Slashdot Mirror
For Normals, Jobs' "Retina Display" Claim May Be Fair After All
The Bad Astronomer writes "AT WWDC, Steve Jobs claimed that the iPhone 4's display has about the same resolution as the human eye — held at one foot away, the iPhone 4's pixels are too small to see. After reading an earlier Slashdot post about an expert disputing Jobs' claim, I decided to run the numbers myself. I found that Jobs is correct for people with normal vision, and the expert was using numbers for theoretically perfect vision. So to most people, the iPhone 4 display will look unpixellated."
Get off it. iPhone is still owned by a corporation that has gone from innovative, to more constraining and restrictive than the RIAA in many respects.
But, yes, anyone who claims that Apple was lying about it being a "retinal" display is simply attempting to pick a needless fight. Ignore them and move on.
Or they're just pointing out that apple has a ridiculous marketing point right there. Trivial point, trivial counterpoint, it's all trivial, don't just say the counterpoint is silly.
In what way is "retina" a special word? Are you some kind of retard?
Possibly. I've been called worse.
And I can just imagine the marketing division that would go up to the CEO of any company and say "You know what you should say in the big keynote speech? The resolution or dots per inch on this cellphone is so dense that one will not be able to distinguish one pixel from its neighbouring pixels. They'd all get sacked, and rightly so.
I think this speaks poorly of the general public, not the marketing department.
People wouldn't do shit like this if it didn't work. The fact that it works is disparaging enough, let alone the fact that people take advantage of it.
Living With a Nerd
I can guarantee that you refer to something every now and then by a simplified term that was developed purely for marketing reasons.
Ignorance, yes. marketing reasons, no. A perfect example would be the fractures I suffered to my wrists a few years ago. I've referred to them as navicular fractures, because that is what they are called...despite the fact that navicular bones are in your foot.
Unless you consider that marketing, then the answer to your question is no. Copiers aren't Xerox machines, tissues aren't Kleenex, and cotton swabs aren't Q-tips. The Genesis didn't "blast" the SNES with its processing, Strontium Units should never have been called Sunshine Units, and the iPhone's new screen should be referred to as a nice looking display...not a part of your fucking eye.
Living With a Nerd
It's not a retina display to EVERYONE so it's still false advertising. Then again, the iPhone isnt a PDA for everyone either. It's an entry level PDA for people that cant figure out how to use more capable devices... The iPhone is to PDA users what America Online was to internet users. Less capable, restrictive, and EASY to use. Remember when you used AOL for years, you strutted around telling people proudly, "I use AMERICA ONLINE". Then, years later, you found out you were an idiot for doing so?
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Huh? Is this a philosophy of yours that has rules about how humans should and should not behave? Or how the marketing words should or should not behave? 'Cause it seems to me like marketing works on a large percentage of the population directly, influences nearly everyone whether they want it to or not, and that's just a fact. Facts happen, saying that marketing "shouldn't" work is like saying that gravity shouldn't work. It does, deal with it.
Words, BTW, are almost never "meaningless". We can disagree on the meaning, twist them, play with them, and even misuse them to trick people, but they do mean something; maybe just not what you'd like them to. One good thing about Apple using "Retina" may be that it can be used as a reference resolution to compare other devices to.
You are a fool. Just because you can't understand a post doesn't mean you should open your mouth.
--
make install -not war