Sheza

You're not aware of the multiple smartphones that record 4K already? Just because they do it, doesn't mean they do it well.
 
  I have a 16GB and it's hard to store my stuff on it, have to constantly transfer photos to my PC and switch Spotify offline playlists.
If the screen res is indeed as low as this (I say it's fake) then Apple will invoke the argument that a higher res screen does nothing for normal usage and just wastes battery. Which I agree with for 2K adn 4K screens.
No clock speed or core mentioned because they never mention it, is has to be revealed in a teardown. But for the millionth time, Apple and Apple users don't give a rats ass what the clock speed or number of cores is, because unlike Android the software and hardware are engineered together so well that high numbers don't count for much.
 
You're looking at this from an Android perspective. I'm not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, but there's why looking from an Android perspective won't work.

Well
 
I factually
 
Beg
 
To
 
Differ
 
They all start at 16GB or lower. Samsung, Google, LG, HTC.

Fair point.
 
I have a feeling that they will, though. Apple makes huge claims about the iPhone's camera in every generation, including making noise about how certain big events and the like were recorded on the iPhone, edited on an iPad or Mac etc, basically saying how it can be used to substitute a professional camera. Now that they've introduced far reaching 4K support in Macs, I reckon they will market the camera with 4K. Whether it will be good or not... well... I'm not sure. We'll have to see.
 
  That's what battery cases are for

You're not aware of the multiple smartphones that record 4K already? Just because they do it, doesn't mean they do it well.
 
  I have a 16GB and it's hard to store my stuff on it, have to constantly transfer photos to my PC and switch Spotify offline playlists.
If the screen res is indeed as low as this (I say it's fake) then Apple will invoke the argument that a higher res screen does nothing for normal usage and just wastes battery. Which I agree with for 2K adn 4K screens.
No clock speed or core mentioned because they never mention it, is has to be revealed in a teardown. But for the millionth time, Apple and Apple users don't give a rats ass what the clock speed or number of cores is, because unlike Android the software and hardware are engineered together so well that high numbers don't count for much.
 
You're looking at this from an Android perspective. I'm not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, but there's why looking from an Android perspective won't work.

This is wrong
 
Especially the part highlighted in red.
 
That is not what he meant and not what he is saying.
DRM will block you from playing the film on anything but a phone. If you want to purchase the film to watch on your PC, you will have to pay more. If you buy a new monitor, you will not have to pay more.
Instead of taking a simple quote literally to the point of idiocy, just think for a minute and take the time to infer what he is saying.
 
I'm not saying this is a good model.
 
    Another example of incorrect inference. There will not be a piece of software that tricks the screen size to be '1 inch' because that's not how it will work. It will not literally be 'pay per inch'.      
Of course he understands what pixels are. Chances are, however, that his audience of investors / entrepreneurs don't. He is describing a system whereby different devices with different intended usages charge different prices. We should not infer from this that they will literally charge per the inch, there will be no hard-coded 'inch size' string in monitor firmware that the DRM checks... that's not what this is about.
 
At the moment you can buy a film on iTunes for a single price for playback on a PC, Mac, iPad and Apple TV. 4 Different devices, but all with potentially different screen sizes by inch. His idea is to split this existing model up into different types of devices for the different intended use. It's not a great idea, really, but it is not literally 'pay per inch'.

I think his point was more that different devices will have different pricing, which is weird, because they already do. The pricing is different between the theatre, a DVD, a Blu-ray, digital format, the iTunes store, and Android play so I'm not sure what he's getting at.

I'm going to take the different opinion. I think this is a great idea. If I can get it on my 55 inch tv for 10 bucks, That sounds like a great value. Have you guys been movie shopping lately? It's 20 bucks for a new release. The only time I watch movies on a large screen is if I'm watching with multiple people. If I can get 3 other people to chip in $2.50, That's a good value. I'f I'm going to watch a movie by myself, I'll watch it on my computer, for a lesser price. The idea behind this is to pay for how many people are watching, so resolution is really irrelevant. I'm not going to argue for how it is going to work because he's said it'll be 10 years before this thing rolls out. That's plenty of time to figure out the logistical side of things. 

I usually download from Steam & Origin at 12.5MB/s or thereabouts, and I sometimes see incorrect burt speeds of up to 18MB/s reported.