I'm so glad to see actual numbers for this. Time and time again I've been called delusional for saying that Android devices have more observable lag than iPhones. It is a very, very small component of the overall device and OS that has an enormous affect on the overall user experience, at least to me. It doesn't seem to be that big a deal to many as evident by phone sales, but it drives me absolutely nuts and is the main reason why I won't make the switch to Android.
For comparison, here's another set of benchmarks from a guy who appears to use the same methodology (240fps camera, count frames between input and screen response in custom lightweight apps).
And, to add a tv game console into the mix, apparently the latency between input on a PS3 wireless controller and home screen interaction is also about 50 ms.
On the other hand, I have rolled my eyes at people like Gruber who went on and on about how the iPad is totes for creation and not just consumption, and how styli are stupid - after spending time with my iPad and trying to draw and "touch write" in apps myself.
Apple makes great devices, and I wouldn't use any other phone and tablet, but I think people like Gruber have been completely blind to the technological shortcomings of iOS devices in this area, because Steve Jobs told them styli are stupid, and the iPad is going to disrupt this-and-that.
It also brings up the whole "to stylus or not to stylus" discussion again, because one of the main reasons you wouldn't want to use a stylus for an iPad is that it highlights just how (comparatively) poor the touch latency is for the tasks that lend themselves to work with styli.
It perhaps best underscores that iPads are very much - still - disruptive technology, which by definition is in many ways inferior than sustaining technologies, but makes up for it in other compelling ways.
It's one of the many reminders that we shouldn't get too busy throwing out everything paper and analogue. Disruption is not synonymous with obviation.
The Android numbers from the OP are just for few devices - for e.g. the Tegra devices with DirectTouch aren't included. Also from another post above the Note has better latency than iPhone 5. If you want to go Android - you can mostly get what you want :)
I'm glad to see numbers on this too. Hardware benchmarks like this are nice because they can capture end-to-end latency, but they're difficult to run. If you want to easily capture some latency numbers yourself, I've been working on an all-software benchmark for input latency: http://google.github.io/latency-benchmark
One of my biggest uses for the ipad is as a control surface for synthesizers (via Lemur). You need a high precision screen. There is a reason iOS devices are popular as control surfaces and synthesizers.
And just for those who care, Rheyne does a phenomenal job of using iPads as controllers (http://vimeo.com/72861463)
Agree and disagree. The touch screen is the most important aspect of a touchscreen device. Observable lag affects the user experience when they're moving faster than the device will allow.
It is a big deal but I don't think the majority of users are bothered because they see it as an inherent trait of a computer to lag.
It's indisputably obvious how much better the iPhone screen is than other platforms. How is, for example, the difference in menu scrolling not apparent? I can't believe we needed a study to realize that. And this is coming from someone who's never had an iDevice in his life, just Android and Windows.
There are a lot of things to learn from Apple: I don't [want to] understand why browsing Internet in the iPad Mini is smoother than in my high end notebook. Why my iPhone 1 browsing experience was better than the Samsung S2.
Just like the pixel density of an image, beyond a certain value, makes no difference to the human eye, perhaps the touch screen response time also gets perceived only up to a certain speed. Any faster and it makes no difference. Outliers with above average visual capability do perceive things differently and maybe you have a similar ability with respect to noticing touch screen response times. That might explain why most people don't care so much. Just theorising here, but if anybody has any numbers, it would be good.
Compare any two drum set applications - no drumming skill needed - on even a high end Android device vs a 4 Gen iPod Touch and the iPod has much better response aurally. In fact, Android instruments are universally so laugh they are unplayable. If there is a usable android drum program/hardware combo I'd like to see it... So far, I don't know why people even make instrument apps for android other than sequencers.
There's a certain amount of lag I can get used to with Android. I noticed that upgrading from 4.1 to 4.2.2 didn't eliminate the lag, but it reduced it to being much more usable. I used a WP8 phone for a while, and I found that even though the swooshy animations can take a relatively long time to complete, it was so responsive in starting an animation that it was hard to go back to Android.
Although I periodically am annoyed at Apple for various things, it's frequently clear to me that they understand that certain aspects of the user experience are really important.
Much of their competition treats user experience just like any other consumer electronics company: If it doesn't crash, ship it!
Most Anroid customers don't value these little touches. Being able to install various ROMs and have widgets on the homescreen plus other customizations are more important to them.
To get an idea of the impact and importance of touch latency, see this intriguing demo by the Microsoft Applied Sciences Group: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4.
Drawing is one of those things that has felt awful on iOS devices to me.
Yep. There's a decent homebrew paint app on the Nintendo DS that runs circles around the smartphone counterparts... The Ds has a joke of a processor, terrible resolution, and no memory worth mentioning. But it has a resistive pressure-sensitive touchscreen and a stylus. That's enough to make a huge difference. Resistive touchscreens are fast and pressure sensitive, allowing far better conditions for art.
>Drawing is one of those things that has felt awful on iOS devices to me.
Compared to what, since, according to TFA they have the smallest touch latency?
Perhaps you haven't tried the right apps. Most drawing apps (including major names, like Autodesk's) have slow-ass drawing code. Heck, some painting apps are even slow on my iMac (Corel Painter, ArtRage).
That's not because of "touch latency" though. It's because of slow draw engines. And I say that, because I've seen apps with very fast responsiveness.
Try Procreate ( http://procreate.si/ ), which uses the fastest engine I've seen (specially coded in OpenGL and 3D-accelerated). And check the artwork created with it by some of the community users (there are 2-3 videos on their site it's AMAZING).
Two other apps I found fast (but not as fast) are: Ideas, by Adobe, and Paper.
I've done some research which involved the perceptual effects of latency, so I was interested in the test rig from their video and found a paper they published in ACM about it:
http://edgey.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/p453-ng.pdf
Turns out that to achieve this 1ms latency system (once you have that, it's simple to add artificial latency) they had an FPGA directly processing touch data from a resistive sensor over a 2 MBps serial (optical) connection, computing the center of mass and directly driving a DLP projection display so that parallax between the surface being touched and the display would be eliminated. Nice rig!
Of course the video is a little bit misleading when it talks about 1ms refresh, since touch response stops being the limiting factor before that point. AFAIK the fastest refresh rate for any phone on the market is 250Hz. That's 4ms refresh, which is great, but of course you also have to factor in time to actually process the touch event, change the image, and render it.
This kind of responsiveness is actually the kind of thing that Apple is sort of famous for by designing both the hardware and the software, but it is surprising that Samsung is still behind.
I think the other thing that is not very often taken into consideration is how resolution impacts responsiveness. The more pixels the graphics card has to push, the slower the screen to redraw.
Pairing bigger devices with big resolution means that achieving consistently high performance is harder without equal advances in graphics processing.
Interesting that none of the Android devices tested are Tegra based. Nvidia being gaming focused had to do something about touch latency so they did DirectTouch which was designed for better latency and lower power draw. Given the architectural differences between DT and others, I think DT should do at least somewhat better. See here for example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DehlRJZPsDY .
I have the Lumia 920 and when I have to develop on my iPhone 4 or use a friends iPhone 5/4s/4, this is my main problem. Lumia screen is so responsive that even iPhones 5 feels sluggish to me. Typing is especially challenging so it's nice to see that $AAPL addressed the screen response. Next upgrade to the screen needs to be to fix the size.
It isn't just your Lumia, I have a Samsung Focus (that's Windows 7 first device), and when I am using an iPhone or Android device, I always notice how unresponsive they feel. This is most noticeable (to me) on the keyboard. On Windows devices, the keyboard input is absolutely instantaneous, with the others, I feel like I'm waiting for the key to be pressed.
I didn't notice this until I got my WP phone, but now that I've had that experience, I have trouble going back (note: I switch between iOS,Android,WP(7) every few weeks).
I remember my time with a galaxy s2 and the screen size was a pain. I really apreciate the path Apple choose with the size. So i dont get your point in this aspect
It seems like an important thing that benchmarks didn't even really exist for until now but I think the topline number is off? 55 ms to 114 ms how do they get 2.5 times faster?
2 times faster is already very impressive, no need to exaggerate further (although I guess thats how you get the clicks).
Now that kind of Flame Wars start again.
I remember the times where in every Mac Magazine you've found a comparison between Macs and 'PCs' where they did measure the times of flipping Images in Photoshop and were proud when the Mac was 0.5 sec faster than the Windows pendant.
I don't care about those kind of benchmark, because its not really necessary in the daily routine of handling a smartphone.
Can I do some calls? - Fine
Can I sync my calendar and contacts? - Fine
If the reaction/ respond time of the GUI is acceptable and without some breaks, I don't care about 1/10 sec in respond time.
Apple has had much better multitouch support from day one as well. They started with a grid of sensors that could detect over 10 touches or something like that. Android devices have slowly struggled up from single touch, to single touch with a few multitouch gestures, to multitouch with an inability to tell apart certain situations, to real multitouch for certain numbers of points. Mostly due to manufacturers always going with the cheapest touch sensors they could get away with.
It would be nice to know what their testing methodology was - specifically, was the measured times from touch to screen response, or from touch to OS response?
> We built simple, optimized apps to flash the full screen white* as quickly as possible in response to a touch. The apps contain minimal logic and use OpenGL/DirectX rendering to make sure the response is as quick as possible. Since these are barebones native apps doing nothing more than filling the screen in response to a touch, this benchmark defines the Minimum App Response Time (MART) a user could experience on a mobile app on each device.
Not misleading and fairly standard practice. There is no value starting at 0 when the lowest device tested is 55, all you'd do is shift everything to the right or make it smaller and harder to see the distribution (which is the whole point showing the distribution from 55 to 123).
As long as the graph goes up in consistent increments (in this case 10) and shows that all these devices could move to the left (i.e. get quicker than 55) I'd say the graph has done its job.
I would love to see the code for each of the tests. And most importantly the optimizations used for each.
It's always important to get the baseline right before arriving at a conclusion.
Would I, with my naked senses (eyes, touch) be able to tell the difference between a 55ms response time and 117ms response time? Alternatively, does such a difference add up or combine with other factors that ultimately make it noticeable to me? How? And while we're still at it, is this winning performance by Apple touchscreens a function of the quality of the screen itself (or components), other hardware (ICs and what nots) that work with the screen and are a factor in how it responds, superior code at OS level? I'd love to hear such details, as opposed to merely telling me 55ms vs 120ms.
And this is pretty much the difference between implementing the user-space in Obj-C versus Dalvik... I'm sure Meego would have been much better than Android, as surely Ubuntu touch and Tizen will be...
So in addition to having smaller pixels than Android devices with undetectably small pixels, Apple now has faster reactions that Android devices with undetectably fast reactions.
I'm looking forward to hearing about the new iPhone's unmatched fidelity in reproducing ultraviolet images and ultrasonic sounds.
Even the iPhone's measured 50 ms must be clearly detectable (I don't have one, so can't check).
A trivial example - have an app with a picture of a snare drum that when tapped will play a sound of such drum. It's well known f the delay beteen physical touch is more than, say, 20ms - then it will sound "not instant", the sound will be perceived by your brain as a separate event; and even 10+ ms will feel delayed to any drummer.
An intuitive way to sense latency is to drag you finger and see how far behind the cursor trails.
Research showed that people can perceive even quite low latency:
http://www.techspot.com/news/47784-advances-in-touch-screens...
(NOTE: the article incorrectly states this is a device - it is NOT, it's just an experimental setup to measure latency perception, i.e. fake.)
I would expect the whole processing path - touch, bandwidth, CPU, RAM, OS, app, GPU, display - to factor into latency, just as it does for VR (see John Carmack's talk on latency for Oculus Rift).
Interestingly, mouse cursors seem instant to me (below perceptible latency), though it's slightly harder to tell, because the mouse isn't on the screen (and if you put it on the screen, the scaling is way off).
Anyone has any idea what the iPhone 5 touch screen is compared to the Nokia Lumias? The touch on them is pretty damn fast too, clearly faster than Android devices. But iPhone does still feel slightly faster... Maybe Lumia's and iPhones are almost on par.
[+] [-] kyro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doomlaser|12 years ago|reply
http://www.collectingsmiles.com/news/measuring-latency-in-co...
iPhone 5: 81 ms
Galaxy S3: 104 ms
Galaxy Note: 71 ms
Nintendo 3DS: 23 ms
PS Vita: 49 ms
And, to add a tv game console into the mix, apparently the latency between input on a PS3 wireless controller and home screen interaction is also about 50 ms.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3725/measuring_respons...
[+] [-] kmfrk|12 years ago|reply
Apple makes great devices, and I wouldn't use any other phone and tablet, but I think people like Gruber have been completely blind to the technological shortcomings of iOS devices in this area, because Steve Jobs told them styli are stupid, and the iPad is going to disrupt this-and-that.
It also brings up the whole "to stylus or not to stylus" discussion again, because one of the main reasons you wouldn't want to use a stylus for an iPad is that it highlights just how (comparatively) poor the touch latency is for the tasks that lend themselves to work with styli.
It perhaps best underscores that iPads are very much - still - disruptive technology, which by definition is in many ways inferior than sustaining technologies, but makes up for it in other compelling ways.
It's one of the many reminders that we shouldn't get too busy throwing out everything paper and analogue. Disruption is not synonymous with obviation.
[+] [-] blinkingled|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modeless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbgm|12 years ago|reply
And just for those who care, Rheyne does a phenomenal job of using iPads as controllers (http://vimeo.com/72861463)
[+] [-] shasta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alixr|12 years ago|reply
It is a big deal but I don't think the majority of users are bothered because they see it as an inherent trait of a computer to lag.
[+] [-] b0z0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demodifier|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmagin|12 years ago|reply
Much of their competition treats user experience just like any other consumer electronics company: If it doesn't crash, ship it!
[+] [-] antr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pintglass|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YOSPOS|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|12 years ago|reply
Drawing is one of those things that has felt awful on iOS devices to me.
[+] [-] Pxtl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
Compared to what, since, according to TFA they have the smallest touch latency?
Perhaps you haven't tried the right apps. Most drawing apps (including major names, like Autodesk's) have slow-ass drawing code. Heck, some painting apps are even slow on my iMac (Corel Painter, ArtRage).
That's not because of "touch latency" though. It's because of slow draw engines. And I say that, because I've seen apps with very fast responsiveness.
Try Procreate ( http://procreate.si/ ), which uses the fastest engine I've seen (specially coded in OpenGL and 3D-accelerated). And check the artwork created with it by some of the community users (there are 2-3 videos on their site it's AMAZING).
Two other apps I found fast (but not as fast) are: Ideas, by Adobe, and Paper.
[+] [-] neonkiwi|12 years ago|reply
Turns out that to achieve this 1ms latency system (once you have that, it's simple to add artificial latency) they had an FPGA directly processing touch data from a resistive sensor over a 2 MBps serial (optical) connection, computing the center of mass and directly driving a DLP projection display so that parallax between the surface being touched and the display would be eliminated. Nice rig!
[+] [-] joeblau|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blehn|12 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQC_W0c-C8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK2yVUkyjE0
[+] [-] programminggeek|12 years ago|reply
I think the other thing that is not very often taken into consideration is how resolution impacts responsiveness. The more pixels the graphics card has to push, the slower the screen to redraw.
Pairing bigger devices with big resolution means that achieving consistently high performance is harder without equal advances in graphics processing.
[+] [-] blinkingled|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeblau|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanpetrich|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedalpete|12 years ago|reply
I didn't notice this until I got my WP phone, but now that I've had that experience, I have trouble going back (note: I switch between iOS,Android,WP(7) every few weeks).
[+] [-] neoyagami|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Steko|12 years ago|reply
2 times faster is already very impressive, no need to exaggerate further (although I guess thats how you get the clicks).
[+] [-] rly_ItsMe|12 years ago|reply
I don't care about those kind of benchmark, because its not really necessary in the daily routine of handling a smartphone.
Can I do some calls? - Fine Can I sync my calendar and contacts? - Fine
If the reaction/ respond time of the GUI is acceptable and without some breaks, I don't care about 1/10 sec in respond time.
[+] [-] MasterScrat|12 years ago|reply
Then it doesn't sound like you need a device like the ones they are testing... For heavy users I can assure you touch latency is a big deal.
[+] [-] lnanek2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icegreentea|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kllrnohj|12 years ago|reply
> We built simple, optimized apps to flash the full screen white* as quickly as possible in response to a touch. The apps contain minimal logic and use OpenGL/DirectX rendering to make sure the response is as quick as possible. Since these are barebones native apps doing nothing more than filling the screen in response to a touch, this benchmark defines the Minimum App Response Time (MART) a user could experience on a mobile app on each device.
[+] [-] iansinke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|12 years ago|reply
As long as the graph goes up in consistent increments (in this case 10) and shows that all these devices could move to the left (i.e. get quicker than 55) I'd say the graph has done its job.
[+] [-] ultrasaurus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvijapurapu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DavidWanjiru|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kllrnohj|12 years ago|reply
Android's input system is in C++ anyway.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|12 years ago|reply
I'm looking forward to hearing about the new iPhone's unmatched fidelity in reproducing ultraviolet images and ultrasonic sounds.
[+] [-] RivieraKid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|12 years ago|reply
A trivial example - have an app with a picture of a snare drum that when tapped will play a sound of such drum. It's well known f the delay beteen physical touch is more than, say, 20ms - then it will sound "not instant", the sound will be perceived by your brain as a separate event; and even 10+ ms will feel delayed to any drummer.
[+] [-] 6ren|12 years ago|reply
Research showed that people can perceive even quite low latency: http://www.techspot.com/news/47784-advances-in-touch-screens... (NOTE: the article incorrectly states this is a device - it is NOT, it's just an experimental setup to measure latency perception, i.e. fake.)
I would expect the whole processing path - touch, bandwidth, CPU, RAM, OS, app, GPU, display - to factor into latency, just as it does for VR (see John Carmack's talk on latency for Oculus Rift).
Interestingly, mouse cursors seem instant to me (below perceptible latency), though it's slightly harder to tell, because the mouse isn't on the screen (and if you put it on the screen, the scaling is way off).
[+] [-] ppradhan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6thSigma|12 years ago|reply