Comment buried. Show
1. Jonathan-Tanya

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2004

   +11
   06/09, 02:45pm | report spam | close reply

   I can see 485 PPI

   I hold the phone 5 inches from eye....but that's just me.
   
   

Comment buried. Show
1. iphonerulez

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2008

   +2
   06/09, 02:49pm | report spam | close reply

   Some company once claimed their

   detergent was "stronger than dirt". I wonder if there were lots of complaints over that marketing statement. Somebody always has to nitpick over some marketing trash talk. All companies are guilty of spec exaggeration in some form or another.
   
   Maybe Steve was talking about his own eyes not being able to discern pixels at 326PPI.

Comment buried. Show
1. pairof9s

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Jan 2008

   +11
   06/09, 02:54pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   LOL!!

   @Jonathan-Tanya
   
   
   What exactly is the distance from a hand-held device at bent elbow level to eye level?!

Comment buried. Show
1. starwarrior

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2006

   +6
   06/09, 02:55pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   My nose is on mine

   What a guy with a "I am Smart" agenda.

Comment buried. Show
1. Bobby

   Mac Enthusiast

   Joined: Apr 2001

   +12
   06/09, 02:56pm | report spam | (2 replies) close | reply

   1.5 Feet?

   I use my nose instead of my fingers to browse, as I never liked the delay between something happening on the screen and the delay as the light travels to my eyeballs... So I'm normally at around 1.5 inches...

Comment buried. Show
1. chas_m

   Moderator
   

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +34
   06/09, 02:59pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Um, hello?

   Steve, during the keynote, *specifically said* that the "human retina can't distinguish" claim was referring to being some distance away from your eye, "a foot or two away."
   
   Seems to me Jobs was telling the complete truth, he just didn't put it in boring Spock-like terms because he was giving a speech, not reading a scientific paper.
   
   Some of these "analysts" need to get a grip and move out of their parents' basements, IMHO.

Comment buried. Show
1. Gazoobee

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2009

   +20
   06/09, 03:12pm | report spam | close reply

   click-bait

   The article starts off with this guy saying that Apple's claims are "not really true," then ends with the qualification that what Apple said was basically accurate. WTF?
   
   Apple says it reaches the limit of the human retina to discern the pixels at about 12 inches from the viewer, this expert says at 18 inches the pixels are "truly invisible." These are not necessarily even competing claims.
   
   We are talking about six inches and the parsing of a few words. There is no controversy here at all.

Comment buried. Show
1. rtamesis

   Dedicated MacNNer

   Joined: Jan 2000

   +3
   06/09, 03:19pm | report spam | close reply

   Soneira trying to get his 15 minutes of fame

   When optometrists and ophthalmologists test your near vision, they use 14 inches as the set distance for doing so. What Jobs was referring to was essentially accurate. People do not normally read closer than that unless they are near sighted, are young and using vast amounts of accommodation to compensate for the distance of the phone to the eyes or are using very strong reading glasses/bifocals.

Comment buried. Show
1. wyseguy

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2010

   +4
   06/09, 03:24pm | report spam | close reply

   Are you serious?

   I got out a tape measure. 1.5 ft (18 inches) is EXACTLY where I hold my phone when I'm reading it. So, it is perfect for me. I had my wife do the same thing, and for her, it was 1.3 feet away. I guess that means Steve was lying, and the phone sucks, so I guess she shouldn't buy one.
   
   Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Weak click-bait, Electronista. Weak.

Comment buried. Show
1. sailin74

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2002

   +5
   06/09, 03:27pm | report spam | close reply

   Design distance

   Looks like they revealed their design eye distance for the display, which 1.5feet is probably about right for a display of that size.
   
   It's all about angular resolution, not pixel distance.
   
   That being said, the new screen is obviously overhyped, and over priced. I can't wait to get mine. :-)

Comment buried. Show
1. jpellino

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 1999

   0
   06/09, 03:46pm | report spam | close reply

   Yep, 18"

   That's where my iPT is when I'm using it. Just happen to have a yardstick here in my office.
   Steve's in the clear, this guy is too picky and wrong.
   

Comment buried. Show
1. Alfiejr

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2008

   0
   06/09, 03:58pm | report spam | close reply

   Petty Quibble

   Jobs says "one to two feet". researcher says "1.5 feet" - which is litterally within "one to two feet." does 356 dpi have 40% more pixels per square inch than 300 dpi? yes. so was Jobs purposefully imprecise? sure. but was Jobs factually wrong? no. and do i have 20/20 vision even wearing glasses? no. so for me the retinal distance probably is just one foot.
   
   is this called "dredging stuff up"? yup.

Comment buried. Show
1. NCSUCPE

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2010

   +1
   06/09, 04:14pm | report spam | close reply

   Steve Did Mention The Distance

   I cannot believe people keep posting articles on this. Steve mentioned at a specific distance the pixels cannot be distinguished. According to a comment, Steve said about 12 inches. Others have said 300 ppi is about 18 inches. Both numbers are a reasonable distance from the eye for a phone.
   
   John

Comment buried. Show
1. Hillbilly Geek

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2006

   0
   06/09, 04:19pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   pickalittle talkalittle

   pickalittle talkalittle cheep cheep cheep! talkalot pickalittlemore
   
   ...extra points if you can identify the musical.

Comment buried. Show
1. ggirton

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   -1
   06/09, 05:12pm | report spam | close reply

   both sides are right

   Both sides are right, In much the same way that a 3 x 2 inch screen can be
   legally described as a "3.5 inch" screen.
   
   Browsing with the nose ... that's a good one! LOL!
   
   

Comment buried. Show
1. Stuke

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2005

   +1
   06/09, 06:50pm | report spam | close reply

   WHO CARES?

   If you want a Samsung with AMOLED display, go buy the phone. If you want something else with effectively < 300 ppi, go buy it and have fun. If, however, you want an iPhone, I doubt you will be disappointed with iPhone 4 relative to all the playing around with iPhone 3 you've done in your local Apple or AT&T store over the past year, dreaming of the day your current contract expires so you could get one. So, if you don't like the iPhone because you can't afford it (but want it), or because you're a diehard fan of Windows Mobile or any other recent phone OS, go get what you want! Bashing Apple because Steve Jobs is not an optobiological scientist is ridiculous. He's simply one of the most successful businessmen on the planet. Oh, that's what's bothering you?

Comment buried. Show
1. byRyan

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2007

   0
   06/09, 06:54pm | report spam | close reply

   What about

   Ah yes, BUT, if i use a magnifying glass and get real close I can see those pixels, with my RETINA!!!
   
   and even though its called a retina display, it is neither made of retina's nor does it display retina, unless you go to sites like bigeye.com. so again - FALSE CLAIMS!!!
   
   (kidding of course)

Comment buried. Show
1. notblind

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2010

   0
   06/10, 01:30am | report spam | close reply

   nice revisionist history

   Funny, I went back and listened to Steve's keynote and he specifically said "10 to 12 inches" .. check it out, about 36minutes in.

Comment buried. Show
1. Fast iBook

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Mar 2003

   0
   06/10, 08:48am | report spam | close reply

   iBook (the computer).

   I've been the proud owner (for better or worse) of 13 separate iBook computers, and my current portable is the iBook G4 1.33 ghz, the fastest one ever made. I can tell you, that even this now obsolete machine had an improvement in LCD pixel density over the years, as has the iMac, from the original G4 LCD all the way up to the current offering, as well as the apple stand alone displays. Pixel density absolutely makes a difference in image clarity, and going from an iPhone 3G that i have to this new iPhone 4 will be like stepping from a Ford model T into a 2010 ford GT. While stevenotes have always drawn some attention (usually quite small) for seemingly exaggerated claims, people fail to realize that the way the pixels are physically constructed on the display makes them closer without as much of a gap between light sources, and the sub pixels mesh into each other more tightly.
   
   I for one can't wait to see the amazing clarity of this new iPhone, i plan to re-order 2, one for me & one for my girlfriend! :)
   
   - A

Comment buried. Show
1. darkelf

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2003

   0
   06/10, 09:29am | report spam | close reply

   phil, if you would...

   http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   0
   06/10, 02:13pm | report spam | close reply

   Wow

   It's amazing that the human eye can't distinguish past 300ppi. I feel sorry for all those losers out there buying printers and scanners that work at higher resolutions. Don't these people know they're wasting their money?????

Comment buried. Show
1. elroth

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2006

   0
   06/10, 03:24pm | report spam | close reply

   wow testudo

   In case you really don't know this, the standard for scanning for print at actual size is 300 ppi. However, if you want to enlarge something, say 2x, then you scan at 600 ppi so that the final image will be 300 ppi. So, yes, a scanner with 2400 ppi or whatever gives you a lot more possibilities for enlargement.
   
   Printer resolution is completely different - it's dots per inch, and you can look it up somewhere. The eye sees the printed page much differently than it sees an image on a computer screen.