Do many of you still see no need for a slate/tablet?

[Icyculyr]

You'd watch movies on it???

One thing that has long baffled me has been the portable TVs. Now, I don't have one, nor do I have any other kind of TV, but I do watch TV. The only justification that I can see for watching TV or movies on a tiny screen is because you can't watch them on a bigger screen. I can see that watching a movie on a tablet would be superior to watching one on a smartphone, but both suck, one just sucks a little bit less than the other.

We should be demanding better screens. Wearable screens. I don't want to have a four inch screen, or a nine inch screen, I want a portable device with a 200 inch screen, and the only way to do that is to come up with a wearable screen. I'm amazed that they are so bad, still. The advantages, especially in this mobile age, are too obvious to pass up. The first eyeglass screens I saw were in the mid-90s/ They weren't really useable back then, and the current ones don't seem to be any better.

There's one other reason (at least for me) to watch a movie on a slate, and that's because the PPI is so much higher than on your HDTV. I'd dig watching 1080p Star Trek on a 9.7" screen. (Not all the time, of course.)

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's one other reason (at least for me) to watch a movie on a slate, and that's because the PPI is so much higher than on your HDTV. I'd dig watching 1080p Star Trek on a 9.7" screen. (Not all the time, of course.)

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

[Hack]

Since I have never had a TV

So, where do you get your unfounded allegations, half truths and panic mongering rumors?

[techgnome]

From the bears... they speak the trout, the whole trout and nothing but the trout.

I get mine from the squirrels...

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, where do you get your unfounded allegations, half truths and panic mongering rumors?

Why even ask?!?!? I live in Idaho! Suggesting I need TV for things like that is like suggesting a fish buy bottled water.

[dilettante]

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

1080p is 1080 progressively scanned (not interlaced) lines, usually assumed to be 16:9 ratio, a resolution of 1920 pixels wide by 1080 high.

[Icyculyr]

That may be, but I wouldn't know. Since I have never had a TV, I'm not actually sure what 1080p means. My understanding is that even the HDTV resolution isn't as good as my high end monitor, so is the PPI on a slate better than on a 24" computer monitor? I could see that it might be better than on a 32" monitor, since video modes seem to have maxed out at 1900x1200 for the time being.

As said above, 1080p is 1920x1080.

PPI is pixels per inch. Dealing with the same resolution say, 1080p, the smaller screen will always have a better PPI. E.G, the PPI of a 10 inch display with a 1080p resolution is 220 and on a 24 inch monitor it's only 90. The higher the PPI, the smoother text, UI, etc., looks. (That is, assuming the OS supports Hi-Res scaling, or whatever it's called, like on iOS, else it would just appear tiny.)

The iPad 3 with a 2048x1536 resolution is 260 which will look great but still fall short of the iPhone 4/4S's 326 PPI. It's still two and a half times the PPI of a 1440p (2560x1440) 27 inch monitor though.

[FunkyDexter]

Part of the problem may be cost/benefit.

Bingo, not just part but all of the problem.

Talk of screen resolution is miss-leading because, once again, it's mistaking tech with benefit. You could stick the highest resolution ever invented on watch screen and it would be a rubbish viewing experience because the issue (as with so much in life) is size, not resolution. You can prosletise as much as you want about how high your screen resolution is but you'll never escape the fact that yours is a measley 9 inches and mine is 52... which makes it more satisfying <knowing nod>.

Besides, I sit across the room from my tele and at that distance the screen has a higher resolution than my eyes do.