×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Motorola's Rumored Android Phone Focuses on Screen Size

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the aging-eyes-like-size dept.

Cellphones 134

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

134 comments

Motorola Android dreams (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608796)

She lies back on the nude beach, her tumescent clit glistening in the sun, labia minora almost moving every time there's a strong breeze. Her ever so slight blonde peach fuzz barely visible in the sun. She coyly spreads her legs, appearing to be nonchalant but secretly enjoying the gazes of the horny boys who have gathered around her. Her nipples are pointed skywards, partly from the cool breeze but mostly from the thought of every male for fifty yards staring at her young naked perfection. She turns over and adjusts her towel on the sand, knees on the towel, elbows on the ground, and her heart-shaped ass thrust up in the air just a little too much, revealing her puffy labia and pink anus. Her perfect full breasts hang down and jiggle slightly from the motion as she pretends to smooth out the towel. She lies down again on her back and spreads her knees far apart with the heels together, as if her only motivation were to tan the insides of her thighs. She drapes a light cloth over her face, which serves a dual purpose: it keeps her face cool but also encourages the growing crowd of boys around her to stare unabashedly at her pussy, knowing that she won't be able to see them gawking lewdly while their rock hard cocks press into the sand longing for release. She drifts off into a brief nap and awakens to find that the boys have moved closer to her, some within five yards. A few are sitting crosslegged, naked and casually stroking their cocks, their eyes fixed on her pussy so intently they don't notice she is now awake and can see them by peeking through the light cloth. She pretends to continue sleeping and absent-mindedly touches her pussy as if to scratch an itch. Her fingers tug at her vulva, spreading apart her pussy lips to reveal the moist inner labia and her engorged clit before returning her arm to her side. Once spread her pussy lips stay slightly open, revealing the amazingly pink inner flesh. She drifts back to sleep, dreaming of using the Motorola Android phone as wave after wave of orgasm cascades over her body and she shudders in pure bliss.

Re:Motorola Android dreams (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608818)

I came.

Re:Motorola Android dreams (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608924)

Ah, Europe.

So... (5, Insightful)

gregarican (694358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30608802)

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...

Ugh. (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30608868)

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.

Re:Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609082)

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

Re:Ugh. (0, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609166)

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.

Re:Ugh. (0, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609580)

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!"

GOOG employee rumored to take a shit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608870)

Seventeen other employees post about it on Slashdot.

Enough, already.

Re:GOOG employee rumored to take a shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608970)

Sinker or floater?

Re:GOOG employee rumored to take a shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609394)

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

About the resolution... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608896)

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

Re:About the resolution... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609480)

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.

Re:About the resolution... (2, Informative)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609556)

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.

Re:About the resolution... (1)

hsdpa (1049926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609576)

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

Re:About the resolution... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609880)

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.

Re:About the resolution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610378)

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.

Basic Requirement (1, Troll)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30608934)

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.

Re:Basic Requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608966)

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

Re:Basic Requirement (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30608980)

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

Motorola Droid also has a keyboard.

Re:Basic Requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609090)

Nokia N900

Re:Basic Requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609128)

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

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

Fizzol (598030) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609146)

HTC Touch Pro 2

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609498)

WinDroid?

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

J-F Mammet (769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610962)

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.

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609150)

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

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609158)

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

Re:Basic Requirement (3, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609582)

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? ;)

Re:Basic Requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609208)

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

Re:Basic Requirement (3, Interesting)

leighklotz (192300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609212)

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 [nytimes.com], and focus on the real promise of small mobile devices.

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

Re:Basic Requirement (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609416)

Are there bluetooth keyboards that work with phones?

Are there phones that work with full bluetooth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610162)

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.

Re:Basic Requirement (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609456)

n900.

Wow, so yet another screen size (3, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30608958)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609018)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609190)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609294)

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

Maybe you're not up to the task.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609384)

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!

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1)

babyrat (314371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610040)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609102)

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!

Screen size is not irrelevant to UI design (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610184)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (5, Interesting)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609180)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (5, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609182)

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

Go Back To Apple. You Won't Be Missed (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609334)

No one gives a shit about some fucking iPhone dev crying about stupid shit.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609736)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609816)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610644)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609882)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30611148)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1)

Night64 (1175319) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609806)

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?

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610006)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610206)

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...

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609988)

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.

Re:Wow, so yet another screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610100)

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.

I'm holding out. (3, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609118)

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.

Re:I'm holding out. (1)

psocccer (105399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609200)

In the mean time you can use this 10.1" touchscreen handset [engadget.com]

Re:I'm holding out. (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609570)

In the mean time you can use this 10.1" touchscreen handset [engadget.com]

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

Re:I'm holding out. (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610268)

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!

That's no phone... (3, Insightful)

vandoravp (709954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609210)

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

Re:That's no phone... (2, Interesting)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610620)

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.

Still cheaper than buying an unlocked phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609262)

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

Rumored joke soon follows (0, Offtopic)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609292)

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

WVGA+? WTF? (3, Interesting)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609326)

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? [wikipedia.org]

Re:WVGA+? WTF? (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609478)

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

Blame marketing.

Re:WVGA+? WTF? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610200)

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

Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610312)

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

Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! (1)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610580)

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

Re:WVGA+? WTF? W is for Wide! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610632)

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. :(

Sliced HAM EHB Planar High-res (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610778)

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.

All that screen real estate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30609852)

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

Apparel + Fashion industry needs to respond (2, Interesting)

Scowler (667000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30609934)

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.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610112)

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.

Fashion in cycles? (2, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30610364)

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.

Will large screens be robust against dog attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30610478)

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.

Still waiting... (1)

dr. chuck bunsen (762090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30611136)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...