For full-touch mobile use, capacitive touchscreens are the best solution we've got -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with the iPhone, it has to do with the incremental improvement in usability brought about by near-100 percent touch registration. That's a big deal, because even a 5 percent loss of registration on an on-screen QWERTY keyboard would represent roughly one letter missed
every five words (assuming an average word length in the English language of just over 5 letters). Resistive screens have many, many totally valid applications, but put simply, phones aren't one of them; they've been outmoded by a different technology that's more appropriate for the size and use that the average handset sees. Registration issues aside, fingers are larger than styli, and when a resistive display is registering an unweighted pinpoint coordinate, you end up ironically losing accuracy -- a benefit touted by resistive that's really only realized if you're using a stylus full-time. No one's claiming that capacitive screens are the magic elixir to make human digits achieve superhuman accuracy on a tiny screen, but... you know, step one is making sure the phone knows you pressed something.
Anyhow, HTC's now claiming that the just-announced
Tattoo has gone resistive because its 2.8-inch screen is simply too small "to be accurate with" as a capacitive. The company's tweet goes on to say that resistive "ends up registering fewer miss-clicks," which could be argued -- maybe -- were users expected to use styli. Android is not and was never designed as a stylus-driven platform, and unless HTC's driving in that dubious direction, the claim is bunk. More realistically, the resistive display is probably a cost sacrifice the company made to keep sticker shock to a minimum, which is fair enough -- HTC's trying to cover many market segments with Android, as it should -- but we wish they'd been upfront about it.
posted Sep 8th 2009 7:17PM
Nice rant. Keep 'em honest, Engadget.
I don't see the BFD. From my experience with the newer Samsungs and LGs, resistive screens have improved to become incredibly responsive, to the point where even resting a finger on the screen will register a click, not unlike with capacitive screens. The people that this phone is targeting probably don't even know the difference.
Resistive screens makes sense in downmarket phones like this. If you don't like them, go buy a different phone. The amount that people rant about this is unwarranted.
I don't think the issue is the presumably cost-cutting measure of using a resistive screen in a budget phone. It's the justification being given that has raised Chris's ire. It's ridiculous that a corporation like HTC tries to obfuscate the reasons for including a resistive screen with the oft-repeated accuracy rationalization, as if they're using a clearly inferior technology (within the context of Android OS) for our benefit rather than for the benefit of their bottom line, which it clearly is, of course. Why patronize the consumers with bumbling excuses?
sssssssssss
sorry about that, I did'nt mean it.
What I wanted to say is that the tattoo screen seems to be exactly the same size as the capacitive one they have put on my Hero, which seems to confirm Engadget's point, BUT when a resistive screen is good and well integrated with the OS (as those on my N97 and my TouchHD) I may even prefer a resistive one which gives me the possibility of using anything I have in my hand as a stylus, and writing recognition which is indispensable for math applications (and for oriental speaking peoples).
The moral is this:
It's not the screen type or even its size, or its OS ,or its UI, or its apps, or any one characteristic of a phone that make it a great gizmo: but only the seamless integration and interoperability of all those factors in a coherent and pleasurable whole can deliver that WOW thrill to which all smartphone producers willing to dominate the market should aspire.
Andt hat's also the reason why until the Nokia N900 and/or the HTC Leo are up for grabs, (at least in countries , like mine where Toshiba's TG01 has never been seen) nothing compares to my HTC Hero; and why, as of today my 2 other smartphone are for sale.
I can't post no more?
Interesting.
I typing on my TouchPro screen keyboard easier than on an iPhone... and it's smaller.
Maybe it's because I can use my fingernail instead of having to press with my fingertip?
Fingernails also work better with Bejeweled2. Just sayin'.
Have you never used the original HTC Touch? That was a pretty fantastic resistive touch screen and they have probably improved their tech since that came out. And with HTC's keyboards, typing will be much easier than with the iphone, as I had their xt9 keyboard and was much faster and more accurate with it than I am on my iphone.
If you have smaller UI elements it makes sense that a resistive will be more accurate when you aren't using your fat finger but your fingernail.
Also, who gives a crap what their reasoning is. Is it really news worthy? Grow up and write something worth while instead of ranting on some incredibly mundane subject.
These comments are so tame compared to the ones on the regular site's post.
"RAH, RAH! Down with the non-believer!"
They keep yelling about how every editor is a capacitive fanboy and how it isn't fair for some reason.
lol @ styli
@woodc85
resistive screens will never be as accurate with finger presses compared to capacitive because of the way it works, not because they have a wild hair up their butt. Resistive screens work by measuring the resistance between two conductive layers separated by a gap. When you press down on the top layer, it exerts pressure on your finger making your skin spread out. The actual point in which the two layers make contact will vary depending on which area actually made resistive contact. And if the contact is over a large area, the calculation will go to the spot of higher resistance. You can't pinpoint that to a fine point with a wide area like your finger. A capacitive screen measures capacitance which is measured at the exact point of contact and requires no pressure. Resistive screens only work well if you can press the two layers at a precise point which is made easy with a stylus or fingernail. It will never be as accurate with finger touches compared to capacitive. Resistive will always be more accurate with a stylus however.
People are past the stylus point for the most part. We want the convenience of touching the screen with our finger and having it react instantly to our exact point of touch. Resistive screens are good for certain things ... Just not good for the direction in which mobile phones are heading.
Why don't engadget and engadget mobile merge comment pages? I mean, it's nice avoiding all the fanboys on the mainpage, but it just seems odd to not have them linked together since it's the same post
It's ironic that HTC made this claim the very same day that Palm announced its new Pixi device, with a 2.63" capacitive touch screen. Sorry HTC: I love you, but I call bullshit.
the Pixi has that 'real' keyboard though so the only real use the touch screen will get is swipes back and forth between cards and clicking links on web pages (which you usually have to zoom in to click anyway).
The amount of blograge wasted on this topic is humorous. Never mind the fact that HTC will manufacture more touchscreens in one day than you will ever put your grubby fingers on in your entire life, if the screen sucks, the phone won't sell. So getting mad about it is just pissing in the wind, and more importantly, exposing an editorial bias. Have you used this phone? If not, why would I trust your eventual review of it now that you've made it clear your opinion in already formed?
Don't judge before you try. The Xperia resistive screen has remarkable touch sensitivity, accuracy, etc after simple registry tweaking. This plus the ability to use the stylus when needed to hand-write notes and reminders makes resistive preferable for me.
The more concerning trend I see is HTC potentially doing do Android the same disservice it did to Windows Mobile. Flooding the market with "mass market" devices that are underpowered (Hero still using 528 MHz processor) or with just plain wrong hardware (as we see here).
Eventually, reviewers will stop blaming the hardware and start calling android "pokey" or "laggy" instead of placing the blame where it belongs, with sub-par hardware.
I don't know if the blame is with the carriers or with HTC, but the hardware is obviously available out there to build a super phone that could compete with any phone on the market and create a true flagship phone. But so far, they seem reluctant to do so. In fact, I would say that so far, Android is winning fans in spite of HTC. (G1 - wonky design and "chin", MyTouch - cheap plasticy feel, Hero - still running older, slower processor, etc.)
Off topic - but I don't understand the rant about the Hero running an older, slower processor. With the tweaks in the new ROM, it is incredibly responsive and the phone itself has a nice solid feel to it. I like using it, and the battery life means that I don't spend all day hoping I'll make it through without having to find the charger.