UPDATE: Feedback is, this is just point-by-point wrong. We try never to delete posts, or I would delete this one, but at the very least, file this one under, here’s a source I’ll not post from again.
Motley Fool:
One of the sources said that Apple will need to significantly improve the performance of its mobile processor technology to support a digital pen. The source also added that Apple “had to compromise on some touch performance of the latest iPhone X largely due to the less advanced chipset.”
And:
With the latest iPad Pro tablets, according to the company, when a user writes on the screen using the Apple Pencil, the screen begins to scan for input at a rate of 240Hz, or cycles per second. This is twice the peak refresh rate of the display (which is 120Hz).
And:
Apple reportedly tested a high-refresh rate display on the iPhone X (Apple calls such displays ProMotion displays) but ultimately chose not to ship the device with such a display. Instead, the iPhone X shipped with a display that could only refresh its contents at 60Hz — half that of the current iPad Pros.
In effect, the article makes the case that the current lineup of iPhones has too slow a refresh rate to support the Apple Pencil.
The whole article is just made up garbage. Not worth through going point by point but the pencil shipped with a 60Hz iPad, etc.
What? Bad tech information from Motley Fool? Get me to my fainting couch!
Ok, so you didn’t realize the Motley Fool is a website for fools. But regardless of that, the bits you quoted aren’t even consistent. First paragraph describes it as being an issue with processor performance, and then later starts talking about the refresh rate.
That right there should have raised red flags.
“compromise touch performance” is a load of BS. Apples promotional video describes “a more responsive touch system makes gestures more fluid on iPhone X.”
Doesn’t sound like compromised touch performance.
This actually makes me sad; I remember when Motley Fool started out by freely posting a great deal of genuine information about investing. It was a good place to get helpful explanations about instruments like mutual funds, bonds, and the like.
Then they got some attention and started pitching snake oil. The first linkbait/FUD headline about Apple that I saw of theirs, rehashing myths about the company that were old even then, was the last time I went to them for anything.
Those early Motley Fool articles really helped me become a good (better) investor, and I’ve probably been a paid member for 10 of the last 15 years, but I’m appalled at how poor the free site has become. If I came to their site today, there is no way I would ever sign up for their services.
It felt as though they descended fairly quickly into rubbish.
I’ve seen MMM, as the ‘cool kids’ call it. Good site to be sure.
The interesting thing about the free vs. paid Motley Fool is that you’ll have articles on the front page that are blatant attacks on stocks that are official recommendations in several of the paid services. The articles on the front page are written by contract writers and MF claims it doesn’t provide any editorial oversight. I can understand an argument that this is the right choice, but the result is rubbish.
I suspect the issue is with search engines favouring fresh content over quality content.
Dang. Sounds like the free part of the site is now just clickbait, just in case subscriptions fall below a certain level. “What a falling-off was there.”