Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Mar 2014 23:00 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Early last year, Oppo was (one of?) the first company to ship a phone with a full HD display, on its Find 5. I bought one, and it became one of my favourite smartphones - a small Chinese company building phones with top-notch build quality, high-end (at the time) specifications, packaged in a distinctive and minimalist design.

A new year, and a new barrier to break - Oppo announced the successor to the Find 5 today. They call it the Find 7, and it ups the display game to crazy levels: it packs a 5.5" 2560x1440 (!) display, the first of its kind on a phone (again, it could be one of the first). I honestly have no idea if it makes any sense whatsoever to have such a crazy display on a phone. Will it really make a noticeable difference over current full HD displays? I doubt it.

It further boasts a 2.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor, 3GB RAM, and a 3000mAh battery. There's also a Find 7 'lite', which has a more traditional 1080p display, a slightly slower processor, and 2GB RAM. Unlike the Find 5, the Find 7 has a two features which I know will appeal to many OSNews readers: a removable battery and an SD card slot. Both of these features were added after requests from users.

Design-wise, the Find 7 loses some of the straightforward simplicity that I like so much about the Find 5; the phone is busier and messier, and the version with the crazy display has this fake carbon weave on the back that crosses into Samsung-tacky territory. The fancy elongated notification LED at the bottom is a nice touch, though.

All in all, the Find 7 is yet another noteworthy product from a Chinese manufacturer, and further proof of my conviction: Samsung, HTC, and other established players should be worried. I don't think Apple will care much, but Android manufacturers should take note.

Thread beginning with comment 584873
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Fergy
by some1 on Thu 20th Mar 2014 02:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by Fergy"
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

That's not really surprising. LCD matrix cost goes up with physical size a lot faster than with resolution.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Fergy
by Kivada on Thu 20th Mar 2014 03:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by Fergy"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

That's not really surprising. LCD matrix cost goes up with physical size a lot faster than with resolution.


So explain why most laptop low end desktop and low end TV screens are the terrible, good at nothing 1366x768 these days instead of 1920x1080 or at least 1280x800?

Edited 2014-03-20 03:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Fergy
by oiaohm on Thu 20th Mar 2014 03:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Fergy"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

So explain why most laptop low end desktop and low end TV screens are the terrible, good at nothing 1366x768 these days instead of 1920x1080 or at least 1280x800?


Its call the dud production recycling. You were attempting to make a bigger 1920x1080 screen it has a few dead pixels around edge so you cut them off resulting with strange and nasty resultions. Cheep screens are made from LCD from the recycling bin basically.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Fergy
by zima on Sat 22nd Mar 2014 21:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Fergy"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So explain why most laptop low end desktop and low end TV screens are the terrible, good at nothing 1366x768 these days instead of 1920x1080 or at least 1280x800?

It's largely because people don't see and/or care about the difference...

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/how-to-get-the-best-out-...
But there are millions of people across the UK who mistakenly believe that once they've got their HD-ready TV they are watching HD pictures, regardless of whether they've installed an HD set-top box or Blu-ray player as well, according to the British Video Association.

...so, many people just don't notice much of a difference between SD and HD - so much that they mistakenly believe they have HD, while in fact watching SD.

Evidently, the resolutions you whine about aren't "terrible, good at nothing" at all... surely 720p must satisfy the needs and expectations of many.

Some more details from http://www.bva.org.uk/news-press-releases/choose-right-kit-world-cu... (via archive.org):
According to the latest research from the British Video Association (BVA) more than 6million Britons think that they are already watching High-Definition TV, completely unaware that they are not connected to the right set-top boxes or Blu-ray disc players that unlock the potential of their brand new HDTVs.

In a study of nearly 10,000 (9,500) respondents commissioned by the BVA, many viewers – over 55% of UK households - revealed that they have spent hundreds or even thousands of pounds on the latest High-Definition TV technology without seemingly having appreciated the experience high definition screens are meant to deliver [...]

The most surprising finding is that 6.5 million people (1 in 10 of the population) think they are watching high definition content when actually they are not. In the survey 28% of people think they can watch movies in high definition with a DVD player when actually a Blu-ray player or a high definition set-top box is needed to do so, and a further 27% believe that an HDTV shows everything in high definition when in fact they need a Blu-ray player to actually view content in the best possible quality.

Broken down further, 30% of respondents (14.6 million people across Great Britain) think they can watch Blu-ray discs or high definition broadcasts at home, while only 58% of that group have an HDTV with a high definition source connected.


Edited 2014-03-22 21:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2