Linked List: March 3, 2012

Saturday, 3 March 2012

Nicely illustrated post by David Barnard on retina display Macs:

The point is, PPI is much less relevant on OS X than on iOS. To create Retina displays, Apple doesn’t have to build displays that are exactly 2X current displays, they just have to build displays that work well with OS X when running @2X. For example, the current 27-inch iMac is 2560 by 1440 pixels, which translates to 109ppi. Doubling that to 5120 by 2880 pixels is not strictly necessary. Such a screen might be incredibly difficult to manufacture, and therefore incredibly expensive. Instead, Apple could build a 3840 by 2400 pixel 27-inch screen that presented itself as a pixel doubled 1920 by 1200 pixel display. That’s effectively an 84ppi screen @1X and 168ppi screen @2X.

The key thing to keep in mind is that on iOS, the precise physical size of screen elements matters. A button rendered on an iPhone 4 uses four times the pixels as the same button rendered on an iPhone 3GS — but they’re the exact same size. That’s not a concern with the Mac, because the Mac is not a touchscreen device — and I don’t think it ever will be.

Regarding Motorola’s Google-Owned Future ★

Phil Goldstein, in a report for FierceWireless headlined “Motorola Exec: Product Strategy Won’t Change After Google Acquisition”:

Alain Mutricy, Motorola’s senior vice president of portfolio and product management, told FierceWireless in an interview here at Mobile World Congress that Motorola will not alter its plans once it comes under the Google “umbrella.”

This echoes Andy Rubin’s recent remarks from a few days prior, as quoted by The Verge:

Google’s Andy Rubin led the charge to acquire Motorola, but the Android boss won’t have anything to do with the company once the deal closes — he told reporters at Mobile World Congress today that he “sponsored” the acquisition but now has “nothing to do with it…. I don’t even know who’s running it.” […] Rubin said he was “painfully aware” of concerns, but stressed that Google has “literally built a firewall” between the Android team and Motorola. “I don’t even know anything about their products, I haven’t seen anything,” he said. “They’re going to continue building Motorola branded devices and it’s going to be the same team doing it.”

(The same team minus CEO Sanjay Jha, that is.)

Does anyone actually buy this? It’d be one thing if Motorola were doing well, or even if they were merely doing OK, but they’re not — they’re doing terribly. They’re losing money and are generating little revenue. What sense does it make for Motorola to stay the course? Larry Page is just going to say, “Welcome to Google, you guys just keep doing what you’ve been doing — losing money and making phones that don’t sell very well”?

I presume Google and Motorola executives are saying these things to assuage the fears of Motorola’s rival Android handset makers. But do any of them believe it?