HTC J Butterfly Set to Release Worldwide as HTC Deluxe

[zakislam]

The 5-inch screen device boasts 440ppi pixel density.

HTC J Butterfly Set to Release Worldwide as HTC Deluxe : Read more

 

[doive1231]

The HTC One X screen is the best I've seen on a phone so this should be awesome. Hope the battery's good.

 

[ikyung]

whyyyyy ruin such a BEAST of a phone with an unremovable 2050mah battery HTC. WHY!!

 

[greghome]

Along with 440ppi pixel density, the Super LCD 3 offers a pixel resolution of 1,920 x 1,080,

NOW>......this is what I would consider retina display, not that Apple crap that's not even 720p or higher

 

[Tanquen]

This is the Verizon DNA, right?

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]Tanquen[/nom]This is the Verizon DNA, right?[/citation]
Yes, that's right.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/16/htc-droid-dna-review/

 

[RealityClash]

Up the storage to 64GB and I may be tempted, anything less on a 1080p phone in this day and age is pretty pathetic.

 

[army_ant7]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]NOW>......this is what I would consider retina display, not that Apple crap that's not even 720p or higher[/citation]Now, I'm no Apple fan but I'm no brand name hater either. The pixel density Apple has achieved was sufficient for most people as I've read, and when I see screens that boast this much DPI, I already wonder, to what purpose? Unless you're one of those people with super-acute vision that could still supposedly "see through" the Apple's Retina Display, then maybe screens like these with really high DPI would be for you, but if not, I feel like you'd just be using a phone that's unnecessarily doing extra processing for that resolution to no avail.

Now, the question is, does it even need to be 720p or up? Maybe you could've complained that their screen isn't big enough (which would mean other products may better suit your needs), but having a higher resolution for the sake of having a higher resolution? Come on now...

Here's an interesting read, BTW: www.blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/

 

[nebun]

to bad the Android OS makes this phone seem slow because of all the crap that runs in the background....also the us network is not able to handle quad core smart-phones every well

 

[Guest]

I would honestly get this. It is in my upgrade cycle, I love HTC, used them for years, but 16GB Storage and no Micro SD. if it was 64GB or has a Micro SD slot it would be a sale.

16 GB, how many HD movies can I fit on that, hmm not even 1.....

 

[spentshells]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]Her name is?Lady Sonia? Lisa Ann ? Nina Hartley? or....Giana Michaels?[/citation]


wooop wooop wooop

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]army_ant7[/nom]Now, I'm no Apple fan but I'm no brand name hater either. The pixel density Apple has achieved was sufficient for most people as I've read, and when I see screens that boast this much DPI, I already wonder, to what purpose? Unless you're one of those people with super-acute vision that could still supposedly "see through" the Apple's Retina Display, then maybe screens like these with really high DPI would be for you, but if not, I feel like you'd just be using a phone that's unnecessarily doing extra processing for that resolution to no avail.Now, the question is, does it even need to be 720p or up? Maybe you could've complained that their screen isn't big enough (which would mean other products may better suit your needs), but having a higher resolution for the sake of having a higher resolution? Come on now...Here's an interesting read, BTW: www.blogs.discovermagazine.com/bad [...] esolution/[/citation]
First Apple didn't achieve any kind of pixel density because the display it's not theirs.They buy them from LG and Samsung. Also the iPhone was never the phone with the highest ppi. The iPhone 4 was launched in 2010 with a 326ppi display, LG in 2008 had the LU1400 with a 333 ppi display. Perhaps this is why Apple chose a LG display in the iPhone 4.

According to Jobs himself, the requirement for a phone display to be a retina display if for it to have a pixel density higher than 300ppi. In 2008 Sony Ericsson had the X1 with 311 ppi. Even earlier than that, and I think it was the first "retina display", in 2007 Toshiba had Portege G900 also with 311ppi.

The only thing Apple was first, is to name this kind of display successfully (Toshiba called it Print Quality display).

 

[monsta]

OMG no one has commented on the name of this phone....
Butterfly....are you serious....Butterfly!!! ARGH!

 

[Max Collodi]

[citation][nom]monsta[/nom]OMG no one has commented on the name of this phone....Butterfly....are you serious....Butterfly!!! ARGH![/citation]
The reason no one has commented is because it's not named Butterfly. It's being released as the HTC Deluxe.

 

[eddieroolz]

YAAD (Yet another Android device)

 

[Prophes0r]

Damn. I was really hoping this was NOT the DNA. The J butterfly has an SD card slot and is available with 64gb of memory, the DNA is only available with 16gb and no SD. I'm not really interested in storing ALL my data on cloud storage, especially if my carrier is going to charge me for any data over 4gb per month.

 

[army_ant7]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]First Apple didn't achieve any kind of pixel density because the display it's not theirs.They buy them from LG and Samsung. Also the iPhone was never the phone with the highest ppi. The iPhone 4 was launched in 2010 with a 326ppi display, LG in 2008 had the LU1400 with a 333 ppi display. Perhaps this is why Apple chose a LG display in the iPhone 4.According to Jobs himself, the requirement for a phone display to be a retina display if for it to have a pixel density higher than 300ppi. In 2008 Sony Ericsson had the X1 with 311 ppi. Even earlier than that, and I think it was the first "retina display", in 2007 Toshiba had Portege G900 also with 311ppi.The only thing Apple was first, is to name this kind of display successfully (Toshiba called it Print Quality display).[/citation]If all you've said is accurate (not that I'm saying they aren't), then interesting info...

I guess you're right if you put it that way, that they really didn't "achieve" that pixel density per se. Though, anyway, I'd think that Apple still deserves merit for choosing and buying those specific displays for their phones. Again, I'm not an Apple fan, but I'd want to see merit given to whom merit's due.

I didn't know other companies released such high-DPI phones earlier on. Two things may have contributed to this. 1) I was far from the tech news reader I am today. 2) Apple might've just had more marketing, or LG, Toshiba and SE might've not known that that amount of DPI had that special property and thus may have not marketed it as having such (though, I wouldn't know if they did).

For a moment, I thought that the Portege G900 was a laptop, but it said on Wikipedia that it's a phone and it has a DPI of 313.

Just for the record though, I didn't claim that the iPhone has or had the highest DPI, nor did I claim they were the first to have devices with "Retina Displays." This doesn't make what you've said though any less useful, and I appreciate the info still. So thank you!

 

[vikrantcool80]

HTC J Butterfly Full Review with Video

http://netveer.com/home/htc-j-butterfly-review-with-price/