[stevenswall]

^Me too. I used to not think that cables made a difference, and now I realize they don't make a difference... what was I thinking? Oh, that's right, logically.

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Quote:

^Me too. I used to not think that cables made a difference, and now I realize they don't make a difference... what was I thinking? Oh, that's right, logically.

haha
 
 

 

[CC Lemon]

Harsh... but funny.

 

[Stormfriend]

Quote:

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1282699/hdmi-investigated-are-expensive-cables-a-scam/3

 

 
I thought this was amusing:
 
PROBLEMS WITH TESTING
Inevitably, we encountered a few problems with our tests. The most frustrating one was that the two PlayStation 3 consoles exhibited subtly different colours (we definitively tracked this down to the consoles and not the TVs, Blu-ray discs or cables). However, the difference was subtle enough that only two of our eight testers commented on it. One chose TV A in all four video tests, citing "stronger/better colours". The other noted that TV A seemed warmer, but was unable to say that one was better than the other in any of the tests. Of the remaining eight people, four found no difference between the TVs in any of the tests, while the other four's opinions changed from test to test. As such, while this anomaly was certainly less than ideal, it didn't necessarily spoil the results.
 
 
So doing blind A/B tests, even when they definitively identified a difference between two pieces of hardware most of those doing the testing didn't even notice it! 
 
 

 

[LizardKing1]

Ironic, isn't it? People pay huge amounts of money, worrying about noticing differences that don't exist and they don't even notice the ones that do exist.

 

[Currawong]

You can already see way too much detail with large screens as it is -- I don't want to see the pits in the presenter's face when they do a close up, so even if cables did improve resolution somehow, I wouldn't want it! 

 

[Magick Man]

Yeah, our main local news station just moved to HD, seeing the makeup goofs and pimples on the anchors can be distracting. "Wow, the weather guy's eyes are really bloodshot and dark today, looks like he had a rough night".

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Quote:

You can already see way too much detail with large screens as it is -- I don't want to see the pits in the presenter's face when they do a close up, so even if cables did improve resolution somehow, I wouldn't want it! 

I actually find it the opposite.
Smaller screens tend to look better due to the 1080p being on a 20" - meaning from close up, physically, they look better, than a 50" at close up.
 
Take the iPad3 for example, and its resolution.
 


Quote:

Yeah, our main local news station just moved to HD, seeing the makeup goofs and pimples on the anchors can be distracting. "Wow, the weather guy's eyes are really bloodshot and dark today, looks like he had a rough night".

hahah
 
 

 

[CC Lemon]

Quote:

iPad3
 

It's "the new iPad", not the iPad 3!!!!!!
 
(I have an unreasonable level of hate for their naming patterns... iPhone -> iPhone 3g -> 3GS -> 4 -> 4S. iPad -> iPad 2 -> the new iPad -> ??the new new iPad??)

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Quote:

It's "the new iPad", not the iPad 3!!!!!!
 
(I have an unreasonable level of hate for their naming patterns... iPhone -> iPhone 3g -> 3GS -> 4 -> 4S. iPad -> iPad 2 -> the new iPad -> ??the new new iPad??)

I hate apple regardless, so sorry for calling it the ipad3 lol
 
"the even newer ipad"
 
That said, the ipad's are very good tablets.
iphones however...lol whole different story.
I personally call them the iFails
 
Just like how us head-fiers see Beats products, i see Apple in the same light.
Rich, and have no idea what you are buying  = your typical ifail owner

 

[ac500]

Apple is not at all comparable to Beats, and that argument fails every time. Beats produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing but their technology makes everyone else in the industry laugh.
 
Apple produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing and due to the fact that their technology and implementation is so good it scares almost pretty much every other company in the industry.

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Quote:

Apple is not at all comparable to Beats, and that argument fails every time. Beats produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing but their technology makes everyone else in the industry laugh.
 
Apple produces products that sell like crazy due to marketing and due to the fact that their technology and implementation is so good it scares almost pretty much every other company in the industry.

haha no.
Let me re-phrase that for you:

Apple were the first to create a handheld touchscreen device that actually worked, and due to the popularity it has grown to become what it is now, and since then people buy iphones not because they are good, but because everyone else has them, and thus gets them.
 
Give me the benefits of an Ifail4s with a sticker over the SGS2?
Considering the SGS2 is £150 cheaper
 
I know this from personal experience - ie. my Dad wanting an iphone when he had literally no clue what he was buying or paying for.
Ended up convincing him to get the S2, and he still is thanking me for persuading him to buy the S2 over the iphone 4 - let alone the 4s.

 

[ac500]

I'm not talking about Apple's past, I'm talking about now. Right now, a lot of their technology literally makes other companies look like junk and seriously is scaring them competition-wise. Trust me, I've worked at those other companies.
 
I've tried the iPad clones, and I've tried the Macbook Air clones, etc. All of them feel like junk in comparison, suffer performance issues, not to mention dumb software. Hopefully Windows 8 might lead the way to some actual competition to the iPad, but who knows what's gonna happen with that.
 
I am neither an apple fan or an apple hater (or any other product), so I have no bias. So many people have bias though, and freely admit it, it's kind of funny.

 

[Shotor102]

 
Quote:

I hate apple regardless, so sorry for calling it the ipad3 lol
 
"the even newer ipad"
 
That said, the ipad's are very good tablets.
iphones however...lol whole different story.
I personally call them the iFails
 
Just like how us head-fiers see Beats products, i see Apple in the same light.
Rich, and have no idea what you are buying  = your typical ifail owner

Oh... please don't mention monster and apple in the same sentence.
Sarcasm aside, apple has been a major pioneer in the pc technology. I don't like macs, but their products are actually great.
I don't really see whats the problem with the iphones. They're great devices and smartphones. Pretty much any smartphone out there now is a result of apple's innovation and inspirartion. Steve Jobs is a modern day genius. How is the first iphone a fail? and how is the 3GS a fail? And to top it off, the 4? how is that a fail by any means? It has set a benchmark for screen res and display standards. The 4s with its 8mgps camera is yet one of the best cameras on any mobile phone out there. Siri is another thing. Although gimmickry, it actually works. Even now with all these new phones with the dual cores and bigger screens, namely the note, the iphone still reigns as the one to beat in terms of res display and overall design. It's still the most attractive phone out there. With Samsung releasing a new phone every 6 months and HTC releasing one every 2-3 months, iphone 4s is still in the top 3 best smartphones to buy according to consumer choice.
 
 
The problem isn't the phone and never was, it's the people's expectation. Far too high of an expectation.
 

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Oh yeah I used to love apple products until they screwed my ipod with their "new" iOS4 - then I decided to buy a phone, was between the iphone4 and the SGS i9000.
Bought the SGS i9000, and realise now how brain washed I was from apple products back thne for let alone considering to buy and Ifail4.
 
And yeah, I'm talking about NOW.
If anything their line of products have not really gain as much popularity as before, due to competition.
 
LTE SGS2 or a 4s on HSDPA?