Beta
×

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!

Overkill? LG Phone Has 2560x1440 Display, Laser Focusing

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the too-much-overkill-is-never-enough dept.

Handhelds 198

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have an idea (5, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#47345421)

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.

Re:I have an idea (5, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47345471)

That'll never work.

Probably not (5, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | about 4 months ago | (#47345567)

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?

Re:Probably not (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345603)

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?

Because they companies are run by greedy jews aka gold niggers.

Re:Probably not (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 4 months ago | (#47345773)

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

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.

Re:Probably not (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345969)

Motorola has actually seen a large amount of success with the Moto G (and is trying to expand further into the lower end of the market with the Moto E). http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-Moto-G-is-the-most-successful-Motorola-smartphone-of-all-time_id53190

Re:I have an idea (4, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#47346017)

I own an LG phone. (Nexus 4). It never froze up or broke, in fact I like it a lot.

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346097)

My current and last phones are LG. There is nothing wrong with either of them, at least not after putting CyanogenMod on them.

Re:I have an idea (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 4 months ago | (#47346155)

Whoosh. The target of the joke is Samsung.

640KB ought to be enough for anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345441)

Bill Gates hath spoken!

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345503)

Except that Bill Gates NEVER said that.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9101699/The_640K_quote_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345559)

Sure he did. That it can't be found on video means nothing. This is Bill Gates after all, the dude that wanted to _standardize_ on MSX specs as late as 1985.

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47345645)

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.

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#47345745)

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.

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about 4 months ago | (#47345843)

It bugs me that people, while taking in consideration the intelligence Gates has would ever say something like that and mean 640KB would last forever.

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345881)

The same Bill Gates who, as late as 1995, dismissed the internet as a fad? That Bill Gates?

Re: 640KB ought to be enough for anyone (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345709)

Dox, vidz or it didn't happen.
You CLAIM he said it without any proof whatsoever.

That is called hearsay. Or believe.
Or idiocy. Choose one.

In science, when you have no proof, a claim is worthless baseless rubbish. Like yours.

Re:640KB ought to be enough for anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345933)

He probably never made that exact quote, but may or may not have expressed that opinion to IBM executives in planning meetings for the IBM PC. The quote probably is a paraphrase, or perhaps an outright concoction, provided by said IBM executives.

The target buyer for the new phone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345445)

...will be someone who has really small fingers.

Google Cardboard (5, Interesting)

The Raven (30575) | about 4 months ago | (#47345461)

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.)

Re:Google Cardboard (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#47345807)

How accurate does Cardboard track head movement?
Note that head displays have been done many times before over the past decades.
The problem has always been motion sickness inducing head tracking, never the display technology.

Re:Google Cardboard (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 4 months ago | (#47346173)

Turning it on its side and putting it into the Google Cardboard (or similar) stereoptic holder gives you about a 1440x1250 display per eye. Looks right to me.

Now if (as I suggested in the Cardboard item) they installed two cameras on the phone back, separated by about eye distance, you'd have a camera that could take and display stereoptic pictures and/or do augmented reality without losing the scene's depth.

Embarrasment (5, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#47345473)

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.

Re:Embarrasment (2)

MojoKid (1002251) | about 4 months ago | (#47345485)

HA! So true! And 4K desktop displays have a long way to go still as well.

Re:Embarrasment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345509)

With all that resolution, you could use Google to look up the difference between principle and principal.

Re:Embarrasment (4, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#47345635)

Thats not fair. It just isnt.
Your not nice.

Re: Embarrasment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345673)

You did it again.

Re: Embarrasment (5, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47345723)

wewsch

Re:Embarrasment (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about 4 months ago | (#47345631)

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.

Re:Embarrasment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345671)

Agreed. My 8 year old laptop had a 17" display with 1920x1200 resolution, and when I finally had to get a new one, it was a 17" screen with "FULL HD!!" 1920x1080. *sigh*

Re:Embarrasment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345711)

I think the problem is scale. Pixel count scales as n^2 to length.

Example: at 508 ppi (near but less than that in TFS) a 19", 16:10 display would have resolution of 8192x5120. Thats 41.9 megapixels. In order to update the display at 24bit/30Hz it would require 30.199 Gigabits/sec. HDMI 2.0 maxes out at 18 Gbit/s.

That's also enough pixels to fuel a 64" display at 150ppi.

Re:Embarrasment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345769)

sure on ppi but many monitors can't even match the resolution

Re:Embarrasment (4, Interesting)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#47345757)

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.

Monitor manufacturers like, LG?

Re:Embarrasment (3, Insightful)

marciot (598356) | about 4 months ago | (#47345861)

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.

Re:Embarrasment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346125)

THIS is a terrifying thought, considering exactly why the Fresnel lenses were used in the film. One of the best comments I've seen on /. and I modded you insightful.

Re:Embarrasment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346187)

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.

Damn right... when will I be able to buy a laptop with 2560x1440 resolution?

What do you mean, I can buy one today [newegg.com] ? Shut yo mouf!

laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345491)

laser bean for focusing the object for auto detection? will that do harm to our skin,eye,body? radiation is not good to health, now the laser beam, really?

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345519)

> radiation is not good to health

Mother of all vague statements...

You're swimming in a sea of radiation right now. Your ancestors did too, all the way back to prehistoric times.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47345547)

And where are our ancestors now? They're dead, that's where. AC is right, radiation is lethal!

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345577)

Curses, you run rings around me logically. :-P

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345755)

Swimming in it? You're *made* of it. A good portion of the potassium and carbon in your body is radioactive.

Although I suppose our body is just a portable ocean for our cells to live in, so your expression is probably fine anyway.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | about 4 months ago | (#47345521)

laser bean for focusing the object for auto detection? will that do harm to our skin,eye,body? radiation is not good to health, now the laser beam, really?

It's true, the combination of dangerous radiation and now us all being exposed to lasers at the same time will mutate our DNA and turn us into lizard people. And that's what THEY want.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

bswarm (2540294) | about 4 months ago | (#47345543)

Wouldn't it be a shame if the voltage regulator failed and overdrive the lasers? Zap!

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 months ago | (#47345599)

Wonder how well the laser works through glass or plastic windows, or other common transparent stuff you might want to take pictures through.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47345617)

Wonder if you can hack the laser rangefinder to work as a remote window listening device :)

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 4 months ago | (#47345661)

Focusing through windows is already problematic, so the laser likely won't make it worse.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#47345825)

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.

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47345611)

laser bean

the photonic flatulence can be a problem

suggest non-flammable cheese if possible

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (1)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#47345753)

More importantly, does taking a picture of an airplane with this phone commit a felony?

Re:laser beam focus? sounds harmful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345823)

laser bean for focusing the object for auto detection? will that do harm to our skin,eye,body? radiation is not good to health, now the laser beam, really?

Depends on the class. But looking with your eye into a laser (e.g. laser pen) is really - really - bad for them. I myself would love to see more regulation on lasers. Putting them into a mobile phone sounds like a very, very, bad idea.

Get your hands on one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345499)

Then you let me know if its overkill. My instincts say, not.

Till then, shaddap about it

What? (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 4 months ago | (#47345507)

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.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about 4 months ago | (#47345601)

The improvements seem reasonable and unless they add excessively to the cost there's no reason to criticize them.

As long as they don't shorten battery life, of course. That is still the Achilles heel of mobile devices, after all, and all those pixels likely increase the amount of processing needed to control them.

Overkill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345511)

Everything is overkill ... you have a common hardware, a common OS and even the custom stuff is ... nothing special. It is a dream and a nightmare of every hardware designer.

More, more, more. The only thing i'm missing is battery runtime and no vendor gives a shit about it.

Battery Runtime (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 4 months ago | (#47345675)

More, more, more. The only thing i'm missing is battery runtime and no vendor gives a shit about it.

Actually L or Lollipop includes Project Volta, which will add battery saving tools for developers and users alike. A "Battery Historian" gives more info on exactly what's draining energy, while a battery saver mode lets users squeeze up to an extra 90 minutes out of each charge.

That is vampire modes that turn smartphones into to dumbphones to extend smartphone my several times. I have witnessed it with the samsung galaxy S5 and was very impressed. I own the current Nexus which I love, but comes with a battery life I don't. I L does not make a difference. I may change to a different vendor.

Give it a name (2)

clickety6 (141178) | about 4 months ago | (#47345513)

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.

Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing (3, Interesting)

GGardner (97375) | about 4 months ago | (#47345517)

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.

Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 4 months ago | (#47345595)

very acurate actually.

There are all kinds of LRFs on the market, and tanks and other military equipment use them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+range+finder&client=firefox-a&hs=lCg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&prmd=ivnsp&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=71mwU_3NG6fJsQS1woGQBA&ved=0CAgQ_AU

Re:Rangefinder handy for more than camera focusing (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47345633)

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).

Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset (5, Insightful)

Scot Seese (137975) | about 4 months ago | (#47345523)

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" ?

iPhone made irrelevant (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 4 months ago | (#47345623)

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

Your statement just shows how behind the times Apple is. The power of it being perceived first has been worth Billions to them. Ironically what you are describing is other companies "entry" or "mid" level phones by Android. They often have "mini" in the name for obvious reasons. Apple make money through having an incredible ( and deserved) brand...but it peaked two years ago. That does not mean that its shrinking market share or growing mountains of cash with vanish any time soon. Those specifications are desirable large screens; waterproofing; IR everybody wants and desires these things not just geeks or hardcore gadget people, just people who swim and shower and watch tv and change channels etc etc.

The irony of your statement shows as once it would have been Steve Jobs strutting on stage taking about how "his" devices had "retina" displays, only to have you interpret this as "tiny less-than-HD screen"

No wonder Android has 1 Billion users

Re:iPhone made irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345991)

And probably half of them are the a flip phone in smart phone clothing.

Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset (1)

rmstar (114746) | about 4 months ago | (#47345975)

This is simply a stats arms race.

one that seems overheating, too. You can buy quite well speced smart phones (way better than an iPhone, as you have correctly noted) for a very decent prize. Manufacturers seem to be running out of ideas on how to get traction in this market, so this is what they come up with: over-the-top-specs.

A market full of smartphones that can't find a way to differentiate themselves from each other seems to me like a market ready for collapse.

Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346073)

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.

True. So are Nike, Gucci, Armani, and Abercrombie: overpriced junk for people with too much money.

Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset (4, Informative)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 4 months ago | (#47346115)

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.

Oh... bullshit. There were almost 6 times as many Android devices sold last quarter than iOS. How are we still propagating the "Android is for geeks" line?

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.

Depends on how you look at it, in the States yes, but worldwide no, and Apple are rather in danger of getting left behind when horesepower does matter. Android isn't standing still, optimisations like ART may well give another speed bump. Apple make nice devices, but they're not immune to performance, and that'll get acknowledged eventually in the same way that we were told for years how the Power architecture was just as good as x86... until they switched.

Re:Specs On Paper & Buyer Mindset (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47346189)

534 ppi is getting close to the 600 dpi used for print. There is a good reason for using 600 dpi in print. At normal reading distances text looks nice and crisp. We are still have a little way to go before resolution increases become meaningless.

As for the iPhone, the CPU simply takes a different approach to the ones used in other phones. It is rather complex and gets more done per cycle. Other designs are simpler which allows for a higher clock rate, so performance ends up being broadly similar. The latter design has the advantage that it is cheaper, even if you have 4 high performance and 4 low power cores on the same chip.

The iPhone screen is limited by iOS apps targeting specific resolutions. In order to keep all the older apps looking good they need to exactly double the resolution every time, which means the next step is 2264x1280. Panels capable of that are only now becoming available.

The iPhone battery is limited by the laws of physics. You can't make a higher capacity lithium polymer cell in the available space. One of the advantages of a bigger screen is that the increase in battery capacity more than outweighs the extra power needed to drive it.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345555)

How much can you make use of?
Who cares, it has frickin' laser beams!!!

Wait for tha Apple zealots... (1, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 months ago | (#47345575)

...they'll say something to the effect:

"I don't care, Retina Display is better."

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345621)

This is funny for the fact that it shows how bad anti-Apple zealots are.

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (-1, Flamebait)

oogoliegoogolie (635356) | about 4 months ago | (#47345917)

Remember when Apple came out with the Retina display and all of the FAndroids laughed at it and said 'No one will want, no one will notice, and no one needs, a display with such high PPI on a smartphone'?

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (3, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#47346057)

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.

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346111)

And people still say that: nobody needs a phone with this kind of resolution. But it's a question of price. If it costs me little to get high PPI, sure, I'll take it. If I have to pay several hundred dollars more to get it, I don't want it.

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (2)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 4 months ago | (#47345971)

"And a 4" screen is the optimal size... right up until this Fall when Apple releases the iPhone 6!"

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#47346025)

...they'll say something to the effect:

"I don't care, Retina Display is better."

Just wait until you experience Apple's new "Eustachion Tube"[tm] audio, it's better than all the things that were ever better before.

Re:Wait for tha Apple zealots... (1)

Qbertino (265505) | about 4 months ago | (#47346095)

...they'll say something to the effect:
"I don't care, Retina Display is better."

I hate to break it to you and I'm certainly not and Apple Zeolot - my phone is an HTC Desire HD which I happen to be quite happy with - but the retina display actually *is* better, compared to the G3, if not perhaps in size. It has a wider viewing angle and a higher brightness range. Both only slightly, but noticable under certain conditions. How do I know? Just saw a detailed video review on the LG G3.

Given the choice between 400dpi and 538dpi with slightly less brighness and slightly tighter viewing angle I'd take the latter. I bet that goes for most people here.

My 2 cents.

A koan for LG (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 4 months ago | (#47345581)

I do not eat with scalpel and fork.

Marketed for Asia? (4, Interesting)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about 4 months ago | (#47345655)

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.

Re:Marketed for Asia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345781)

I come across CJK characters from time to time on my 2012 N7 and they look fine, and that has a considerably smaller PPI. Google's font rendering setup for android is just downright brilliant, I am actually somewhat mad that there is not a port of it for linux since I am *very* picky about font rendering.

Re:Marketed for Asia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345987)

The font rendering I've found on Androids is rather lacking. Though maybe that's because I'm stuck in the pre 3.0 era. Can you provide information about what different they are doing from everybody else? It seems like font rendering is a solved issue and the only advances are using GPUs to render them nice and fast at the same time.

This is why... (2)

Peter McAtominey Strømberg (3414139) | about 4 months ago | (#47345663)

The reason you need that sort of resolution is to get the most out of Google Cardboard.

Nobody tests RF ability anymore (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47345685)

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.

Re:Nobody tests RF ability anymore (2)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 4 months ago | (#47346181)

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.

The truth is that there are few radio manufacturers. If you have Verizon in the US then it's almost certainly going to be a Qualcom radio. The exact same Qualcom radio that are in all the other phones of the same generation. Kind of hard to differentiate yourself if the carrier forces you to use the same thing everything else is using.

That brings up another point. Radios are carrier and region dependent. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA, while just about everyone else in the world (except Japan) use GSM. Worse, the US and Europe use different frequencies. I think most newer radios can handle them all, but that certainly wasn't true in the past.

Screen size (1)

WrecklessSandwich (1000139) | about 4 months ago | (#47345691)

I don't care how many pixels you stuff in there, it doesn't matter if the monster 5.5" screen doesn't fit in my hand.

That is Length not width (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 4 months ago | (#47345727)

I don't care how many pixels you stuff in there, it doesn't matter if the monster 5.5" screen doesn't fit in my hand.

There is a joke involved in you not being able to handle anything more than 4" ;). The dimentions of the phone are 146.3 X 74.6 X 8.95mm so its about seven and a half cm wide that is really not that big even for a young teenager.

Re:That is Length not width (1)

WrecklessSandwich (1000139) | about 4 months ago | (#47345749)

What, are they not measuring screen sizes diagonally anymore?

Re:That is Length not width (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47345953)

They are, but phones vary in width and length depending on hard buttons and bezel sizes even for the same display size.

Re:Screen size (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 4 months ago | (#47345983)

That's odd, since a 7" tablet fits comfortably into my hand. Does your mommy know that you are posting personal information on the Internet?

Re:Screen size (1)

WrecklessSandwich (1000139) | about 4 months ago | (#47346023)

A tablet is not a phone. If you can hold that 7" tablet in one hand and navigate with the thumb of the same hand, you might be Andre the Giant. Do you fit that tablet in your pants pocket too?

As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... (3, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 4 months ago | (#47345717)

...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...

Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47345793)

that would be 28 inch "ultrawide" display

Re:As someone who's profoundly nearsighted... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47345961)

At that distance, your nose is closer than your fingers.

Laser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345799)

[quote]with 'frickin' laser beams' to assist its 13MP camera in targeting subjects for auto-focus.[/quote]

Real laser or infra red? Because laser could be really dangerous if you kids start to play with it point the exact beam into people.

Re:Laser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346175)

A real infrared laser. Why would it not be a real laser because it is infrared?

LG G2 better (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345827)

i consider the G3 a downgrade on the LG G2:

* battery life significantly worse, due to all the extra pixels
* less screen contrast - they've decreased the pixel size but the size of the channels between the pixels is the same, ergo less screen area is actual pixel.
* extra display resolution meaningless (withe the G2 you already need a magnifying glass to see the pixels)

plus the snapdragon 801 is a meaningless performance bump on the 800, although i guess the removable battery and SD slot is handy.

i dont want bigger screens or higher resolution in next year's smartphones. 5" is about perfect, 1080p is about perfect.

smaller case and better battery life would be nice though...

Re:LG G2 better (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#47345941)

You appear not to have bothered to read about the new battery results
http://bgr.com/2014/06/09/lg-g... [bgr.com]

Screen contrast is down, indeed, though it went from the brightest smart phone to merely middle of the pack, which is a shame.
http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_g3-... [gsmarena.com]
I'll admit I never really worry about black levels on a phone as long as they are dark-enough, though, since I never use it for critical cinematic viewing and suspect most of the population is with me on that. The loss of max brightness is, imho, the biggest downgrade, though the minimum brightness is lower, which is nice for night-time viewing.

Can't argue about too many pixels, though as long as it doesn't kill the battery life I'm okay with it. It could be 8k if it didn't slow the phone down or deplete the battery - who cares?

Hard to believe that a faster CPU and faster GPU is a "downgrade", but I guess if "faster" means "slower" to you...

It is bigger, though less so than the increase in screen size would suggest. Size is a personal thing for a phone. At least with the G3 you can carry a spare battery (or two) if you need exceptional endurance and can't stand external batteries.

duct tape to a cat and you get (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345841)

FREAKIN LASER CATS

Arm Lasers! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 4 months ago | (#47346071)

Captain Blork, arm the lasers!

(Hundreds of people end up in the emergency room blind after having their picture taken...)

Re:Arm Lasers! (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#47346121)

or one phone user winds up in jail after trying to take a picture of a plane on approach.

web hosting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346079)

sthoster a leading web hosting company cheap price web hosting sthoster.com

how's the call quality? (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#47346101)

The Linked article doesn't even mention voice or call quality. (Or are these features so well 'nailed' by now, they're taken as a given?)

However, the article might have, but I'm not clicking through more than 1 page of fucking advertisements. (yes, there is a 'print' view, but it's still bullshit to break things into multiple pages just for ad revenue.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?