iPhone Wins Smartphone Touchscreen Shootout

[Marcus Yam]

Can't touch this!

iPhone Wins Smartphone Touchscreen Shootout : Read more

 

[LePhuronn]

Say what you will, the iPhone touchscreen is the best one. So many "iPhone Killers" fall short simply because the screen, and therefore user operation, just isn't as good.

 

[frozenlead]

The test is pretty faulty if you read into it. It makes a lot of assumptions on how the different manufacturers designed their phones to work and also uses a human (!!!!) finger for the tests. They should have used a mechanical apparatus for all of the phones with precise tracks and pressures, along with a program to evaluate the pictures and come up with hard numbers on just how much deviation there was.

 

[Guest]

You can glue the tablet on your belly and say "Big Hug......"

 

[mianmian]

Though human finger is not as accurate as machine, it's accurate enough for this test.

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]mianmian[/nom]Though human finger is not as accurate as machine, it's accurate enough for this test.[/citation]

That's not the point - the point is the finger isn't precise enough to give consistent results across multiple tests. Whenever running a scientific test, you should never, ever, use a human to directly interact with the test whenever possible. We can't do something the exact same way even twice, let alone the 12 times this test used.

 

[trih]

[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]That's not the point - the point is the finger isn't precise enough to give consistent results across multiple tests. Whenever running a scientific test, you should never, ever, use a human to directly interact with the test whenever possible. We can't do something the exact same way even twice, let alone the 12 times this test used.[/citation]
Are you blind or just ignorant?
Look at the iPhone lines, they are straight just as they should in BOTH tests. In the topmost test not a single line on the other phones are straight. If a finger is so inconsistent they should be able to at least by chance get ONE straight line. They didn't. You have to press harder on their screens to get the result you want which is highly annoying!
It Seems to me like you're just making up excuses for putting an inferior screen in the phone. I guess a low price is more important than a good screen to those exposed too long to PCs.

 

[gregor]

what am I looking for in the images above? straight lines or what? cos to me it looks like the last phone (nexus one I think it says) is pretty much the same in that respect, if not, better.

 

[gregor]

hmm ok, I see what the crack is now. nvm

 

[mianmian]

[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]That's not the point - the point is the finger isn't precise enough to give consistent results across multiple tests. Whenever running a scientific test, you should never, ever, use a human to directly interact with the test whenever possible. We can't do something the exact same way even twice, let alone the 12 times this test used.[/citation]
With more controlled condition, it's possible to obtain more accurate result with numbers. But that requires special instrument that they may not get easily. You do not always need a stopwatch to figure out who runs faster.

 

[dheadley]

I would think that the human finger is exactly what you would want to use for a test of the screens ability to acturately convey input from the human finger. /shrug

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]trih[/nom]Are you blind or just ignorant?Look at the iPhone lines, they are straight just as they should in BOTH tests. In the topmost test not a single line on the other phones are straight. If a finger is so inconsistent they should be able to at least by chance get ONE straight line. They didn't. You have to press harder on their screens to get the result you want which is highly annoying!It Seems to me like you're just making up excuses for putting an inferior screen in the phone. I guess a low price is more important than a good screen to those exposed too long to PCs.[/citation]

It's nice how you're talking to me as if I'm attacking the iPhone for winning. I'm not the only one who called foul - read the comments on the article. There's a number of other factors in play here other than just the finger...screen resolutions, the program used across the platforms, the algorithms used to interpret finger input with this particular type of test...I'm not saying that one phone is better than the other (I don't own any of these; I've got an HTC Touch Pro with a resistive screen, which I prefer), I'm just saying this test doesn't prove anything at all - it's not even a good way to test a touchscreen. There are numerous other tests one could have used that are more decisive - like link accuracy on a given webpage. That doesn't require a 3rd party program, is standard on all of the phones, and is relevant to actually using the phone itself - they were all designed to perform that function.

 

[Guest]

In any evaluation of technology, it's always useful to have objective and subjective testing, i.e. tests that can be reproduced every time with clear, non-biased results and tests that attempt to measure the human evaluation of a technology. I think the point about needing subjective results is valid (otherwise, how would the manufacturer know people like it?). But objective results are more useful when comparing measurable statistics, like performance timings, refresh rates, etc.

It's pretty obvious no one in this test cared to gauge things objectively. That may suffice for some, but the basis of the test sure sounds like it requires more objectivity.

 

[vant]

Sometimes the best test is the one using the thing it was designed for.

This test makes complete sense. You use a finger to control these screens. Now use a finger to test the accuracy. If you look at the lines, you can see the patterns caused by the capacitive touch mechanism, not the finger.

 

[Guest]

Agreed.. if it was robots or machines using the phone.... then run your scientific test....

We want real world results, not some mechanical result. Its obvious which screens are better than others, even if you factor in the deviation of the human interaction.

I wonder how the Palm would do in this test.

 

[doc70]

In the original article there is much emphasis placed on how the line "bends" near the edge of the screen. I would suggest the next test would take into account the physical edges of the screen, i.e. the actual design / manufacturing of the phone. If you meet a raised margin, the line WILL bend.
Also, what exactly is the utility of the test? And where are other phones for that matter? The Hero and the HD2 are missing and they also have capacitive screens.
My friend, an iPhone owner, bitches about the screen of his device when side by side to an HD2.
And no resolution taken into account? Seriously, my kids could have designed a better testing method. Talk about bias there...

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]mianmian[/nom]With more controlled condition, it's possible to obtain more accurate result with numbers. But that requires special instrument that they may not get easily. You do not always need a stopwatch to figure out who runs faster.[/citation]

I could make a mechanical test for this with parts from any junkyard or stuff found in your basement. It's really not that hard.

 

[doomtomb]

Apple always does it best. Multitouch, touchscreens in general, overall design. They don't take shortcuts.

 

[nachowarrior]

note the exclusion of nokia.... why? why lea\/e out the best phone on the market?

 

[Abrahm]

I like how it's completely ignored that the Android phones have TWICE as many pixels than the iPhone when declaring the "winner".