http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-84LM9600-led-tv

Just Scan (1:1 Pixel Matching): HDMI: 1080p/1080i/720p, Component: 1080p/1080i/720p, RF: 1080i/720

If I'm reading this correctly, the TV doesn't actually support anything higher than a 1920x1080 ("1080p") signal input. So while it might in fact have a 3840x2160 panel, that panel is absolutely worthless, since it has to upscale everything that's being displayed.

Now that any generic webpage can be considered an "app", how long will it take before everything's an "app"? Photos? Apps. Videos? Apps. USB cables? They're no longer USB cables, they're "app cables". Heck, drop the cables - they're just "apps" too.

Besides that point, most of these so-called "apps" are worthless. I remember a time when Apple fans used to proudly proclaim that even though there was less software on the Mac platform, they were higher quality than Windows programs. Now that the iPhone has hundreds of thousands of apps, quality doesn't matter anymore.

At least Firefox hasn't gone full Windows 8 and reduced everything to 16 colors (yet)...

Bonus round: Some editor got duped into posting a slashvertisement for an eBay auction. The netbook in question has been available from Amazon since August 2010. (Not the exact model number, but besides running Windows CE 6.0 instead of Windows Embedded Compact 7, the specs are the same.)

http://www.amazon.com/SYNET7WID-7-Inch-Wireless-Mobile/dp/B003ZYUCDS

From the article:

Powered by a Pentium processor

Processsor Type: VIA 8505

Not only did they get the company wrong, it's not even x86 architecture. VIA 8505 is ARM-based. This isn't even including the fact that it runs Windows CE (aka Windows Embedded Compact), so standard Win32 programs wouldn't run on it, even if compiled for ARM.

...because it crashes before any malware can do any damage.

It's Yahoo's private key that was leaked, not Google's. Assuming Chrome's certificate system is reasonably decent, Yahoo should be able to publish a CRL to revoke that certificate and/or key, and then generate a new one.

I did use the native resolution when running tests on HDTVs. The 1024x768 thing was an issue with some older models that either had broken EDIDs, only exposed 1024x768 on the EDID, or claimed that any resolution other than 1024x768 was "out of range". (Also "720p" plasma screens that actually have a 1024x768 native resolution due to non-square pixels.)

Turning off "enhancements" helps a bit, but still nowhere near a PC monitor. As an example, I tested a 46" Sony Bravia a while ago (don't remember the model number). At 1920x1080, a checkerboard pattern test showed interference between pixels and lines. That interference doesn't happen on any PC monitor I've tested, even with analog VGA.

I have a ThinkPad T60p, which only has VGA on the base unit. I also use VGA with most of my other electronic devices, since VGA doesn't have the cable length issues that DVI and HDMI have.

I have also seen these issues on the same TVs using HDMI/DVI, especially broken EDIDs. It's not just limited to the VGA decoder, and quite honestly, if a 2012 HDTV can't match the VGA decoding capabilities of a 2000 PC LCD (Dell 1701FP), something's wrong with it.

The one consistent thing I've seen with the vast majority of HDTVs is that many of them cannot show a basic computer image without messing up the display in some way. For example, many "1080p" HDTVs arbitrarily limit the VGA input to 1024x768, and there's also models that arbitrarily subsample input to 4:2:2, which introduces color fringing. (Just try using any sort of program that displays text on that!) Virtually none of the displays I've used that are marketed as standard monitors have these issues.

What I'm wondering is if Apple's "HDTV" will actually be usable as a standard monitor, or if they'll use the same garbage decoders found in the rest of the dime-a-dozen displays. If they do use a standard monitor decoder instead of garbage, then it might actually be worth a purchase, regardless of the brand name or extra iOS functionality. (Obviously it would need to actually support various inputs like VGA, YPbPr, etc; a Thunderbolt-only HDTV is kinda useless.)

Most of these single-site browsers don't actually have their own browser software. They just reuse the browser component that's included with the phone OS, which is also used by the regular browser.

Rendering shouldn't be any different between a program that uses a component and the original browser. If it is, then something is wrong with the browser.

When the software is actually useful? Maybe.

When the software consists of nothing more than worthless single-site browsers that do nothing but show a webpage? Definitely not.

Tell me: Would you like all the software on your computer to consist of nothing but web page frontends? If so, you may want to switch to Chrome OS, and I hope you enjoy your laggy response time and inevitable "cloud" data loss.

"App Generator" and similar services for iOS and Android are the reason why crApp stores are filled with millions of worthless crApps. What exactly is the point of a single crApp that functions exactly like a web browser but is limited to a single site, when you could just use the system web browser to do the same thing?

Of course, Apple and BlackBerry love the concept, because it means they get to claim they have "millions of crApps". (Ironically, just a few years ago, Apple fanboys were claiming that the Mac platform was better because even though it had fewer applications, the quality was higher than Windows. Funny how their tone changed when the iPhone App Store was unveiled.)

The only thing I remember Maple Story for was how they blocked any browser that wasn't Internet Explorer from even viewing their website a few years ago. Screw them.

On PCs, you have real software available for use. On the iPad (and other tablets and smartphones), all you have are crApps (crappy apps), 99% of which are simply bloated frontends to websites. (Some of them even charge subscription fees for what would otherwise be a free site.)

Sadly, the crApp trend has started to spread to desktop systems. Most recently, this happened with Final Cut Pro X, which is now only available as a crApp - and consequently, has gotten lots of negative press. Unity on Ubuntu also calls installed software "apps" instead of applications, and it's been received pretty poorly as well.

The "App Store" isn't a store for "apps"; it's a store for crApps (crappy applications). They're mostly shitty programs that don't have much functionality and/or are simply wrappers around WebKit that only allow access to a single website.