#330315 - 22/02/2010 18:06
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I like Gizmodo for their variety of tech tid-bits, but I'm finding their 'reporting' to be alarmist and misinformed a lot of the time. I find that, or that same sort of pervasive negative attitude, to be common amongst most of the Gawker Media sites. I haven't read many Gawker sites. I started on Engadget because it was a FAR better blog when it first started than Gizmodo (Gizmodo then essentially started trying to be like Engadget). But one of my absolute favorite blogs out there is Lifehacker. You don't include that blog in your statement, do you?
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330317 - 22/02/2010 18:42
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, maybe I should say "many" instead of "most".
Lifehacker definitely doesn't have that attitude. IO9 definitely does.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330319 - 22/02/2010 19:34
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Well, maybe I should say "many" instead of "most".
Lifehacker definitely doesn't have that attitude. IO9 definitely does. Weird. What is that one about? I can't really tell.
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330322 - 22/02/2010 22:01
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Gawker is basically a pay-per-click blogging sweatshop, and negativity sells, so...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330324 - 22/02/2010 22:03
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
SciFi, Comics, etc. Geek pop culture, basically.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330325 - 22/02/2010 23:17
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Gizmodo is a POS, agreed. But yes, I'd be looking for at least "good" or even just "acceptable" color reproduction on a smart phone like the Nexus One. And that means it shouldn't be saddled with a 16 bit display.
Thankfully, this is starting to seem more like a software bug rather than a hardware limitation though.
Edited by hybrid8 (22/02/2010 23:18)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330328 - 23/02/2010 02:01
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Well, it looks like they have a couple extremely weak updates to the article. I find it odd that our N1 owners don't see the problem in their browsers, but the Gizmodo author says he sees it in his. Seems fishy to me.
But speaking to what Bitt said earlier, just look at the first screenshot. I don't care what your complaint is, Bruno, even if this story is true, you're taking one aspect of the screen that's worse and declaring the entire screen AND phone worse because of it. Please hear me out here, because using that exact same twisted logic, I can look at that same screenshot and say "wow, look how washed out the iPhone display looks in comparison to the Nexus One screen. I can't believe Apple would ship a product in this state, and it's clearly inferior to the Google device."
How is that any different than what you were saying?
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330331 - 23/02/2010 02:26
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
you're taking one aspect of the screen that's worse and declaring the entire screen AND phone worse because of it. I asked if this reported "fact" was another nail in the coffin. That's not declaring the product bad because of the one aspect. Did you read the part about the screen being 16bit? Did you read the part about it being useless in sunlight? I don't have to look any of the images because the text explained what was happening well enough that I knew what the images would look like. If those "facts" were misreported, then clearly they are not another nail. Matt, don't be offended because you own an N1. And don't blame me for the content of someone else's report. Seriously, I knock the iPhone all the time, but it's still by far the hottest handset around and there's no denying that. But again, this has nothing to do with the iPhone.
Edited by hybrid8 (23/02/2010 02:28)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330342 - 23/02/2010 06:16
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12341
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Matt, don't be offended because you own an N1. I don't own one.
_________________________
Matt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330347 - 23/02/2010 07:52
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
I asked if this reported "fact" was another nail in the coffin. You're assuming that there even is a coffin. This is far from confirmed.
_________________________
-- roger
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330351 - 23/02/2010 09:10
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
old hand
Registered: 07/01/2005
Posts: 893
Loc: Sector ZZ9pZa
|
Ah, whatever man. The OLED screen was definitely one of the reasons to go for the Nexus rather than a Milestone and comparing the two (my friend has a Milestone) mine is more contrasty, easier on the eyes and seems to be a bit clearer. Its a really big step up from my G1/Dream and the Magic. This is all with text and icons - really I couldn't care less with images really. The colours may be all off, and there might be banding (of which I don't notice either) but for a phone its great. As with sunlight, luckily we don't seem to have any sunlight here in the UK
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330355 - 23/02/2010 12:30
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
You're assuming that there even is a coffin. This is far from confirmed.
That's pretty disingenuous, come on. I can't remember a phone released recently with as many reported, and widely at that, problems. From the software to the hardware to the way the company is dealing with the issues.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330364 - 23/02/2010 13:34
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Did you read the part about the screen being 16bit? TN TFT panels are six-bits-per-subpixel, which means that it's an 18-bit display at best. Virtually all LCD panels are TN, including, I'm sure, the ones in the iPhones. Does that mean that the iPhone's display also sucks? Did you read the part about it being useless in sunlight? Yep. I did. My experience, however, tells me that while it's somewhat more difficult to see in sunlight, it's far from useless. I don't have to look any of the images because the text explained what was happening well enough that I knew what the images would look like. If those "facts" were misreported, then clearly they are not another nail. They were misreported; the text completely overstates the issue. It only shows up in the Gallery application. It appears to simply be a bug there (or maybe in the OpenGL implementation), not a bug in the OS. This rendering problem does not happen anywhere else. At all.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330368 - 23/02/2010 13:54
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
There are this many reports because it's popular. Over on GDGT, the like/dislike ratio is at 177:5. The iPhone 3GS is at 143:9. And these are people who are likely to be more technically oriented than the average person. Given, far more people have the 3GS, but's it's been out quite a bit longer.
IMO, the issue-dealing is a side-effect of the fact that it's being sold by the manufacturer rather than the phone company. Should they have had a better system in place? Yeah, but basically no one in the US has done this before. In order to get a phone that is not tied down, I'm happy to deal with it. That said, I have not had any particular problems, and many people may not have the same ideological bent about it that I do. That said, I'm not aware of Apple being wildly active about fixing software bugs in the iPhone. Maybe I'm wrong.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330375 - 23/02/2010 14:17
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Thankfully, this is starting to seem more like a software bug rather than a hardware limitation though. It's actually very hard to tell properly-dithered 16bpp images from 24bpp, especially on such high-resolution (high DPI) screens. But bad dithering, or no dithering, and yes you get visible banding. Apple conspicuously don't actually say what the hardware bit-depth is on the Iphone (or, for that matter, Ipad). Peter
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330381 - 23/02/2010 15:43
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
I like Gizmodo for their variety of tech tid-bits, but I'm finding their 'reporting' to be alarmist and misinformed a lot of the time. I find that, or that same sort of pervasive negative attitude, to be common amongst most of the Gawker Media sites. Back to tech-news sites for a moment- I like to read slashdot and I've posted links to their summaries here occasionally. Another that I'm fond of is Gizmag. Still another is Science Daily.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg) 10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330453 - 24/02/2010 17:12
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: Robotic]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
I got a reply from the good Doctor someone else at DisplayMate. I don't understand why they don't write their own image display app so that they can be in 100% control of what it's doing. He does say that Gizmodo's screenshot provide definitive proof of whatever they're complaining about. I don't see how a "news" blog's screenshots count as anything but anecdotal evidence, but I'm no academic. We have added an update about the brouhaha regarding the Nexus One browser not showing the banding: Here is the excerpt:
Color Depth and Granularity Update: People using the browser on the Nexus One report that they don't see the banding shown in Figure 1 for the NASA Photo “Sunset on Mars” from within the browser, but Gizmodo shows screen shots of Intensity Scale Ramps using the Nexus One Browser that duplicates and confirms the 16-bit color depth and banding shown in Figure 1. This definitively establishes that the Nexus One has a 16-bit display interface. It sounds like the Nexus One browser is using its own internal scaling together with a dithering algorithm that seems to be able to smooth over false contouring in some cases. But it’s clear that the Nexus One display system is using only 16-bit color and that is absolutely shocking! It remains to be seen whether the 16-bit color is a hardware limitation or a software configuration that can be upgraded and fixed. My guess is that it looks like a hardware limitation because it is possible to see image flicker in dark test patterns, which means that the display is using low frequency Pulse Width Modulation. High frequency PWM is needed to produce the 256 levels needed for 24-bit color.
Edited by RobotCaleb (24/02/2010 17:13)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330460 - 24/02/2010 19:57
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I got the same form letter. These guys are apparently idiots. Gizmodo shows screen shots of Intensity Scale Ramps using the Nexus One Browser that duplicates and confirms the 16-bit color depth and banding shown in Figure 1. This definitively establishes that the Nexus One has a 16-bit display interface. By the same reasoning, if I had my Nexus One display an image that showed only 16 colors, they would conclude that it only had a 4-bit "display interface". Then they go on to say: Most computer, HDTV and mobile displays, including the iPhone, have at least 18-bit color and then often emulate full 24-bit color with dithering, providing 256 intensity levels for Red, Green and Blue, which produces a nice color and intensity scale without the ugly artifacts. Yep, that additional 1 bit per subpixel is going to make all the difference. It's going to be so much easier to emulate 256 shades of green when limited to 64 shades of green than 32 shades of green. ?!? Regardless, they refuse to simply try loading the image in a different application themselves. Ridiculous. They're just playing CYA now.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330472 - 25/02/2010 00:10
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
"Flash" on Nexus 1 http://www.flashmobileblog.com/2010/02/24/battery-performance-with-flash-player-10-1-on-nexus-one/This video is only Nexus related as far as the demo running on that phone. It's more to show what an asshat Adobe's Flash evangelist is. He claims they can run this Flash video for up to 3 hours on the phone. And he proclaims that proves that Flash isn't a factor with regards to battery power. Hmmm... The Nexus specs claim it can do 7 hours of video playback. Seems like going the Flash route may ding you after all.... The demo is also playing H.264 video.... Why would you want to wrap H.264 in Flash? If you're serving H.264 you can use the video tag which is natively supported by the webkit browser on the Nexus - and iPhone for that matter. What happens to the battery when you're playing Sorenson Flash video? How about animated vector flash? If Adobe is serious about Flash and even close to truthful about their roll as a company, which is to provide content creation tools, then they'd release the source to the runtime with a CC, BSD, GPL or whatever license. They could then try to push it as an open standard and maybe get some W3C action behind it, which may take 10 to 20 years. In the meantime however they may get browser vendors to write their own implementations if they feel it's important enough to support that type of content.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330482 - 25/02/2010 14:37
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yeah, it seems to kill the battery.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330491 - 25/02/2010 17:13
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/05/1999
Posts: 3457
Loc: Palo Alto, CA
|
The previous "test" going by the android usage app statistics is likely a very very bad way to measure power. The android usage app is kinda strange, it gives users reassuring bars that indicate battery usage by app and subsystem even though there's no actual current measurement hardware in the system to enable this level of detail. Charge it up, then run the test until it's out of power. It's the only way that actually means squat
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330492 - 25/02/2010 17:46
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: altman]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
Are people surprised Flash drains the battery? Flash drains my desktop's battery, and I have it plugged in to the mains!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330498 - 25/02/2010 20:17
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: altman]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't see any reason that they can't make a reasonable guess on battery consumption based on a variety of factors. The CPU is likely to consume a given amount of power based on usage, and it's easy enough to find out which applications used which amount of CPU time. The display probably consumes a known amount of power depending on the number of pixels lit. Same notions with the GPS receiver, GSM radio, etc.
I doubt it's incredibly accurate, but there's no reason it's not a great rule of thumb.
I just had a thought. You're not assuming that it consumed 6% of the entire battery, are you? The Battery Use display is telling you the relative levels of battery use between the applications (and hardware, etc.) that have been running since the phone was unplugged. What they're saying is that the Browser application used relatively little of the battery compared to the GSM radio and the display. I can confirm that if you leave a CPU-hungry application running, it does show up with a significantly higher percentage of battery use in that display.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330501 - 25/02/2010 20:36
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
There's no getting around that Adobe themselves admitted that running video through flash, even H.264 encoded video, kills the battery more than twice as fast as it would otherwise be consumed playing video.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330502 - 25/02/2010 20:45
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
The CPU is likely to consume a given amount of power based on usage, and it's easy enough to find out which applications used which amount of CPU time. Not everything you want to know is necessarily instrumented, though. For instance, 1 CPU second of work on a dataset that fits in on-chip cache is going to use a lot less power than 1 CPU second of work that misses the cache and spends all its time waggling external pins that head off to the DRAM. And that's exactly the sort of thing that a large codebase ported from desktop CPUs, which is presumably what Flash is, won't have been optimised for. Peter
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330504 - 25/02/2010 21:06
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Um. Okay. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Flash isn't power hungry. Anyone who did would be an idiot. They do claim that Flash 10 is better. I'll believe it when I see it, personally.
Regardless, having the ability to use Flash is a positive, except for those people who will use it constantly and kill their batteries. One would assume that they have some way for it to not load on ads and whatnot. A builtin Flashblock would make sense.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330505 - 25/02/2010 21:30
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
We disagree on that point. I believe that having a large base of installed browsers that explicitly do not support Flash is a good thing. It will contribute to the demise of Flash and the adoption of better web standards.
If Adobe wants to tie their ship to that anchor, that's their business. But they're playing a dirty little war that I'm quite confident they are all but assured of losing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330508 - 25/02/2010 22:56
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, I was going to say "That's all well and good for video, but what about the other stuff Flash can do?", but it seems that HTML5 might have that covered, too. That said, I don't have the same religious war against Flash that you do. Adobe's interpreter implementation is awful, but the specification is open now, so there's no reason it can't be improved by others. I will point out that it wasn't very long ago at all that you were laughing at Palm for basing their OS on HTML5, yet now you're touting HTML5 as a replacement for what is undoubtedly a full-featured (if poorly implemented) environment.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330509 - 25/02/2010 23:02
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
I feel dirty posting this here. Here's another email I got from DM guys. Thanks for your Email. Please post this wherever it will be helpful. Be sure to point out item 7 below.
1. We tested the display on the Nexus One, with whatever hardware, firmware, OS and software are provided by Google and HTC. It's clear that it is an unfinished and buggy product.
2. The Nexus One is definitely using 16-bit color for some of its major functions. It shouldn't even have a 16-bit display interface if it can in fact actually do 18-bits or better.
3. The fact that it may be possible to get higher image quality from some applications is a fanboy issue that is not relevant except to fanboys. We are not... and most Nexus One owners aren't either!
4. By pointing out all of these issues we are doing you guys a really big favor because these issues are only going to get fixed when they are publicized. So stop making excuses for the test results.
5. How do you know that the Nexus One isn't just dithering images to reduce banding and delivering simulated 24-bit color? The display has a rather high pixel density, so how have you established that it has true 24-bits?
6. We will be updating Part I when Part III is introduced on Monday or Tuesday. We will add additional information explaining the scope of our results and the above issues.
7. We are willing to publish a screen shot that demonstrates 24-bit color on the Nexus One and add it to Figure 1, together with a brief explanation of how it was obtained, and a full attribution of who provided it. We will incorporate it into Parts I and III.
Here are the ground rules: 1. The source must be an 800x480 native resolution intensity ramp bmp bitmap test pattern with 256 intensity levels in R,G,B, and preferably also W. 2. We need a high quality screen shot of the test pattern, as shown in Figure 1. 3. We need an explanation of exactly how it was obtained, together with attribution and contact information. 4. Email us a copy of the original bmp test pattern and a jpg screen shot as described above, no higher than 1 mega-pixel. Email it to <snip> 5. We will publish the best result we receive.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#330510 - 25/02/2010 23:32
Re: Nexus One - The "Google Phone"
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It's just not worth paying attention to those idiots. Is there a bug in (what's likely to be) their OpenGL texture renderer? Yeah. Does it really make any difference? Eh. I suppose there are some people out there to whom it's relevant. Certainly not I. I would far rather Google spend their time on other things than fix this.
I find it laughable that they claim that only fanboys would be interested in whether other applications can display images in full color (despite the fact that this would seem to disprove their notion that the hardware is incapable of doing so) and then also fawn over the (apparently huge) difference between 16-bit and 18-bit color. Which is more fanboyish: pointing out that if you're unhappy with the rendering in one application that you can use another one, available for free on the Android Market, or obsessing about a 1-bit-per-subpixel difference?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|