points by Brian_K_White 3 days ago | 0 comments
Why?
I could not care less about any refresh rate over 30.
You can care about it, but that just means it sounds like a differentiator to me, not something everyone should pay for just because you care about it.
You will have to somehow prove it if you would say that the panel and driver chip are all already ready to do 100+ hz for free by default, and are actually artificially limited, and that that artificial limitation doesn't come with some other advantage like battery life (allowing a smaller battery or less cost in some other way).
[–] AnthonBerg 3 days ago
[–] seviu 3 days ago
For movies, 30fps is good enough, but for a screen which you interact with, the change to 120hz is dramatic. And there is no reason why they should not be adding it.
[–] seviu 2 days ago
Not sure if to give credibility and we will soon know but I bet the panels they are using are 120hz rate panels, locked to 60hz. Reading it from multiple sources. No clear data we will have to wait for ifixit
Or, jokes aside, I honestly think that you might just have beefier time-integrating sensory-processing circuits in your brain than I do. Really. I do profoundly notice the difference, and it's a gritty and distracting thing. A slight but persistently intrusive and distracting perceptual thing. I honestly wish I didn't notice, but I do. I basically ask this: believe us when we ask for higher framerates and lower end-to-end latency.
And I'm fairly certain that the hardware and software to do higher frame rates across the board is a baseline commodity in the Apple source hardware ecosystem the build and integrate from. And it's certainly a better fit to consider it a line drawn between "pro" and "not pro" for marketing and pricing purposes than any fundamental and meaningful price-of-equipment threshold.