Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1.    #1  
    Was out with my buddy yesterday who has a new iPhone 3Gs. He pulled up a movie trailer on youtube and afterwards, asked me to pull up the same trailer so we could compare. So I did.

    Holy Crap! I had heard that the youtube app on the Pre was better, but I didn't imagine it would be this much better. They both loaded in about the same time but the video quality on the Pre was sooooo much better. He actually said, "man, that makes me think maybe I should have gotten that phone."

    I revel in any opportunity to make an Apple product look like crap
  2. #2  
    Well I can tell you from my friend's 3G that apple or att won't let you do high quality youtube unless you're on wifi. I would think it's an At&T restriction, but could be an apple restriction to help the drain on battery life.
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by donatom3 View Post
    Well I can tell you from my friend's 3G that apple or att won't let you do high quality youtube unless you're on wifi. I would think it's an At&T restriction, but could be an apple restriction to help the drain on battery life.
    that makes sense, but who likes restrictions? I think Apple should be crowned king of restrictions.
  4. #4  
    AT&T's network sucks. Without these restrictions it would probably suck even more.

    But then that's why I'm on Sprint. Their network is good enough to not require restrictions and it often feels as fast as DSL.
  5. #5  
    This sounds like something fun you can do to your iPhone friends that keep bragging about their phones.



    Are there any other 'things" you can show them that work better on the Pre?
  6. #6  
    So yeah on wifi it would probably be on par with the Pre, but who cares, I can stream videos at high quality while my friends and I are at the golf course waiting for the next tee shot. They got to suffer with low res quality youtube.
  7. xtn
    xtn is offline
    xtn's Avatar
    Posts
    434 Posts
    Global Posts
    711 Global Posts
    #7  
    I strongly suspect that the smaller screen dimensions of the Pre contributes to a better youtube experience even if eveerything else was the same.

    The pixels are squeezed closer together, and so the pixilated compressed video artifacts just aren't going to be as noticeable.

    Xtn
  8. #8  
    I have been impressed with the Pre's YouTube capabilities since day one. I watch it almost every day on my commute to work.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by xtn View Post
    I strongly suspect that the smaller screen dimensions of the Pre contributes to a better youtube experience even if eveerything else was the same.

    The pixels are squeezed closer together, and so the pixilated compressed video artifacts just aren't going to be as noticeable.

    Xtn
    It was not due to screen size. The quality was not even comparable.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by xtn View Post
    I strongly suspect that the smaller screen dimensions of the Pre contributes to a better youtube experience even if eveerything else was the same.

    The pixels are squeezed closer together, and so the pixilated compressed video artifacts just aren't going to be as noticeable.

    Xtn
    No
  11. xtn
    xtn is offline
    xtn's Avatar
    Posts
    434 Posts
    Global Posts
    711 Global Posts
    #11  
    No?

    Ever watched regular NTSC cable on a really big TV screen? You can see all the compression artifacts. What looks fine on a smaller screen will look less so on a larger screen.

    xtn
  12. #12  
    Much respect to everyone, but anyone who believes that the smaller screen size doesn't have anything to do with the better resolution is just wrong. It's of course not the only factor, but the smaller screen definitely contributes to a sharper image. XTN is right on this point.

    Anyway, I was absolutely in awe of the vibrant Pre screen after having a chance to play with one. That alone makes me want the Pre so badly. I'm in saving mode right now, but I hope to have the Pre very soon. I don't at all dislike Apple and their products, but I truly believe Palm has the chance to really challenge the iPhone if they remain focused on this product and do what is necessary. They cannot afford to get lazy with this project.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by xtn View Post
    I strongly suspect that the smaller screen dimensions of the Pre contributes to a better youtube experience even if eveerything else was the same.

    The pixels are squeezed closer together, and so the pixilated compressed video artifacts just aren't going to be as noticeable.

    Xtn
    That is a factor too, but I'm willing to bet money that they were not on wifi and the iPhone on 3G only runs low quality youtube.

    IPhone 3G YouTube Quality Is Poor But Not Via WiFi. Why? - Mac Forums
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by xtn View Post
    Ever watched regular NTSC cable on a really big TV screen? You can see all the compression artifacts. What looks fine on a smaller screen will look less so on a larger screen.
    In the case of YouTube, the iPhone limits the video quality when using the cellular network to ~ 1/4 the bandwidth of the wifi video quality. It's not unlike the iPhone preventing Slingplayer from working over the cellular network - it's wifi only.
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by xtn View Post
    No?

    Ever watched regular NTSC cable on a really big TV screen? You can see all the compression artifacts. What looks fine on a smaller screen will look less so on a larger screen.

    xtn
    I don't think anyone is denying that a smaller screen size will attribute to a tighter resolution.

    In this particular case, that isn't the main factor. The resolution on the Pre is at least twice as good. Honestly, the youtube resolution on the iPhone was almost unwatchable.
  16. #16  
    Well having had an iphone I have to agree, the Pre's youtube videos does indeed look noticeably better. I had a 3g, and it was one of the things that always striked me as odd considering other videos looked good on it. I'd think with the 3gs they would have improved it, I guess not.
  17. #17  
    I think you are using BIG differences to prove small differences. You are saying that a certain thing looks better on a (say 32'' screen) compared to a (say 50'' screen). The Pre and the Iphone are not that far away.
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well having had an iphone I have to agree, the Pre's youtube videos does indeed look noticeably better. I had a 3g, and it was one of the things that always striked me as odd considering other videos looked good on it. I'd think with the 3gs they would have improved it, I guess not.
    You'd like to think with as popular as youtube is, they'd make that feature a priority in the iPhone, but then again, I guess I can't say I'm surprised that Apple would do something that doesn't make sense.
  19. #19  
    I've done the same test with my cousins G1, it was night and day, his G1 shrunk the video and it was choppy, the Pre was full screen of high quality goodness...
  20. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #20  
    Looking at both devices side by side on Wi-Fi, I don't see much difference other than the Pre's screen has a very slightly finer dot pitch. I sure wouldn't use this as a bragging point, it's just inviting someone to turn the tables on you (like how about recording a video on your Pre and posting it to Youtube, genius). Like it or not, the iPhone has a lot of ammo on it's side right now.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions