or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple's next-gen iPhone will launch with 'at least two screen sizes'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's next-gen iPhone will launch with 'at least two screen sizes' - Page 2

post #41 of 106

In the 80's, I had a Mac Plus.

oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #42 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

There are two sizes right now.

 

Yes. They are "Too Small" and Too Smaller."

 

How anyone manages to access web sites with a screen that size is a complete mystery to me. The current size is fine for pretty much everything else I do with it, but it might as well not even have a web browser at that size.

post #43 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Just because the phones are getting older from a design perspective, doesn't mean they are continually getting cheaper. At some point they may even become more expensive as the components become completely outdated. Just look at the cost of DDR2 for an example. Hardly anyone uses it now so the price has actually gone up from its historic lows.

That's a valid point but with Apple I think we need to assume that if they are gong to the trouble to produce an older device they have likely secured the requisite components at a reasonable price, judged the demand for this older device (thus making it worth the effort), and made sure there is enough production time that won't reasonably short any higher-profit devices from being assembled.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #44 of 106
iMacs, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and iPad minis come in two screen sizes. Maybe the intention is to offer a "by design" low-cost replacement for the iPhone 4S instead of just moving the iPhone 5 into that role. I'm speculating of course because this is just some analyst's pet theory. It's not like Phil Schiller told him this, and supply chain-sourced rumors are not that reliable.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #45 of 106
The next big thing in wearable computing is Google underwear, with sensors and wifi chips that let you post Google+ updates from your nether regions.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #46 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The next big thing in wearable computing is Google underwear, with sensors and wifi chips that let you post Google+ updates from your nether regions.

I was reading that there is a new bra being released in India with GPS and electric shock to ward off sexual attackers and notify the Police of the location. It is called the anti-rape underware.

 

http://www.nbc12.com/story/21908886/3-indian-students-invent-anti-rape-underwear

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #47 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The next big thing in wearable computing is Google underwear, with sensors and wifi chips that let you post Google+ updates from your nether regions.

 

You think? That would just make it identical to Facebook.

post #48 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's a valid point but with Apple I think we need to assume that if they are gong to the trouble to produce an older device they have likely secured the requisite components at a reasonable price, judged the demand for this older device (thus making it worth the effort), and made sure there is enough production time that won't reasonably short any higher-profit devices from being assembled.

True for now but soon I'd think those chip fabs would start to dry up, especially the Samsung CPUs

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #49 of 106
"... two different screen sizes, one analyst claims."

... k done reading

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #50 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's a valid point but with Apple I think we need to assume that if they are gong to the trouble to produce an older device they have likely secured the requisite components at a reasonable price, judged the demand for this older device (thus making it worth the effort), and made sure there is enough production time that won't reasonably short any higher-profit devices from being assembled.

The iPhone 4 series with the glass case probably has a higher material cost than the new iPhone 5 case.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the 4S replaced by 4S guts in an iPhone 5 case.

 

Apple has laid down the law and said they won't be accepting any new apps that don't support the 4" screen resolution so now seems to be the time for them to make that sort of change to the hardware lineup. As a first step simply making a larger iPhone using the same resolution would offer bigger viewing of multimedia content and offer baby boomers a phone they might be able to use without first having to find their reading glasses.

 

The high end geek market would, of course, laugh their asses off at a 4.9" phone with 640x1136 resolution, but they all have rooted Android devices and wouldn't be caught dead inside the walled garden. Apple isn't losing any sales from that crowd.

post #51 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Just because the phones are getting older from a design perspective, doesn't mean they are continually getting cheaper. At some point they may even become more expensive as the components become completely outdated. Just look at the cost of DDR2 for an example. Hardly anyone uses it now so the price has actually gone up from its historic lows.

 

You mean basic economics supply & demand is real!? 

 

You have a good point. The less parts they order, I'm sure the price goes up at some point. Not to mention popularity goes down as the product is seen as stale. 

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #52 of 106

I know what analyst to steer clear from: Brian White, he claimed iRing.

 

He needs to be fired for that IMO.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #53 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

There are several problems with keeping the older phones as their cheaper alternatives. Mstone a few posts above hit one key reason with older component parts not always being cheaper. But people also just like to feel like they are getting a current release and not a phone from a year or two ago. Even if the specs are identical or maybe even not quite as good as last year's premium iPhone.

Secondly, these "free" and $99 older iPhone's are only cheap with a subsidy and a 2 year contract. The vast majority of the world's consumers do not purchase phones with subsidies. They have to buy the iPhone 4S at full price which can range from $549 to $700 or more right now depending on the country just for the 16GB version. The nearly 3 year old iPhone 4 new is still around $450 last time I checked. Even here in the U.S. with T-Mobiles latest moves and hints from Verizon that things might change Apple has to be prepared for a time when their sales might take a big hit as fewer and fewer people receive any phone subsidy at all. So selling last year's model at $550 is not a good long tern strategy as people move away from subsidies. 

Apple doesn't do cheap just to expand MS. The 4 was the second most popular phone last qtr. that means some people see no problems with a two y o phone
post #54 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

The iPhone 4 series with the glass case probably has a higher material cost than the new iPhone 5 case.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 4S replaced by 4S guts in an iPhone 5 case.

I think that's very well could happen, especially if they do plan to release another size for developers to support.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 106
All form factors are a mess after a few years time. So I don't understand these talks about a 'bigger' iPhone. I do understand the talk about smaller tablets. And the soft merger of notebook and tablet.
As a phone 4 inch was way too big and clunky. As a tablet its still a bit too small. Nice for 160 character texts, writing a reply email is already uncomfortable. Never really liked the 4 inch format. A phone must be small to fit your jeans pocket, say 2,5"-3" max: iPhone nano (Yeah!). Jobs said a tablet had to be 10 inch factor. In the end he was 'wrong' ditching the 7 inch factor for iPad. 7 inch is the best for public transport commuters. 7 inch could have wiped out all garmin/tomtom carnav displays a few years ago. I bought the 10" iPad for my 'macless' mother, she loves it.
The ipad mini fits in my bag. It's about time for apple to mix up 'n merge the three products (Phone -Tablet-Notebook). It's silly the iPads can't make or take a stupid phone call when you bought the 3g option. With voice and sms in decline the use for the phone format is decreasing. It is silly a tablet the price of a notebook still has an iOS and not a full operating system. iPad needs an OSx & thunderbolt.
Apple is just a little bit late and lazy, cos they know we'll buy everything in the end.
post #56 of 106
I still don't get this 'without a contract' issue everyone has. How many people do NOT have a contract for cell service? I've been with Cingular/AT&T since 2004.

Is there a site that shows how many people are not on contracts vs. those that are and how long people stay with a carrier?

Please correct me, but I just can't believe there are that many people needing flexibility every 2 years to move between carriers.
post #57 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

The iPhone 4 series with the glass case probably has a higher material cost than the new iPhone 5 case.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the 4S replaced by 4S guts in an iPhone 5 case.

I think that's very well could happen, especially if they do plan to release another size for developers to support.

How are they going to fit the larger components in that thin case? iPhone 5 case requires an iPhone 5 screen making the rest of the 4S guts sort of incompatible from the start.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #58 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

How are they going to fit the larger components in that thin case? iPhone 5 case requires an iPhone 5 screen making the rest of the guts sort of incompatible from the start.

Remember this is about making the shift to a more user friendly platform for a better experience by pushing 3.5" devices from being new sales. That means they make this 4" iPhone with 4S components that resembles the iPhone 5 case thicker than the iPhone 5. But I don't think that would happen as there are many ways they could adjust the components.

For instance, in the iPhone 4S they could use a 28nm chip with the same speed and functionality. Just a smaller lithography like they tested with the iPad 2 Rev.2. Then they could use the newer display tech if it was cheaper to do so but it's not a requirement. On top of that going to 28nm means they can reduce the battery size whilst still keeping the same (or even more battery life) than before.

You also have to consider the back panel on the iPhone 4 and 4S is thick compared to the back panel of the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 has a smaller overall volume than the iPhone 4 and 4S but the internal volume for components may actually be higher. Do we know the internal volume and the internal height of the current iPhone 5, or the current height of the logic board in the iPhone 4S?

That said, I wouldn't put too much effort into seeing the 3.5" iPhones replaced with an equivalent 4" iPhone until we start seeing 3.5" iPhone supplies dry up.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #59 of 106
Added to the mix, IMHO would be the LTE capable iPad Mini: BIG screen.... and , of course, it's cheaper to operate without that expensive voice plan.

To an extent I agree choice is good.
post #60 of 106
The analyst speaks the truth..

I moved to Android to get a bigger screen than my iPhone 4 about 1.5 yrs ago. I would definitely come back to Apple if they sold an iPhone as big as my Samsung Galaxy Nexus , or ideally bigger.

I have a few more friends these days with Androids and the reason most of them give for getting one is screen size, and cost. iPhones are a bit pricey compared to top end androids here in the UK.

People do a lot more with their phones now than make calls... And not everyone wants to carry an iPad with them as well.

I don't see why it does any harm to give people a choice. The standard 4" iPhone 5 for those who appreciate all things small, and a larger 5" version with added benefits like bigger battery etc for those that want it. It's win win.

Just don't take all year to release it,otherwise I will have given up hope and bought another big screen android by then.
post #61 of 106
For those thAt have followed Brian Whites track record, it's probably the worst of any analyst !!!! It's amazing that the SEC hasn't gotten involved in this market manipulating
post #62 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


The high end geek market would, of course, laugh their asses off at a 4.9" phone with 640x1136 resolution, but they all have rooted Android devices and wouldn't be caught dead inside the walled garden. Apple isn't losing any sales from that crowd.

Not just the high end geek market. Such a phone would be suicide when every competing flagship has almost double the PPI. I'd laugh my ass off, then cry, then abandon iOS, because reverting to pre-retina resolutions would mean Apple have well and truly lost it.
post #63 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That means yet another resolution developers have to support. I would think they would do what they did with the iPad mini and simply use the iPhone's old PPI (i.e.: display panels) but still use 1024x768. That would mean using the 264 PPI of the iPad 4 and keeping the 1136x640 resolution which ends up being a 4.9404" display. However, i find that size to be questionable in terms of being called Retina as it means the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect is 13.02".

At a 5" display size a minimum viewing distance for Retina at 13" doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. In fact, it seems about right.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #64 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience. 

My point exactly; those posters who claim Apple would revert to shitty PPI are completely deluded.
post #65 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

At a 5" display size a minimum viewing distance for Retina at 13" doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. In fact, it seems about right.

That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/9/13 at 12:53pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #66 of 106
This is nuts.
post #67 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience. 

They released an iPad mini with an 163 PPI display. Many said it would be DOA because this or that Android tablet had a certain PPI and that Apple had moved to a 264 PPI for the Retina iPad 3. Eventually the iPad mini will be 326 PPI but the technology didn't exist in 2012 for that to be feasible. That isn't to say your prediction is wrong, but your basis as to why it can't happen is flawed.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #68 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

They released an iPad mini with an 163 PPI display. Many said it would be DOA because this or that Android tablet had a certain PPI and that Apple had moved to a 264 PPI for the Retina iPad 3. Eventually the iPad mini will be 326 PPI but the technology didn't exist in 2012 for that to be feasible. That isn't to say your prediction is wrong, but your basis as to why it can't happen is flawed.

You said it yourself, the tech wasn't there last year, hence the Mini got a low-res display. However, there would be no excuse for releasing a flagship smartphone with less than 300 PPI in 2013 (ideally it'd have 400+ to catch up to the competition).
post #69 of 106

Nope

post #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience. 

 

This is right.  I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model.  At 5", double the resolution gives 521 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone.  Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.


Edited by wakefinance - 4/9/13 at 2:45pm
post #71 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.

Sure, but does the bitching and moaning really matter? Look at what that the b&m hasn't done to the iPad mini. With the iPad mini, Schiller was deft enough at marketing it that there was virtually no PR backlash, even at a significantly higher price than the so-called competition. I'm not convinced the phone category would be any different.  

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #72 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

You said it yourself, the tech wasn't there last year, hence the Mini got a low-res display. However, there would be no excuse for releasing a flagship smartphone with less than 300 PPI in 2013 (ideally it'd have 400+ to catch up to the competition).

That's only if you look at it from a technical standpoint. Look at the way Apple has.

Consider the original iPhone. The PPI and resolution was higher than other smartphones. By the 2nd gen others were catching up but Apple most still held a lead. By the 3rd gen they were behind most others in that category. So why did they let others get ahead of them instead of saying "Oh, you have that PPI, well we have that PPI + 1"? Apple simply doesn't react that way.

Instead they waited another year and released the iPhone 4 with not only an exact doubling of the resolution and PPI (4x the number of pixels)… as well as made it an IPS display, better backlight, better color gamut, and closer to the glass.

They did the same thing with the iPad 2 to the 3rd generation iPad, except this time instead of waiting what could negatively be described as "too long" they did it "too soon" as the additional weight and thickness proves is we look at Apple having a strong desire to keep making their products thinner.

In each of these two similar — but different — cases we see Apple not wanting to simply jump the resolution to something that causes a lot of extra work for developers that inevitably creates a time frame of poorly idealized apps for the primary I/O. They clearly have a history of wanting to scale 2:1 when they alter the pixel density. The same goes for the all Retina Macs to date.

The only variance is with the iPhone 5 but lets remember that it's still the same display width and pixel density as all previous iPhone before it so your finger can still pivot from the side. Believe me when I tell you Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the top and bottom bars for apps still coded for the 3.5" display.

With all that in mind do you think they will simply jump the PPI just to say beat out some other vendor's device that will be lucky to turn a profit for said vendor? I don't. I think the best you can reasonable ask for is keeping the 326 PPI and having bars on the left, right, top and bottom, but even that sounds fairly un-Apple to me.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #73 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's only if you look at it from a technical standpoint. Look at the way Apple has.

Consider the original iPhone. The PPI and resolution was higher than other smartphones. By the 2nd gen others were catching up but Apple most still held a lead. By the 3rd gen they were behind most others in that category. So why did they let others get ahead of them instead of saying "Oh, you have that PPI, well we have that PPI + 1"? Apple simply doesn't react that way.

Instead they waited another year and released the iPhone 4 with not only an exact doubling of the resolution and PPI (4x the number of pixels)… as well as made it an IPS display, better backlight, better color gamut, and closer to the glass.

They did the same thing with the iPad 2 to the 3rd generation iPad, except this time instead of waiting what could negatively be described as "too long" they did it "too soon" as the additional weight and thickness proves is we look at Apple having a strong desire to keep making their products thinner.

In each of these two similar — but different — cases we see Apple not wanting to simply jump the resolution to something that causes a lot of extra work for developers that inevitably creates a time frame of poorly idealized apps for the primary I/O. They clearly have a history of wanting to scale 2:1 when they alter the pixel density. The same goes for the all Retina Macs to date.

The only variance is with the iPhone 5 but lets remember that it's still the same display width and pixel density as all previous iPhone before it so your finger can still pivot from the side. Believe me when I tell you Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the top and bottom bars for apps still coded for the 3.5" display.

With all that in mind do you think they will simply jump the PPI just to say beat out some other vendor's device that will be lucky to turn a profit for said vendor? I don't. I think the best you can reasonable ask for is keeping the 326 PPI and having bars on the left, right, top and bottom, but even that sounds fairly un-Apple to me.

Or, you know, an exact doubling of the current resolution on a 5" screen.
post #74 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

 


PS: I think the "stretch model" was a tactical mistake as it is - as it won't scale well if expanded in both directions, making something very top-heavy in a "pocketable."  Hoping tactical won't become strategic as form factors evolve, but not hopeful.  

 

Well, the whole iOS is a strategic mistake making it "pixel perfect". Now, if you want to make an iOS phone or tablet with a different resolution, you suddenly in danger of "fragmentation": iphoneiphone retina, iphone 5, ipad, ipad retina, ipod, AppleTV.  Big problem. The "pixel perfect" iOS is the reason Apple is stuck with one resolution. iPhone 5 solution is just a band aid to the problem. The iOS UI needs to be completely rewritten so it could be used with various resolutions, just like Mac.

 

Google, on the other hand, did not make that mistake with Android. From the version 1.0 Andoid has a scalable resolution-independent UI. 


Edited by mercury99 - 4/9/13 at 1:41pm

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

This is right.  I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model.  At 5", double the resolution gives 492 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone.  Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.

That sounds great in theory, but if you're Apple how do you take it to market? Who would pay significantly more on-contract for that phone? In subsidy-based markets like the US, the elderly certainly wouldn't in any large numbers. Teens who otherwise might gravitate to big phones as a single-screen computing solution wouldn't pay an extra hundred bucks or so subsidized. Those both are fairly price-sensitive demographics who, not coincidently, may care less about such high resolution specs.  

 

What would the un-subsidized market be like? What would the un-sub price be for such a phone? From what I have gathered the largest markets for such a big phone would be the subsidy-free, developing world, and Asia markets, where there also is more price sensitivity. I think Apple got it right in that the lower-resolution/lower-cost smaller iPad was a great solution for those markets.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #76 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Or, you know, an exact doubling of the current resolution on a 5" screen.

I guess they technically could do that but there is absolutely no precedence for it. Even the iPad mini is using the PPI that came on the original iPhone. That's what it's 7.85". They save a lot of money by going with equipment and expertise they've built up over half a decade.

On top of that it doesn't look technically feasible. The 4" iPhone is 1136x640; if you double that you get 2272x1280. That's a 521.55 PPI for a 5" display. That PPI would be costly and there is likely only a minor visual benefit to the user over Apple's 326 PPI. Once you get to around 400 PPI there is probably no discernible benefit.

Worst of all, that's 2.9 million pixels on a phone. That's only 200k pixels less than the iPad 3! If the HTC One with a 1080p display only has 2 million pixels and shitty battery life. So why would Apple want to incur the cost of the display tech difficulty, new equipment investments for making the display, more and faster GPU cores for pushing to nearly 3 million pixels and/or a slow down in visual performance, and much worse battery life and/or a heavier and thicker device? The only reason is to measure their tech dick but that's not what Apple usually does, especially when the only benefit is to put one item on a spec sheet with many, many issues with the UX as a result.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


They start it with the word rumor. That seems sufficient to me.

since when what someone (no matter how stupid he/she is) says is considered a "rumor"?

post #78 of 106
would be interesting how apple would market a larger screen seeing as the iPhone 5 is marketed as the perfect size for one hand operation
post #79 of 106

You are absolutely right, getting old doesn't necessarily mean they will get cheap. Besides that, iPhones are always gonna be quality products.
 

post #80 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I guess they technically could do that but there is absolutely no precedence for it. Even the iPad mini is using the PPI that came on the original iPhone. That's what it's 7.85". They save a lot of money by going with equipment and expertise they've built up over half a decade.

On top of that it doesn't look technically feasible. The 4" iPhone is 1136x640; if you double that you get 2272x1280. That's a 521.55 PPI for a 5" display. That PPI would be costly and there is likely only a minor visual benefit to the user over Apple's 326 PPI. Once you get to around 400 PPI there is probably no discernible benefit.

Worst of all, that's 2.9 million pixels on a phone. That's only 200k pixels less than the iPad 3! If the HTC One with a 1080p display only has 2 million pixels and shitty battery life. So why would Apple want to incur the cost of the display tech difficulty, new equipment investments for making the display, more and faster GPU cores for pushing to nearly 3 million pixels and/or a slow down in visual performance, and much worse battery life and/or a heavier and thicker device? The only reason is to measure their tech dick but that's not what Apple usually does, especially when the only benefit is to put one item on a spec sheet with many, many issues with the UX as a result.

 

What do you mean there's no precedence for it?  iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 was an exact doubling of the pixels.  iPad 2 to iPad 3 was an exact doubling of the pixels.  And you're right about the ppi on a 5 inch screen.  I updated my post to use the right number.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Rumor: Apple's next-gen iPhone will launch with 'at least two screen sizes'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple's next-gen iPhone will launch with 'at least two screen sizes'