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.
Google Cardboard, like the Oculus Rift, zooms in on the screen making some pixels very large. Perhaps this QHD resolution will look nicer than average when used as a Rift replacement? (note: I'm well aware that it will not actually be a good rift replacement, just that it's abnormally high pixel density could make a difference in extremely specific circumstances.)
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Galaxy, iPhone, Nexus and....G3.
If you want recognition, give it a name - preferably a cool name, but at the very least something people can pronounce without sounding like they're playing Battleships.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I don't know how accurate the laser would be for general purpose rangefinding, but if this device were available to apps in general, not just the camera, I could imagine all kind of interesting new apps one could develop.
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.
And where are our ancestors now? They're dead, that's where. AC is right, radiation is lethal!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Probably not, given that most reviewers tend to focus on technical specs or other flashy points after spending perhaps a week with the device before moving on to something else. A lot of consumers are going to buy whatever costs them the least, even if they still end up paying the same ridiculous amount every month for a contract. Even then, a lot of them will take whatever the sales droid pushes on them.
When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone, but the sales didn't follow because it didn't have the bells and whistles that attract tech geeks or the type of people who fill buy based on some shiny, new feature. Similarly, none of the sales people were pushing it for any reason (usually some kind of kickback^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsales incentive) and so sales were poor and Google ended up dumping Motorola because they couldn't make a profit with the company.
That and if they make a quality device that lasts for three years, they can't sell you a new phone after two. Why do you think so many of the manufacturers and carriers stop providing Android updates even though the device could easily support them or a different version of the essentially the same hardware is getting the update?
I do not eat with scalpel and fork.
Wonder if you can hack the laser rangefinder to work as a remote window listening device :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The best argument I've read is that the complex characters in the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese languages really benefit from higher density screens, even over what the G2 was providing last year.
The reason you need that sort of resolution is to get the most out of Google Cardboard.
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?
...I'm feeling a bit smug about this development. I can hold it six inches away from my nose, peer under my glasses, and have the equivalent FOV and resolution of a 28-inch desktop display, handheld.
Of course, if I want to do anything with it, I have to use my fingers, which appear the size of fireplace logs...
It seems that for a long time (say, up to 90s or 00s) it was believed that Gates said that 640KB thing. Then people did some research and didn't find any solid evidence of him saying that. So for some years people were reminded that "Gates never actually said that". But during the recent 5 years or so, talks about it being true after all have been coming back. I personally haven't followed the research much to know what's the current opinion. Hmm.
At the time he is alleged to have made that statement, most versions of the then-dominant desktop OS, CP/M, were limited to a maximum of 64 KB. Weather or not he actually made that statement, at the time it would have been true.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Wonder how well the laser works through glass or plastic windows, or other common transparent stuff you might want to take pictures through.
Or underwater, 'cause, you know ... sharks.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The same Bill Gates who, as late as 1995, dismissed the internet as a fad? That Bill Gates?
"And a 4" screen is the optimal size... right up until this Fall when Apple releases the iPhone 6!"
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.
Would this be the same Bill Gates whose 1990s book "The Road Ahead" talked about how important the internet would be?
Good thing you posted AC though so noone has to see you stuffing your foot in your mouth.
Bill Gates: More Profit Than Prophet
And it was true.
The internet in the early 90s was _slow_.
I didn't get cable with 10 mbit until 1996ish, and even that was slow!