- 06-09-2010, 05:55 AM #21
- 06-09-2010, 06:36 AM #22
Everyone was feeling sorry for Giz when the editors door got kicked off & when they might find themselves in court for paying for the phone. They paid for a stolen phone because they are not journalists they are just trying to get traffic to their site by any means necessary.
- 06-09-2010, 09:51 AM #23
- 06-09-2010, 10:17 AM #24
Well the new resolution is all fine and great and I am excited to use it, but I still think at least going to a 3.7 inch screen would have been ideal. 3.5 isn't a big deal, but after playing with an EVO, 3.7 is the way to go. Their 4.3 is too big, IMHO.
- 06-09-2010, 01:57 PM #25
3.5" is more than large enough, in fact many consumers feel it's too large already, which is why the new slimmer and thinner body is also important. 3.5" is sometimes hard to use one-handed, and 3.7" is much harder, especially with the 16:9 aspect ratio manufacturers are using.
Increasing the screen size would be a mistake. I've had iPhone for 2 years and I still look at it when it's close to my face and I am in awe at how large the screen actually is.