I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
Full internet, 3g, MP3 etc can be used by everyone. 3D can not. 3D provides narrow limited viewing angles and varies in its effectiveness on a person by person basis.
I don't have anything against adding 3D to a device if it adds no bulk or additional cost to the device and is used as a further gimmick to sell units but in its current form it is not a 'must have' technology.
I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
I definitely was a big proponent of all of the things you mentioned (full internet, 3g, mp3), of course I don't consider those gimmicks. 3D is very much a gimmick to me. My general rule of thumb is to avoid any movie in 3D because it is likely banking on that one factor as opposed to investing in a good story and character development.
It won't "matter", but it will be annoying and would put me personally off the phone. The 3G and the 3G S for example were too wide for my liking. Whereas the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 1 (the one I currently own) are much nicer to hold because of their width. IMO it would be mistake from a usability and consumer-standpoint to widen the phone even a little bit.
I doubt a couple of mm would make you run to another manufacturer.
Quote:
Did you read the story? The whole rumor is that the phone wouldn't be wider. That's the whole point of going edge-to-egde - to get a bigger screen in a device the same size.
I've been reading this story for a couple of weeks now, possibly longer. Remember that it IS a rumor. And a couple of versions of the story said that the phone was a touch larger. Either way, it's still a rumor, and it doesn't matter what the rumor says. Don't tell me you've suddenly become so naive that you believe it to be exactly correct just because it's been published here?
But I've taken measurements of my iPhone 4, and I don't see how a screen of the same ratio, with a 4" diagonal will fit. It needs just a tiny bit more width. The screen doesn't actually go from edge to edge. It needs a couple of mm on each side for manufacturing purposes.
Quote:
Hope so. The aluminum design of the first iPhone is still the best design of all the iPhones, besides the plastic buttons. The metal buttons on the iPhone 4 really are much nicer/better, and have a nicer click-y-ness too.
I like the style of the 4, but truthfully, it's less comfortable than my old 3G. Too edgy, literally.
It's easier to read, for those of us whose vision isn't perfect. It's also easier to type if the keys are just a few pixels wider and the space is a pixel or so wider. In addition, video would be easier to see. Detail on a high Rez, small display is marginal in viewability to many people.
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?"
Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
Where are the rumors of the other end of the NFC device chain? Apple will not spuriously throw in a piece of hardware without an accompanying piece of elegant software (see FaceTime).
There needs to be a correlative device on the retailer end to communicate with the iPhone 5's NFC chip. Might Apple develop and distribute a cool-looking dongle with a phone jack, WiFi and Ethernet port that retailers can connect, in parallel, to their current VeriFone device?
If this wasn?t Apple that wouldn?t matter to them, but it is Apple. You don?t simply enlarge the pixel sizes and not account for that in the UI. They painstakingly make sure all the elements fit the device.
Remember, that your fingers aren?t getting "just a wee bit bigger? when it touches the screen. Also note there are plenty of apps that have measurements built in that would be out of whack if the pixel size changed.
Again, remember this is the company that sat on the same 480x320 resolution for 3 full years before upping the resolution because they wanted to wait until they could get 4 pixels to exactly represent what was previously 1 pixel so that there would be absolutely no degradation in the quality of the UI experience when they made the change.
Yes, Apple could easily call it Retina Display and still be within the parameters of what we colloquially call ?perfect vision?.
960 x 640 = 288.4ppi for a 4? display.
3438 * (1 / 288.4) = 11.92? from your eyes if you have 20/20 vision.
I don't know of any apps that rely on an actual size for their UI. There are a few that have rulers along the screen, and they would have to update, but so what? Apps are being updated every day. I don't see how a small percentage increase in the screen would need a modded UI from anyone.
Yeah, I've been using the iPhone 4 since the first day it was available and I've dropped so many ...
Oh wait, I actually haven't *ever* dropped a call with an iPhone of *any* kind and no one I've ever met who uses iPhone 4 has ever even mentioned antenna problems to me, or dropping a call either.
How do you think Mac laptops get a WiFi signal? The antenna would be in the Apple logo.
The Rumor I heard was that they are going to actually build the WiFi and BT antenna into the apple logo, which would make since and then you would almost have a uniform design from mac to iPhone.
If the metal *IS* the antenna... now we have to not-touch the entire back (instead of just the edges.)
In the new design, the user becomes the integrated antenna. If you adopt a punk-rocker spike hairdo you can improve your reception by 39% compared to the skin head style.
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to larger?
Doesn't sound right to me.
My guess is that the screen will remain the same but that the phone will be marginally smaller. Thinner, narrower and possibly shorter. Same amazing screen but inside an even smaller phone!
I definitely was a big proponent of all of the things you mentioned (full internet, 3g, mp3), of course I don't consider those gimmicks. 3D is very much a gimmick to me. My general rule of thumb is to avoid any movie in 3D because it is likely banking on that one factor as opposed to investing in a good story and character development.
I agree though Tron in 3D was pretty awesome and the fact that the "real world" parts were in 2D showed they weren't trying to rely on 3D but more using it to enhance the movie.
[...] and integrated near-field communications ship for wireless e-wallet transactions.
always wanted one o' them ship-on-a-phones ... finally my dream comes true. i've also always wanted to read just one ai blog entry that's been proofread but i guess that will have to wait for another day.
I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
Right now, that not very useful, or interesting. If you want 3D, get a Nintendo 3DS. And all they're talking about is 3D trailers, not movies. That won't happen for years. And it's interesting that when they did talk about it a few days ago, they mentioned three groups who would benefit from it. Nowhere in those three groups was the consumer mentioned.
Oh, which phones have 3D now, or will in the next few months?
I don't know of any apps that rely on an actual size for their UI. There are a few that have rulers along the screen, and they would have to update, but so what? Apps are being updated every day. I don't see how a small percentage increase in the screen would need a modded UI from anyone.
You went from not knowing any to backing up my point with a category example. Why does the percentage matter when we're talking about Apple's UI. This isn't Motorola. Can you really see Apple changing their display size and saying, "Meh, it's good enough. So why if some elements are off."? I certainly can't. It's ther UI they seem to put the most attention to detail so why would just not bother all of a sudden?
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?"
Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
They settled on the screen size they did because there were few bigger screens at a low enough price back then. You might as well have said that they wouldn't go to a higher Rez screen because of the research they did showed they didn't need one.
Apple has changed the size of the phone several times now, so doing that isn't anything new. I'm talking about a small size difference in width, less than the increase in length from the 3GS to the 4.
Don't be so astounded that Apple may make a change. Just when we think they won't do something, they do, and when we think they will, they don't. Apple isn't immune from competition either. The truth is that the screen does seem small when compared to many other phones these days. If Apple thinks that will hold back sales, they will change it.
You went from not knowing any to backing up my point with a category example. Why does the percentage matter when we're talking about Apple's UI. This isn't Motorola. Can you really see Apple changing their display size and saying, "Meh, it's good enough. So why if some elements are off."? I certainly can't. It's ther UI they seem to put the most attention to detail so why would just not bother all of a sudden?
Any web apps that rely on CSS for sizing will also need to be rejiggered. BTW, let me just go on record as being very against web apps that lock you into a fixed UI and do not allow you to pinch zoom. I much prefer a well made standard web site that can be zoomed scrolled sideways etc to a purposefully made iPhone web app. The AI rev.2 is improved over the original iPhone version at least.
In the new design, the user becomes the integrated antenna. If you adopt a punk-rocker spike hairdo you can improve your reception by 39% compared to the skin head style.
I can't see Jony Ive going for that design.
Not without a radical rethink of his personal coiffure!
It's easier to read, for those of us whose vision isn't perfect. It's also easier to type if the keys are just a few pixels wider and the space is a pixel or so wider. In addition, video would be easier to see. Detail on a high Rez, small display is marginal in viewability to many people.
Fair enough. And a slightly larger screen, for those reasons, shouldn't be objectionable to most people. It's the Professor's reasoning that comes immediately to my mind as well, and gives me pause on this idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?" Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
Apple surely researched this screen size as much as they research the iPad's screen size. Based on consumer response in both cases, their extensive research seems to have led them to the right design choices. Regarding the iPhone though, after so much time in the market with the same screen size, and absent consumer or developer outcry for a larger screen, I'm just understanding the timing of increasing the screen size now.
Plus, the iPhone just had a major design overhaul with the introduction of the iPhone 4. If Apple was going to increase the screen size to address documented consumer or developer, or even manufacturing, concerns, why wouldn't have such a change been introduced last summer?
Apple doesn't do arbitrary, as the Professor duly noted. Larger is fine (if that's really what Apple's doing), but I be curious to know Apple's rationale.
Did you read the story? The whole rumor is that the phone wouldn't be wider. That's the whole point of going edge-to-egde - to get a bigger screen in a device the same size.
Can you point out where in the story it said the phone wouldn't get wider? "without increasing the physical size of the device" is not necessarily the same as "won't get wider". Is physical size being measured in width? Area of the face? Volume of the device? Apple could make a cube with the same volume as the iPhone and we could still call it the same physical size if we wanted to.
While you like the narrower, longer form of the iPhone 4, I'd prefer if it was a little bit shorter and would be willing to have a couple mm wider to get that along with a bigger display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If this wasn?t Apple that wouldn?t matter to them, but it is Apple. You don?t simply enlarge the pixel sizes and not account for that in the UI. They painstakingly make sure all the elements fit the device.
Remember, that your fingers aren?t getting "just a wee bit bigger? when it touches the screen. Also note there are plenty of apps that have measurements built in that would be out of whack if the pixel size changed.
Again, remember this is the company that sat on the same 480x320 resolution for 3 full years before upping the resolution because they wanted to wait until they could get 4 pixels to exactly represent what was previously 1 pixel so that there would be absolutely no degradation in the quality of the UI experience when they made the change.
Yes, Apple could easily call it Retina Display and still be within the parameters of what we colloquially call ?perfect vision?.
960 x 640 = 288.4ppi for a 4? display.
3438 * (1 / 288.4) = 11.92? from your eyes if you have 20/20 vision.
Your whole point in the 3rd paragraph is irrelevant. That's about actually changing the resolution. So yes, scaling from 1 pixel to 4 will be a much smoother result than trying to scale from 1 pixel to, for example 3, or even two. But that has very little to do with making the same number of pixels a little bigger.
Your last paragraph with the math reaffirms my point that a 4" iPhone would still likely quality as a "Retina display". I was saying that as you get bigger than that (your 4+" display since you don't think increasing by just 1/2" is worth it) would quickly fall outside of that qualitfication. But then again, "Retina display" is a marketing term, so not much point arguing about that.
And I'm just completely baffled by the comment about fingers getting bigger? Have you not seen all the jokes about typos on the iPhone keyboard? I'm saying since my fingers can't get smaller to more accuratly select things in the UI, make the target a little bit bigger. And for those of us without perfect vision, or who don't want to hold a screen 11.92 inches from our face to get the full advantage of 288 ppi (wow, can't you imagine holding an iPhone that close for more than a few minutes!?), having the UI elements, text, etc a little bigger would be a good thing and you'd have little to no loss of image quality.
So it all comes down to "would Apple do it?" All of the technical arguments are meritless (in my opinion). Apple isn't so offended by this idea so as to not allow scaling of an iPhone app to full screen on an iPad, and you don't even need fatter fingers to operate it. Even when displaying pixel-for-pixel the physical size is different compared to pre-iPhone 4 specs (163 ppi vs 132 ppi on the iPad). How could Apple have allowed such a horrible rendering of a UI on one of their devices! Oh the humanity!
Apple is apparently also OK with the idea of having full-screen apps used across its entire line of Mac computers, too, with Lion's new full-screen UI option. Are they going to create a new UI standard for each and every screen size of Macs and monitors they sell? (Yes, I know it's different with a touch screen. Just don't think it's nearly as big of an issue as you do.)
Comments
I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
Full internet, 3g, MP3 etc can be used by everyone. 3D can not. 3D provides narrow limited viewing angles and varies in its effectiveness on a person by person basis.
I don't have anything against adding 3D to a device if it adds no bulk or additional cost to the device and is used as a further gimmick to sell units but in its current form it is not a 'must have' technology.
I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
I definitely was a big proponent of all of the things you mentioned (full internet, 3g, mp3), of course I don't consider those gimmicks. 3D is very much a gimmick to me. My general rule of thumb is to avoid any movie in 3D because it is likely banking on that one factor as opposed to investing in a good story and character development.
It won't "matter", but it will be annoying and would put me personally off the phone. The 3G and the 3G S for example were too wide for my liking. Whereas the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 1 (the one I currently own) are much nicer to hold because of their width. IMO it would be mistake from a usability and consumer-standpoint to widen the phone even a little bit.
I doubt a couple of mm would make you run to another manufacturer.
Did you read the story? The whole rumor is that the phone wouldn't be wider. That's the whole point of going edge-to-egde - to get a bigger screen in a device the same size.
I've been reading this story for a couple of weeks now, possibly longer. Remember that it IS a rumor. And a couple of versions of the story said that the phone was a touch larger. Either way, it's still a rumor, and it doesn't matter what the rumor says. Don't tell me you've suddenly become so naive that you believe it to be exactly correct just because it's been published here?
But I've taken measurements of my iPhone 4, and I don't see how a screen of the same ratio, with a 4" diagonal will fit. It needs just a tiny bit more width. The screen doesn't actually go from edge to edge. It needs a couple of mm on each side for manufacturing purposes.
Hope so. The aluminum design of the first iPhone is still the best design of all the iPhones, besides the plastic buttons. The metal buttons on the iPhone 4 really are much nicer/better, and have a nicer click-y-ness too.
I like the style of the 4, but truthfully, it's less comfortable than my old 3G. Too edgy, literally.
It's easier to read, for those of us whose vision isn't perfect. It's also easier to type if the keys are just a few pixels wider and the space is a pixel or so wider. In addition, video would be easier to see. Detail on a high Rez, small display is marginal in viewability to many people.
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?"
Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
There needs to be a correlative device on the retailer end to communicate with the iPhone 5's NFC chip. Might Apple develop and distribute a cool-looking dongle with a phone jack, WiFi and Ethernet port that retailers can connect, in parallel, to their current VeriFone device?
It's more likely to have a slide-out antenna.
And even though we don't really know, we know it will not have these things.
Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydibN4UuKME
If this wasn?t Apple that wouldn?t matter to them, but it is Apple. You don?t simply enlarge the pixel sizes and not account for that in the UI. They painstakingly make sure all the elements fit the device.
Remember, that your fingers aren?t getting "just a wee bit bigger? when it touches the screen. Also note there are plenty of apps that have measurements built in that would be out of whack if the pixel size changed.
Again, remember this is the company that sat on the same 480x320 resolution for 3 full years before upping the resolution because they wanted to wait until they could get 4 pixels to exactly represent what was previously 1 pixel so that there would be absolutely no degradation in the quality of the UI experience when they made the change.
Yes, Apple could easily call it Retina Display and still be within the parameters of what we colloquially call ?perfect vision?.
I don't know of any apps that rely on an actual size for their UI. There are a few that have rulers along the screen, and they would have to update, but so what? Apps are being updated every day. I don't see how a small percentage increase in the screen would need a modded UI from anyone.
It's about time they fixed that damn antenna!
Yeah, I've been using the iPhone 4 since the first day it was available and I've dropped so many ...
Oh wait, I actually haven't *ever* dropped a call with an iPhone of *any* kind and no one I've ever met who uses iPhone 4 has ever even mentioned antenna problems to me, or dropping a call either.
How do you think Mac laptops get a WiFi signal? The antenna would be in the Apple logo.
The Rumor I heard was that they are going to actually build the WiFi and BT antenna into the apple logo, which would make since and then you would almost have a uniform design from mac to iPhone.
If the metal *IS* the antenna... now we have to not-touch the entire back (instead of just the edges.)
In the new design, the user becomes the integrated antenna. If you adopt a punk-rocker spike hairdo you can improve your reception by 39% compared to the skin head style.
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to larger?
Doesn't sound right to me.
My guess is that the screen will remain the same but that the phone will be marginally smaller. Thinner, narrower and possibly shorter. Same amazing screen but inside an even smaller phone!
I definitely was a big proponent of all of the things you mentioned (full internet, 3g, mp3), of course I don't consider those gimmicks. 3D is very much a gimmick to me. My general rule of thumb is to avoid any movie in 3D because it is likely banking on that one factor as opposed to investing in a good story and character development.
I agree though Tron in 3D was pretty awesome and the fact that the "real world" parts were in 2D showed they weren't trying to rely on 3D but more using it to enhance the movie.
[...] and integrated near-field communications ship for wireless e-wallet transactions.
always wanted one o' them ship-on-a-phones ... finally my dream comes true. i've also always wanted to read just one ai blog entry that's been proofread but i guess that will have to wait for another day.
I heard the same about introduction of full internet, 3g, mp3, and any new tech into phones.
Imagine iPhone 5 3d bundled with some of Disney/Pixar 3d content?
Or watching Avatar in 3d.
Or recording/viewing 3d photos and videos?
Or facetime in 3d?
Right now, that not very useful, or interesting. If you want 3D, get a Nintendo 3DS. And all they're talking about is 3D trailers, not movies. That won't happen for years. And it's interesting that when they did talk about it a few days ago, they mentioned three groups who would benefit from it. Nowhere in those three groups was the consumer mentioned.
Oh, which phones have 3D now, or will in the next few months?
I don't know of any apps that rely on an actual size for their UI. There are a few that have rulers along the screen, and they would have to update, but so what? Apps are being updated every day. I don't see how a small percentage increase in the screen would need a modded UI from anyone.
You went from not knowing any to backing up my point with a category example. Why does the percentage matter when we're talking about Apple's UI. This isn't Motorola. Can you really see Apple changing their display size and saying, "Meh, it's good enough. So why if some elements are off."? I certainly can't. It's ther UI they seem to put the most attention to detail so why would just not bother all of a sudden?
It still makes no sense to me unless they have decided to do a "small" and a "large" iPhone for some reason.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?"
Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
They settled on the screen size they did because there were few bigger screens at a low enough price back then. You might as well have said that they wouldn't go to a higher Rez screen because of the research they did showed they didn't need one.
Apple has changed the size of the phone several times now, so doing that isn't anything new. I'm talking about a small size difference in width, less than the increase in length from the 3GS to the 4.
Don't be so astounded that Apple may make a change. Just when we think they won't do something, they do, and when we think they will, they don't. Apple isn't immune from competition either. The truth is that the screen does seem small when compared to many other phones these days. If Apple thinks that will hold back sales, they will change it.
You went from not knowing any to backing up my point with a category example. Why does the percentage matter when we're talking about Apple's UI. This isn't Motorola. Can you really see Apple changing their display size and saying, "Meh, it's good enough. So why if some elements are off."? I certainly can't. It's ther UI they seem to put the most attention to detail so why would just not bother all of a sudden?
Any web apps that rely on CSS for sizing will also need to be rejiggered. BTW, let me just go on record as being very against web apps that lock you into a fixed UI and do not allow you to pinch zoom. I much prefer a well made standard web site that can be zoomed scrolled sideways etc to a purposefully made iPhone web app. The AI rev.2 is improved over the original iPhone version at least.
In the new design, the user becomes the integrated antenna. If you adopt a punk-rocker spike hairdo you can improve your reception by 39% compared to the skin head style.
I can't see Jony Ive going for that design.
Not without a radical rethink of his personal coiffure!
It's easier to read, for those of us whose vision isn't perfect. It's also easier to type if the keys are just a few pixels wider and the space is a pixel or so wider. In addition, video would be easier to see. Detail on a high Rez, small display is marginal in viewability to many people.
Fair enough. And a slightly larger screen, for those reasons, shouldn't be objectionable to most people. It's the Professor's reasoning that comes immediately to my mind as well, and gives me pause on this idea.
Apple spent years working on the iPhone before anyone ever saw it and settled on the screen size they did years before it was released. It's in the market for 4 or 5 years and it's never changed size or ratio, and then now they just arbitrarily change it to "larger?" Doesn't sound right to me. Sounds like something HTC would do, but not Apple.
Apple surely researched this screen size as much as they research the iPad's screen size. Based on consumer response in both cases, their extensive research seems to have led them to the right design choices. Regarding the iPhone though, after so much time in the market with the same screen size, and absent consumer or developer outcry for a larger screen, I'm just understanding the timing of increasing the screen size now.
Plus, the iPhone just had a major design overhaul with the introduction of the iPhone 4. If Apple was going to increase the screen size to address documented consumer or developer, or even manufacturing, concerns, why wouldn't have such a change been introduced last summer?
Apple doesn't do arbitrary, as the Professor duly noted. Larger is fine (if that's really what Apple's doing), but I be curious to know Apple's rationale.
Did you read the story? The whole rumor is that the phone wouldn't be wider. That's the whole point of going edge-to-egde - to get a bigger screen in a device the same size.
Can you point out where in the story it said the phone wouldn't get wider? "without increasing the physical size of the device" is not necessarily the same as "won't get wider". Is physical size being measured in width? Area of the face? Volume of the device? Apple could make a cube with the same volume as the iPhone and we could still call it the same physical size if we wanted to.
While you like the narrower, longer form of the iPhone 4, I'd prefer if it was a little bit shorter and would be willing to have a couple mm wider to get that along with a bigger display.
If this wasn?t Apple that wouldn?t matter to them, but it is Apple. You don?t simply enlarge the pixel sizes and not account for that in the UI. They painstakingly make sure all the elements fit the device.
Remember, that your fingers aren?t getting "just a wee bit bigger? when it touches the screen. Also note there are plenty of apps that have measurements built in that would be out of whack if the pixel size changed.
Again, remember this is the company that sat on the same 480x320 resolution for 3 full years before upping the resolution because they wanted to wait until they could get 4 pixels to exactly represent what was previously 1 pixel so that there would be absolutely no degradation in the quality of the UI experience when they made the change.
Yes, Apple could easily call it Retina Display and still be within the parameters of what we colloquially call ?perfect vision?.
Your whole point in the 3rd paragraph is irrelevant. That's about actually changing the resolution. So yes, scaling from 1 pixel to 4 will be a much smoother result than trying to scale from 1 pixel to, for example 3, or even two. But that has very little to do with making the same number of pixels a little bigger.
Your last paragraph with the math reaffirms my point that a 4" iPhone would still likely quality as a "Retina display". I was saying that as you get bigger than that (your 4+" display since you don't think increasing by just 1/2" is worth it) would quickly fall outside of that qualitfication. But then again, "Retina display" is a marketing term, so not much point arguing about that.
And I'm just completely baffled by the comment about fingers getting bigger? Have you not seen all the jokes about typos on the iPhone keyboard? I'm saying since my fingers can't get smaller to more accuratly select things in the UI, make the target a little bit bigger. And for those of us without perfect vision, or who don't want to hold a screen 11.92 inches from our face to get the full advantage of 288 ppi (wow, can't you imagine holding an iPhone that close for more than a few minutes!?), having the UI elements, text, etc a little bigger would be a good thing and you'd have little to no loss of image quality.
So it all comes down to "would Apple do it?" All of the technical arguments are meritless (in my opinion). Apple isn't so offended by this idea so as to not allow scaling of an iPhone app to full screen on an iPad, and you don't even need fatter fingers to operate it. Even when displaying pixel-for-pixel the physical size is different compared to pre-iPhone 4 specs (163 ppi vs 132 ppi on the iPad). How could Apple have allowed such a horrible rendering of a UI on one of their devices! Oh the humanity!
Apple is apparently also OK with the idea of having full-screen apps used across its entire line of Mac computers, too, with Lion's new full-screen UI option. Are they going to create a new UI standard for each and every screen size of Macs and monitors they sell? (Yes, I know it's different with a touch screen. Just don't think it's nearly as big of an issue as you do.)