I think the iPhone is too important to Apple to make it a "one more thing". I think Apple will start with the usual stats, then move into the iPods but at much faster pace than before.
I think that only the iPod Touch will change it's design around, outside of color changes that may affect the Nano and Shuffles.
Then we get a very long session for the iPhone. I think they will also focus on its reception since they had to do a special event just to talk about the antenna last year and don't want any bad press that will cost them millions in free cases.
If there is a "one more thing" product I think it could be about the AppleTV but I'm holding my breath.
This seems pretty accurate to me.
A pre-paid cheap iPhone, a 5 inch iPod Touch, and a 56 inch TV set are probably not realistic expectations for this event. But even so I'm excited about what's in store.
I doubt there is going to be a change in screen size unless they have a specific reason for the change (like the multitasking bar is permanent).if there is a change in size then developers will have to rewrite apps, even if you don't change the density. Making pixels bigger just throws off the entire ui of an app and defeats the purpose of a bigger screen. They should have given developers a heads up if that was the case.
Nothing wrong about making pixels a bit bigger. It's like viewing computer desktop on 15" and 17" at the same 1024x768 resolution: it happens all the time. And no need to rewrite programs: both MacOS and Windows can run one resolution on multiple screen sizes. Both 13" Macbook Air and 15" MacBook Pro run 1440 x 900 native resolution and in addition can run other resolutions.
iPhone's 3.5" screen is too small. The keyboard is too small: for that reason it does not even have cursor keys making typing a pain. Also, unlike Android browser, iOS 4 browser can't run in full screen mode making usable real estate even smaller the 3.5".
I'll never go back to 3.5" or even 4" screen from my current 4.3". I have held in my hand the new Samsung Infuse 4G with 4.5" screen and it amazing, even thinner then iPhone (only 9 mm), still pocketable and easier to hold vs. tiny iPhone, the battery could also be bigger. 4.5" is the size I want ultimately.
At last Apple can afford now making phones in 2 sizes: 3.5" and 4.5".
Above you mention "going from 3.8 inches to 4 inches, while not changing the size of the frame, would not make such a large difference." Obviously the iPhone is currently 3.5 inches as opposed to 3.8. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple found a way to increase to 3.8 without increasing the overall phone size. But I can't imagine how they could keep the same frame size if they put in a 4 inch screen. If they can do it, then that is amazing. It just seems unlikely.
As for immersive...you and I likely just have different ideas of the word.
I don't see the current iPhone as being immersive, nor do I think gaining a small amount of screen size (to 4 inches) would suddenly make me feel immersed either. However, if any screen size increase causes the device to be less portable, and not fit as well in my pocket, then I am definitely against this move.
If we saw a screen size increase, I think the iPhone's design would change slightly. It'll probably be like the Fatty iPod Nano transition. Shorter wider flatter and thinner, to accommodate a larger screen while at the same time decreasing overall weight and "volume" of the product.
If it's significantly thinner and curvier it should be easier to pocket the device than the 4 even if it's wider.
Nothing wrong about making pixels a bit bigger. It's like viewing computer desktop on 15" and 17" at the same 1024x768 resolution: it happens all the time. And no need to rewrite programs: both MacOS and Windows can run one resolution on multiple screen sizes. Both 13" Macbook Air and 15" MacBook Pro run 1440 x 900 native resolution and in addition can run other resolutions.
iPhone's 3.5" screen is too small. The keyboard is too small: for that reason it does not even have cursor keys making typing a pain. Also, unlike Android browser, iOS 4 browser can't run in full screen mode making usable real estate even smaller the 3.5".
What you said about the keyboard is what I believe would be Apple's primary "design-based" motive for increasing the screen size of the iPhone. I've found the keyboard to be a pain at times on the tiny screen, and auto-correct doesn't help the problem, it actually makes the problem worse at times.
And you are right about resolution. iOS 4 and 5 actually have the ability to run in multiple resolutions already. If Apple were to change the resolution or the screen size on the iPhone the OS can handle it and 3rd parties won't have to optimize their apps if they don't want to because the OS can do all the hard work to make the apps look good. Apple already does that Mac OS X which is available in screen sizes ranging from 11 inch to 30 inches.
until someone explains to me how Apple can enlarge the screen without reducing pixel density (ie, Retina Display) then I am eternally skeptical about a larger iPhone. There is zero chance Apple will ask developers to go back and fix their apps to run on a resolution other than 960x640.
Whereas I believe a lower pixel density is needed for an aging population that is going to have increasing difficulty reading tiny text. Making everything a bit bigger will help a significant demographic. Those who would be bothered by a small, likely invisible, increase in the size of individual pixels are a small minority who'll quickly discover that Android pixel density is significantly lower than the enlarged iPhone. The much touted Galaxy S II has a 4.3" screen with a resolution of only 800x480.
What you said about the keyboard is what I believe would be Apple's primary "design-based" motive for increasing the screen size of the iPhone. I've found the keyboard to be a pain at times on the tiny screen, and auto-correct doesn't help the problem, it actually makes the problem worse at times.
And you are right about resolution. iOS 4 and 5 actually have the ability to run in multiple resolutions already. If Apple were to change the resolution or the screen size on the iPhone the OS can handle it and 3rd parties won't have to optimize their apps if they don't want to because the OS can do all the hard work to make the apps look good. Apple already does that Mac OS X which is available in screen sizes ranging from 11 inch to 30 inches.
Android apps are typically designed to look perfect on 800x480 displays. They don't look quite as good on phones with other resolutions because they rely on the OS to scale everything to fit. Apple would never settle for the imperfect look of scaling.
While it would be a pain for developers to support a third resolution I can see Apple requiring it if they increase the size of the iPhone display. They're always looking to future devices not past ones; 480x320 is so last decade!
Increasing size while keeping the "retina" pixel density would improve keyboard usability without sacrificing detail. It wouldn't address the problem of text readability, but that's mostly a problem on the web and I believe Apple doesn't want us to ever visit the web. They think we should use apps for everything and only use Safari as a last resort.
until someone explains to me how Apple can enlarge the screen without reducing pixel density (ie, Retina Display) then I am eternally skeptical about a larger iPhone. There is zero chance Apple will ask developers to go back and fix their apps to run on a resolution other than 960x640.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobo007
They say that to be a retina display it has to be over 300 ppi, so that would mean a maximum of 3.8" screen, no?
(considering the same resolution as iPhone 4)
Considering (as others have pointed out) that "retina display" is a marketing more than a technical term), I'm guessing somewhere between 3.8 and 4" will be "retina-ish" enough to keep the cred (and still very rich looking with no UI or API re-writes required for developers) - while simultaneously buying off most of those with droid "screen-size envy."
Also factor in that if affordable pixel-doubled screens are coming for the next iPad, direct doubling works far better than any fraction of same. So no change in the # of pixels in the phone or the aspect ratio, but likely a slight increase in screen size.
And I'll even give odds against LTE in this iteration, or in it being supplanted by an LTE iteration in less than 6-8 months. Apple doesn't need it to succeed and LTE isn't mature enough nor wide-spread enough to make it material to their success. Not to mention the variations in 4G-ness around the globe which I believe Apple is taking into account in their skunk works.
More interesting (and less discussed) is whether or not we may see a phone which is both GSM and CDMA capable - i.e., a lessening of SKU's and a truer world phone. We know Apple's eyeing big growth in China and that one huge company there has a CDMA variant that's different than Verizon's, and that Sprint is jonesing to become an iPhone offerer.
Also barely discussed is whether the release date is hinging more on sweating finishing something about the hardware (the phone itself and the new iPods that may accompany it) - with much speculation on new radios and other chips, etc. - or whether the issue's more getting iOS5 to the polish point required to take the experience to the next level.
Well if you're going to just completely redefine what a "design-based" reason is then it's pretty easy to prove me wrong.
I like it, it sells, it looks cool, the other guys are doing it, etc. are all *not* design-based reasons.
I could easily be wrong, everyone (at least in the USA) seems to want these gigantic screens, and Apple may bow to public pressure in that regard. I still doubt it though, and even if they did, nothing about that changes the fact that there is no design-based reason to do it, and that Apple rarely changes a product for any reasons other than design-based ones.
I think this "design based" term is silly. Companies manufacture things they believe people want because they will sell more of them. If having a bigger screen is desirable for the majority of the public then that is what a company will manufacture. People don't line up around the block to buy something that they don't want.
If somebody put a 4" screen phone beside a 3.5" screen with equal pixel density and asked people to choose which screen was easier to use and view, the answer would be the bigger one.
If the reason for keeping the iPhone screen at 3.5" is for pocket size considerations then why isn't Apple making a much smaller version of the iPhone? HP makes a much smaller phone with a tiny screen. I've seen another brand with the same size factor too. They are like little squares but much bigger than the iPod Nano. If I only wanted a phone with touch screen controls a tiny square phone would be fine. The point of a smart phone is for it to be more than a phone. It is a tiny computer that is an entertainment device too. Screen size is important for media devices. An iPhone with a bigger screen that could still fit comfortably in a pocket would be a better device for that reason alone.
If we saw a screen size increase, I think the iPhone's design would change slightly. It'll probably be like the Fatty iPod Nano transition. Shorter wider flatter and thinner, to accommodate a larger screen while at the same time decreasing overall weight and "volume" of the product.
If it's significantly thinner and curvier it should be easier to pocket the device than the 4 even if it's wider.
I would agree. The longer and wider aspect could be minimized with it being thinner and more rounded. I could make due with an increase of say, a few millimeters. But if it were anything like the half inch quoted in the last few days, this would be too large for my liking. Whatever is coming, it should be exciting.
I think this "design based" term is silly. Companies manufacture things they believe people want because they will sell more of them. If having a bigger screen is desirable for the majority of the public then that is what a company will manufacture. People don't line up around the block to buy something that they don't want.
If somebody put a 4" screen phone beside a 3.5" screen with equal pixel density and asked people to choose which screen was easier to use and view, the answer would be the bigger one.
Apple doesn't do public market research. They only research the opinions of one person: Steve Jobs. If Steve likes it, then it's a "go."
I'm sure Steve has seen dozens, if not hundreds of iPhone prototypes with larger screens.
Quote:
If the reason for keeping the iPhone screen at 3.5" is for pocket size considerations then why isn't Apple making a much smaller version of the iPhone?
Ah, but they are. Basically, the overall design trend for the iPhone is a little thinner, same with the iPod touch. Steve doesn't want to supersize the iPhone. He has been given multiple opportunities to do so.
Therein lies a hint of Steve's overall design proclivities. Look at the 11" MacBook Air: smaller and thinner than any notebook computer Apple has ever made.
The notion of supersizing is alien to Steve's aesthetic.
When was the last time Apple changed a product of theirs (a flagship product in fact), to match the competition or because "everyone is doing (X) now." Oh that's right ... never!
Unless there is a valid, *design-based* reason for changing the screen size, I don't see Apple doing it, (and I've yet to hear anyone elucidate that reason).
And sometimes Apple goes in the opposite direction...
Was the old Nano simply too big and too easy to use with controls you could use in your pocket? Yeah... let's make it smaller and harder to use...
Oh it's a beautiful design... but far less functional.
I think this "design based" term is silly. It is a tiny computer that is an entertainment device too. Screen size is important for media devices. An iPhone with a bigger screen that could still fit comfortably in a pocket would be a better device for that reason alone.
It is silly, I agree. Mobile phone is entertainment device and don't want to be entertained on a tiny screen. It is also communication device and keyboard size/usability is important for emails/texting.
Also pocketability might be a factor (though I've never carried my iPhone in a pocket when I had one), but another more important factor to me is a single-hand operation. Obviously I can't use 10" iPad single-hand. But 4.5" phone I easily can. Every morning I stand on the crowded Chicago bus, holding a grip with one hand while operating my 4.3" Evo with another hand. I browse web, I type short email, and navigate through a playlist.
Ah, but they are. Basically, the overall design trend for the iPhone is a little thinner, same with the iPod touch. Steve doesn't want to supersize the iPhone.
All companies that want to stay in business do market research. So does Apple. There is a feedback page for every Apple product. Bugs can be reported and there is also a feature request on the drop down menus of each page.
When I say smaller phone I mean something like the HP Veer. Thinner doesn't seem smaller to me.
Making a phone slimmer is OK but not as impressive as making it smaller in all dimensions.
Who wants to carry around something as thin as a sheet of paper and use it as a phone. There will be a point where structural rigidity will be compromised with something very thin. Ergonomics are also important.
I still believe that a 4" screen on an iPhone would look and operate better than a 3.5" screen for most people.
And yet, Apple sells about two iPod touches for every three iPhones. The iPod touch 4 clocks in with a 7.2mm thickness and it handles well enough to be a telephone surrogate with apps like Facetime, Skype, Google Voice, Talkatone, fring, Nimbuzz, etc.
Trust me, if Apple engineers can make the iPhone slimmer without compromising performance, Steve will green light it.
And yet, Apple sells about two iPod touches for every three iPhones. The iPod touch 4 clocks in with a 7.2mm thickness and it handles well enough to be a telephone surrogate with apps like Facetime, Skype, Google Voice, Talkatone, fring, Nimbuzz, etc.
Trust me, if Apple engineers can make the iPhone slimmer without compromising performance, Steve will green light it.
Looking at last quarter's numbers and Apple's statement that about half of iPod sales are Touches the numbers are about 20M to 4M or 5 to 1.
All companies that want to stay in business do market research. So does Apple..
Yes, Apple does market research and usability testing. And the odd thing is that Steve Jobs once said during his keynote, that Apple has done usability research and determined that iPad should be that big.
But I can understand that there is marker for 3.5" phone and there is market for 4.5" phone (the same apply to 7" and 10" tablets).
So Apple, the biggest company in world could easily address that making device in 2 sizes, as they do with laptops and iMacs. And eventually they will be forced to make multiple size devices, perhaps even this Fall.
This guy has a track record in the negatives. He picks his fav rumors with no proof regarding them and tries to sound like he knows his stuff. But he doesn't.
If Wu says it, it ain't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Sha Wu is an idiot. The answer to the question:
"Why woud a customer consider buying a so-called "iPhone 5" without 4G if Apple plans to release a 4G long-term evolution handset in the future?
... is so *not* ... "because it has a slightly bigger screen."
Yep. That's exactly my point. There's no logic to anything he says. Folks will listen to Jobs saying that they haven't included 4g/LTE because of the lack of carrier support and the potential battery issues. No one wants a phone that drops all the time cause there's not enough antenna or that runs down in a couple of hours. They will hail Jobs for this decision.
As for who would buy a slightly better iPhone 4s, how about all the folks that have the 3g and the 3gs that didn't want to pay the extra money because their ATT contract wasn't up. How about all the folks on Verizon that weren't at the end of their contracts when the iPhone 4 came out or didn't want to buy a 6th month old iPhone. There's tons of buyers right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobo007
They say that to be a retina display it has to be over 300 ppi, so that would mean a maximum of 3.8" screen, no?
(considering the same resolution as iPhone 4)
Or you are the victim of a bad assumption. Perhaps Apple won't do the same resolution as the iPhone 4.
Comments
I think the iPhone is too important to Apple to make it a "one more thing". I think Apple will start with the usual stats, then move into the iPods but at much faster pace than before.
I think that only the iPod Touch will change it's design around, outside of color changes that may affect the Nano and Shuffles.
Then we get a very long session for the iPhone. I think they will also focus on its reception since they had to do a special event just to talk about the antenna last year and don't want any bad press that will cost them millions in free cases.
If there is a "one more thing" product I think it could be about the AppleTV but I'm holding my breath.
This seems pretty accurate to me.
A pre-paid cheap iPhone, a 5 inch iPod Touch, and a 56 inch TV set are probably not realistic expectations for this event. But even so I'm excited about what's in store.
I doubt there is going to be a change in screen size unless they have a specific reason for the change (like the multitasking bar is permanent).if there is a change in size then developers will have to rewrite apps, even if you don't change the density. Making pixels bigger just throws off the entire ui of an app and defeats the purpose of a bigger screen. They should have given developers a heads up if that was the case.
Nothing wrong about making pixels a bit bigger. It's like viewing computer desktop on 15" and 17" at the same 1024x768 resolution: it happens all the time. And no need to rewrite programs: both MacOS and Windows can run one resolution on multiple screen sizes. Both 13" Macbook Air and 15" MacBook Pro run 1440 x 900 native resolution and in addition can run other resolutions.
iPhone's 3.5" screen is too small. The keyboard is too small: for that reason it does not even have cursor keys making typing a pain. Also, unlike Android browser, iOS 4 browser can't run in full screen mode making usable real estate even smaller the 3.5".
I'll never go back to 3.5" or even 4" screen from my current 4.3". I have held in my hand the new Samsung Infuse 4G with 4.5" screen and it amazing, even thinner then iPhone (only 9 mm), still pocketable and easier to hold vs. tiny iPhone, the battery could also be bigger. 4.5" is the size I want ultimately.
At last Apple can afford now making phones in 2 sizes: 3.5" and 4.5".
Above you mention "going from 3.8 inches to 4 inches, while not changing the size of the frame, would not make such a large difference." Obviously the iPhone is currently 3.5 inches as opposed to 3.8. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple found a way to increase to 3.8 without increasing the overall phone size. But I can't imagine how they could keep the same frame size if they put in a 4 inch screen. If they can do it, then that is amazing. It just seems unlikely.
As for immersive...you and I likely just have different ideas of the word.
I don't see the current iPhone as being immersive, nor do I think gaining a small amount of screen size (to 4 inches) would suddenly make me feel immersed either. However, if any screen size increase causes the device to be less portable, and not fit as well in my pocket, then I am definitely against this move.
If we saw a screen size increase, I think the iPhone's design would change slightly. It'll probably be like the Fatty iPod Nano transition. Shorter wider flatter and thinner, to accommodate a larger screen while at the same time decreasing overall weight and "volume" of the product.
If it's significantly thinner and curvier it should be easier to pocket the device than the 4 even if it's wider.
Nothing wrong about making pixels a bit bigger. It's like viewing computer desktop on 15" and 17" at the same 1024x768 resolution: it happens all the time. And no need to rewrite programs: both MacOS and Windows can run one resolution on multiple screen sizes. Both 13" Macbook Air and 15" MacBook Pro run 1440 x 900 native resolution and in addition can run other resolutions.
iPhone's 3.5" screen is too small. The keyboard is too small: for that reason it does not even have cursor keys making typing a pain. Also, unlike Android browser, iOS 4 browser can't run in full screen mode making usable real estate even smaller the 3.5".
What you said about the keyboard is what I believe would be Apple's primary "design-based" motive for increasing the screen size of the iPhone. I've found the keyboard to be a pain at times on the tiny screen, and auto-correct doesn't help the problem, it actually makes the problem worse at times.
And you are right about resolution. iOS 4 and 5 actually have the ability to run in multiple resolutions already. If Apple were to change the resolution or the screen size on the iPhone the OS can handle it and 3rd parties won't have to optimize their apps if they don't want to because the OS can do all the hard work to make the apps look good. Apple already does that Mac OS X which is available in screen sizes ranging from 11 inch to 30 inches.
until someone explains to me how Apple can enlarge the screen without reducing pixel density (ie, Retina Display) then I am eternally skeptical about a larger iPhone. There is zero chance Apple will ask developers to go back and fix their apps to run on a resolution other than 960x640.
Whereas I believe a lower pixel density is needed for an aging population that is going to have increasing difficulty reading tiny text. Making everything a bit bigger will help a significant demographic. Those who would be bothered by a small, likely invisible, increase in the size of individual pixels are a small minority who'll quickly discover that Android pixel density is significantly lower than the enlarged iPhone. The much touted Galaxy S II has a 4.3" screen with a resolution of only 800x480.
What you said about the keyboard is what I believe would be Apple's primary "design-based" motive for increasing the screen size of the iPhone. I've found the keyboard to be a pain at times on the tiny screen, and auto-correct doesn't help the problem, it actually makes the problem worse at times.
And you are right about resolution. iOS 4 and 5 actually have the ability to run in multiple resolutions already. If Apple were to change the resolution or the screen size on the iPhone the OS can handle it and 3rd parties won't have to optimize their apps if they don't want to because the OS can do all the hard work to make the apps look good. Apple already does that Mac OS X which is available in screen sizes ranging from 11 inch to 30 inches.
Android apps are typically designed to look perfect on 800x480 displays. They don't look quite as good on phones with other resolutions because they rely on the OS to scale everything to fit. Apple would never settle for the imperfect look of scaling.
While it would be a pain for developers to support a third resolution I can see Apple requiring it if they increase the size of the iPhone display. They're always looking to future devices not past ones; 480x320 is so last decade!
Increasing size while keeping the "retina" pixel density would improve keyboard usability without sacrificing detail. It wouldn't address the problem of text readability, but that's mostly a problem on the web and I believe Apple doesn't want us to ever visit the web. They think we should use apps for everything and only use Safari as a last resort.
Here's how the "design-based" process works at Apple.
Nice. I agree with your description. Works for me, and I'm good with that.
The rest is noise.
until someone explains to me how Apple can enlarge the screen without reducing pixel density (ie, Retina Display) then I am eternally skeptical about a larger iPhone. There is zero chance Apple will ask developers to go back and fix their apps to run on a resolution other than 960x640.
They say that to be a retina display it has to be over 300 ppi, so that would mean a maximum of 3.8" screen, no?
(considering the same resolution as iPhone 4)
Considering (as others have pointed out) that "retina display" is a marketing more than a technical term), I'm guessing somewhere between 3.8 and 4" will be "retina-ish" enough to keep the cred (and still very rich looking with no UI or API re-writes required for developers) - while simultaneously buying off most of those with droid "screen-size envy."
Also factor in that if affordable pixel-doubled screens are coming for the next iPad, direct doubling works far better than any fraction of same. So no change in the # of pixels in the phone or the aspect ratio, but likely a slight increase in screen size.
And I'll even give odds against LTE in this iteration, or in it being supplanted by an LTE iteration in less than 6-8 months. Apple doesn't need it to succeed and LTE isn't mature enough nor wide-spread enough to make it material to their success. Not to mention the variations in 4G-ness around the globe which I believe Apple is taking into account in their skunk works.
More interesting (and less discussed) is whether or not we may see a phone which is both GSM and CDMA capable - i.e., a lessening of SKU's and a truer world phone. We know Apple's eyeing big growth in China and that one huge company there has a CDMA variant that's different than Verizon's, and that Sprint is jonesing to become an iPhone offerer.
Also barely discussed is whether the release date is hinging more on sweating finishing something about the hardware (the phone itself and the new iPods that may accompany it) - with much speculation on new radios and other chips, etc. - or whether the issue's more getting iOS5 to the polish point required to take the experience to the next level.
Well if you're going to just completely redefine what a "design-based" reason is then it's pretty easy to prove me wrong.
I like it, it sells, it looks cool, the other guys are doing it, etc. are all *not* design-based reasons.
I could easily be wrong, everyone (at least in the USA) seems to want these gigantic screens, and Apple may bow to public pressure in that regard. I still doubt it though, and even if they did, nothing about that changes the fact that there is no design-based reason to do it, and that Apple rarely changes a product for any reasons other than design-based ones.
I think this "design based" term is silly. Companies manufacture things they believe people want because they will sell more of them. If having a bigger screen is desirable for the majority of the public then that is what a company will manufacture. People don't line up around the block to buy something that they don't want.
If somebody put a 4" screen phone beside a 3.5" screen with equal pixel density and asked people to choose which screen was easier to use and view, the answer would be the bigger one.
If the reason for keeping the iPhone screen at 3.5" is for pocket size considerations then why isn't Apple making a much smaller version of the iPhone? HP makes a much smaller phone with a tiny screen. I've seen another brand with the same size factor too. They are like little squares but much bigger than the iPod Nano. If I only wanted a phone with touch screen controls a tiny square phone would be fine. The point of a smart phone is for it to be more than a phone. It is a tiny computer that is an entertainment device too. Screen size is important for media devices. An iPhone with a bigger screen that could still fit comfortably in a pocket would be a better device for that reason alone.
If we saw a screen size increase, I think the iPhone's design would change slightly. It'll probably be like the Fatty iPod Nano transition. Shorter wider flatter and thinner, to accommodate a larger screen while at the same time decreasing overall weight and "volume" of the product.
If it's significantly thinner and curvier it should be easier to pocket the device than the 4 even if it's wider.
I would agree. The longer and wider aspect could be minimized with it being thinner and more rounded. I could make due with an increase of say, a few millimeters. But if it were anything like the half inch quoted in the last few days, this would be too large for my liking. Whatever is coming, it should be exciting.
I think this "design based" term is silly. Companies manufacture things they believe people want because they will sell more of them. If having a bigger screen is desirable for the majority of the public then that is what a company will manufacture. People don't line up around the block to buy something that they don't want.
If somebody put a 4" screen phone beside a 3.5" screen with equal pixel density and asked people to choose which screen was easier to use and view, the answer would be the bigger one.
Apple doesn't do public market research. They only research the opinions of one person: Steve Jobs. If Steve likes it, then it's a "go."
I'm sure Steve has seen dozens, if not hundreds of iPhone prototypes with larger screens.
If the reason for keeping the iPhone screen at 3.5" is for pocket size considerations then why isn't Apple making a much smaller version of the iPhone?
Ah, but they are. Basically, the overall design trend for the iPhone is a little thinner, same with the iPod touch. Steve doesn't want to supersize the iPhone. He has been given multiple opportunities to do so.
Therein lies a hint of Steve's overall design proclivities. Look at the 11" MacBook Air: smaller and thinner than any notebook computer Apple has ever made.
The notion of supersizing is alien to Steve's aesthetic.
When was the last time Apple changed a product of theirs (a flagship product in fact), to match the competition or because "everyone is doing (X) now." Oh that's right ... never!
Unless there is a valid, *design-based* reason for changing the screen size, I don't see Apple doing it, (and I've yet to hear anyone elucidate that reason).
And sometimes Apple goes in the opposite direction...
Was the old Nano simply too big and too easy to use with controls you could use in your pocket? Yeah... let's make it smaller and harder to use...
Oh it's a beautiful design... but far less functional.
I think this "design based" term is silly. It is a tiny computer that is an entertainment device too. Screen size is important for media devices. An iPhone with a bigger screen that could still fit comfortably in a pocket would be a better device for that reason alone.
It is silly, I agree. Mobile phone is entertainment device and don't want to be entertained on a tiny screen. It is also communication device and keyboard size/usability is important for emails/texting.
Also pocketability might be a factor (though I've never carried my iPhone in a pocket when I had one), but another more important factor to me is a single-hand operation. Obviously I can't use 10" iPad single-hand. But 4.5" phone I easily can. Every morning I stand on the crowded Chicago bus, holding a grip with one hand while operating my 4.3" Evo with another hand. I browse web, I type short email, and navigate through a playlist.
And sometimes Apple goes in the opposite direction...
Was the old Nano simply too big and too easy to use with controls you could use in your pocket? Yeah... let's make it smaller and harder to use...
Oh it's a beautiful design... but far less functional.
Yeap. I would pick the old bigger Nano any day over this "beauty".
Apple doesn't do public market research.
Ah, but they are. Basically, the overall design trend for the iPhone is a little thinner, same with the iPod touch. Steve doesn't want to supersize the iPhone.
All companies that want to stay in business do market research. So does Apple. There is a feedback page for every Apple product. Bugs can be reported and there is also a feature request on the drop down menus of each page.
When I say smaller phone I mean something like the HP Veer. Thinner doesn't seem smaller to me.
http://www.webosroundup.com/2011/05/...-video-review/
Making a phone slimmer is OK but not as impressive as making it smaller in all dimensions.
Who wants to carry around something as thin as a sheet of paper and use it as a phone. There will be a point where structural rigidity will be compromised with something very thin. Ergonomics are also important.
I still believe that a 4" screen on an iPhone would look and operate better than a 3.5" screen for most people.
Trust me, if Apple engineers can make the iPhone slimmer without compromising performance, Steve will green light it.
And yet, Apple sells about two iPod touches for every three iPhones. The iPod touch 4 clocks in with a 7.2mm thickness and it handles well enough to be a telephone surrogate with apps like Facetime, Skype, Google Voice, Talkatone, fring, Nimbuzz, etc.
Trust me, if Apple engineers can make the iPhone slimmer without compromising performance, Steve will green light it.
Looking at last quarter's numbers and Apple's statement that about half of iPod sales are Touches the numbers are about 20M to 4M or 5 to 1.
All companies that want to stay in business do market research. So does Apple..
Yes, Apple does market research and usability testing. And the odd thing is that Steve Jobs once said during his keynote, that Apple has done usability research and determined that iPad should be that big.
But I can understand that there is marker for 3.5" phone and there is market for 4.5" phone (the same apply to 7" and 10" tablets).
So Apple, the biggest company in world could easily address that making device in 2 sizes, as they do with laptops and iMacs. And eventually they will be forced to make multiple size devices, perhaps even this Fall.
Analyst Shaw Wu
This guy has a track record in the negatives. He picks his fav rumors with no proof regarding them and tries to sound like he knows his stuff. But he doesn't.
If Wu says it, it ain't true.
Sha Wu is an idiot. The answer to the question:
"Why woud a customer consider buying a so-called "iPhone 5" without 4G if Apple plans to release a 4G long-term evolution handset in the future?
... is so *not* ... "because it has a slightly bigger screen."
Yep. That's exactly my point. There's no logic to anything he says. Folks will listen to Jobs saying that they haven't included 4g/LTE because of the lack of carrier support and the potential battery issues. No one wants a phone that drops all the time cause there's not enough antenna or that runs down in a couple of hours. They will hail Jobs for this decision.
As for who would buy a slightly better iPhone 4s, how about all the folks that have the 3g and the 3gs that didn't want to pay the extra money because their ATT contract wasn't up. How about all the folks on Verizon that weren't at the end of their contracts when the iPhone 4 came out or didn't want to buy a 6th month old iPhone. There's tons of buyers right there.
They say that to be a retina display it has to be over 300 ppi, so that would mean a maximum of 3.8" screen, no?
(considering the same resolution as iPhone 4)
Or you are the victim of a bad assumption. Perhaps Apple won't do the same resolution as the iPhone 4.