or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone 4 apps will fill iPad screen, get VGA output
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone 4 apps will fill iPad screen, get VGA output

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 
It seems obvious in retrospect to consider that apps designed for iPhone 4 will nearly fill an iPad display. Conversely, iPad apps will nearly fit into the new phone's Retina display without modification.

The stunning 960x640 resolution of the iPhone 4 Retina display is double the linear resolution of the current iPhone, giving it the highest pixel density of any smartphone on the market when it goes on sale later this month. The iPad's 1024x768 resolution is just slightly larger despite having a much larger display surface. While the 132ppi pixel density of iPad was already higher than any Mac Apple sells, the new iPhone 4 boasts a much higher 326ppi resolution density.

The iOS app developer of Make Coffee depicts on its site how apps with a native resolution version designed for iPhone 4 will look on iPad (below); it's the same as a pixel doubled version of a standard iPhone app, but in high resolution of course.

At WWDC, chief executive Steve Jobs noted during his keynote presentation that iPhone 4 will automatically scale existing iOS apps to its higher resolution, making text and user interface controls appear sharper without developers needing to do anything. Jobs noted that with a little additional effort, custom artwork can be enhanced to make iPhone 4 apps that look exceptional.

This reduces the efforts developers must make to address the iOS mobile resolution of existing iPhone and iPod touch users as well as iPhone 4 and iPad resolutions. These can all be packed into the same universal app. Other platforms have introduced a variety of non-standard resolutions on various new phones that developers will need to test against, complicating their efforts.



Blogger Robert Scoble captured a detailed shot of the new phone using what appears to be a 21 megapixel camera, resulting in a detailed, fingerprint-level look at its screen resolution density (shown here in part at the photo's native resolution).



iPhone 4 gets additional iPad video features

Also underreported is the fact that iPhone 4 will support the iPad's VGA video output cable for delivering 1024x768 resolution, enabling developers to add video output features to their apps. Unfortunately, there is no hardware support for HDMI output (or its HDCP DRM), meaning that high definition content from iTunes will not be playable through a VGA projector or display.

Several high end competing smartphone devices now support HDMI output, although (somewhat ironically), these devices don't really have access to sync legitimately licensed HD media from sources such as iTunes or Blu-Ray Digital Copy, and therefore can only play what they don't have, rather than not being able to play what they do have, as iPhone 4 and iPad.

Unlike iPad, iPhone 4 can capture photos and video in both VGA quality (from the front facing camera) and in 720p HD at 30 fps from the 5 megapixel rear camera, providing additional reasons to output 1024x768 video from the device.

iPhone 4 also appears able to support the iPad's camera connection kit, although this isn't expressly stated by Apple. The new phone specifications add support for MJPEG video compression, a very inefficient format primarily used by point-and-shoot cameras that take video and capture it as AVI files. Support for the codec is only useful for syncing with camera devices; other similarities between iPhone 4 and iPad (such as VGA out support) suggest that the camera adapter should work with the new phone as well.
post #2 of 103
ok, now what?
sent from my... internet browser of choice.
Reply
sent from my... internet browser of choice.
Reply
post #3 of 103
Good deal...
post #4 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Conversely, iPad apps will nearly fit into the new phone's Retina display without modification.

I'm guessing you're talking about theoretical, as opposed to shipping functionality.

I mean, there's no way you'd want to run an iPad app (designed for a 9.5" touchscreen) on an iPhone 4's 3.5" touchscreen.

The touch targets (and text and graphics) would appear miniscule. The app would be, for all practical purposes, unusable, and SJ would certainly never allow this travesty.
post #5 of 103
OK, but what will native iPhone4 apps look like on an iphone 3gs?
post #6 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While the 132ppi pixel density of iPad was already the highest of any device Apple sells, the new iPhone 4 boasts a 326ppi resolution density.

That's actually not true, the current iPod nano boasts a 204ppi resolution.

http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/specs.html
post #7 of 103
Quote:
While the 132ppi pixel density of iPad was already the highest of any device Apple sells,

Actually, all the older iPhones and Touch, as well as any classic iPod beat the PPI of the iPad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sity#Apple_Inc.
post #8 of 103
Boy, that display looks nice.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesure View Post

OK, but what will native iPhone4 apps look like on an iphone 3gs?

I think that there will be few iPhone 4 only apps. It would be a commercial suicide. I think you will have tons of "universal iphone apps". I mean apps that works on every iphone at different resolutions. So to answer your qustion, iPhone 4 apps will look on a 3gs/3G/edge as usual, while will look pretty sharper on the new device.

I actually don't agree with Jobs when he says that with small efforts you can update the visual of your app. It really depends on the app. Apps that only uses the cocoa touch library will need no effort at all, while apps like mine (the make coffee one mentioned above) will need such an effort that we decided to go straight to version 2.0 evolving the whole app concept.

p.s.
I got more high res pictures here, check it out:

http://www.make-coffee.net/images/iO...RANSPARENT.png

http://www.make-coffee.net/images/iO...RANSPARENT.png
post #10 of 103
Cool, so all my HD apps on my iPad should work on the new iPhone 4, right?
post #11 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarvijarv View Post

Cool, so all my HD apps on my iPad should work on the new iPhone 4, right?

No... actually is the opposite thing. Your iPhone 4 apps should work in a pretty good high def on your iPad
post #12 of 103
Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:

Quote:
The iPhone 4 is actually very far from a retina display. It's a substantial discrepancy and not even close: At 12 inches the 1 dimensional linear difference is 326/477 = 68 percent. But the pixel (area) density for two dimensions, which is the actual relevant observable, is that value squared = 0.47, so the iPhone 4 is more than a factor of two from being a retina display at the typical 12 inch viewing distance. Stated another way: The iPhone display would need to have 1.3 megapixels instead of 0.6 megapixels to be a retina display.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.
post #13 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
post #14 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post

The touch targets (and text and graphics) would appear miniscule. The app would be, for all practical purposes, unusable, and SJ would certainly never allow this travesty.

This is an excellent point -- I was wondering about that too, but had trouble articulating it. You phrased it very clearly.
post #15 of 103
It is true that "retina display" is probably a misleading name, but really explains the idea and is a pretty cool name :P
post #16 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.

It was discussed here. For most people, it will still be a retina display...
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #17 of 103
I think this is not true. The iOs 4 has some scalable gui so cocoa touch library elements will not appear miniscule.

Every original piece of graphic must be updated to benefit of the new display and of the higher resolution. Otherwise it will not look small but just less sharp.
post #18 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.

I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.

Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for

perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.
If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:
12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" of 20/12 eyesight, which really isn't the case scenario of known human vision.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #19 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is an excellent point -- I was wondering about that too, but had trouble articulating it. You phrased it very clearly.

Thank you.
post #20 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/

He is right, here is another link:
http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/file...naDisplay.html
post #21 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

He is right, here is another link:
http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/file...naDisplay.html

Good write up.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 103
Quote:
Other platforms have introduced a variety of non-standard resolutions

so, anything different than 480x320, 960x640 and 1024x768 is now "non-standard" ?
post #23 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagrath View Post

so, anything different than 480x320, 960x640 and 1024x768 is now "non-standard" ?

Actually, that should read:
Quote:
Other platforms have introduced a variety of non-standard resolutions [and aspect ratios] on various new phones that developers will need to test against, complicating their efforts.

By non-standard, the author doesn't mean that they aren't common, but that other mobile platforms, such as Android, don't enforce standardization of resolutions and aspect ratios.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #24 of 103
Hey, Captain Dumbfck, the Magic Mouse isn't really magical, either. Turns out, it's just technology. Begin complaining..... now!
post #25 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

Hey, Captain Dumbfck, the Magic Mouse isn't really magical, either. Turns out, it's just technology. Begin complaining..... now!

The mouse connects to a magical device...

That Mitchell & Webb Look - S03E06 - Medieval Inventor
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #26 of 103
Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from iPhone using Documents to Go?
Is it possible to control such presentations from a remote control (Bluetooth or whatever)?
That would be the ultimate presentation tool in your pocket! No need to carry the laptop with you!!!
post #27 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.


Android lovers cannot take the heat?
Funny how Apple is the only USA company fighting Asian dominance in this area, and Apple is tiny.
post #28 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post

I'm guessing you're talking about theoretical, as opposed to shipping functionality.

I mean, there's no way you'd want to run an iPad app (designed for a 9.5" touchscreen) on an iPhone 4's 3.5" touchscreen.

The touch targets (and text and graphics) would appear miniscule. The app would be, for all practical purposes, unusable, and SJ would certainly never allow this travesty.

Exactly! This is why I've questioned even 800 x 480 displays on phones. There's no way all that extra resolution can be used in a way that will fully exploit the resolution. I've noticed that even in the high rez phones, just a bit more data is on screen. The smallest fonts on my 3G are already getting too small for readability.

The reasons Apple is using it is the only valid reason for such a high rez display in a phone. Older apps rez up perfectly. Just a bit of anti-aliasing will result in better looking apps, and it will work on my iPad well enough as is.

This is another reason to not support the 2G. The sooner the older 480 x 320 devices are off the market, the quicker app developers will be able to just focus on the new display. Another two years before the 3GS is gone.
post #29 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Please stop calling it a "retina display" lol, that marketing fallacy was debunked over here:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...a_display.html

Still the best display out there but I am not the only one to just hate marketing misleading falsehoods, whoever is spreading them.

And that was debunked here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
post #30 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I can't believe you people are still spreading this FUD.

Remember, Soneira used the 0.6 arcmin resolution of the eye, but that’s for

perfect eyesight. Most people don’t have perfect eyesight. I sure don’t. A better number for a typical person is more like 1 arcmin resolution, not 0.6. In fact, Wikipedia lists 20/20 vision as being 1 arcmin, so there you go.
If I use 1 arcminute instead, the scale factor is smaller, about 3438. So let’s convert that to inches to see how small a pixel the human eye can resolve at a distance of one foot:
12 inches / 3438 = 0.0035 inches Aha! This means that to a more average eye, pixels smaller than this are unresolved. Since the iPhone’s pixels are 0.0031 inches on a side, it works! Jobs is actually correct.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ne-resolution/
If 65% of the population have 20/20 vision or worse how is it not a "retina display" to the vast majority of people who don't have Dr. Soneira's "best case scenario" on 20/12 eyesight.

Ahh! This time you beat me.

The facts on eyesight is that just a small percent have "perfect" vision.

But there is a problem with that "fact" that the good Doctor didn't mention, or isn't aware of. And that's that it's measured at 20 feet, which for our 28mm eye lens is considered to be at infinity. At 12"s the situation changes, in that most people with that prefect vision will have less than perfect vision at that close distance.

So it's just a small percentage of a small percentage.

In addition, that vision test is done with a high contrast target which gives the highest acuity. When contrast is lowered, acuity drops off rapidly. As most elements on displays are lower in contrast, acuity will be lower for them. The truth is that acuity varies for the same person.
post #31 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

He is right, here is another link:
http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/file...naDisplay.html

Good catch. I hadn't seen that one.
post #32 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But there is a problem with that "fact" that the good Doctor didn't mention, or isn't aware of. And that's that it's measured at 20 feet, which for our 28mm eye lens is considered to be at infinity. At 12"s the situation changes, in that most people with that prefect vision will have less than perfect vision at that close distance.

So it's just a small percentage of a small percentage.

In addition, that vision test is done with a high contrast target which gives the highest acuity. When contrast is lowered, acuity drops off rapidly. As most elements on displays are lower in contrast, acuity will be lower for them. The truth is that acuity varies for the same person.

That's an interesting point. I wonder what the average vision is at 12".

At 16" I can no longer differentiate a pixel on my 162ppi iPhone, yet I have 20/15 in one eye and 20/20 or 20/25 in the other as of my last eye exam in early 2009.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #33 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by shagrath View Post

so, anything different than 480x320, 960x640 and 1024x768 is now "non-standard" ?

What was meant is that in other phones, there is no resolution that is used on the majority of them with the same OS. You can find phones coming out AT THE SAME TIME with a number of different resolutions. In addition, none of those resolutions are exact multiples of each other the way Apple has done for the phone. Those Android apps must be used with the proper resolution phone, which means that when an app is downloaded for a particular phone, it has that particular resolution, with possibly a slightly different interface, with a different amount of info present on it, making it a hassle for developers. None is therefor "standard" for that platform. And remember, it's per platform. For Apple, the standards are 480 x 320 which will be gone in another one or two years. The new 960 x 640 phone Touch resolution, and the current iPad resolution.

The point is that developers can depend on them. They can't depend on anything in Android, for example, where Google has approved several different resolutions for phones, and will no doubt have several more for tablets, once they begin to approve tablet use for Android, which they haven't as yet, even though some Android tablets have been shown.
post #34 of 103
2 points not made
  1. iOS4 will redraw text in unmodified iPhoneOS3 apps, to take advantage of the higher density pixels. However, iPad doesn't do this when it doubles the size of iPhoneOS3 apps. So this feature, one presumes, will come to the iPad when it gets iOS4
  2. The VGA output of the iPad supports 720p content according to various tests, but not for any DRM content. So if you film a 720p video, you should be able to VGA it to your plasma at 720p if you have the right cable and connector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theappmachine View Post

The iOs 4 has some scalable gui so cocoa touch library elements will not appear miniscule.

If an iPad app was shrunk onto an iPhone size screen, but the elements automatically rescaled themselves while the rest of the interface shrunk, it'd be all out of whack.

No, an iPad app won't run without modification on an iPhone4.
post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Several high end competing smartphone devices now support HDMI output, although (somewhat ironically), these devices don't really have access to sync legitimately licensed HD media from sources such as iTunes or Blu-Ray Digital Copy, and therefore can only play what they don't have, rather than not being able to play what they do have, as iPhone 4 and iPad.

This is the single biggest missed opportunity for the iPhone.

Apple could have, potentially, sold a bluetooth remote and a HDMI cable and made every iPhone4 a defacto AppleTV.

People would have plugged their iPhone in for a quick and easy rental, or to add youtube to their TV etc. What a pity!
post #36 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That's an interesting point. I wonder what the average vision is at 12".

At 16" I can no longer differentiate a pixel on my 162ppi iPhone, yet I have 20/15 in one eye and 20/20 or 20/25 in the other as of my last eye exam in early 2009.

As we get older, we can't focus as well close up. It's called presbyopia. It's why, at some point, we get reading glasses. Also, most people get cataracts as they get older. I just went through that, which was a horror for me. Most cataracts aren't serious enough for surgery, but they're there. Not everyone will get them, but most people will, to some degree. Most don't even know they have them.
post #37 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Several high end competing smartphone devices now support HDMI output, although (somewhat ironically), these devices don't really have access to sync legitimately licensed HD media from sources such as iTunes or Blu-Ray Digital Copy, and therefore can only play what they don't have, rather than not being able to play what they do have, as iPhone 4 and iPad.


They take HD video and play it back on your big screen TV.

WTF?

And what does "...rather than not being able to play what they do have, as iPhone 4 and iPad" mean?

I think it says that that the iPad cannot play what it does have. Huh?
post #38 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua View Post

It was discussed here. For most people, it will still be a retina display...

And for a lot of people, the 3GS is a retina display, eh?
post #39 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Exactly! This is why I've questioned even 800 x 480 displays on phones. There's no way all that extra resolution can be used in a way that will fully exploit the resolution.


You can watch movies at a more satisfying resolution. Isn't that enough?
post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You can watch movies at a more satisfying resolution. Isn't that enough?

You really think it will make a difference on a 3.2 to a 4.3 inch screen. I doubt that very much.

We aren't nearly as sensitive to resolution with moving images as we are with still images.

You're not going to hold the phone at the ideal distance for resolution. You're going to hold it at the most comfortable distance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone 4 apps will fill iPad screen, get VGA output