32GB iPhone listed as AT&T trade-in; Rogers preps for launch

[AppleInsider]

An AT&T upgrade program for BlackBerries has listed a 32GB iPhone as a trade-in option. Simultaneously, Canadian cellular provider Rogers may be preparing for another summer iPhone release.

Apple's attempts to keep its iPhone plans silent may have become that much harder on Friday through a potential discovery of the larger-capacity iPhone in AT&T's system.

A BlackBerry Bold trade-up program run on behalf of AT&T, albeit by a third party, shows an "iPhone 32GB 3G" as one of the phones that can be handed in to get cash towards the Research in Motion smartphone. As Phone Arena notes, the handset is listed as worth $335, though it's unlikely this is connected to any final pricing.

At this point, it's uncertain whether this is a genuine addition or a speculative move on the part of the company running the service. None of the other iPhones in the list are unreleased models. However, it does follow an accidental post of a similar sort by T-Mobile Austria, which briefly showed a 32GB iPhone in its "coming soon" section only to pull it shortly afterwards.

The 32GB iPhone listed as a trade-in choice for moving to an AT&T BlackBerry Bold.

Whatever AT&T's state of readiness, its northern neighbor Rogers is now believed to be signaling its own readiness to carry a third-generation iPhone. A historical source of Boy Genius Report for information at the Canadian provider has provided early iPhone launch details that have it essentially repeating its approach to the iPhone 3G's debut last year.

Rogers doesn't say for certain when the next iPhone launches but, according to the tipster, expects it sometime in July or August. It will reportedly require once more that all iPhones be bought tied to three-year plans and that the initial wave of shoppers only buy one device each.

Unlike last year, though, the carrier is supposedly now anticipating a larger supply from Apple that will prevent the rationing and premature sellouts that defined the iPhone 3G launch in 2008.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11307)

[addabox]

Why would a third party outfit ("Market Velocity") have any inside information as to the next iPhone?

And why would they be offering "trade-up" value on a phone that hasn't even been released yet? Were they expecting people to buy a new iPhone and then turn around and "trade-up" for a Blackberry?

[anantksundaram]

Why would a third party outfit ("Market Velocity") have any inside information as to the next iPhone?

And why would they be offering "trade-up" value on a phone that hasn't even been released yet? Were they expecting people to buy a new iPhone and then turn around and "trade-up" for a Blackberry?

Yeah.... I find this a somewhat confusing report. Having trouble making sense of it.

[randythot]

I can't imagine how long the initial install, restores, and software updates will take with this size! *ugh*

[Tofino]

somebody's gonna get fired!

[JeffDM]

I can't imagine how long the initial install, restores, and software updates will take with this size! *ugh*

The software updates shouldn't be any bigger or take longer to install than any other model, I don't think software updates require reloading the media. For the new buyers, I do hope they do something to make transfers faster, getting new media onto the current models seems to be a needlessly slow process, I don't know if the USB controller in the phone is just slow or if the flash chips are really that slow.

[MacTel]

32Gb iPhone - ah I wanted a 10Tb iPhone. ;)

Seriously, we could see a 64Gb iPod Touch if the current line-up is any indication of the future. That's my hope at least. :D

[nvidia2008]

32Gb iPhone - ah I wanted a 10Tb iPhone. ;)

Seriously, we could see a 64Gb iPod Touch if the current line-up is any indication of the future. That's my hope at least. :D

I'm surprised my 8GB iPhone 3G will probably last me another year or so.

The reason: I stopped buying iTunes Gift Cards online and racking up purchases from the iTunes Store. :lol::( ...Cost saving measures in recession (I am not in the US so paying for music, tv and movies in USD is even more painful now).

But yeah iPhone 3G rev 2 should be 16GB and 32GB. It's got to have a front-facing camera, man, I mean, that's perfect for REAL MMS, 3G video calls and REAL "visual voicemail". I mean, direct access to voice messages is good, but direct access, tap to see a video voicemail left for you, would be some killer features.... Even if this is not big in the US, think Japan, China, Europe, other parts of Asia, Middle East and many, many countries around the world...

Touch should be bumped to 16, 32 and 64GB around the time iPhone 3G rev 2 is launched.

To think about it, no front-facing camera would still mean good sales and usage, but to be truly Apple, and truly "coming back for the encore to kick some more ass"... there should be a front-facing camera.

Them magnetomajig is definitely good for maps, and would help Apple/ third party turn-by-turn etc.

When I was figuring my way around London, the maps was good, but not knowing where North was and hence which way I was looking put a dampener on the GPS party.

[nvidia2008]

The software updates shouldn't be any bigger or take longer to install than any other model, I don't think software updates require reloading the media. For the new buyers, I do hope they do something to make transfers faster, getting new media onto the current models seems to be a needlessly slow process, I don't know if the USB controller in the phone is just slow or if the flash chips are really that slow.

I think its both. It is a bit of a common complaint. If going to 64GB, I think the iPhone 3G rev 2 would have to have faster a flash memory/ controller.

[mrtotes]

Yeah but surely a 32GB iPhone is a certainty at some point in the future anyhow. And remember we saw Amazon offering iLife 07 -which seemed such an obvious release but it never happened.

[JeffDM]

To think about it, no front-facing camera would still mean good sales and usage, but to be truly Apple, and truly "coming back for the encore to kick some more ass"... there should be a front-facing camera.

I suppose it's going to come eventually, but it doesn't sound like a feature that people other than phone geeks are actually clamoring for yet. As it is, most of the people that say that iPhone should have it eventually admit in one form or another that they don't actually make video calls if they own a video capable phone.

[iGod 2.0]

It might just be a mishap, hard to believe anyone would trade in a 32GB iPhone, but I am very intrigued to see how this will pan out. There has been so many signs of what's to come. One thing is for certain though, the device does exists in some fashion.

[brucep]

An AT&T upgrade program for BlackBerries has listed a 32GB iPhone as a trade-in option. Simultaneously, Canadian cellular provider Rogers may be preparing for another summer iPhone release.

Apple's attempts to keep its iPhone plans silent may have become that much harder on Friday through a potential discovery of the larger-capacity iPhone in AT&T's system.

A BlackBerry Bold trade-up program run on behalf of AT&T, albeit by a third party, shows an "iPhone 32GB 3G" as one of the phones that can be handed in to get cash towards the Research in Motion smartphone. As Phone Arena notes, the handset is listed as worth $335, though it's unlikely this is connected to any final pricing.

At this point, it's uncertain whether this is a genuine addition or a speculative move on the part of the company running the service. None of the other iPhones in the list are unreleased models. However, it does follow an accidental post of a similar sort by T-Mobile Austria, which briefly showed a 32GB iPhone in its "coming soon" section only to pull it shortly afterwards.

The 32GB iPhone listed as a trade-in choice for moving to an AT&T BlackBerry Bold.

Whatever AT&T's state of readiness, its northern neighbor Rogers is now believed to be signaling its own readiness to carry a third-generation iPhone. A historical source of Boy Genius Report for information at the Canadian provider has provided early iPhone launch details that have it essentially repeating its approach to the iPhone 3G's debut last year.

Rogers doesn't say for certain when the next iPhone launches but, according to the tipster, expects it sometime in July or August. It will reportedly require once more that all iPhones be bought tied to three-year plans and that the initial wave of shoppers only buy one device each.

Unlike last year, though, the carrier is supposedly now anticipating a larger supply from Apple that will prevent the rationing and premature sellouts that defined the iPhone 3G launch in 2008.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11307)


this so stupid . all it confirms is a 32g model
the rest is asine . the blackberries are sold 2 for one right now . and a future un announced iphone will trade down for blackberries weak phone line up???

i wonder why teckspud is not here bitching about ....

i mean i am so stupid to read all these baseless rumours

i mean like a yellow scrap of paper was found in a laundry pocket in a south east tibet hand wash company . the paper was blank . but the FACT that it was yellow proves that the itablet will have 19 colours to choose from .

listen up every one !!!! what is wrong with us . we snatch every bit of mis- infomation we can ..

are we so apple addicted ??
are we not fan boy tech men ??
the last 12 articles contain no info . nothing new .

the articles themselves sometimes deny it self in the same article .

will brucep ever have 8000 posts ???


peace

9

[solipsism]

Yeah but surely a 32GB iPhone is a certainty at some point in the future anyhow. And remember we saw Amazon offering iLife 07 -which seemed such an obvious release but it never happened.

I think it’s one of those wishful and expected inventory additions in the same vain as Amazon.com’s site. The items are oddly organized and have descriptions switched around. There just isn’t enough uniformity for me to think it’s reliable.

[SpamSandwich]

somebody's gonna get fired!

"Blame Canada!" :D

[hillstones]

I like the discontinued models in the list.

[Virgil-TB2]

... I do hope they do something to make transfers faster, getting new media onto the current models seems to be a needlessly slow process, I don't know if the USB controller in the phone is just slow or if the flash chips are really that slow.It's my experience when syncing the exact same media files both to my iPhone and my AppleTV the files go onto the AppleTV roughly twice as fast over the wireless as they do over the wired connection between the iPhone dock and the computer. It seems likely that if the new iPhone (as rumoured), has a better controller, a faster processor and wireless n, that transfer speeds will be increased but there is definitely something "off" there.

I know Wireless N is technically supposed to be a bit faster than USB 2.0, but it sure seems wacky. We are told that we don't have wireless syncing because it's supposedly "too slow," but I can send data wirelessly over a hundred feet in my house, faster than I can send data through that dedicated cable which is only a few inches long.

Perhaps Gruber is right and it's just the inherent lameness of the iPhone 3G processor that makes everything seem to take forever. Heartening if true. :)
.

[solipsism]

I know Wireless N is technically supposed to be a bit faster than USB 2.0, but it sure seems wacky. We are told that we don't have wireless syncing because it's supposedly "too slow," but I can send data wirelessly over a hundred feet in my house, faster than I can send data through that dedicated cable which is only a few inches long.

Perhaps Gruber is right and it's just the inherent lameness of the iPhone 3G processor that makes everything seem to take forever. Heartening if true. :)
.

It’s more than the processor, there are many things that are not helping the speed in such a small device. It should get noticeably faster but I don’t think that full media syncing over WiFi will be a good idea and it surely won’t get 2x as fast from being pulled from iTunes to being put on the iDevice so if you are moving to a higher capacity player it will take longer than before to sync.

I know a lot of us here would love the convenience of syncing over WiFi (I don’t understand the occasional sync via Bluetooth comments) but we know that this is slow and will use a good deal of power for the transfer so we’ll think to monitor that. I doubt Apple would expect their average non-techy customer to do the same. Unless the power usage is low for the size battery on the 32GB model I doubt it will be available. Plus, it would also mean a change to the way iTunes senses connected devices. Not a big coding deal with Bonjour but significant enough to probably not warrant the extra wrench in the works.

I also the expect the speed of the 802.11n chip to be abysmal in comparison to pretty much any other 802.11 device. Besides the CPU and potential RAM limitations available to WiFi I’m wagering that the chip isn’t even designed to be capable of that kind of speed if it has a more limited antenna setup. I’d wager that it’s only be used to allow to connections of 802.11n and the 5GHz spectrum, and to connect to routers that are farther away. Though this really only helps in personal LANs at the moment.

[JeffDM]

It's my experience when syncing the exact same media files both to my iPhone and my AppleTV the files go onto the AppleTV roughly twice as fast over the wireless as they do over the wired connection between the iPhone dock and the computer. It seems likely that if the new iPhone (as rumoured), has a better controller, a faster processor and wireless n, that transfer speeds will be increased but there is definitely something "off" there.

I know Wireless N is technically supposed to be a bit faster than USB 2.0, but it sure seems wacky. We are told that we don't have wireless syncing because it's supposedly "too slow," but I can send data wirelessly over a hundred feet in my house, faster than I can send data through that dedicated cable which is only a few inches long.

Perhaps Gruber is right and it's just the inherent lameness of the iPhone 3G processor that makes everything seem to take forever. Heartening if true. :)
.

It looks like WiFi N has a max bit rate of 600Mbps, one good Intel chipset has a max of 450. But that I've heard on practical transfer rate, it's just over 200Mbps of actual data transfer assuming a strong connection, because wireless has a lot of overhead. A rough rule of thumb is 40% to 50% of the advertised signal rate with one good link. A weaker link negotiates down to a slower transfer rate. AppleTV does have a pretty solid processor too, I think its clock is 3x that of the iPhone.

I'm sure there may be several factors limiting the transfer speed on the current iPhone, I hope they can do what it takes to speed it up a bit.

[rain]

Next to none of these phones will be sold in Canada.
Remember that Rogers requires your first born and a 3 year contract.
People who bought an iPhone in Canada will have to wait another 2 years before they can upgrade.

Oh, Rogers is now charging for incoming text messages, even if it's spam.

What a wonderful company they are. I have 2 friends who chucked their iPhones for BlackBerries. They said it wasn't because of the iPhone itself really, they just needed a phone that worked and Rogers can't provide that. :\

[Milner99]

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that there's a 4GB iPhone there as well!?

Currently there's no 4gb iPhone and the blog sphere has mentioned the possibility of a iPhone Lite...could that be it!?

[coasterswim]

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that there's a 4GB iPhone there as well!?

Currently there's no 4gb iPhone and the blog sphere has mentioned the possibility of a iPhone Lite...could that be it!?No, this list is models someone could trade in, and since there was once a 4GB iPhone, it's on the list.

[NasserAE]

I was in a local Apple store today getting my MacBook power adapter replaced. They have buy one any iPhone 3G cover and get the other one free offer. Sound to me like they are trying to get rid of their current iPhone covers. But if the next iPhone have the same form factor why would they do that?

[justflybob]

I was in a local Apple store today getting my MacBook power adapter replaced. They have buy one any iPhone 3G cover and get the other one free offer. Sound to me like they are trying to get rid of their current iPhone covers. But if the next iPhone have the same form factor why would they do that?

Uhhh... Because it won't? :p

[NasserAE]

Uhhh... Because it won't? :p

That's what I thought but most "rumors" say that it will be the same. My guess is it won't. My guess is that Apple will add unnoticeable thickness to the device to increase the battery size and life.

[ivan.rnn01]

ordinary stupid error... Just rubbish in their database...:)

[Abster2core]

Next to none of these phones will be sold in Canada.
Remember that Rogers requires your first born and a 3 year contract.
People who bought an iPhone in Canada will have to wait another 2 years before they can upgrade.

Oh, Rogers is now charging for incoming text messages, even if it's spam.

What a wonderful company they are. I have 2 friends who chucked their iPhones for BlackBerries. They said it wasn't because of the iPhone itself really, they just needed a phone that worked and Rogers can't provide that. :\

You will be able to upgrade before your contract ends, just like you can with any other cell phone.

Rogers is not now charging for incoming text messages (TM).*†

Until July 7, 2009
Spam is free
Incoming text messages are free if you, and most customers already are, have TM bundled in your cellphone plan


Considering that my iPhone 3G plan is significantly cheaper, better and faster than AT&T. I am not charged for incoming TMs like AT&T does. My iPhone is working beautifully and better than any other cell phone or service I have ever had or used in nearly 30 years. I endorse it and Rogers whole heartedly.

But who am I to complain. I don't have a iPhone like you don't to compare it with. FAH.

* http://www.rogers.com/web/content/wireless-plans/essentials?content10=text_msging#start
† http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/05/rogers-text.html

P.S. NN. Nobody in Canada has to pay for spam messages. "The government's anti-spam bill, introduced last month (April, 2009), also includes new enforcement measures to prevent telecommunications companies from charging customers fees for receiving unsolicited commercial text messages."†

[solipsism]

That's what I thought but most "rumors" say that it will be the same. My guess is it won't. My guess is that Apple will add unnoticeable thickness to the device to increase the battery size and life.
I hope that they use a denser battery design. I’m not sure if silver-zinc battery tech is mature enough or even feasible in a flat design like polymer batteries are, but the iPhone’s high price does seem to warrant the use of a more expensive battery type if it is possible.


You will be able to upgrade before your contract ends, just like you can with any other cell phone.

Rogers is not now charging for incoming text messages (TM).*†

Until July 7, 2009
Spam is free
Incoming text messages are free if you, and most customers already are, have TM bundled in your cellphone plan


Considering that my iPhone 3G plan is significantly cheaper, better and faster than AT&T. I am not charged for incoming TMs like AT&T does. My iPhone is working beautifully and better than any other cell phone or service I have ever had or used in nearly 30 years. I endorse it and Rogers whole heartedly.

But who am I to complain. I don't have a iPhone like you don't to compare it with. FAH.

* http://www.rogers.com/web/content/wireless-plans/essentials?content10=text_msging#start
† http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/05/rogers-text.html

P.S. NN. Nobody in Canada has to pay for spam messages. "The government's anti-spam bill, introduced last month (April, 2009), also includes new enforcement measures to prevent telecommunications companies from charging customers fees for receiving unsolicited commercial text messages."†
The rest of the world has always thought it odd that the US gets charged for incoming calls and texts, but this is a trend that seems to slowly be catching on… unfortunately.

How do you get reimbursed for spam? Do you have to call the telco, go through the automated system, wait on hold and then explain to a CSR to have it taken off?

[solipsism]

If denser means adding more weight than I doubt it.

When referring to a battery’s density, in this context, means energy density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density).


edit:
Some interesting tidbits from Wikipedia’s silver-oxide page…This technology had the highest energy density (prior to lithium technologies) […]

More recently, the company ZPower has introduced a new line of rechargeable silver-zinc batteries to compete with lithium-ion batteries. The claims include an energy density of 200Wh/kg, complete non-flammability, and no toxic chemicals. To offset the high price of silver, the company plans to offer a trade-in policy to recycle all of it. Intel’s venture arm, Intel Capital, has provided the company with financial backing. ZPower claims that an undisclosed "major manufacturer" of laptop computers will introduce its silver-zinc battery in a new line of laptops in 2009. (likely Lenovo or Apple Inc.)


… and comparisons from the energy density link supplied above…Battery type: Lithium-ion
Energy density by mass (MJ/kg): 0.46-0.54
Energy density by volume (MJ/L): 0.83-0.9

Battery type: Silver-oxide
Energy density by mass (MJ/kg): 0.47
Energy density by volume (MJ/L): 1.8

As you can see the weight of the battery would be about the same, give or take a little, for a battery encompassing the same space, but would have an extended mAh for that size and weight compared to Li.

[Abster2core]

How do you get reimbursed for spam? Do you have to call the telco, go through the automated system, wait on hold and then explain to a CSR to have it taken off?

You don't get charged in the first place.

[solipsism]

You don't get charged in the first place.

then they’d have to figure out it’s spam after the fact otherwise they could just have their SMS servers not send out the spam to begin with.

You should have everyone you text with start the message with a spam message so you can have all of them removed, too.

[samab]

The rest of the world has always thought it odd that the US gets charged for incoming calls and texts, but this is a trend that seems to slowly be catching on… unfortunately.

How do you get reimbursed for spam? Do you have to call the telco, go through the automated system, wait on hold and then explain to a CSR to have it taken off?

The rest of the world doesn't know that it's a "theoretical" problem that doesn't exist in real life.

Don't you think that the class action lawsuit happy Americans would have flooded the American courts for the last 10 years if they were charged for incoming sales calls or spam?

Sure, there will be a couple of sales calls that might get through the system and you might get charged for it. But Europeans who oppose the American way of charging incoming calls --- is penny wise and dollar stupid. Except the UK iphone monthly plan, every single European country have a much more expensive iphone plan.

Another penny wise and dollar stupid reaction --- is how Belgium people thinks that the end of anti-bundling is bad for consumers. The European Court of Justice ruled (on 2 cases that have NOTHING to do with mobile phones) last month that Belgium's broad anti-bundling law must be strucken down. The first case was a gas station case, they had a promotion where you gas up your car with a full tank --- they give you 3 weeks of free emergency towing service. The second case was a magazine having a coupon for a few euros off a lingerie. With this law strucken down, a million things will get cheaper in Belgium and maybe one thing (your mobile phone) will get more expensive. Yet these people have the classic penny wise and dollar stupid reaction.

[ivan.rnn01]

The rest of the world doesn't know that it's a "theoretical" problem that doesn't exist in real life.
No, no, this problem doesn't exist in our real life, that is in the real life of people outside the U.S.:lol:

[samab]

No, no, this problem doesn't exist in our real life, that is in the real life of people outside the U.S.:lol:

French people talking about consumer rights and benefits is an oxymoron.

France has 3 national carriers, all French owned, zero foreign carriers have a foothold into the French mobile service market. Another classic penny wise and dollar stupid moment --- French regulators micro-managing when/how simlock should be removed and disallowing the iphone exclusivity.

You want cheaper mobile tarriffs and better handset pricing in France --- add a 4th national carrier license (and allow foreign companies).

[dreyfus2]

I was in a local Apple store today getting my MacBook power adapter replaced. They have buy one any iPhone 3G cover and get the other one free offer. Sound to me like they are trying to get rid of their current iPhone covers. But if the next iPhone have the same form factor why would they do that?

A rather wild theory (not saying it is likely): I did some digging for shipping OLED panels with the same resolution as the iPhone. The only part I could locate was a 3.2" 320x480 AMOLED panel, but none with 3.5". Maybe the new iPhone is the Nano?

[solipsism]

A rather wild theory (not saying it is likely): I did some digging for shipping OLED panels with the same resolution as the iPhone. The only part I could locate was a 3.2" 320x480 AMOLED panel, but none with 3.5". Maybe the new iPhone is the Nano?

That would mess up the entire UI of iPhone OS X. I think it’s pretty safe to say that 3.5” will be present for a long time, but the resolution will increase. Where did you find these screens? What resolutions are available at the 3.5” size? I’m expecting 640x480 on the next iPhone.

[dreyfus2]

That would mess up the entire UI of iPhone OS X. I think it’s pretty safe to say that 3.5” will be present for a long time, but the resolution will increase. Where did you find these screens? What resolutions are available at the 3.5” size? I’m expecting 640x480 on the next iPhone.

I can't follow that logic?! Changing the display size by .3" would not mess up the UI at all, as all layouts are done in pixels (and not inches) and all templates in the SDK target 320x480 pixels too. Increasing the resolution to 640x480, as you suggest, would mess up ever single iPhone app in existence though. It would further force developers to write each app twice in the future. This might happen at some point, but for the time being, having identical resolutions on all devices is a major attraction for developers. The 3.2" panel I found is made by Samsung, the only 3.5" OLED panel I could find is 320x240 only and produced by Toshiba. But then, we do not know if Apple is going OLED at all.

[solipsism]

I can't follow that logic?! Changing the display size by .3" would not mess up the UI at all, as all layouts are done in pixels (and not inches) and all templates in the SDK target 320x480 pixels too. Increasing the resolution to 640x480, as you suggest, would mess up ever single iPhone app in existence though. It would further force developers to write each app twice in the future. This might happen at some point, but for the time being, having identical resolutions on all devices is a major attraction for developers. The 3.2" panel I found is made by Samsung, the only 3.5" OLED panel I could find is 320x240 only and produced by Toshiba. But then, we do not know if Apple is going OLED at all.

So you are saying that the iPhone SDK has a set pixel size for all the apps so we can not expect a higher resolution iPhone anytime soon, despite all the high-end phone moving well past the iPhone’s 2 year old 480x360 resolution?

I’m not an iPhone coder but the code online to make an app RI doesn’t look too rough. If an app is designed for an older iPhone then the app would merely not run on the new one, like many apps that discriminate between the iPhone and Touch now. Apple has given their developers a lot of warning about moving to RI and it’s illogical to think that the iPhone and Touch will remain at 480x360 at a 3.5” display or get a smaller display just to get a higher ppi, when even the iPod Nano has 204ppi or 25% more then the flagship iPod and iPhone. To me, the most likely move is to announce the new iPhone with a higher resolution display to compete better with the other devices and simply move with the times, which should give most developers plenty of time to prepare their apps for an early July release.

Remember, the App Store is already going to have to list which apps are ready for the new iPhone, anyway, because there will be developers that will code specifically for the faster GPU, faster CPU and additional RAM they can use.

And yes, .3” would make a difference. I find many buttons already at the brink of being too small for my fingers.

[dreyfus2]

So you are saying that the iPhone SDK has a set pixel size for all the apps so we can not expect a higher resolution iPhone anytime soon, despite all the high-end phone moving well past the iPhone’s 2 year old 480x360 resolution?

And yes, .3” would make a difference. I find many buttons already at the brink of being too small for my fingers.

Well, as Apple makes the SDK and the iPhone, they could change the SDK too. But as this point the resolution is fix and nothing about it is resolution independent. Most iPhone applications use bitmaps (the vast majority of interface elements uses PNGs), increasing the resolution would cause pixilation in most cases. So, developers would have to redesign the majority of interfaces. Also, any speed gains a faster CPU could bring to e.g. games would be eaten up by the power required to compute the additional pixels.

Also, regarding the "too small" argument: If a button has e.g. 120x30 pixels now and you increase the resolution of the device from 320x480 to 480x640 while maintaining the screen size, the button would get a lot smaller (it covered 1/3rd of the screen's width before and only 1/4th then). Basically you can see the same thing when comparing the old 17" MacBook Pro to the new one... Increasing the resolution from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 while keeping the screen size made everything smaller.

The iPhone already delivers 160 ppi and has great font smoothing. Increasing the screen resolution just for the sake of being able to advertise a bigger number is of little (if any) value. Moving to an advanced technology like OLED (less power consumption, better contrast, bigger gamut and better viewing angles) outperforms anything a higher resolution could do by far.

[solipsism]

The iPhone already delivers 160 ppi and has great font smoothing. Increasing the screen resolution just for the sake of being able to advertise a bigger number is of little (if any) value. Moving to an advanced technology like OLED (less power consumption, better contrast, bigger gamut and better viewing angles) outperforms anything a higher resolution could do by far.

So you are in the camp that thinks we’ll get 480x360 for a 3rd year?

[dreyfus2]

So you are in the camp that thinks we’ll get 480x360 for a 3rd year?

Not saying I favor one or the other. If they can put some magic into the SDK that will take care of that, I am fine with both. Just, going by the resolution independence they have achieved on the desktop so far (even the examples do not really work), I consider RI to be far away – and there is no real pressure, as no OS really has it. It took most developers the better part of one year to provide a 512x512 pixel version of their own application logos... how long will it take to re-design entire complex GUIs?

I think at this point they would only increase the resolution, if they find a way to have a display work at both resolutions without degrading image quality. Most current iPhone apps do not even support rotation properly (so, developers obviously avoided dealing with the geometry and auto-sizing properties in a lot, if not most, cases) - it is not too far-fetched to assume they have just dragged, dropped and resized some elements in IB until it looked so-so. Expecting these apps to scale well, is adventurous.

I certainly do not know, but I strongly expect them to keep the resolution this time around.

[solipsism]

Not saying I favor one or the other. If they can put some magic into the SDK that will take care of that, I am fine with both. Just, going by the resolution independence they have achieved on the desktop so far (even the examples do not really work), I consider RI to be far away – and there is no real pressure, as no OS really has it. It took most developers the better part of one year to provide a 512x512 pixel version of their own application logos... how long will it take to re-design entire complex GUIs?

I think at this point they would only increase the resolution, if they find a way to have a display work at both resolutions without degrading image quality. Most current iPhone apps do not even support rotation properly (so, developers obviously avoided dealing with the geometry and auto-sizing properties in a lot, if not most, cases) - it is not too far-fetched to assume they have just dragged, dropped and resized some elements in IB until it looked so-so. Expecting these apps to scale well, is adventurous.

I certainly do not know, but I strongly expect them to keep the resolution this time around.

Regardless of what some developers are doing, it looks like Apple has planned for this eventual change with UIViewAutoresizing. This does not look to be just a repositioning between landscape and portrait.

Coordinate values are represented using floating-point numbers, which allow for precise layout and positioning of content and allow for resolution independence.

As you write your interface code, be aware of the coordinate system currently in effect. Every window and view object maintains its own local coordinate system. All drawing in a view occurs relative to the view’s local coordinate system. The frame rectangle for each view, however, is specified using the coordinate system of its parent view, and coordinates delivered as part of an event object are specified relative to the coordinate system of the enclosing window. For convenience, the UIWindow and UIView classes each provide methods to convert back and forth between the coordinate systems of different objects.• http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/WindowsandViews/WindowsandViews.html
I can’t be certain at this stage, but it does look like Apple may have planned for this natural progression. I suppose we’ll find out in a couple weeks.

[nvidia2008]

So you are in the camp that thinks we’ll get 480x360 for a 3rd year?

I think the iPhone 3G will remain at 480x360 even with the new model coming out in the next few months.

The higher resolution screen will be the 10" tablet I predict out by end of the year. :smokey:

[nvidia2008]

...despite all the high-end phone moving well past the iPhone’s 2 year old 480x360 resolution?...

But most of the Nokias and Blackberrys have smaller screens than the iPhone, AFAIK.

[solipsism]

I think the iPhone 3G will remain at 480x360 even with the new model coming out in the next few months.
The most viable speculation support yours and dreyfus2’s assumption, but I still want a higher resolution iPhone. It’s not bad by any means, and it was top dog in ppi when it came out but I’d like something over 200ppi at this point.
http://images.appleinsider.com/rbc-090527-1.gif


But most of the Nokias and Blackberrys have smaller screens than the iPhone, AFAIK.
They do, but even the smaller screens have similar resolution of the iPhone indicating a higher ppi. That said, my knowledge of OLED is quite low at this point. I’ve read that the same resolution OLED v. LCD is that the OLED looks better in every regard. If that is that case, I’d take that. My concern isn’t specifically about high rez, but about a better image.

[addabox]

I've always thought that the iPhone "nano" was going to be the previous base model made cheaper.

I've always maintained that Apple made the original iPhone as small as possible while still being able to deliver the user experience they intended, making it unlikely that the platform would support a smaller screen. It's not just a matter of fewer home apps or icons; if you imagine shrinking down any number of the iPhone UI elements you quickly realize that the iPhone screen is the size it is for a reason. For instance, how do you make the onscreen keyboard 20% smaller without making it much, much harder to use?

I don't think we'll ever see an iPhone "nano" per se. We'll see cheaper, without quite the hardware chops of the new hotness. By the time the most recent iPhones have 128GB of storage and GHz plus processors and a gig of ram, they'll be giving away next years top of the line.

[nvidia2008]

My gut instinct, is that this iPhone "nano" or "cheap iPhone" is actually the China model iPhone. They get 8GB iPhone with the latest hardware styling but with the cut-down features. :???: My prediction, FWIW.

I think some of this $99 iPhone stuff is the investment institutions or whoever trying to hype up "OMFG got huge market growth possibility buy Apple shares w00t !!!".

I've always thought that the iPhone "nano" was going to be the previous base model made cheaper.

I've always maintained that Apple made the original iPhone as small as possible while still being able to deliver the user experience they intended, making it unlikely that the platform would support a smaller screen. It's not just a matter of fewer home apps or icons; if you imagine shrinking down any number of the iPhone UI elements you quickly realize that the iPhone screen is the size it is for a reason. For instance, how do you make the onscreen keyboard 20% smaller without making it much, much harder to use?

I don't think we'll ever see an iPhone "nano" per se. We'll see cheaper, without quite the hardware chops of the new hotness. By the time the most recent iPhones have 128GB of storage and GHz plus processors and a gig of ram, they'll be giving away next years top of the line.

[solipsism]

I've always thought that the iPhone "nano" was going to be the previous base model made cheaper.

My gut instinct, is that this iPhone "nano" or "cheap iPhone" is actually the China model iPhone.

I don’t think the name “nano” fits a stripped down iPhone that isn’t considerably smaller in size. I’d think that the iPhone and iPhone Pro are the best nomenclature we’ve heard.

Personally, I’d like to see an iPhone nano that is really mainly a phone, an iPod, sans the internet communicator that we have on the current iPhone, once the smartphone market reaches its saturation point. To me, it seems that there are a lot of people that only want to combine their iPod and phone but have little to no interest in constant internet connections and higher-end features. But like the lower-end PC market, Apple might see more benefit in pulling people into the smartphone platform instead of making such a phone.


PS: Why have we not dubbed the non-WiFI iPhone with the assumed modified OS the ChiPhone? :p

[solipsism]

I've always thought that the iPhone "nano" was going to be the previous base model made cheaper.

My gut instinct, is that this iPhone "nano" or "cheap iPhone" is actually the China model iPhone.

I don’t think the name “nano” fits a stripped down iPhone that isn’t considerably smaller in size. I’d think that the iPhone and iPhone Pro are the best nomenclature we’ve heard.

I’d like to see an iPhone that is really mainly a phone, an iPod, sans the internet communicator that we have on the current iPhone, once the smartphone market reaches its saturation point. To me, it seems that there are a lot of people that only want to combine their iPod and phone but have little to no interest in constant internet connections and higher-end features.