Slashdot Mirror


Motorola's Rumored Android Phone Focuses on Screen Size

nottheusualsuspect excerpts from this speculation-laden report at Brighthand that "Motorola is reportedly working on a device that will have one of the largest displays of any smartphone. Code-named the Shadow, it will sport a 4.3-inch WVGA+ touchscreen, Google's Android OS, and a range of other high-end features. When it comes to screen size, the Shadow will be equaled only by the Windows Mobile-based HTC HD2. The closest Android-powered model will be the Sony Ericsson Xperia X10, which will sport a 4.0-inch display. Most other models, like the Motorola Droid and Google Nexus One, have 3.7-inch screens. The display on this upcoming Motorola smartphone will allegedly have a resolution of 850 by 484 pixels."

134 comments

  1. So... by gregarican · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is rumor article about a rumored mobile device. This fascinates me and I'd love to know more. While I'm waiting I'll page through my Star magazine to see about Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades...

    1. Re:So... by nottheusualsuspect · · Score: 1

      What can I say... I like gadget rumors better than celebrities... here, have some more! http://www.slashgear.com/motorola-shadow-9-9mm-thick-1080p-smartphone-leaks-3167379/ 1080p output, 8MP camera with HD recording, only 9mm thick. But I do freely admit that its no iSlate or whatever-the-hell they're calling it now, so no *real* reason to get your drawers in a mess.

    2. Re:So... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, anyone would think this was about a rumoured next generation Iphone device!

  2. Key words by ianare · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I might be the son of god, who allegedly created the universe.

    1. Re:Key words by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      My exact thought.

      This things needs to be tagged “[weasel words]”.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Ugh. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    First, it's never a good sign when you measure your package using a decimal point, Slashdot. Second this article makes you look like a whore. You should be ashamed! What would your mother think if she saw you dressed in those fishnets, a stolen wonderbra, and humping an android? This is not the way to get in touch with your feminine side, young man. When you've put some decent clothes on, come back down and I'm taking you down to the hex shop and we're going to find you something to play with that won't hurt as much.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hex shop around here is pretty bad. The store owner turned me into a toad for saying their prices were too high.

    2. Re:Ugh. by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The hex shop around here is pretty bad. The store owner turned me into a toad for saying their prices were too high.

      You're a pretty talented toad to be posting on slashdot.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...he got better.

    4. Re:Ugh. by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...he got better.

      Burn him anyway.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fair cop.

    6. Re:Ugh. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A guy's walking down the street and he hears a croaky voice saying "Over here! Hey!"

      He looks around and doesn't see anything. "Down here!" the croaky voice says. He looks down and sees a toad. The toad says "I'm a beautiful princess that an evil sorceror turned into a toad. The only way to break the spell is to kiss me!"

      The guy smiles, picks up the toad and puts it in his pocket.

      "Hey, what's going on here?" the toad says. The guy looks at the toad, grins some more, and keeps walking.

      "Look, dude, I'm a beautiful princess. Turn me back into a human and I'll love you forever!" The guy grins even bigger.

      "Why won't you kiss me??" the toad demands, exasperated.

      "Bacause," the guy says, "I'm gay. I don't have any use for a women. But a talking toad is way cool!"

    7. Re:Ugh. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 0

      And a lesbian, to boot. Of course, with a name like "girl in training", there are always other possibilities. It's not like it's unheard of for techies.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:Ugh. by Hardtrance · · Score: 1

      He got better.

      --
      This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
    9. Re:Ugh. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yeah, she mentioned that in a comment that was a reply to my comment I made a few months ago.

      There is at least one straight woman here, I offered to buy her a beer and she actually said she'd take me up on it, but unfortunately she's sos far away from where I live that you can't get any farther without leaving the planet.

  4. GOOG employee rumored to take a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seventeen other employees post about it on Slashdot.

    Enough, already.

    1. Re:GOOG employee rumored to take a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sinker or floater?

    2. Re:GOOG employee rumored to take a shit by Nikker · · Score: 3, Funny

      The public demands an answer!!!

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    3. Re:GOOG employee rumored to take a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a floater. I didn't flush in case you're interested.

  5. About the resolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds really odd that it will be 850x484. I believe it will have 854x480 instead, which makes a lot more sense.

    1. Re:About the resolution... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      But 854 sounds as odd to me as 850. It could be 800, making it 800x480, which is a more standard widescreen resolution. Why would 854x480 make a lot more sense? I've never seen that resolution before.

    2. Re:About the resolution... by RedK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because that is the Droid's screen resolution, which is becoming ubiquitous as a resolution for newer big screen phones and portables. So if you've never seen it before, it's because you weren't looking.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:About the resolution... by hsdpa · · Score: 1

      Well, you're right. 800x480 is a very standard resolution, but we're talking about Motorola, right? ;-)
      Having 854x480, you still keep one axis standard (480) which makes 800x480 applications easier to port.
      Just google the different resolutions and you see which one's more popular and widely used:

      resolution - hits
      480x800: 365 000
      800x480: 1 270 000
      484x850: 73 000
      850x484: 102 000
      480x854: 80 200
      854x480: 475 000 -- // AC

      --
      :(){ :|:& }:;
    4. Re:About the resolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But 854 sounds as odd to me as 850. It could be 800, making it 800x480, which is a more standard widescreen resolution. Why would 854x480 make a lot more sense? I've never seen that resolution before.

      854x480 is what you get when start with the vertical 480 pixels of VGA, multiply by 16/9, and round up. Hence WVGA. It's a standard Android 1.6+ resolution, and as said, several other phones have it.

    5. Re:About the resolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would 854x480 make a lot more sense? I've never seen that resolution before.

      Plenty of Japanese cell phones use 854 x 480 displays. For example:
      http://mb.softbank.jp/mb/product/3G/09wi/#940sh/functions

      Interestingly, this phone also features a 12.1 megapixel camera, and touchscreen focusing.

    6. Re:About the resolution... by icegreentea · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its the widescreen (16:9) version of 800x480.

  6. Basic Requirement by Gonoff · · Score: 1, Troll

    Until someone shows me something with a keyboard, I am sticking with my BlackBerry.

    The G1 was a good first attempt but everything since has been an iPhone wannabe, all shiny and pretty but missing that important item.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Motorola Droid does have a keyboard, y'know.

    2. Re:Basic Requirement by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Until someone shows me something with a keyboard

      Motorola Cliq

    3. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia N900

    4. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keyboards are overrated. The next new thing in cellphones will be the brain implants that let you think the character.

    5. Re:Basic Requirement by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      HTC Touch Pro 2

    6. Re:Basic Requirement by alen · · Score: 1

      maybe my Curve is too small, but it's easier for me to type on my iphone in landscape mode than on my BB Curve

    7. Re:Basic Requirement by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      keyboards are too inflexible. I can't imagine using a hardware KB on a smartphone.

    8. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.geeksphone.com/en/

    9. Re:Basic Requirement by leighklotz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Until someone shows me something with a keyboard, I am sticking with my BlackBerry.

      The G1 was a good first attempt but everything since has been an iPhone wannabe, all shiny and pretty but missing that important item.

      Exactly. The danger series had good keyboards, as did the antediluvian Motorola T-900 series. I could clock nearly 30WPM on those. And as much as I like the folks at Palm, I couldn't use their chiclets at all.

      The G1 keyboard is just barely tolerable. I've noticed the amount of actual work I get done on my G1 is a tenth of what I used to do. Sure, I can see web pages more clearly and get the info I need more quickly, but as far as acting on it, without an ergonomic keyboard, I can't do much typing.

      I wish Android partners would give up on being what David Pogue calls an iPhone wannabe, and focus on the real promise of small mobile devices.

      Or, else, stop agreeing with as the Onion's quote attributed to Steve Jobs, "People who use keyboards are standing in the way of progress."

    10. Re:Basic Requirement by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1

      Exactly the reason i never got one of the iPhones. must have keyboard.

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
    11. Re:Basic Requirement by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Y'know, the iPhone has a keyboard.

    12. Re:Basic Requirement by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Are there bluetooth keyboards that work with phones?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    13. Re:Basic Requirement by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      WinDroid?

      --
      meep
    14. Re:Basic Requirement by natehoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that's great, for you.

      Personally, after trying out an iPod Touch for a few days (even in landscape mode) I just can't type worth felgercarb on it. Audible feedback is just, well, annoying to me. And for some bizarre and unexplained reason, annoying to those around me as well. Can't say why. "tick. tick. tick-tick-tick. tick-tick-tick-tick. tick-whoosh-tick. tick."

      I can kludge along at a decent clip on my trusty old BlackBerry Curve, though, and could since the first day I got it. Nowhere near as fast as I can type on a desktop, but the feel of the actual physical buttons and the tactile feeling of pushing a button are huge advantages to me. I have to put a lot of text into my Blackberry, and I can't imagine NOT using a hardware keyboard.

      Isn't it great that both companies make devices? ;)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    15. Re:Basic Requirement by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      You mean, like, a droid?

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    16. Re:Basic Requirement by J-F+Mammet · · Score: 1

      There is actually an effort to port Android 2.01 to the Touch Pro 2 (and most other Windows Mobile 6.X devices from HTC). Right now it boots and the OS works, the touch screen works, so does the keyboard. Radio works so you can call people, but audio doesn't work completely so you can't talk just yet. 3G works on the Android 1.6 port, but not yet on 2.01. Wifi, GPS and other niceties like this are lower priority, but since they already work on other HTC phones it's only a matter of days or at worse weeks.
      It's really exciting to see this maturing, even though the latest homebrew roms running Winmobile 6.5.3 and the latest HTC Sense interface are surprisingly fast, stable and usable.

    17. Re:Basic Requirement by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      It took me about a month but I can type with my thumb at about 40 WPM with the intelisense on android.

    18. Re:Basic Requirement by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      No, that is a touchscreen. If it had a KB a lot more business/work users would consider it.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    19. Re:Basic Requirement by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Touchscreen keyboard, yes.

      It's still a keyboard.

    20. Re:Basic Requirement by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Using my Nokia 5800 with a stylus, rather than fingers, makes the touch keyboard work fine. Handwriting recognition is even better. And no, that doesn't make it an Iphone wannabe - Nokia were making phones long before the Iphone was even thought of, and Apple are still playing catchup to feature phones, let alone smart phones.

    21. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but does it run linux?

    22. Re:Basic Requirement by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      It does, actually, yes.

    23. Re:Basic Requirement by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I want something with two screens, that can be flipped towards each other when not in use to protect against scratches, etc. Like the Nintendo DS. And for you, they could make a software keyboard on the lower one. It wouldn't be any more cramped trying to type on.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    24. Re:Basic Requirement by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      > I wish Android partners would give up on being what David Pogue calls an iPhone wannabe [nytimes.com], and focus on the real promise of small mobile devices.

      That worked so well for Windows CE, eh? Plenty of keyboards there.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    25. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly recommend the Nokia N900.

    26. Re:Basic Requirement by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Nope. It is a picture of a keyboard, not a keyboard.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    27. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, but then there is no keyboard on iPhone -> you lose.

    28. Re:Basic Requirement by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Ah good to know, thanks.

      --
      meep
    29. Re:Basic Requirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't. The iPhone runs OS X, which is not Linux.

  7. Wow, so yet another screen size by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That we will have to test against to make sure our apps work right. Android is starting to get as bad as WinMo. We ported our iPhone apps over to Android, but testing and QA is starting to rack up on the Android side of the house.

    Love of hate Apple, their basic configuration is the same across the various iPhone/iPod Touch models. Make it work well on one, it works well on all 30M or so devices out there. Even Blackberry is basically 2 configs, classic and storm.

    But Windows Mobile is a nightmare as just about every handset has a different UI and hardware spec. And Google seems to be heading down the same road.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Love of hate Apple, their basic configuration is the same across the various iPhone/iPod Touch models. Make it work well on one, it works well on all 30M or so devices out there. Even Blackberry is basically 2 configs, classic and storm.

      Sounds like a formula for long term retardation of progress. Having to stick within rigid standards makes it hard to innovate the device itself.

      But this is Apple... where vendor lockin is a good thing from the same masses who cry about it when it's Microsoft.

    2. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Karganeth · · Score: 1

      Droid has the same resolution as the shadow. The physical size of the screen is irrelevant. Also, millions of Windows Mobile handsets have the same UI and hardware spec (because some are the same model), unless you mean that all different windows handsets are different - a tautology!

    3. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by beakerMeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's the same resolution as the Droid and Nexus One. There are really only 2 main screen resolutions out there.

      If your QA is backing up for android, maybe you did a bad job porting. Or maybe you should have designed for android to begin with.

      --
      meep
    4. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      perhaps people should start using units that do not rely on pixels to display their app? how about em?

    5. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a formula for long term retardation of progress. Having to stick within rigid standards makes it hard to innovate the device itself.

      That sounds like a judgment from someone who has never had to develop on a device that doesn't have a rigid set of standards. Yes there may be less innovation, but there's also not the crapload of little issues that frustrate the hell out of a developer. Having developed on WinMobile, the fact that the every one of those devices might have a different screen size alone has stopped subsequent development. We may develop one version. It if doesn't fit the screen, it's a pain to make it fit, then there has to be a cost/benefit analysis. If there aren't enough customers to justify further development, we won't develop any further unless a customer pays for development. Then there's difference in capabilities from one device to another which is another large set of headaches.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yes, I have developed on both Windows Mobile and PalmOS. Thankyouverymuch.

      Maybe you're not up to the task.

    7. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PC gaming is dead. Unknowingfool confirms it. Consoles are SO much better because they have a "rigid set of standards" unlike the PC where everything can be different. Long live super innovation on consoles!

    8. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF? Have you ever heard of dynamic layouting?

      Yes, I can write one UI that scales from 128x128 to 1920*1080 without compromises. And so should you.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Night64 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a developer, but even so, I have a hard time with this so called screen size problem. I'm typing this on a 19 inch 1440x900 screen, but Chrome would work just fine in 800x600, or 1024x768 or my 10.1 inch, 1368x768 netbook screen. Why is so hard develop for Android with regard to screen size? Nevertheless, it seems that all Android 2.0 have the same resolution, but different sizes. Or am I wrong?

      --
      Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    10. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Threni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen that sort of thing on websites. It's easy - just make sure you only use the left 22% of the screen, and leave the rest blank. Or centre the 22% of content. Whatever.

    11. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm pretty sure the scalable UI is going to involve at least some effort above a fixed layout, which is exactly a compromise.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there are many apps which only run on the 3G S, or on all except first gen iPod Touches, etc. This is a myth.

      Further, if you've actually developed for Android you'd know that the OS framework handles these multiple resolutions incredibly gracefully, nothing like how badly WinMO or Palm OS did. Look it up.

    13. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Because all the sizes you mentioned are somewhat standard sizes and more importantly, geometry. The aspect ratio is either 4:3 or 16:9. At that point, Chrome only has to switch between two different aspects and then scale appropriately. Because Android is flexible, one Android device might have a completely different aspect ratio than another. That makes rendering things more difficult. Not impossible but difficult.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by babyrat · · Score: 1

      huh? Ever see the requirements on the box of a PC game? Requires DirectX version X. Minimum 800x600 resolution, etc etc etc.

      One of the huge things Vista brought was the performance index thingy to figure out whether you should even consider a game. That exact issue has been a bane of PC games forever. (and it was way worse before windows came along and put a layer between the program and the hardware...you used to need a specific brand of video card for some games).

      The poster never said these issues would kill the platform, just that it makes things a heck of a lot more difficult, which clearly it does.

    15. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually this is one thing Palm's WebOS takes care of for you. Because it's written in HTML, it automatically adjusts for screen size. granted, it might not be fully automatic, I don't develop, so I don't know, but I do no it's much easir to switch from the Pre to the Pixi and vise versa.

    16. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a developer, but even so, I have a hard time with this so called screen size problem. I'm typing this on a 19 inch 1440x900 screen, but Chrome would work just fine in 800x600, or 1024x768 or my 10.1 inch, 1368x768 netbook screen. Why is so hard develop for Android with regard to screen size? Nevertheless, it seems that all Android 2.0 have the same resolution, but different sizes. Or am I wrong?

      It's not that it's hard, but it's impractical to test. Ever test high-DPI on Windows? And see how badly apps break? Because the screen sizes of most cellphones and PDAs is pretty standard, the high-res ones run in high DPI mode all the time so buttons don't get impossibly small to operate. Apps have to be coded to be DPI aware so they can scale their UI appropriately. This is easy on most apps using default widgets, but apps with custom widgets often have to be aware of resolution issues (games usually require this).

      It's like websites that use Flash, and you move from a 1024x768 screen to a 1920x1200 screen. Suddenly that QVGA flash game you like suddenly becomes 10x harder to use because you can't see it well anymore. Or streaming video - that app that looked nice at HVGA (320x480) looks bad at VGA+ resolutions because the video was QVGA, and has borders and is now a quarter the size. You could scale, but if you're taxed for CPU time, it's even worse.

      But mostly, it's high-DPI. And Windows apps already prove that most devs can't handle high DPI. Or flash apps.

      In theory, the Apple devices stress the need to produce DPI-aware apps in the SDK, but it'll take a screen change to see it actually happen.

      Some devices (old PalmOS, for starters) actually scaled apps on high-DPI mode if they weren't high-DPI aware. Looked ugly and pixellated, but worked for a large chunk of unaware apps...

    17. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by zullnero · · Score: 1

      Ha, you never did Symbian development, I take it.

    18. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to think of a clever and funny way to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about ... but it's New Year's Eve and I'm ready to go get sloshed and blow shit up into pretty colors - while hopefully avoiding injury.

      So instead, Happy New Year pal. Hope you have fun.

    19. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can write one UI that scales from 128x128 to 1920*1080 without compromises. And so should you.

      Please show me Photoshop running at 128x128 with no compromises.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    20. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I guess the Iphone is now doomed to be restricted to a pathetic 320 × 480! Even my Nokia 5800, at a third of the price of the Iphone 3GS, is now capable of 640 x 360.

      What was the first desktop Apple resolution? ducomputergeek seriously believes that Apple would be better off to have remained at that resolution!

      Any decent computer system will support applications that can run independent of a fixed computer resolution. If Iphone applications aren't up to that capability, too bad.

    21. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That we will have to test against to make sure our apps work right.

      Here's a brilliant idea: use dynamic scalable/reflowing UI layouts. You know, like we've been doing on the desktop and the Web for the last 15 years or so?

      In fact, I'm so generous I won't even patent that idea. Feel free to use (but also check with Nokia, just in case).

    22. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Scalable UI has many more benefits than just working on screens of different sizes. It means, for example, that user can arbitrarily change font size and family, and the UI will adapt. It enables smooth seamless vector zoom in and out. It allows for easy localization (as lengths of UI strings can change a lot when localizing, so widget sizes need to adapt). And so on.

      In short, yes, it's harder, but it's well worth the effort. If you look at modern desktop UI frameworks, they're all dynamic-layout-centric - Gtk, Qt, WPF, Swing etc. There's absolutely no reason why the same approach cannot be used on mobile devices. Let me define the UI as "two buttons, layed out horizontally, of equal size", and let the software of specific phone decide on the optimal size of buttons etc.

    23. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But mostly, it's high-DPI. And Windows apps already prove that most devs can't handle high DPI. Or flash apps.

      Windows apps "prove" that because Win32 APIs for UI have very primitive support for scaling. But e.g. Qt applications, or WPF applications, don't have such problem on Windows.

      Oh, and look at Linux. For all the flaws of Linux UIs, one thing that they do get exactly right is dynamic layouts everywhere - and it works. I can change font size or DPI freely in e.g. GNOME, and all dialogs scale and reflow as needed.

      All you need is to force developers to use dynamic layouts. Just don't provide any means for pixel-perfect control layout (if they want it for games, they can draw the widgets themselves; everyone does so already for theming, anyway).

    24. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by RobNich · · Score: 1

      Completely missing the point. PCs are all the same. They all run Windows, and all PC games use DirectX. With DirectX and other Windows abstraction layers, game developers don't have to know or care what hardware a person has.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    25. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was really that difficult, you'd have no end of problems with printing stuff, since printer resolutions really do vary a lot - and they have solved all the issues so no one notices any problems. Of course it is easier once your DPI is high enough that you never have to worry about individual pixels. But handheld devices are getting there, what with even this Motorola screen sporting 227 DPI. No one's going to read 6x8 pixel characters on that screen.

    26. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      > I can change font size or DPI freely in e.g. GNOME, and all dialogs scale and reflow as needed.

      Almost all. There are still some application developers who insist on hard-coding sizes.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    27. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just suck at development. It does require a bit of extra effort of course, but it's still pretty easy to make WM apps work across resolutions. Even my shitty apps work fine in all standard resolution and orientation combinations, from 176220 to VGA and probably WVGA, which I haven't tested admittedly.

    28. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I've seen that sort of thing on websites. It's easy -
      > just make sure you only use the left 22% of the screen,

      That's what you get when the website is created by somebody who spends more time using Photoshop than creating the actual markup or -- worse yet -- uses a WYSIWYG HTML editor like FrontWeaver or DreamPage.

      If the webmaster is competent, however, things can be designed so that they actually scale, taking up the whole screen at 1600x1200, but not requiring a horizontal scrollbar at 640x480, even if the user's minimum font size and/or zoom level is different from the default.

      I'll put my design where my mouth is:
      http://www.galionlibrary.org/

      (It may take a minute or so to load. Sorry. The ISP that hosts it for us has declined considerably in quality lately; we are considering moving it in-house, but such a decision involves non-IT people, so it can't happen overnight. Be that as it may, it's the content design that we're talking about here, not the server performance.)

      Now, granted, that's not designed to scale down to mobile resolutions. For that we'd have to ditch all the bitmapped grapics, or at least style them away in the mobile stylesheet. If I start seeing a higher percentage of mobile devices in our User Agent stats, I'll start looking at that possibility. Though I'd probably need a mobile-device emulator for testing -- anybody know of a decent one?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    29. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That is STATIC layout. Unbelievable... is that all the imagination you got?

      Flexible widths, flexible heights, percentage values, flexible spaces, SVG, MIP mapping for all UI elements (so if you use a bigger screen, they have more details/functions and show things right in-place, instead of opening separate screens, etc)... there. Is that so hard to come up with??

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    30. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Dreamweaver is quite good at dynamic layouts and assisting you in proper website creation. The HTML is usually pretty clean.

      But static HTML is so last millenium. ^^

      Look at the code of that page (Warning: This was never finished, so expect bugs.), and count the number of HTML tags in there, compared to the actual content. ;))

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    31. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I believe that doing so would violate GNOME HIG, and therefore any such application cannot be a part of GNOME desktop.

      In any case, I haven't seen any such application in a long time. Can you give some examples?

    32. Re:Wow, so yet another screen size by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of GTK/Gnome apps are not part of GNOME desktop. The libraries try to make it easy to follow the HiG, but some people will just insist on doing things as they're used to, no matter what.

      Sorry, can't dig up any examples now, I'll get back to you.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  8. But I thought by killmenow · · Score: 1

    Size doesn't matter!

    1. Re:But I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you're sporting only 4.3 inches, keep telling yourself that.

  9. I'm holding out. by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before I can get my hands on a 65 inch mobile phone, with Blu-Ray, a media center, and digital cable.

    1. Re:I'm holding out. by psocccer · · Score: 1

      In the mean time you can use this 10.1" touchscreen handset

    2. Re:I'm holding out. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      In the mean time you can use this 10.1" touchscreen handset

      except it is a fake, unless you dont see how it registers button presses before guys finget gets close to the screen

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:I'm holding out. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      That's gonna be some belt holster. Better get some suspenders.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:I'm holding out. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      except it is a fake, unless you dont see how it registers button presses before guys finget gets close to the screen

      Dude, it's a SMARTphone - it knows what buttons he's gonna press - even before HE does! Sheesh, get with the times, it's all ball-bearings, now!

  10. That's no phone... by vandoravp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that's a tablet. Seriously, do they think cargo pockets are the predominant pocket variety?

    1. Re:That's no phone... by zullnero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what I thought. Plenty of a certain nearsighted crowd like their big screens, but the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't mind finding a way to make their phone smaller and consume less pocket.

      One of the reasons why I never bought an iPhone, Droid, HTC WinBrick, or BB...I resolved that I would not ever buy another smartphone bigger (height, width, or thickness) than my old Treo. By making their phones smaller, Palm actually kept my brand loyalty. They made their Pre smaller AND made their screen bigger. That's what I was looking for...not just making a screen bigger at all costs.

    2. Re:That's no phone... by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought. Plenty of a certain nearsighted crowd like their big screens

      Did you actually not notice that a lot of people browse the web on their phones these days? Sure, not everyone wants to do that, and you guys can carry on buying the standard handsets that are still made in abundance.

      Incidentally, being nearsighted would help you to see tiny text on a small screen, not hinder you.

  11. Just what we need by gardel999 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Just what we need... a larger brick to carry around.

  12. Still cheaper than buying an unlocked phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is probably cheaper than buying an unlocked phone from some supplier...

  13. Rumored joke soon follows by jhoegl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey babah, pop quiz. Is that a phone in my pocket or did I just get penis enlargement surgery?

  14. WVGA+? WTF? by JesseL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anybody keep a mental table of what these obscure abbreviations actually mean anymore? I can remember that VGA is 640x480 and SVGA is 800x600, after that the letters get meaningless and I've got to go . So why not just save the trouble and tell me the damned resolution from the beginning?

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:WVGA+? WTF? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Numbers are scary; but allow the informed to make accurate comparisons. Gigantic acronyms are impressive, and retard easy comparison.

      Blame marketing.

    2. Re:WVGA+? WTF? by maxume · · Score: 1

      All the people that blithely put up with it deserve an equal share of the blame.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. All that screen real estate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it still won't play back avi, divx, quicktime, wmv, or xvid.

  16. Apparel + Fashion industry needs to respond by Scowler · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sure, you can carry over-sized mobile devices in a purse or other small bag, but sales of such devices probably do a lot better if people perceive they can carry them on their person and still be normal people.

    Right now, the standard layman outfit of jeans/slacks + shirt provides limited options... keys + wallet + other junk already leave little space for more than a tiny cell phone as it is.

    I'd bet some apparel company could make a killing, for example, if they made a real attempt to market cargo pants, with larger sized pockets for all the gee-whiz gadgets, to the Best Buy loving crowd.

    1. Re:Apparel + Fashion industry needs to respond by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Talking of bags, I find it hilarious - for decades, men have pigeoned themselves into being unable to carry a bag that's of a too small size, because it makes them "feminine" (the horror). And now we have a whole range of gadgets that people might want to carry, but they can't fit into their pockets. Perhaps one option to this is to produce trousers with ridiculous oversized pockets, but there comes a point (especially with netbooks) when it all fits much more easily in a small bag. Perhaps once and for all, technology can blow away this absurd and unnecessary gender difference.

    2. Re:Apparel + Fashion industry needs to respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bike messenger bag -- problem solved.

  17. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The twin problems of huge display and interaction with said display have already been solved in the form of a projector + Johnny Chung Lee's graduate work. We're just waiting for the business to catch up with the engineering.

  18. Are there phones that work with full bluetooth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is in the post title.

    If you have enough software access and the hardware is complete enough (e.g. n900, maybe devmode droid & some jailbird iphones) you can get just about anything to run over bluetooth...not just headsets but full keyboards, mice, wiimotes, etc.

    It might take some messy configuration to map the keys properly, but once thats done they would be 100% functional.

  19. Screen size is not irrelevant to UI design by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The physical size of the screen is irrelevant.

    That is totally not the case. In mobile design you are working around very tight constraints around how many pixels wide a target like a button can be, because a finger can only hit a physical target so small (on the iPhone, it's 35 pixels although you can fudge downward a bit).

    So when the physical screen size gets larger, that means you COULD design buttons smaller in pixel resolution to keep the same target size but allow more data to show. Otherwise your interface will end up looking goofy large on such a device - that might be OK, but if you are trying to make a really good application it's silly to ignore things like that. I mean, if no-one designs software to take advantage of this larger screen than what was the point of it all?

    Hopefully the Android API has some way to get at PPI data in addition to screen resolution so the designer can design a flexible layout that allows for buttons and data to expand or contract as needed. I know the Android API very generally but not well enough to know if it has that.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Screen size is not irrelevant to UI design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screen size can be largely irrelevant with Android: everything is based around screen density.

      It's all been built into the core of Android since version 1.6. See this table for a description of the standard densities and screen sizes supported.

      I've been working on an app for a new high-density device and using the API features above, it looks great on a "regular" DPI device too, and even on the new low-DPI devices that are coming out in the next few months.

  20. Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Does anybody keep a mental table of what these obscure abbreviations actually mean anymore? I can remember that VGA is 640x480 and SVGA is 800x600

    The ones that start with 'W' are merely the wide versions of the originals, so generally you take the width of the next higher-up resolution and use that with the height of the one you're dealing with.

    VGA = 640x480
    WVGA = 800x480 (common for cellphones, but due to panel sizes, they're also coming out in 854x480)
    SVGA = 800x600
    WSVGA = 1024x600 (usually seen in netbooks)
    XGA = 1024x768

  21. Fashion in cycles? by istartedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe it's just about the right time for the hefty, shoulder-carried piece of tech to come back in fashion. Anybody remember the boom-box?

    Actually, the first thing that popped into my head was to imagine Sting singing "I want my big screen phone".

    Start workin' out guys. Annoying, shoulder-carried big screen portable TV with a phone in it. Videophone your GF on the subway. Oh, this is Slashdot... nevermind.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  22. Will large screens be robust against dog attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder about the downside of increasingly-larger displays. I very much in favor of large displays (in both pixels and physical dimension) for fixed equipment, but expect larger screens in portable devices to have robustness problems. My current phone is an aged HTC Dash with a mere 2.5 inch diagonal screen, but in a year and a half I've had to replace a cracked screen twice. The first breakage happened in a fight with my dog over possession of a tennis ball; the second was probably a non-FAA-sanctioned interaction with an airline seatbelt, but I was asleep at the time. The price of replacement screens on Ebay continues to drop, they work pretty well, and I'm getting experienced in doing the replacement, but it is an inconvenience. I hope these large display phones have adequate attention to screen protection -- without being two inches thick and 24 ounces.

  23. Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! by Karganeth · · Score: 1

    Where did you get the idea that WVGA is common for cellphones? Only some of the most recent top end phones have WVGA.

  24. Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Where did you get the idea that WVGA is common for cellphones? Only some of the most recent top end phones have WVGA.

    Sorry, instead of 'common for cellphones', I should have said 'commonly found on cellphones'. Few other devices use that resolution, except MIDs and the like.

    And if you lived in Asia, that resolution would seem pretty normal for a smartphone. :(

  25. Sliced HAM EHB Planar High-res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you need the name because the resolution alone, doesn't tell you important things like whether or not it uses hold-and-modify mode, extra-half-bright, planar pixels, or a Copper list to change registers mid-frame. A good, exciting video mode is too complicated to sum up with just a few numbers, so you need a name for it -- oh wait, what decade is this? Never mind.

  26. Still waiting... by dr.+chuck+bunsen · · Score: 1

    I've been waiting for the right Android phone to replace my G1. The Verizon Droid is pretty close to what I've been hoping for, but it is for Verizon, not Tmobile. The Cliq is still too bulky, slow processor, etc. I love the form factor of the new MyTouch, but I've got to have hard keyboard, and again the processor is blah. If someone would just make a nice slim package with hard keys, a larger screen, and a great processor I would pay for it immediately. Android is a great mobile OS, we just haven't got the right package quite yet. So maybe this rumored unit will be the one?

  27. Android is starting to get as bad as WinMo? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    WinMo never did run right on any of the dozens of devices I've tried it on. It crashed, it memory leaked, it lost connection to its devices every couple minutes. It has an oboard critical task sensor that would cause it to fail when the loss of the minimal utility the device offered would do the most damage. It lost data - lots of it. It sucked the life from endless batteries in record time and many thousands of minutes from my life that I would like back. Platform diversity was the least of its problems. Please don't talk about somebody else's QA and WinMo in the same post.

    Windows Mobile killed the PDA. The PDA was a great idea and many of them were quite cool - except that once you put WinMo on them they were universally craptacular.

    Oh, and while I'm here, yeah. This thing looks cool and all, but that iSlate rumor is looking pretty sweet too. It would be nice if the Goog came up with a webcam tablet thingy that used low power processors and wireless or 3G.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  28. wasted effort me thinks by Xanj · · Score: 1

    im more interested in the screens they are developing that transmits the screen directly to your retina get the feeling once that gets out on the market no will give a damn how big your phones screen is lol

  29. he's right, really... by CdBee · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Droid has a slide-out one that cant be used comfortably from any angle (I tried it). Its perfectly clear that the parent poster is talking about a phone with a proper keyboard on it, like a Nokia E71 or a Blackberry 8320.

    The HTC Salsa seems to fit the bill nicely but wont be out for a while

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  30. Re:Motorola Android dreams by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Posts like this are why I just could not condone stopping AC, ever.

    Internet trolls can be sophisticated, well-written, erotic, provocative, and funny. They challenge social "norms", and make us re-evaluate them.

    This is actually a nice troll, and yes, I am a woman. The ending is hilarious, but ruins the fun I was having before... but that's the whole point of the troll!!! I know, I'm stating the obvious but I just loved this one, and I have a right to! We're forgetting that, folks. He/she has a right to those fantasies, and I have a right to read them. I think lol.

      Long live the AC to feed our dirty minds!

    Thanks AC, Rachel x

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen