Slashdot Mirror
Overkill? LG Phone Has 2560x1440 Display, Laser Focusing
MojoKid (1002251) writes LG is probably getting a little tired of scraping for brand recognition versus big names like Samsung, Apple and Google. However, the company is also taking solace in the fact that their smartphone sales figures are heading for an all-time high in 2014, with an estimated 60 million units projected to be sold this year. LG's third iteration of their popular "G" line of flagship smartphones, simply dubbed the LG G3, is the culmination of all of the innovation the company has developed in previous devices to date, including its signature rear button layout, and a cutting-edge 5.5-inch QHD display that drives a resolution of 2560X1440 with a pixel density of 538 PPI. Not satisified with pixel overload, LG decide to equip their new smartphone with 'frickin' laser beams' to assist its 13MP camera in targeting subjects for auto-focus. The G3 performs well in the benchmarks with a Snapdragon 801 on board and no doubt its camera takes some great shots quickly and easily. However, it's questionable how much of that super high res 2560 display you can make use of on a 5.5-inch device.
If I was the lead product designer, I'd take things in a new direction. I'd stop making low quality phones that freeze up constantly and break all the time. That might grab some market share.
If this were a certain other high end phone manufacturer, the media would be falling over itself to explain how these improvements mark a new era in phone technology.
The improvements seem reasonable and unless they add excessively to the cost there's no reason to criticize them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is simply a stats arms race.
Seeing how Android flagship makers are using someone else's OS and app ecosystem, the only two places they can differentiate their products are through custom OS skinning (horrible) and product tech specs.
Considering how many Android users tend to be the "build your own PC" crowd who are hardcore gadget people, the specs bloat appeals to them.
Meanwhile, Apple is selling a smartphone with a tiny less-than-HD screen, a processor that toddles along at a whisker over 1 GHz and a tiny 1400 MaH battery, and they're doing quite nicely for themselves.
"Purpose Built" vs. "Specs in a Box" ?
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
The companies that are producing these incredibly pixel-dense phone screens are the same ones that are producing a lot of the panels for monitors. I think Samsung and LG are collectively responsible for about half of the global supply of LCD panels. A quick Google search shows that the top 4 companies make up roughly 80% - 85% of the market. They're probably perfectly happy making a healthy profit and not rocking the boat too much.
Indeed. I do architectural work, including taking measurements of existing buildings. If I could use this to get a point cloud of a room it would be amazing. I'd be willing to start programming again if it meant being able to access even rudimentary data. While high accuracy is probably not in this, even +/-3" would be good for small places (up to, say 20-25 feet).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Just once, I'd love to see some side by side comparisons of the end-to-end RF ability of these new phones. While voice calls, the kids tell me, are a thing of the past we are getting more and more dependent on data connections. And how you get data is via RF link. And yet I haven't even seen link quality mentioned in a single review for at least two generations of smart phones.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Perhaps part of the problem was that (prior to Google ownership) Motorola had already put off many of the geeks by producing the most locked-down phones of any Android manufacturer.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The principle reason to put 2560x1440 pixels on a phone is to further the embarrassment of monitor manufacturers who can only manage to get 1/4 of the pixels into a 19" screen.
We will soon be better off buying a smart phone and a Fresnel lens instead of desktop monitor and our computers will begin to look a lot like the ones in the movie Brazil.
The same Bill Gates who, as late as 1995, dismissed the internet as a fad? That Bill Gates?
I don't remember that. But I do remember a number of Adroid vendors introducing displays with even higher PPI, and I do remember Apple losing control of the tablet market after introducing a product that had quadruple pixel count as essentially its only improvement, while regressing in battery life and weight.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Actually smaller screens are easier to produce. Larger screens need to be perfect over a much larger area. A defect will write off a much larger chunk of silicon and glass. There is more to go wrong too, since you need more track to wire up all those widely spaced pixels. Things like propagation delay start to become a major problem too, so you end up with multiple controllers for different parts of the screen.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC