or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 32GB iPhone listed as AT&T trade-in; Rogers preps for launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

32GB iPhone listed as AT&T trade-in; Rogers preps for launch - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

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 its 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? Im expecting 640x480 on the next iPhone.
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 #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That would mess up the entire UI of iPhone OS X. I think its 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? Im 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.
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

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.
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 #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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 iPhones 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.
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

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 well get 480x360 for a 3rd year?
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 #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So you are in the camp that thinks well 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.
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

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 views 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/li...sandViews.html I cant be certain at this stage, but it does look like Apple may have planned for this natural progression. I suppose well find out in a couple weeks.
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 #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So you are in the camp that thinks well 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.
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism

...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.
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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 dreyfus2s assumption, but I still want a higher resolution iPhone. Its not bad by any means, and it was top dog in ppi when it came out but Id like something over 200ppi at this point.
[CENTER][/CENTER]


Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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. Ive read that the same resolution OLED v. LCD is that the OLED looks better in every regard. If that is that case, Id take that. My concern isnt specifically about high rez, but about a better image.
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 #51 of 54
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.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #52 of 54
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 !!!".

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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

I dont think the name nano fits a stripped down iPhone that isnt considerably smaller in size. Id think that the iPhone and iPhone Pro are the best nomenclature weve heard.

Personally, Id 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?
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 #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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

I dont think the name nano fits a stripped down iPhone that isnt considerably smaller in size. Id think that the iPhone and iPhone Pro are the best nomenclature weve heard.

Id 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.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 32GB iPhone listed as AT&T trade-in; Rogers preps for launch