Oh I don't like the rules either. I'd prefer not to pay any tax too (but still benefit from all services). There is a way to change that and it is called democracy.
Uber spends far more money on marketing and ride subsidies than on running their servers. They undercut taxi companies by simply losing money on each ride in many markets.
And also by paying less in taxes and licenses than competitors. Uber is not a tech company. It is not a taxi company either (the drivers are, though). It's a lobbying company.
but there is also a good chance prices would go up significantly if they ever win their battle with taxi companies.
This is the only reason why Uber investors accept loosing that much money now. They want a future monopoly with higher prices.
Uber drivers aren't getting ripped off. Those who pay their taxes and licenses are. The governments not getting their taxes are. The same rules should apply to all taxi services, Uber included.
The Galaxy Nexus received many updates. It launched with Android 4 and was updated up to version 4.3. The Galaxy Nexus was released in 2011. Two years before your Moto X. J to L is only two updates.
Exactly. Smartphones will soon be just another home electronics commodity like DVD players, PCs, TVs. What was not normal was the 50%+ profit margin on phones, an anomaly in the market that will soon be fixed. Capitalism at work.
Oh I understand perfectly there is a compromise to make between having a large display and a small phone. That doesn't make the small phone more readable. A larger phone with more pixels can't be less readable than a smaller phone with less pixels. No matter the DPI of each.
High DPI is a corollary of high pixel count. What make text readable is high pixel count, not DPI.
Then you somehow missed that viewing distance is dependent on application, not pixel size. It makes no sense to move your phone further away so you can't see the pixels.
Of course it doesn't. But seeing the pixels is not a "bad" thing. A 1280x720 display where you see the pixels will be more readable (for the same content) than a 960x640 display where you don't see the pixels. Of course a 1920x1080 display of the same size would be even better, but having more pixels is more important than having small pixels.
Instead, pixel size should be decreased until the display provides perfect clarity at expected viewing distances -- which may be one inch if you're using your phone as a VR display.
A 3.5" phone with 960x640 A 4.7" phone with 1280x720
which one is more readable at expected viewing distances? If you answer the former, you are wrong and don't understand the issue.
Now, consider two other phones :
3.2" 320x480 3.5" 320x480
Which one is more readable?
With 1280x720, you can display more readable text than with 960x640. This is true no matter the screen size.
False. If the screens are at a distance where the 960x640 screen has sub-arcminute pixels, then the 1280x720 display will not allow you to display any more readable text.
You are wrong. You imply both screens are of the same dimensions. They aren't. Even if they are of the same size, there is a distance where the 1280x720 display WILL allow you to display more readable text. It's only a matter of being close enough.
Yes I did. The problem is that you think that the goal is not to see the pixels. You could have a 2x2 pixels display, with pixels small enough so that you couldn't see them. Such a display would be useless. You can't display text with so few pixels. With 1280x720, you can display more readable text than with 960x640. This is true no matter the screen size.
Actually, what you really need is sufficiently-high angular resolution.
Just hold the phone further away then, you will improve the angular resolution. I am pretty sure that even with a cheap smartphone your arm is long enough so that you no longer see the pixels when held with straight arm.
It's like saying a 32" HDTV is better than a 70" HDTV because the pixel density is higher. Even if you see the pixels on the 70" TV, text won't be less readable.
So again, Apple had a great display with the iPhone 4, not because of density but because they had the highest absolute number of pixels. They were surpassed by Android makers since the introduction of 1280x720 displays, even if the pixel density was lower.
Not only a larger screen with lower DPI can be more readable, it IS more readable if the number of pixels is the same.
Also, a 3.5" 960x640 is less readable than a 1280x720 4.8", even if the density is higher on the former. You can say you prefer the smaller size of the 3.5" phone, but you can't honestly say that it can display more readable content.
What matters is the number of pixels. You (and Apple) focus too much on DPI, and it is a fallacy.
Wrong. You didn't understand my comments. You need high resolution, not high DPI. You can't see more text/information on a 3.5" than a 5" screen with the same number of pixels. The 5" will have lower DPI, but text will be more readable.
Of course high resolution usually means high DPI. But what cause the text to be readable is not the pixel density, it's the pixel count.
The problem is Apple hasn't done anything interesting since, well, the iPhone 4. The iPhone 4 brought high-DPI displays to smartphones. It was badly needed.
High DPI displays weren't needed. What was needed (and still is) is high resolution displays. A 1" high-DPI display would be useless. A 2 megapixel display can fit a lot of content no matter its size. It looks good on a 70" TV as well as on a 5" phone. Of course, you don't watch TV from the same distance as you hold your phone.
DPI was a gimmick, just like retina. Up to the iPhone 3GS, the standard resolution on phones was 320x480. Apple had some of the largest displays at 3.5". The first Androids had 3.2" displays with the same resolution. Nobody ever thought on bragging that the DPI was higher on Android. It would have been dumb. Then Android makers started releasing larger phones with higher resolution displays, such as the original Droid (854x480, 3.7"). It was a huge improvement over what existed before. Apple wanted to be back in the game, so they released a phone with an even higher resolution (960x640) which was of course even better. Except that since Android makers were releasing 4" phones and Apple was stuck at 3.5", they had to brag about something. So they "invented" (for all practical purposes, since nobody used the term before in the smartphone market) DPI (also refereed to as PPI). Since they now had the smallest displays, even if Android makers reached the same resolution, they would have less DPI so the iPhone would be "superior". Unfortunately, many reviewers bought into that crap and even some people on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe in your town. Globally, Lyft is far from Uber.
Oh I don't like the rules either. I'd prefer not to pay any tax too (but still benefit from all services).
There is a way to change that and it is called democracy.
There is no brand loyalty.
Don't underestimate the network effect.
People use Uber because there are drivers. Drivers are on Uber because that's what people use.
Uber spends far more money on marketing and ride subsidies than on running their servers. They undercut taxi companies by simply losing money on each ride in many markets.
And also by paying less in taxes and licenses than competitors.
Uber is not a tech company. It is not a taxi company either (the drivers are, though). It's a lobbying company.
but there is also a good chance prices would go up significantly if they ever win their battle with taxi companies.
This is the only reason why Uber investors accept loosing that much money now. They want a future monopoly with higher prices.
Uber drivers aren't getting ripped off. Those who pay their taxes and licenses are. The governments not getting their taxes are.
The same rules should apply to all taxi services, Uber included.
I thought Apple was first and foremost a technology company?
Not since the 90s. It is now a fashion accessory company.
The Nexus 5 had better support than any non-Nexus Android phone out there. And still have, since security updates are still provided monthly.
You said the Galaxy Nexus was updated to nothing. It is just plain false. It received more updates than the Moto X 2013.
The Galaxy Nexus received many updates. It launched with Android 4 and was updated up to version 4.3. The Galaxy Nexus was released in 2011. Two years before your Moto X.
J to L is only two updates.
Which Moto device had better updates (quick and up to date) for a 3 years old device?
They have a much smaller market share than 30%.
Exactly. Smartphones will soon be just another home electronics commodity like DVD players, PCs, TVs.
What was not normal was the 50%+ profit margin on phones, an anomaly in the market that will soon be fixed. Capitalism at work.
Who are the real republicans these days? Trump?
Exactly. Like I said since the beginning, it's the number of pixel that matters, not DPI.
Oh I understand perfectly there is a compromise to make between having a large display and a small phone.
That doesn't make the small phone more readable. A larger phone with more pixels can't be less readable than a smaller phone with less pixels. No matter the DPI of each.
High DPI is a corollary of high pixel count. What make text readable is high pixel count, not DPI.
I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole
Then you somehow missed that viewing distance is dependent on application, not pixel size. It makes no sense to move your phone further away so you can't see the pixels.
Of course it doesn't. But seeing the pixels is not a "bad" thing. A 1280x720 display where you see the pixels will be more readable (for the same content) than a 960x640 display where you don't see the pixels. Of course a 1920x1080 display of the same size would be even better, but having more pixels is more important than having small pixels.
Instead, pixel size should be decreased until the display provides perfect clarity at expected viewing distances -- which may be one inch if you're using your phone as a VR display.
A 3.5" phone with 960x640
A 4.7" phone with 1280x720
which one is more readable at expected viewing distances? If you answer the former, you are wrong and don't understand the issue.
Now, consider two other phones :
3.2" 320x480
3.5" 320x480
Which one is more readable?
With 1280x720, you can display more readable text than with 960x640. This is true no matter the screen size.
False. If the screens are at a distance where the 960x640 screen has sub-arcminute pixels, then the 1280x720 display will not allow you to display any more readable text.
You are wrong. You imply both screens are of the same dimensions. They aren't.
Even if they are of the same size, there is a distance where the 1280x720 display WILL allow you to display more readable text. It's only a matter of being close enough.
Not doomed, but I think the days of glory of the iPhone are behind.
Yes I did.
The problem is that you think that the goal is not to see the pixels. You could have a 2x2 pixels display, with pixels small enough so that you couldn't see them. Such a display would be useless. You can't display text with so few pixels. With 1280x720, you can display more readable text than with 960x640. This is true no matter the screen size.
Actually, what you really need is sufficiently-high angular resolution.
Just hold the phone further away then, you will improve the angular resolution. I am pretty sure that even with a cheap smartphone your arm is long enough so that you no longer see the pixels when held with straight arm.
It's like saying a 32" HDTV is better than a 70" HDTV because the pixel density is higher. Even if you see the pixels on the 70" TV, text won't be less readable.
So again, Apple had a great display with the iPhone 4, not because of density but because they had the highest absolute number of pixels. They were surpassed by Android makers since the introduction of 1280x720 displays, even if the pixel density was lower.
Not only a larger screen with lower DPI can be more readable, it IS more readable if the number of pixels is the same.
Also, a 3.5" 960x640 is less readable than a 1280x720 4.8", even if the density is higher on the former. You can say you prefer the smaller size of the 3.5" phone, but you can't honestly say that it can display more readable content.
What matters is the number of pixels. You (and Apple) focus too much on DPI, and it is a fallacy.
Wrong. You didn't understand my comments. You need high resolution, not high DPI.
You can't see more text/information on a 3.5" than a 5" screen with the same number of pixels. The 5" will have lower DPI, but text will be more readable.
Of course high resolution usually means high DPI. But what cause the text to be readable is not the pixel density, it's the pixel count.
High DPI makes text a lot more readable.
No, high resolution makes text readable. Just hold the phone further if you see the pixels too much.
The problem is Apple hasn't done anything interesting since, well, the iPhone 4. The iPhone 4 brought high-DPI displays to smartphones. It was badly needed.
High DPI displays weren't needed. What was needed (and still is) is high resolution displays. A 1" high-DPI display would be useless. A 2 megapixel display can fit a lot of content no matter its size. It looks good on a 70" TV as well as on a 5" phone. Of course, you don't watch TV from the same distance as you hold your phone.
DPI was a gimmick, just like retina.
Up to the iPhone 3GS, the standard resolution on phones was 320x480. Apple had some of the largest displays at 3.5". The first Androids had 3.2" displays with the same resolution. Nobody ever thought on bragging that the DPI was higher on Android. It would have been dumb.
Then Android makers started releasing larger phones with higher resolution displays, such as the original Droid (854x480, 3.7"). It was a huge improvement over what existed before. Apple wanted to be back in the game, so they released a phone with an even higher resolution (960x640) which was of course even better. Except that since Android makers were releasing 4" phones and Apple was stuck at 3.5", they had to brag about something. So they "invented" (for all practical purposes, since nobody used the term before in the smartphone market) DPI (also refereed to as PPI). Since they now had the smallest displays, even if Android makers reached the same resolution, they would have less DPI so the iPhone would be "superior". Unfortunately, many reviewers bought into that crap and even some people on slashdot.
The first iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. It was a glorified feature phone with a touch screen.