And the best part. You can use IT as a watch and also transform it With an extra CAM module

And now there's this:
http://www.geek.com/android/a-quad-c...board-1614864/

What the hell is going on?

We got All-in-Ones with Android, we got small (tv) boxes with Android, we got keyboards with built in Android, we got mouse with Android, we got HDMI sticks with Android.

What's next a microSD card that can't work as a memory card because its purpose is to convert any device its plugged into to an Android PC...?

The Singular Singularity is COMING!
Aaaaarrgh!

Everything is converging...into a horrible horrible all-in-one device that not only is a pc , a mouse, a monitor, a blood glucose meter, wifi, a pedometer, a heart rate monitor, bt, gps, ir spy goggles, a calorie counter, a phone and a rectal thermometer that also seconds as a tongue depressor (ew)

The smallest laptop in the world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GLc6ruVF4

hehee I never get tired of this...

Its brilliant. Love the iButton.

Talking about theoretical devices, I did some number crunching and here are my thoughts.

The thickness (or thinness) of a device is important.
The thinnest I would want my phone would be 7mm's.
The thickest I would want it would be 9mm's.
However, if it is a qwerty/gamepad device like the Xperia Play, Moto Droid, Jolla OtherHalf... then I could accept it as 13.5mm's.

The screen size is also important.
I've got large hands, enough to palm a basketball. After my hand's size you get Pro-Basketballers and Andre the Giants. I don't think there's a market for that :P
So for me (and the majority) the maximum screen size is going to be 5.7 inches.
The minimum is going to be 5.2 inches.
For qwerty/gamepad devices this is of course subject to phone's dimensions.

Now bezels are really important for me.
I can't have a lot of it, but I do need a decent amount.
This amount is for holding the device from the sides and inserting front-speakers (it is NOT for logos or lame buttons!).
With that said the minimum Screen to Bezel ratio should be 75%.
And the maximum should be 80%.
(The Sharp Aquos XX-302Sh has a StB ratio of 81%)

1) So the largest phone I could deal with is going to be:
5.7inches screen, 75% StB, and 9mm thick.
Doing the maths it yields a device that's 152 x 79 x 9 mm (108,000mm3). That's basically the size of the Note 3. No wonder I like it a lot.


2) And the smallest phone I could deal with is going to be:
5.2inches screen, 80% StB, and 7mm thin.
Doing the maths it yields a device that's 139 x 67 x 7 mm (65,000mm3). That's the size of the iPhone 6 which has a puny 4.7inch display.

3) And the ideal OtherHalf device I could deal with is going to be:
110,000m3 dimension, 12.5mm2 thickness, 80% StB ratio.
That leaves us with a good 8,800mm2 for the front panel.
Give it (at least) 2mm of bezel to either side of the display.
We factor in that it is a 16:9 screen.
**tricky arithmetics here**
We end up with a device with a nice 136 x 65 x 12.5mm size. About the same footprint as the HTC One (M7).
That means its screen size is a modest 4.9 inches (sweet).


If you gave me the option between the three, I would honestly be lost.
Yes, I love the large screen size that helps immensely with in-car GPS.
Yes, I want the compact size of the second device that can slip in/out of my pocket and do cartwheels in my hand.
Yes, I appreciate the physical input from the 3rd device.

edit: Please Tell Me Which Device You Would Prefer From This Choice Of #1 #2 and #3 and Please State Why. Thank You!!

Oh, and in addition to my first comment I also want to add that screen resolution is very important....TO A POINT.

I wouldn't want to go below 300ppi, because then it visibly becomes less dense.
I wouldn't want to go above 380ppi, cause of diminishing returns where it negatively affects the cpu/gpu/ram and battery life.
The sweet spot is between 320 - 370ppi, at the average distance of 10 inches from the eye.

So with that said, 3840 x 2160 (4K or UHD) is overkill** on such small devices.
And 3200 x 1800 is also overkill.
And 2560 x 1440 is overkill.
And 1920 x 1080, believe it or not, is overkill.

As said before, a 5.7inch device is a phone at its limits.
A device with 1080p display like this is going to be 386ppi.... overkill (but not by much).

So what about alternatives?
Well we have 1600 x 900 (aka 900p), and with it a 5.7inch device is 322ppi... sweet spot !

Okay what about a device like the 4.9inch OtherHalf you mentioned above?
Going with 900p yields 375ppi which is a bit of overkill.
Going with 1366 x 768 yields 319ppi which is at the margin.
Both are going to be equally excellent choices.

That 1366 x 768 is a great resolution for devices as large as 4.9 inches to as small as 4.0 inches.

Going smaller than that, you end up leaving phones... and start gauntlets and smart-watches.
At which point, the ppi, or better yet the is very important.
Because there's a fine line between overkill and battery life, and much less "forgiveness" than on phones (or tablets or laptops). Here the 280-390ppi actually matters a lot.

Why does it matter?
Well, firstly the manufacturers can displace that extra resolution into making screens that refresh better, are more responsive, have more accurate colours and lastly are brighter.
A display with those properties but one that is "only" 900p will infact be visibly better than the average 1080p display.

And not only that, it could save precious battery life.
Technology has moved forward that the software is smarter, the processor (and its parts) use less power and accommodate a larger battery.
We are in the days of having moderately used smartphone last 3 days.... but due to the poor decisions by OEMs, we're still stuck at 1 day battery life. A big kudos to the SONY Z3, which is one of the best devices of today, but even that can be improved.

edit: Please Tell Me If You Agree That 900p is Sufficient For Mobile Phones. Otherwise Tell Me What Your Ideal Mobile Phone Screen Size and Resolution Is.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...esolution.html

**unless it is Virtual Reality.

What I was alluding to with the last post was that Steve Job's Retina anecdote was a publicity stunt. However, it turns out to be true!

From my own validation, from an optometrist friend, and other sources too; ~300 PPI at that length are enough to "fool" the human eye.

As noted above, we don't see in pixels and not as fixed arc minutes either.
Our eyes are able to accumulate in excess of 150 Million Mega Pixels, and can detect a "video" difference in less than a split second.
Its practically impossible for human technology to match this natural technology.

However, even though we are blasted with so much light into our orbitals, we actually sample a much smaller digit than that.
About 7 Million Pixels plus about another 1 Million for peripheral.

The human brain "processes" pictures at a rate of 15 every second. So a picture moving at 15fps CAN seem like video, especially if you add in some blur affects. However, it will looks quite choppy. Doubling that to 30fps, it will look much much smoother mostly due to some pre-processing that is happening during the transmission of the the photon signal. 23.97fps is "close enough" to this figure and was adopted by Hollywood film producers as it was easy to integrate with the audio signal.

Okay so you're telling me 30fps is smooth... but then why do we have 60fps?
Well long-story-short, most people can still notice some minute areas, especially when focusing, where 30fps is inadequate. This is where 50Hz and 60Hz comes in. Between the two 60Hz is the winner, and more widely accepted format. So a 60fps video will look much more realistic, less blurry, and less distorted.

This is why gamers aim for the 60fps limit, and why home videos are real looking than movies and TV shows. That's it right?
Well, for most people, yes. However there are those people who can discern even more. Its a limited number, 5-15% who can discern 150 fps. Or in other words x10 faster than the rate of the brain's image processing rate.

And to make it even more interesting, some people can notice a difference of 300 fps.... when focusing on a single point. Ie a black canvas, and a white object appearing. But that's not important since all videos don't focus intently on a single object for a patient amount of time. No instead, they show a whole canvas full of different objects, different sizes, different shading, and different colours/textures. So in a full-framed video, the added frame rate is unnecessary.

In other words, as the detail/pixel count rises, our ability to discern the differences in each image/framerate gets that much more difficult.

....
With all that said and done, 8 Mega Pixels and 60 fps, that's the spot an average human eye can be "fooled".
What's exciting about that figure?
4K = 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 = 8.3 Mega Pixels (!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0

So this is good news for TVs, VRs and PCs.

But I should mention that 20/20 is normal vision, and there are many people (maybe 1 in 20) who have better vision, a la 20/15. So for a lot of people 4K and 60 fps won't "fool" them or be "magical". But for most people it will suffice nicely. So upto 80% of people, this will be sweet.

For that remaining 20-35% of people...? We'll get them sooner or later, once we've got 8K and 120 fps performance on screens smaller than 6 inches.

The future is bright.

edit: Tell Me What Will Suffice for your VR needs. 1080p@48 or 2160p@60 or 4320p@120fps. And What Are You Waiting To Try on a VR headset?

Kangal. What are you saying?? Your posts are sooo long

Overpopulation? Not were i live. unfortuanatly i share the earth With others Lets blame the animals.

Your tv might spying on you...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...basically.html