Has Apple lost its cool to Samsung?

[Savor]

At this point, Apple still makes superior and cooler products than Samsung. I think Samsung is better at marketing. Ellen DeGeneres selfie pic in the Academy Awards was one of the best product placement ads ever for Samsung. With "The Next Big Thing" ads, I find Samsung mocking Apple fanatics as one of the best disses since "Sega Does What Nintendon't" back in the early 90's.

Apple doesn't generally make the best ads for iPhone or iPad compared to their old iPod and Mac Guy vs PC Guy ads. But they still do make superior hardware and software. Even an iPad Air can still catch my attention and I'm not into using tablets. But potentially, Samsung CAN surpass Apple in terms of cool. They need that "Keanu Reeves' Whoa" moment the way fans went wild when Jobs pinched in/out to make a picture smaller/bigger showing us multi-touch gestures for the very first time back in January of 2007.

Note 4 with possible a 3-sided Youm display is a start. Samsung has the technology. I saw those bendable OLED a few years ago. Samsung's biggest problem is execution. At this moment, I don't find either Apple or Samsung generally cool. Almost everyone who wanted an iPhone has an iPhone already. Apple is still a company with a myopic and very territorial/proprietary vision of their overpriced products. Samsung still has an image known for trying too hard, copying, and making giant plastic smartphones with poor implementation on half-baked, gimmicky features.
But does Samsung have the capability of surpassing Apple in terms of innovations and coolness? Yes. Have they surpassed Apple on both terms right now? No.

Wait until Samsung creates a new form factor with bendable/foldable screens or where there is a screen on both sides. Wait until they implement touchless controls and motion gestures the right way like Moto X did while Apple is still stuck with same slab form factors where you have to touch an app or keep looking at a screen to do anything productive in such a restrictive OS. Siri is not a gamechanger the way Moto X showed with Touchless Controls and Motorola Assist. Behavioral patterns to need change in the next revolution of smartphones. Not just staring at screens and digging through apps.

Matias Duarte is right. Smartphones are DEAD. Not in terms of sales, per se. Just in innovation. Same behavioral patterns. Same slab designs. A $100 off-contract smartphone can generally match an experience of a flagship with just a difference in inferior materials, screen, and camera being used. I'm hoping Samsung or Apple or any company can change the game all over again.

 

[XVentura]

Normal reading distances for people with 20/20 vision is 12-16". If you find yourself needing or liking to hold things closer, you should see your eye doctor. If you're in central Ohio, I can help you

In terms of resolution, the current iPhone is fine. Most people who care about HD aren't "immersed" in any phone of any size, so it really doesn't matter. Look around at people watching movies on iPads and iPhones....they typically don't hold them in their hands thus they watch them 18-24" from their face on a desk or table or their lap, etc. making the need for higher resolution even less necessary.

Add in the fact that a large majority of users over the age of 40 have some impact to their vision call presbyopia yet don't wear glasses......yet. Instead they typically view their phones 16-21 inches from their face. Until they do, high resolutions won't benefit them.

Again, questions on vision or eyes/health, I'm happy to help.

I had LASIK two years ago and my vision is currently 20/12.5. Thanks for the offer.

I stand by what I've said earlier about the distances that people use to view their phones. Yes, there are 'typical' distances but that also implies that there are atypical distances, too. If the mean is 12" then there will be those who view it closer and those who view it further. Anyone viewing it closer would theoretically be able to discern individual pixels, thus rendering the 'Retina' moniker irrelevant.

 

[Max(IT)]

Normal reading distances for people with 20/20 vision is 12-16". If you find yourself needing or liking to hold things closer, you should see your eye doctor. If you're in central Ohio, I can help you

In terms of resolution, the current iPhone is fine. Most people who care about HD aren't "immersed" in any phone of any size, so it really doesn't matter. Look around at people watching movies on iPads and iPhones....they typically don't hold them in their hands thus they watch them 18-24" from their face on a desk or table or their lap, etc. making the need for higher resolution even less necessary.

Add in the fact that a large majority of users over the age of 40 have some impact to their vision call presbyopia yet don't wear glasses......yet. Instead they typically view their phones 16-21 inches from their face. Until they do, high resolutions won't benefit them.

Again, questions on vision or eyes/health, I'm happy to help.

Glad to have some professional coming here to stop this "I need to keep my smartphone within 5" from my eyes" nonsense ....

On a side note: is a perfect visus in US defined as 20/20 ?
Because here in Europe is 10/10.
Interesting

 

[mojolicious]

Add in the fact that a large majority of users over the age of 40 have some impact to their vision call presbyopia yet don't wear glasses......yet. Instead they typically view their phones 16-21 inches from their face.

I've got to the stage where I'm considering buying longer arms.

 

[Max(IT)]

I had LASIK two years ago and my vision is currently 20/12.5. Thanks for the offer.

I stand by what I've said earlier about the distances that people use to view their phones. Yes, there are 'typical' distances but that also implies that there are atypical distances, too. If the mean is 12" then there will be those who view it closer and those who view it further. Anyone viewing it closer would theoretically be able to discern individual pixels, thus rendering the 'Retina' moniker irrelevant.

At an "atypical" distance of 3" you could theoretically be able to discern pixels also on a 400 PPI screen, so what ?
Your statement is futile and you are just trying to justify your purchase, nothing more.
You can say "I like my phone to have a 7" display", it is absolutely subjective thus legit, since every one has different tastes/needs, but please stop this ridiculous nonsense about "I can see pixels on an iPhone" because in daily use it is just not true.

----------

I've got to the stage where I'm considering buying longer arms.

Best post of the thread !

 

[pdqgp]

I had LASIK two years ago and my vision is currently 20/12.5. Thanks for the offer.

Lasik only corrects distance viewing. What you had done had no effect on your reading acuity. You'll need near vision correction eventually. If you can come up with a surgery to correct for near vision, you'll be wealthy. OSU is the closest to working on that successfully. Perhaps in our lifetime. Until then, enjoy it while you have it. It will fade over the years as the muscles in your eyes weaken and the fibers become less flexible.

Yes, there are 'typical' distances but that also implies that there are atypical distances, too. If the mean is 12" then there will be those who view it closer and those who view it further. Anyone viewing it closer would theoretically be able to discern individual pixels, thus rendering the 'Retina' moniker irrelevant.

Displays aren't developed around a-typical. They are developed around a standard. I would argue anything too high in resolution is a waste as the human brain adapts very well. One does not need to see hundreds eyelashes separated on a human face to know they aren't one big clump of hairs. The brain knows and adapts as we age. Anyone watching a movie that closely is likely suffering from a bit of autism.

----------

On a side note: is a perfect visus in US defined as 20/20 ? Because here in Europe is 10/10. Interesting

20/20 is considered perfect. 20/10 is rare but exists. Usually in younger kids. The standards of 20/20 simply means what one see's at 20'. 10/10 is standard at 10'.

In the end, reading distances such as those for handheld devices is measured using a Jaeger chart held out in front of you.

 

[XVentura]

Displays aren't developed for atypical but the specific point that people have been making is that having a better display, a more pixel dense display, is better relatively. One clear benefit would be covering people who use the device atypically. I don't even think this is even worth arguing anymore. The point is clear enough for anyone approaching this perspective from an unbiased perspective.

 

[pdqgp]

Glad to have some professional coming here to stop this "I need to keep my smartphone within 5" from my eyes" nonsense

I've noted it here before but anyone viewing ANY iDevice or handheld that close is actually damaging the macula of their eye with the intense levels of blue light being emitted.

What essentially happens is they rust or scar the macula much like a sunburn hurts the skin. Over time, it permanently damages the eye. We in the medical world are already seeing an increase in such damage.

----------

I don't even think this is even worth arguing anymore. The point is clear enough for anyone approaching this perspective from an unbiased perspective.

The point is worth arguing as again, viewing any electronic device that emits blue light at such close distances is harmful to your health. I'd be happy to share with you the white papers and medical studies on the matter. Encouraging the use of displays and devices that close is not what should be encouraged. Thus more pixels is NOT always better. It's no different than in-ear noise cancelling earbuds....they do help you hear what you're listening too better but they also are shown to increase the loss of hearing over time at a far greater rate than those that listen to music without them. Again, care to discuss the medical findings, I'm game.

 

[Max(IT)]

I've noted it here before but anyone viewing ANY iDevice or handheld that close is actually damaging the macula of their eye with the intense levels of blue light being emitted.

What essentially happens is they rust or scar the macula much like a sunburn hurts the skin. Over time, it permanently damages the eye. We in the medical world are already seeing an increase in such damage.

----------

Thank you. I don't think that looking at a smartphone while laying on a bed, in the dark, at such a close distance is an healthy behavior at this point. Better to keep it at a distance ....

 

[XVentura]

So you've gone from saying no one can see the difference to now saying it's unhealthy to view displays at any closer distance, not even taking into account the different types of displays that are made and their differing characteristics, such as their normal brightness levels and the differing intensity of light emitted.

If you're going to argue one point then at least stick to it, otherwise I'll be quoting your posts when Apple increase the pixel densities of their screens and you love how clear and nice it looks.

 

[pdqgp]

So you've gone from saying no one can see the difference to now saying it's unhealthy to view displays at any closer distance, not even taking into account the different types of displays that are made and their differing characteristics, such as their normal brightness levels and the differing intensity of light emitted.

I'll gladly stick to my point(s). The fact is most people can't see the difference at normal viewing distances. If you wish to debate visual acuity in people, I'd be happy to school you. I have data from over 25yrs of my practice as an MD and an OD (dual license) to back me up. Enjoy wiki and google searches for yours. Again, the majority of people do not view handhelds at 12" distances. We track all our patient lifestyle uses.

If you'd like to argue the health and well being vs the light emitted from such devices, I'll gladly school you there too. There are no differing light emissions from any of the handhelds in terms of blue light that are deemed harmful. ALL blue light in the 400-500 nm spectrum is harmful to the Macula.

If you're going to argue one point then at least stick to it.

Game on. 1-2-3 go....

 

[Oohara]

I've noted it here before but anyone viewing ANY iDevice or handheld that close is actually damaging the macula of their eye with the intense levels of blue light being emitted.

What essentially happens is they rust or scar the macula much like a sunburn hurts the skin. Over time, it permanently damages the eye. We in the medical world are already seeing an increase in such damage.

----------



The point is worth arguing as again, viewing any electronic device that emits blue light at such close distances is harmful to your health. I'd be happy to share with you the white papers and medical studies on the matter. Encouraging the use of displays and devices that close is not what should be encouraged. Thus more pixels is NOT always better. It's no different than in-ear noise cancelling earbuds....they do help you hear what you're listening too better but they also are shown to increase the loss of hearing over time at a far greater rate than those that listen to music without them. Again, care to discuss the medical findings, I'm game.

I'm not sure those medical findings would be very relevant to the issue at hand though. Sure, it might damage the eyes to regularly keep the screen too close to the eye. But you only have to do it now and then for higher PPI to be meaningful.

Say you load up a news frontpage with tons of written lines. Something catches your eye that you can't quite make out. So you bring your phone - just for a moment - closer to your eyes, and now you can clearly read the words. Words that you wouldn't have been able to make out on say a 'regular' retina screen. Is that practically useful? Maybe not extremely so (though it could be argued that a moments shifting of the position of the phone is slightly more effortless than pinching to zoom and then zooming out again). But the thing is that it gives a certain wow factor, it adds a little silver lining to the experience of using the phone.

With a regular retina screen, you'll cross the border where you start to discern the pixels more often than with a higher PPI phone. Even though you usually hold it at a 'normal' viewing distance, these moments will occur, and even though it's just a brief moment, I think it registers psychologically. The result being that the images on a higher PPI screen 'feel' more natural or life-like.

So, whether one can discern the pixels or not at a closer-than-normal viewing distance does matter, I would suggest, even though we don't use the phone like that all the time or even often enough to damage the eyes. It's about giving slightly more depth to the quality feel of the device - something which we know matters a hell of a lot to a company like Apple. I'm sure if they could have made higher PPI screens work given their demands on battery life, device thickness and manufacturing budget, they would already be using them.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Can I ask under what conditions you see blurred text like that? I can't find anything on my iPhone 5 that shows blur like that. I have pretty good eyesight and am yet to need glasses at 31 years of age and have gone through emails, web searches, tapatalk, twitter, facebook and can't find an example that matches the blurred example you show here.

I don't see blur. The point of the example was to show what I'm seeing since some are calling me a liar. I was calling it "seeing pixels" but what I see is aliasing around text. It shouldn't be a surprise that the more pixels on a screen and the smaller they are, the less aliasing there will be around text.

In the phone app, for example, I can see aliasing around every single letter. It looks jagged, not blurry.

Someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread how you can see the aliasing around the empty circles in the signal strength indicator. Again, the empty circles have jagged edges.

None of this is a big deal, and most people won't see it, but the fact remains that when viewing the Nexus 5, text looks sharper. I don't see any signs of aliasing even at the closest distance I can still focus on the screen.

If I move the iPhone a little further away from my face, I don't see any of those things either. (11 inches is the maximum distance I can notice aliasing, and the distance I normally hold my phone at.)

My point is that the iPhone at 326 ppi has not reached a point that you can't see pixels at all. The Nexus 5 has.

 

[XVentura]

I'll gladly stick to my point(s). The fact is most people can't see the difference at normal viewing distances. If you wish to debate visual acuity in people, I'd be happy to school you. I have data from over 25yrs of my practice as an MD and an OD (dual license) to back me up. Enjoy wiki and google searches for yours. Again, the majority of people do not view handhelds at 12" distances. We track all our patient lifestyle uses.

If you'd like to argue the health and well being vs the light emitted from such devices, I'll gladly school you there too. There are no differing light emissions from any of the handhelds in terms of blue light that are deemed harmful. ALL blue light in the 400-500 nm spectrum is harmful to the Macula.



Game on. 1-2-3 go....

Mate, firstly my last point wasn't directed at you, but at the person who concurred with your post while neglecting the fact that it contradicted what he's been saying so far. Secondly, I have never argued about the health benefits or costs of viewing the displays close. Please quote when I've said that people should be viewing it close if you're going to create strawmen so that people reading this can see. I emphasise the word should because I've merely mentioned that people could and in fact do, but it's a positive statement, not a normative statement.

Yet again you are speaking of the 'majority'. Yes, devices should cover the majority but that means that it doesn't cover those whose characteristics are standard deviations away from the average, those with great vision or those who use their phones closer than 12".

Frankly, your degrees mean **** all because we're arguing about whether having a higher pixel dense display is better - as in produces a clearer image - than a less pixel dense display. Your buddy said anything above 300PPI doesn't matter without realising the conditions and caveats that come with that. A few people pointed it out to him and he's skirted around the issue and now has latched on to a health benefit/cost claim that it's unhealthy to view displays closer than 12" even though no one has said anything to the contrary.

I'm sure your degrees mean a lot in the real world but on MacRumors, talking about displays, no one cares.

 

[pdqgp]

Frankly, your degrees mean **** all because we're arguing about whether having a higher pixel dense display is better - as in produces a clearer image - than a less pixel dense display.

My profession and training actually does play in my friend. You're arguments about the need for more pixels or viewing distance are better in terms of producing a clearer image are simply based on opinion. Mine are based on facts across a population of patients and a deep understanding of visual acuity and the impact of these displays on human health including but not limited to vision.

Your buddy said anything above 300PPI doesn't matter without realising the conditions and caveats that come with that. A few people pointed it out to him and he's skirted around the issue and now has latched on to a health benefit/cost claim that it's unhealthy to view displays closer than 12" even though no one has said anything to the contrary.

He's not my buddy, just another forum member. He's actually quite accurate that anything above 300ppi acheives a diminishing return of value to the majority. Again, not opinion, but rather based on facts.

He's also correct to have latched onto the health risks associated with viewing such devices at close distances regardless of what others here may or may not have said.

I'm sure your degrees mean a lot in the real world but on MacRumors, talking about displays, no one cares.

I'm not concerned with the opinion of others here on my degrees and profession. I'm concerned with the facts being presented accurately using real world statistics and scientifically backed findings. Opinions without supporting facts are useless thus feel free to believe what you want even if you can't support the stance both in terms of understanding human vision or the health impacts of such devices. If no one cares, then why such a lengthy debate on the matter?

----------

I'm not sure those medical findings would be very relevant to the issue at hand though. Sure, it might damage the eyes to regularly keep the screen too close to the eye. But you only have to do it now and then for higher PPI to be meaningful.

The medical findings don't just account for close proximity viewing. Blue light exposure overall not just from up close viewing is proving to be addetivly harmful to our vision. Thus it's not just now and then up close viewing but a constant exposure to more and more 400-500nm wavelengths from any and all distances that's impacting our health.

The damage occurs to retinal photoreceptors, especially in eyes of young children that do not yet have fully developed eyes and are thus more senstive to damage. It also greatly impacts adults that have had cataract surgery. It's amplified by those with intraocular lens implants.

 

[XVentura]

Actually let's see whether your medical degree is a match for the engineering degrees at Apple. I'm willing to put up some hard cash on this. Loser donates $500 to a charity of the winner's choice. If Apple increases the pixel density of their screens in the next 3 years, you pay. If they don't, I pay.

It's not surprising to see that yet again you've focused on the majority, ignoring the fact that I've already said that covering the majority is not sufficient in this argument because the majority is not all.

----------

You've also said 'diminishing value', thereby actually agreeing with my point that there's a value to a higher density pixel display, no matter how small. Please pass along this nugget to your buddy.

 

[pdqgp]

Actually let's see whether your medical degree is a match for the engineering degrees at Apple. I'm willing to put up some hard cash on this. Loser donates $500 to a charity of the winner's choice. If Apple increases the pixel density of their screens in the next 3 years, you pay. If they don't, I pay.

Where did I say Apple and other manufacturers wouldn't increase pixel density? Not sure I follow your point of such a silly challenge. It's no different than we as a society know Nicotine is a harmful toxin yet we continue to develop ways to put such a toxin into our bodies in creative and entertaining ways.

I will however put big money on the line that I or any doctor can take a retinal image on you and anyone viewing an LCD screen for more than 1hr per day and show you the inflamation on your retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE) as a result of blue light exposure from these devices. These lesions will consist clumping of melanosomes and some macrophage invasion with engulfment of melanosomes which produce hypopigmentation of the RPE. AKA in laymans terms a sunburn on your eye.

Since melanin, a common pigment component present in the RPE, strongly absorbs blue light, you should be concerned that the retina is subject to actinic injury from this blue light including gradual opacification.

Go ahead and hope for higher pixel counts. In the end it will do you no good when your continued focus on viewing said screens up close to enjoy such silky smooth images is moot because you're damanging your vision. The last laugh will be on you and that's not my opinion, it's a medical fact.

 

[XVentura]

It's great that we have a doctor in the house but not one person mentioned the negative consequences on health from having a higher pixel dense display until you did. Surely you recognise that no one mentioned it because like Oohara said, it's not relevant to the issue at hand.

----------

According to what you've said, it doesn't even matter whether a display is pixel dense or not because it's the blue light that's damaging our eyes, so how the hell is this point relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

[pdqgp]

It's great that we have a doctor in the house but not one person mentioned the negative consequences on health from having a higher pixel dense display until you did. Surely you recognise that no one mentioned it because like Oohara said, it's not relevant to the issue at hand.

So by your theory unless someone else brings up a subject that's directly relavant it's not relavant to anyone? Nice.

The issue at hand is whether higher PPI counts are beneficial. You can argue all day that they are warranted and we need more and more, and I'll gladly argue that you need to be careful what you wish for because the use of all those fine details higher resolutions present are doing you harm.

According to what you've said, it doesn't even matter whether a display is pixel dense or not because it's the blue light that's damaging our eyes, so how the hell is this point relevant to the discussion at hand?

It's relavant because high PPI and the desire/need for you and others to view devices closer and closer because you have the ability to do so and wish to not see pixels when doing so is causing more damange to your vision than it would if you would simply move the device further away and not be so concerned with the pixels visibility or resolution.

Again, do as you wish. It's your vision. Wish for 4k+ displays so you can view them up close without pixels being visible and do so more and more as the displays become more "desirable" to view. The facts stand that you won't maintain that vision for as long as others who view them further away; you're actually doing more harm to your eyes by viewing devices so close and intensly.

Good luck to you.

 

[Oohara]

The medical findings don't just account for close proximity viewing. Blue light exposure overall not just from up close viewing is proving to be addetivly harmful to our vision. Thus it's not just now and then up close viewing but a constant exposure to more and more 400-500nm wavelengths from any and all distances that's impacting our health.

The damage occurs to retinal photoreceptors, especially in eyes of young children that do not yet have fully developed eyes and are thus more senstive to damage. It also greatly impacts adults that have had cataract surgery. It's amplified by those with intraocular lens implants.

Look, I don't doubt that you are very knowledgeable in the area of eye medicine, good for you. But how is what you say here relevant to the question of whether or not higher PPI in a screen is desirable? My point was that all phone screens now and then get held close enough that higher-than-retina PPI makes a difference. You now seem to be making the point that our eyes are damaged from all screen radiation, no matter the viewing distance? So...then it really matters even less that one would now and then hold the screen close enough for very high PPI to be useful?

 

[pdqgp]

But how is what you say here relevant to the question of whether or not higher PPI in a screen is desirable?

Define desirable. You and the other guy are arguing that higher resolutions are more pleasing to view and thus desirable. I agree, they are more pleasing. However I wouldn't say they are more desirable. So by your definition the gratification is "desireable" because you can view devices more clearly at but not limited to your normal viewing distance as well as closer.

My stance isn't that it's not more visually pleasing but I would argue that it's causing a greater use of these devices at distances that are harmful and such use for longer periods of time because they are so attractive or desirable to you and others. That IMO is not desirable as I know the consequences of such use.

My point was that all phone screens now and then get held close enough that higher-than-retina PPI makes a difference. You now seem to be making the point that our eyes are damaged from all screen radiation, no matter the viewing distance? So...then it really matters even less that one would now and then hold the screen close enough for very high PPI to be useful?

Higher PPI counts lead to more prolonged closer viewing because of the desire to use smaller devices for more things more often. aka viewing of movies, etc which by nature and by that of many here lead to them being held closer to the face for longer periods. My point may be moot because I don't expect to change minds here but in the end, those decisions are not mine to make nor are the consequences mine to live with.

My real world example is with my kids. We just bought an 80" 4K TV for our lower level. The viewing distance is about 12' but one of the first things my kids did was sit close to it and comment on how much more clear it is. Their desire to sit so darn close just went up over our 1080p sets because it's so "desirable" to them. Not good. Such an increase in clarity is cool and visually pleasing but when the impact of it is to draw kids into sitting closer to it for even longer because it's so cool, it's actually a detriment.

Yeah, I'm thinking as a doctor and a father but hey, I am both. Many here won't care for years. However, when you and many others, lots of whom I see every day, begin to see the perminant damage to their vision that is irriversable, the desire and lure of such displays is no longer a concern of theirs.

 

[XVentura]

So basically you're arguing for something that no one has argued against.

Basically all displays damage our eyes equally if they're viewed from the same distance. Therefore, the pixel density of the display does not, ceteris paribus, affect how much these displays damage our eyes. Therefore the only relevant issue here in regard to the discussion that was started is that higher pixel displays are a) more pleasing to view, b) lead to a lesser chance of the viewer discerning individual pixels and c) are thus 'better than', from a viewing perspective, the current displays that Apple offers on their iPhones.

----------

The health consequences, important though they are, are not relevant to the discussion that was started which was that a 400PPI display is a marketing gimmick.

If you want to have a discussion on the negative effects of displays in general then you have the floor.

 

[pdqgp]

So basically you're arguing for something that no one has argued against.

I'm arguing a point that you and a handful of others never recognized or considered because you're only seeing things from a PPI and consumer standpoint. Pun intended.

Basically all displays damage our eyes equally if they're viewed from the same distance. Therefore, the pixel density of the display does not, ceteris paribus, affect how much these displays damage our eyes.

The pixel density and the desireablity and appeal of these devices leads to more prolonged and closer use of them thus leads to more damage to your vision. You yourself are arguing that using them up close is of a desire and by making the PPI higher would be more pleasing thus it's without question your use of them will continue and likely increase with the higher pixel count.

Therefore the only relevant issue here in regard to the discussion that was started is that higher pixel displays are a) more pleasing to view, b) lead to a lesser chance of the viewer discerning individual pixels and c) are thus 'better than', from a viewing perspective, the current displays that Apple offers on their iPhones.

Yep and you're evidently willing to sacrafice your vision more quickly for the visually pleasing impact of a screen that contains higher PPI thus is more satisfying to use up close. Great choice

For the sake of your kids, don't go buy a 4k TV and tell them that it's now even more pleasing and cool to sit close to it and not see any pixels so go ahead and move closer kids.....

 

[XVentura]

It's all right, all the studies say that people who use iPhones use it more than people who use Android phones so I guess when my eyesight goes, I'll have loads of friends ie. Apple consumers whose eyesight went before.

I'll be thinking about this fact during the WWDC when Timmy mentions the amount of hours that iOS users spend looking at Apple products.

 

[gotluck]

FWIW (just posted today) "Mobile ad traffic"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...d-passes-apples-ios-mobile-ad-traffic-report/