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 7:18PM
As a venerable member of engadget used to say, "FUGLY!"
You're KIRF. This thing looks sweet. Sure, it isn't going to win beauty pageants but I think it looks quite good for a small/inexpensive smartphone. The real ugly is that HTC keeps the same basic specs on all their phones. Get me some tegra/snapdragon now!
Oh HTC, satan is calling, and he wants to help you screw yourselves over even more.
"...is too small... to work well"
Hey Engadget, HTC doesn't owe you jack squat!!! They can do whatever they want! You can write all the articles you want, flame the tech all you want but guess what, when they gotta make a device, they wont give a damn that chris/ josh or whomever wrote an article on the "dangers and perils" of using resistive screens. You know what, to note the obvious, which you cant comprehend... there is a huge market for resistive technology!
Not palmface but *headdesk*
Engadget bloggers are pure and simple laughable.
You quite directly imply resistive screens have 5% loss of registration. Pure nonsensical crap. If you make such a claim on resistive tech, why don't you bring up bull like "capacitive screens have a 105% touch registration", meaning that you occasionally touch the screen by mistake and for it's hyper-sensitivity send a command you never meant to send.
I use resistive screen on a mobile device and I NEVER get loss of touch registration, and my fingers aren't hurting either. And I never use a stylus either.
It's true that you only need the absolute slightest touch on a capacitive screen to register the touch, which is nice, but why on earth are you making it such a humongous deal? Resistive needs a touch, capacitive needs only a slight touch. Difference in real-world applications is minimal.
I actually prefer the lightness of touch when using my fingernail to flick the screen content around. You need to use less human resources (muscular activity) flicking a screen with your fingernail, that is a fact. On capacitive you have to slide your whole thumb or index finger across the screen. Firstly, you need to use more muscles in your hand and secondly there is more friction and resistance due to the larger surface area of the finger.
Tapping on the another hand requires less human resources on a capacitive screen. But in the end, the difference between the two techs is nowadays so small that it is a non-issue as long as each tech is well implemented.
Engadet bloggers seem like little kids calling names of the other guy's bicycle because it's not the same brand as theirs. Simply put the ignorant and uninformed gripe on resistive tech makes Engadget staff seem juvenile. I'm sorry to make such remarks but I can't help seeing it in that light.
You also have the nerve to call HTC's claim bullshit: "More realistically, the resistive display is probably a cost sacrifice the company made to keep sticker shock to a minimum". You have nothing substantial there. Pure assumption and speculation. You willingly choose to ignore the fact that HTC has used R&D resources in coming to their conclusion. What do you have? When exactly have you been experimenting between the two techs on a small screen? All you have is an unhealthy romance with capacitive tech.
Finally, you don't even understand the technology behind the two. You imply that the accuracy of capacitive and resistive techs is only due to the surface area of the pointing device. That one claim proves outright how uneducated you are on the matter.
well to quote the guy who made the post below, "that's quite the editorial" Jooseppi
The fact is that capacitive displays provide a far better experience for touch-screen smartphones than the old resistive units. The iPhone/Pre/G1 offers a far better touch experience than resistive touch smartphones. Most people love the instantaneous responsiveness and light touch required to operate the devices.
that's quite the editorial
Prefer capacitive and, when Judgement Day is upon us, you shall be saved. Prefer resistive and your soul will be tormented until the end of time.
That's quite the defensive opening paragraph
Well he's right. I can't stand resistive touch screens. Granted there are improvements in the tech, but capacitive is proven better in the field. If the iPhone didn't have capacitive touch it would be shit. Capacitive is what made the iPhone, not the other way around.
Why do I get the feeling this is more of a lame attempt to justify all the resistive screen hate commenters have been calling out over the last few weeks?
All this while Ziegler (who I think is the most level headed ed here) wasn't involved, but guess his peers got to him too...
Seems they had to write it that way because certain Engadget commenters can't get it thru their thick skulls that maybe, just maybe, their criticism of a technology has nothing to do with Apple products.
Judging from some of the comments made on this topic already, it apparently wasn't enough.
I'm not in a position to judge whether it is hard to make a 2.8" capacitive touchscreen that works well, but I DO know that resistive screens can be a major PITA.
FWIW (as a reply to the first commenter), I think it's a really good-looking phone. But then, I have no fashion sense.
@UnixSystemsEngineer
I agree with you. There's about 5 commentators trying to get us to believe that resistive screens are equal or better than capacitive screens for touch devices. Complete BS. I've owned the Touch Diamond and iPod touch both for over a year and no comparison. What's funny is that WinMo 7 and the new Zune HD will be capacitive only. So, stop protesting and making yourself look bad.
You know, it rather is.
Chris, we've been pointing out that resistive is more accurate for a while now and that capacitive is only suitable for large screen devices. I don't know why it just seems to have got through to you guys.
Your point about resistive screens perhaps not registering touches - which could happen but since most of us don't type blind (that is we look at what we're typing) can be corrected easily enough, however you miss the counterargument - capacitive screens are more error prone because on screen keyboards are very small and they do not have the accuracy to guarantee you hit the right key. Again, this is why the iPhone HAS to have such a great predictive text facility and equally why it gets out of its depth if you stray from its restricted syntax.
So if you're using a large screen device that has a good rpediction system then great, however there's a couple of problems there:
1) Not everyone wants to carry around one of Moses' tablets for a phone.
2) The predictive dictionary has to be really good and even then it'll never get it quite right anyway.
Perhaps instead of getting a bit defensive you should maybe pay attention to what HTC - who I'm sure you'll agree have a good pedigree in making phones - are saying (which is, to be honest, what everyone here has been telling you guys for a while now) which is that resistive screens suit smaller form factors because they're more accurate whether you use your finger or a stylus.
There, that wasn't so difficult, was it?
@Dogtown
Except they're not. Neither system restricts the type of touch technology that you can use as they can support both.
Research is your friend.
Engadget, the vanguard of the vendetta against capacitive touchscreens. March on boys.
Gah I mean resistive. *is fail*
Tis ok Tokenekie, we catch your drift =P
As others have mentioned... seriously, engadget has quite the disdain for resistive screens. They're not thaattt bad, and in truth this is a very logic argument from HTC. It would make more sense if it incuded a stylus perhaps, but regardless, this thing only has a 2.8 inch screen. Imagine a woman(or man if so be the case) with really long nails trying to use a tiny screen like that with only the skin of her finger?
Chris used typing as the primary example against a resistive screen. For me, thats the primary example as to why they should. People don't tend to like having to turn their phone 90 degrees to type in landscape mode, and personally, I would much rather type using my nails than just the meat of my fingers. heck, I would prefer if I could do so currently with my MyTouch 3G, even if it is rooted and running the superior HTC sense Keyboard.
With the exception of multitouch, and screen vibrancy, Theres not that much better about capacative screens. It's better, generally, but not that much.
Now just include a drawing app HTC and I'll be happy.
I don't get why so many hate resistive screens. To me, accuracy is key on small screens. You can't even use your fingernail on capacitive screens, let alone any type of stylus.
You earn bonus points for the use of 'Vanguard' unironically.
Engadget's coding scheme:
if (phone != capacitive screen)
for (1:n)
"bash phone and manufacturer"
n=n+1
end
end
seriously!??
In other words, HTC doesn't have the technological prowess and ease of use as the iPhone and match the $99 price point. Shame on you, HTC!
shut the fuck up.
Really I can buy an iPhone for just $99, oh and the 2 year contract......
When Jack Bauer says shut the fuck up you shut the fuck up.
@badger3
I lol'd
I just love how the first paragraph of this article is nothing more than the writer's attempt at shielding the article from a flame war about screen tech.
Yet instead, it seemed to have fueled the fire even more.. When will they learn....
Well they see the crazy downvote parties and flame wars that go on whenever someone questions why people in the comments here seem to be obsessed with resistive and saying capacitive is crap...and not even with good points, just "be a man and use some force!", "please iphone didnt invent capacitive" or "you would never be able to hit a one pixel button on capacitive like you could with resistive so resistive forever!"
But you're right, it's like trying to have a discussion in youtube comments. People just shout something loud and vote down what isn't agreeing with them.
yea the editor got burned on the last post about the htc click because we all said he just likes capacitive because its on the iphone and anything apple is superior to everything else
Somebody at Engadget owns stock in capacitive screen manufactures rofl
It just never stops lol.
I do believe it is Josh.
No, Ricker.
android is the best platform... ever.
thats what they want you to believe
LOL. HTC gives a perfectly reasoned response to the question of why they chose resistive tech and Engadget basically responds with: "We think you're lying, you must just be cheap morons".
You are so nice Chris.
That sounds like something that Josh would say during a podcast.
What about people that use handwriting recognition on their phones? what about people that want se-
Oh, you know what, I'm fed up with this argument. Both kinds of screen have their benefits SPECIFICALLY ON PHONES. It's best to have a wide selection of phones with both, and, really, Engadget, you can't seem to see that some people might WANT to use a stylus. Some people might WANT handwriting recognition. some people might WANT to use a fingernail, or use their phone with gloves on. equally, some might want multitouch (I know it's possible on resistive, but it's not prevalent) and to not have to apply pressure.
Horses for courses. Stop hating on one kind of touchscreen tech just because it's advantages aren't ones YOU take advantage of.
Additionally, the quality of a resistive screen is as much about software as it is about the underlying tech. Even from the original Touch, HTC were making software which was picking up the centre of a finger press accurately, even on a resistive screen. Now that we have better screens and more powerful phones, the screen on something like the Touch Pro2 is akin to a capacitive screen in terms of recognising when it's being touched.
Inductive>Resistive and Capacitive.
I think you missed the fact that Android doesn't support stylus input, nor handwriting recognition. Android is designed from the ground up for fingers only, which is precisely why the choice of resistive is so odd on this specific phone.
@Rich I have a rooted G1 and I installed the CIME(Chinese input method), it has handwriting recognition for Chinese AND English.
And I'm not sure why you would call Android not supporting stylus input, that just plain wrong.
It would be nice if there was a way to vote down the article just like you can vote down (or up) the comments to the article.
That would be cool, but it would be pretty hard to read the vast majority of the recent stories since they'd all be "Lowest Ranked" for their flagrant fanboyism.
Wait, why would they get voted down for flagrant fanboyism if people here get voted up for it all the time?
It's a two-way street.
anybody have suggestions for a better site? i'm getting pretty fed up with these editors.
That is an excellent idea.
I think that HTC know what they doing and probably tested both types...
One thing that I don't understand, if screen is 2.8 inches then how big (small) is screen keyboard? Do you even see letters on screen? :D