Apple lying about iPhone 4 screen?

**nfrederick** · 06-08-2010, 04:02 PM

Read, discuss, argue.

**Jellotime91** · 06-08-2010, 04:14 PM

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.

**nfrederick** · 06-08-2010, 04:26 PM

Yea, I had that feeling in my gut when reading that article, Giz went from giving Steve Jobs daily jobs to trying to find anything bad about the new iPhone that they can. It's been fun to watch unfold.

**rgar3388** · 06-08-2010, 06:08 PM

They got ***** slapped by Steve, now they're trying to do what nfrederick just said. I liked all the comments trashing the author.

**Hack-My-i** · 06-08-2010, 06:25 PM

sounds like someone is ANTI-APPLE! They are just maddddddddd... those dang bastards!!! check it out below...
and Gizmodo can suck "deez nutz"

**Jellotime91** · 06-08-2010, 06:29 PM

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!

**icebike** · 06-08-2010, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Jellotime91

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.

The link was to Gawker. The original article was here:

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.

**Jellotime91** · 06-08-2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by icebike

The link was to Gawker. The original article was here:

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.

First of all, that article is actually incorrect. Apple shows directly that part of this a is composed of 4 pixels, and part of THIS a, is composed of 16 pixels. The error made in the article is where he confuses the amount of pixels with dpi. He's multiplying by 2, when the screen resolution is 2x larger in both horizontal and vertical, meaning it needs to be multiplied by 4.

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.
Result:

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.

**iquinn** · 06-08-2010, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by icebike

Instead of calling it a biased article prove it wrong. Back up your claim.

Originally Posted by Jellotime91

First of all, that article is actually incorrect. Apple shows directly that part of this a is composed of 4 pixels, and part of THIS a, is composed of 16 pixels. The error made in the article is where he confuses the amount of pixels with dpi. He's multiplying by 2, when the screen resolution is 2x larger in both horizontal and vertical, meaning it needs to be multiplied by 4.

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.
Result:

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.

Looks like Jellotime91 just backed up his claim. LOL Nice work Jello.

**Ipheuria** · 06-08-2010, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by icebike

The link was to Gawker. The original article was here:

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.

I have never understood why people seem to think that things like this need defending honestly Gawker or wherever this came from is not going to change the fact the phone looks sick and I'm going to buy it as well as pretty much anyone else in this thread. I also never understood why when you defend Apple what's the reaction? you're just a fanboy or as you say we are destroying our own credability. We should really say yes you are right we have all been duped by Apple I guess. Who f'in cares if he lied the phone looks freakin good and no study is going to change that just my thought.

**Hack-My-i** · 06-08-2010, 09:47 PM

AMEN!!! i agree with Jello and iPheuria! good job Jello!!!

**BuddhistGirafe** · 06-08-2010, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jellotime91

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.

Could not have said it better myself.

**Hack-My-i** · 06-08-2010, 09:55 PM

^exactly! that whole site is just bashing Apple... dont get ya panties wet "gawker"!!

**Ipheuria** · 06-08-2010, 10:20 PM

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?

**Hack-My-i** · 06-08-2010, 11:19 PM

i know what u mean bro! tons of haters out there... gotta love it :P

**Joe McG** · 06-08-2010, 11:44 PM

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.

**Duvi** · 06-09-2010, 01:27 AM

If I only knew it was a giz article before I clicked it. I don't
and will never respect them. They're ticked off because
they got served by Apple.

Enjoy some pie Giz... Apple Pie!

**deadp1xel** · 06-09-2010, 01:41 AM

I love jellotime91's post. If I could give you karma, I would. In it's place, have +2 internet

**PhxBlue** · 06-09-2010, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Duvi

I don't
and will never respect them.

Same. Wish they'd cease to exist.

**iquinn** · 06-09-2010, 02:38 AM

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.

**Hack-My-i** · 06-09-2010, 05:55 AM

u dont even have to read it to know they are anti-apple... just click on the link and u can see all the anti-apple topics they have... GIZ SUCKS!

**Ipheuria** · 06-09-2010, 06:36 AM

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.

**Duvi** · 06-09-2010, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ipheuria

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.

And with articles like this, they will definitely accomplish
the opposite. SMH @ these guys :o

**ghostface147** · 06-09-2010, 10:17 AM

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.

**Jellotime91** · 06-09-2010, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by ghostface147

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.

The thing is, they can't. The screen is as big as it can be in the iPhone's body, and the only way they could make it bigger is changing the aspect ratio, which would totally fvck over developers and fragment the app store between iPhones, something Apple will do anything to avoid.

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.