SIT kills the notch/Apple

What people don't understand is that apple is run by literal faggots.

This garbage is a design statement by then and they will push it until they feel like they should something else " bold and courageous" for attention, their fans clearly aren't motivated by technical details so why should they give a shit about anything else?

When you compare apples phones to Lady Gaga and her dresses things start to make more sense.

>BTW this isn't really new, the sharp Aquos Crystal did something similar years ago, they didn't do it for the camera though.

>this company already did it
>but not actually

just gotta change things up a little bit and it will be apple's new innuhvahtion

Where is the front camera on the Samsung?

>can't put electrical tape on the cameras, and sensors without covering part of the screen.

looks good but how do you hold it without your fingers touching all side of the screen ???

You buy a case. Also, if you keep it unprotected, one single drop will kill the screen

why not just have a durable spring loaded sliding mechanism with a speaker and camera on it.

does that haptic button shit actually work?

What about just not covering the entire front of the phone in screen?

Why the fuck wouldn't you? it maximizes available real estate.

>no front camera
>Face ID but have to turn the phone around.
A flop on launch lmao

It’s a Samsung ad you shill.
They’re actors.

Resolution and dpi offer real estate, screen size offers nothing except picture size.

No, they're not the same thing you moron.

Large screen sizes allow for larger resolutions to be displayed at comparable DPIs, meaning you have more available screen real estate, brainlet.

Pop socket.

Or you can change the dpi at any time unless you buy apple trash faggot.

Changing the DPI will adversely affect font sizing and layouts; the reason you don't stick 4k or 8k onto a 19" monitor is because you would need to change the DPI in order to have text and icons render at a readable resolution essentially losing any real estate gain.

So size determines readability!?
dpi and resolution determine real estate!?
Whoa!!!

Size does not determine readability, it determines the resolution and DPI that can be used to provide readable elements, thus, also screen real estate.

user, you are failing to grasp a very simple concept.

LMFAO bro, just fucking stop.

Holy shit your gonna break something pulling mental gymnastics like that

Attached: Brainlet+memes_c52efa_6684167.jpg (1200x1438, 129K)

where's my dick on display

There's no mental gymnastics there you retard. You cannot say that a 12" screen running at 4k will have the same real estate as a 22" screen at 4k because they will have to use different DPI settings to provide readable text. The 12" screen will end up with drastically less real estate than the 22" screen.

They already tried and couldn't get the R&D done, because anyone with talent fled the shithole company a long time ago. And there's no way in hell Samsung is going to license their patents.

user, you're the only person here who should stop, this is not a complicated concept, size does determine maximal available real estate, both DPI and resolution are inherently tied to screen size.

They can both use the same dpi depending on application, so you're example is false.

Ok first off, wrong, second, butt out nigger, nobody is talking to you.

>depending on the application
Wrong, if you are only displaying a picture then real estate does not exist, real estate can only exist within the realm of an available interface and how many elements that interface can display at once. As this discussion is about screen real-estate, it must only apply to applications where screen real-estate is a factor.

>b-but in these very specific scenarios that isn't the case
>n-no one asked you for your opinion on this anonymous imageboard
Now you're the one trying to perform mental gymnastics. You're also wrong, any application that involves screen real estate will follow the size = resolution/dpi formula.

I have to go to work in the morning, can we keep the scope nature so we can wrap this the fuck up?

Objectively, screen size does not matter, just because you can't see with your shitty eyes doesn't mean the real estate isn't there, so no, screen size doesn't matter.
Plug a mouse into your phone and get a magnifying glass of you are some Harry Potter looking shitter.

Once again, no one asked you, I can't be here all night, find someone else to argue with.

The amount of available screen real-estate you have is pointless if you cannot functionally use it, without proper sizing, available real estate becomes objectively devalued, therefore sizing is objectively valued in the consideration of screen real-estate.

This is logically inaccurate, screen real estate that you cannot functionally use does not exist.

> If I can't use it it doesn't exist
I can't see air, it must not exist either.

Attached: DWyRNafU8AE9M3a.jpg (1200x1000, 174K)

I am not talking about "seeing" I am talking about "using", yes we can't see air, but we can USE it.

I said it was objectively devalued, not that it didn't exist, do not lump my argument in with someone else's, also your rebuttal to their argument didn't even rebuke what they were saying.

You use the real estate agent as well, just because you can't see it as well doesn't mean it's not there.

Fine
I can't use Mars, it functionally does not exist
I can't use math, it functionally does not exist
I can't use your mom's fat ass, it functionally does not exist

See how stupid this argument is?

>talks about performing mental gymnastics
>immediately performs mental gymnastics
wew lad

That's actually very logical if you take the definition of functional into consideration. I cannot use Mars, so for me it functionally does not exist, this is a true statement.

Yes, they functionally do not exist; they exist, but not functionally, do you understand now? Or are we going to have to step-by-step guide you through an understanding of how retarded you are?

Ok, let's call it quits for tonight.

Attached: pqafkb6d9ba01.jpg (645x729, 49K)

>o-oh shit they're right
>h-haha okay guys lets call it quits
How about you just suck it up and admit that you're wrong and your pathetic attempt at an argument was torn down immediately?

None of this would be an issue if you'd just buy a retina display, it just works.

No, I seriously need to go to sleep, I have to work in the morning.
Agree to disagree.

Attached: 1513920624251.jpg (500x650, 123K)

Because retina displays generally have less real-estate than their larger sized counterparts. When I can get dual 24" monitors in 8k (above 300ppi, the definition for retina) then I will consider it, as I haven't found a need fore more real-estate than what I've been able to comfortably display on a 24" screen.

As far as phones go, I don't really give it a shit if they're retina or not, I just want as much readable text as I can have displayed at once, because it makes working on mobile more enjoyable.

A what now?

Attached: Screenshot_20181023-055133~2.png (1312x525, 84K)

Holy shit, that was a joke you spergs.
You guys need to chill.

Attached: 1449278268282.jpg (400x323, 51K)

Fuck off shill.

How expensive is this going to be?

i don't understand any of this, can someone explain how this works and how will it kill the notch to a retard

1200~1400 dollars on the s10 is what i read on xda

samsung just patented it yesterday, so ipoojeets can expect the prices of ishit to rise even more if applel licenses the tech