I just don't believe that Apple will redesign the iPhone this soon. Only the super techy thinks that the iPhone 4 could possibly look old or outdated at this point. Your average techie still marvels at it's smallness and quality, and your average consumer is only barely caught up to the idea of the 3GS model and it's capability.
I'm sure they'll do the iPhone 5 this year but it will be a reasonable hardware update only. Upgrade to A5, 8MP camera sure, but have the same form factor and probably the same screen. The new qualcomm chipset would make sense too, given Apple's emphasis on growing their global markets, this would be a priority for the business. All of this, plus the next major OS update would have it remain a formidable world player. And most phones would still not be as good.
The iPhone 4 is just now, barely beginning to take over in the public eye for the iconic design it has. It is still too new for the vast majority of people who don't have one yet. Why would anyone want to see that thrown out and redone now? How could that possibly be in Apple's best interest?
I see a lot of lunacy in this rumor and more people ought to be kicking it aside rather than buying into it.
I left my comment on MacRumors and the taper is a bad engineering design for an already thin product which is still a rugged design, not to mention what has already been mentioned regarding venting, larger chip A5 and much more.
The only possible change is the pixel density of the current design, improved antenna design and the rest is internal, with a possibility of a gestures button.
I don't think they will be doing a tapered next iPhone. There's been too much success with flattish iPad 2 and iPhone 4 thus far. Just a guess.
It does't make sense to make such a change - small upside in screen size leading to decrease in resolution and increase in costs. No sense. All exaplined nicely here: http://bit.ly/ful1Xr
This could the design for the cheaper model iPhone, with the A4 chip and none of the new iPhone 5 goodness - like NFC etc. Maybe missing a camera as well, or a microphone ( talking is via the Apple ear microphone) Or it could be an iPod Touch.
Apple need a cheaper model - creating an iPod Touch Phone may be it.
I really hope that they don't start with inductive charging. It's extremely inefficient and wastes a ton of energy.
Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, wasting energy is stupid. We're sending $100 billion a year into the hands of terrorist countries because we've never been able to learn to manage our own energy needs. Our trade balance is a shambles, partly because of energy. And that's $100 billion a year we could be using for other things - medical research, education, or beer.
Until we come to the realization that the way we use energy is like walking into a grocery store, buying $100 worth of groceries and then throwing $30 worth in the trash on the way out the door, we'll never have long term security.
The energy wasted by a single phone is insignificant. But 50 million of them starts to add up. Let's say that inductive charging wastes only 10 W of power. 50 million phones is 500 megawatts - or a decent sized power plant - needed only because idiots are too lazy to stick a power cord into their phone.
Add in all the other phones (which would do it simply because Apple is doing it ) and you're looking at gigawatts of power wasted.
Actually the more I think of it the more I think I am right. If there is an event in September it would be an event to introduce the iPhone and the iPod touches ( which dont normally get an event). And the new iPod Touch Phones. Bascially sold alongside iPod touches, with the same features but a phone chip. Sold off contract in the very same stores which sell iPod Touches.
Until we come to the realization that the way we use energy is like walking into a grocery store, buying $100 worth of groceries and then throwing $30 worth in the trash on the way out the door, we'll never have long term security.
I am not an American, but that is correct, the West needs to get off its dependence on oil. That could be a patriotic movement.
Bud, my ipod touch's back looked like crap on the second day. "Shiny" is great if it stayed that way without needing to leave the protective plastic on the back.
agreed, I take great care of my ipad 2 and after a month it looks like hell on the back...
I don't think they will be doing a tapered next iPhone. There's been too much success with flattish iPad 2 and iPhone 4 thus far. Just a guess.
I don?t think so either, but I?ll do my best to think about how it could happen.
I think they will stick with the external frame antenna. Anything else will just lower it?s capability and take up more space inside, which seems to be about ½ the internal space than the iPhone 4.
I don?t think we should expect such radical design changes like we saw from the iPad and iPad 2 which as about 10x the footprint difference and was an unproven product in an unproven market for the first generation.
I think the next iPhone will resemble the iPhone 4 in design, though perhaps a little thinner, which could come from a slightly thinner antenna and thinner front and back plate without dramatically affecting the internal space.
If we are to believe they are prepping for LTE and/or GSM/CDMA tech in this next or future iPhone I don?t think we should expect Apple to dramatically shrink the internal capacity to the point it hinders it in the next revision.
I do wonder why such a delay seems so likely at this point. What is the primary reason behind it? If it?s for a 2nd iPhone option with a larger display it could give devs time to ready their apps, but that means we?ll also know about months in advance. The less of two evils for Apple over not having any optimized apps for an app phone at launch?
not with resolution independence. In fact Stretching or shrinking wont happen by design.
All that devs had to do with the retina display was create new icons at a higher resolution, no code changes were needed.
That’s because the display size stayed the same. The only change was with the resolution and Apple still made sure they scaled it 2x2 so that pixels were still physically accurate.
Check out an iPhone only app on an iPad and you’ll get an idea of how a display size change will affect the device. It will render the elements pixel perfect on the iPad in 1x mode, but since the pixels are much farther apart the resulting elements are larger, hence the elements are stretched from a 3.5” display to something larger.
If you go to a 2x display those images are then doubled in each direction but it’s still physically drawn to the pixels the way Apple scaled with the Retina Display’s resoltuion. It doesn’t look good and it’s inaccurate for any app that uses a ruler or wants the elements to be represented at a certain size and/or distance.
Remember, this is Apple, not Google, and the look and feel is of utmost importance. They won’t come out with a 5” iPod Touch with a 960x640 display and not have a new SDK to go along with the new I/O. iOS is not a windowed OS and can’t be when the primary output is also the primary input.
That?s because the display size stayed the same. The only change was with the resolution and Apple still made sure they scaled it 2x2 so that pixels were still physically accurate.
Check out an iPhone only app on an iPad and you?ll get an idea of how a display size change will affect the device. It will render the elements pixel perfect on the iPad in 1x mode, but since the pixels are much farther apart the resulting elements are larger, hence the elements are stretched from a 3.5? display to something larger.
If you go to a 2x display those images are then doubled in each direction but it?s still physically drawn to the pixels the way Apple scaled with the Retina Display?s resoltuion. It doesn?t look good and it?s inaccurate for any app that uses a ruler or wants the elements to be represented at a certain size and/or distance.
Remember, this is Apple, not Google, and the look and feel is of utmost importance. They won?t come out with a 5? iPod Touch with a 960x640 display and not have a new SDK to go along with the new I/O. iOS is not a windowed OS and can?t be when the primary output is also the primary input.
The doubling up doesnt stretch the elements - which was your initial claim - it pixelates them because there isnt enough resolution in the original images to scale.
The point about resolution independence is that as long as the number of pixels is a multiple of the original iPhone screen size, the developer does not have to care about changing his code. If he positions at 10,10 it would be a pixels x=10, y=10 on a 3GS and pixels x=20. y=20 on a retina display.
Resolution independence separates points from pixels.
Any screen with the same, or lower resolution as a retina display, of any size with the same ratios will just work. The screen can be bigger with the same resolution too, that just means packing less pixels per inch.
The doubling up doesnt stretch the elements - which was your initial claim - it pixelates them because there isnt enough resolution in the original images to scale.
No I didn’t. Where do you think I said that?
Quote:
The point about resolution independence is that as long as the number of pixels is a multiple of the original iPhone screen size, the developer does not have to care about changing his code. If he positions at 10,10 it would be a pixels x=10, y=10 on a 3GS and pixels x=20. y=20 on a retina display.
Resolution independence separates points from pixels.
Any screen with the same, or lower resolution as a retina display, of any size with the same ratios will just work.
That’s what I said.
Quote:
The screen can be bigger with the same resolution too, that just means packing less pixels per inch.
And any change to the physical size of the display will stretch or shrink the elements if they are designed for a different size display. Size refers to length and height, or the diagonal of the two, not to the numerical value of pixels along the x and y axis or multiplication of the two.
I've bought every version of the iPhone, because each successive version was a quantum leap forward versus the previous generations.
That said, I hugely dislike the iPhone 4. Although I never experienced any antenna issues, the unprotected glass front and back makes it extremely fragile. It breaks easily if you accidentally drop it. It is also quite slippery to hold because of the shiny glass surface.
For me, the ergonomics of a phone's design are essential. I don't give a damn about aesthetics; it is all about functionality. So, unless Apple does something to improve the robustness of the design with the iPhone 5, I won't be upgrading.
I think Apple realises that I am not alone in what I think. Since Apple has superb record for listening to its customers (look at the latest MacBook Air) my belief is that, regardless of this report or any other rumour, the design of the iPhone 5 will change.
Comments
I.... What would be the point of the teardrop shape?
Makes it easier for the user to know which end is up.
Remember when he was at engadget they posted the iPod touch with the capacitive home button which was a 100% fake.
Topolsky is getting way too gullible these days.
I'm sure they'll do the iPhone 5 this year but it will be a reasonable hardware update only. Upgrade to A5, 8MP camera sure, but have the same form factor and probably the same screen. The new qualcomm chipset would make sense too, given Apple's emphasis on growing their global markets, this would be a priority for the business. All of this, plus the next major OS update would have it remain a formidable world player. And most phones would still not be as good.
The iPhone 4 is just now, barely beginning to take over in the public eye for the iconic design it has. It is still too new for the vast majority of people who don't have one yet. Why would anyone want to see that thrown out and redone now? How could that possibly be in Apple's best interest?
I see a lot of lunacy in this rumor and more people ought to be kicking it aside rather than buying into it.
Your signature is not standards compliant.
You should see his Photoshop work.
I left my comment on MacRumors and the taper is a bad engineering design for an already thin product which is still a rugged design, not to mention what has already been mentioned regarding venting, larger chip A5 and much more.
The only possible change is the pixel density of the current design, improved antenna design and the rest is internal, with a possibility of a gestures button.
I don't think they will be doing a tapered next iPhone. There's been too much success with flattish iPad 2 and iPhone 4 thus far. Just a guess.
Apple need a cheaper model - creating an iPod Touch Phone may be it.
Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, wasting energy is stupid. We're sending $100 billion a year into the hands of terrorist countries because we've never been able to learn to manage our own energy needs. Our trade balance is a shambles, partly because of energy. And that's $100 billion a year we could be using for other things - medical research, education, or beer.
Until we come to the realization that the way we use energy is like walking into a grocery store, buying $100 worth of groceries and then throwing $30 worth in the trash on the way out the door, we'll never have long term security.
The energy wasted by a single phone is insignificant. But 50 million of them starts to add up. Let's say that inductive charging wastes only 10 W of power. 50 million phones is 500 megawatts - or a decent sized power plant - needed only because idiots are too lazy to stick a power cord into their phone.
Add in all the other phones (which would do it simply because Apple is doing it ) and you're looking at gigawatts of power wasted.
That would be awesome.
Until we come to the realization that the way we use energy is like walking into a grocery store, buying $100 worth of groceries and then throwing $30 worth in the trash on the way out the door, we'll never have long term security.
I am not an American, but that is correct, the West needs to get off its dependence on oil. That could be a patriotic movement.
Bud, my ipod touch's back looked like crap on the second day. "Shiny" is great if it stayed that way without needing to leave the protective plastic on the back.
agreed, I take great care of my ipad 2 and after a month it looks like hell on the back...
I don't think they will be doing a tapered next iPhone. There's been too much success with flattish iPad 2 and iPhone 4 thus far. Just a guess.
I don?t think so either, but I?ll do my best to think about how it could happen.
I think they will stick with the external frame antenna. Anything else will just lower it?s capability and take up more space inside, which seems to be about ½ the internal space than the iPhone 4.
I don?t think we should expect such radical design changes like we saw from the iPad and iPad 2 which as about 10x the footprint difference and was an unproven product in an unproven market for the first generation.
I think the next iPhone will resemble the iPhone 4 in design, though perhaps a little thinner, which could come from a slightly thinner antenna and thinner front and back plate without dramatically affecting the internal space.
If we are to believe they are prepping for LTE and/or GSM/CDMA tech in this next or future iPhone I don?t think we should expect Apple to dramatically shrink the internal capacity to the point it hinders it in the next revision.
I do wonder why such a delay seems so likely at this point. What is the primary reason behind it? If it?s for a 2nd iPhone option with a larger display it could give devs time to ready their apps, but that means we?ll also know about months in advance. The less of two evils for Apple over not having any optimized apps for an app phone at launch?
With resolution independence developers dont have to do anything.
Sure they do. Resolution is only factor. Stretching or shrinking an element alters its size.
Sure they do. Resolution is only factor. Stretching or shrinking an element alters its size.
not with resolution independence. In fact Stretching or shrinking wont happen by design.
All that devs had to do with the retina display was create new icons at a higher resolution, no code changes were needed.
not with resolution independence. In fact Stretching or shrinking wont happen by design.
All that devs had to do with the retina display was create new icons at a higher resolution, no code changes were needed.
That’s because the display size stayed the same. The only change was with the resolution and Apple still made sure they scaled it 2x2 so that pixels were still physically accurate.
Check out an iPhone only app on an iPad and you’ll get an idea of how a display size change will affect the device. It will render the elements pixel perfect on the iPad in 1x mode, but since the pixels are much farther apart the resulting elements are larger, hence the elements are stretched from a 3.5” display to something larger.
If you go to a 2x display those images are then doubled in each direction but it’s still physically drawn to the pixels the way Apple scaled with the Retina Display’s resoltuion. It doesn’t look good and it’s inaccurate for any app that uses a ruler or wants the elements to be represented at a certain size and/or distance.
Remember, this is Apple, not Google, and the look and feel is of utmost importance. They won’t come out with a 5” iPod Touch with a 960x640 display and not have a new SDK to go along with the new I/O. iOS is not a windowed OS and can’t be when the primary output is also the primary input.
That?s because the display size stayed the same. The only change was with the resolution and Apple still made sure they scaled it 2x2 so that pixels were still physically accurate.
Check out an iPhone only app on an iPad and you?ll get an idea of how a display size change will affect the device. It will render the elements pixel perfect on the iPad in 1x mode, but since the pixels are much farther apart the resulting elements are larger, hence the elements are stretched from a 3.5? display to something larger.
If you go to a 2x display those images are then doubled in each direction but it?s still physically drawn to the pixels the way Apple scaled with the Retina Display?s resoltuion. It doesn?t look good and it?s inaccurate for any app that uses a ruler or wants the elements to be represented at a certain size and/or distance.
Remember, this is Apple, not Google, and the look and feel is of utmost importance. They won?t come out with a 5? iPod Touch with a 960x640 display and not have a new SDK to go along with the new I/O. iOS is not a windowed OS and can?t be when the primary output is also the primary input.
The doubling up doesnt stretch the elements - which was your initial claim - it pixelates them because there isnt enough resolution in the original images to scale.
The point about resolution independence is that as long as the number of pixels is a multiple of the original iPhone screen size, the developer does not have to care about changing his code. If he positions at 10,10 it would be a pixels x=10, y=10 on a 3GS and pixels x=20. y=20 on a retina display.
Resolution independence separates points from pixels.
Any screen with the same, or lower resolution as a retina display, of any size with the same ratios will just work. The screen can be bigger with the same resolution too, that just means packing less pixels per inch.
The doubling up doesnt stretch the elements - which was your initial claim - it pixelates them because there isnt enough resolution in the original images to scale.
No I didn’t. Where do you think I said that?
The point about resolution independence is that as long as the number of pixels is a multiple of the original iPhone screen size, the developer does not have to care about changing his code. If he positions at 10,10 it would be a pixels x=10, y=10 on a 3GS and pixels x=20. y=20 on a retina display.
Resolution independence separates points from pixels.
Any screen with the same, or lower resolution as a retina display, of any size with the same ratios will just work.
That’s what I said.
The screen can be bigger with the same resolution too, that just means packing less pixels per inch.
And any change to the physical size of the display will stretch or shrink the elements if they are designed for a different size display. Size refers to length and height, or the diagonal of the two, not to the numerical value of pixels along the x and y axis or multiplication of the two.
That said, I hugely dislike the iPhone 4. Although I never experienced any antenna issues, the unprotected glass front and back makes it extremely fragile. It breaks easily if you accidentally drop it. It is also quite slippery to hold because of the shiny glass surface.
For me, the ergonomics of a phone's design are essential. I don't give a damn about aesthetics; it is all about functionality. So, unless Apple does something to improve the robustness of the design with the iPhone 5, I won't be upgrading.
I think Apple realises that I am not alone in what I think. Since Apple has superb record for listening to its customers (look at the latest MacBook Air) my belief is that, regardless of this report or any other rumour, the design of the iPhone 5 will change.