Parts show alleged next-gen iPhone cameras, 4.1" iPod touch front panel

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    To change aspect ratios?  Yeah, that would be my guess.


     


    And blow three months of sales? No.


     


    They didn't preview retina. They wouldn't preview this.

  • Reply 62 of 75
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,615moderator
    rtm135 wrote: »
    I'd love to see a 4.3 1280x720 screen.

    There might be a slight flaw in there somewhere that would cause a headache for more than just developers.
    solipsismx wrote:
    On top of that this rumour of a 1136x640 display makes a lot of sense.

    I'd have said 1024 x 640 makes the most sense as it only means 32 pixels top and bottom for apps limited to 960. 1024 is also a multiple of the iPad resolution.

    It does lower the PPI below 300 on a 4.1" display though:

    960 x 640 spread over 5.65 sqi = 329 ppi
    so 329 ppi spread over a 16:10 4.1" display (7.56 sqi) = 818300 pixels.

    1280 x 800 is 1,024,000 pixels = 368 PPI
    1136 x 640 is 727,040 pixels = 310 PPI
    1024 x 640 is 655,360 pixels = 294 PPI

    1024 x 640 would require a smaller screen (3.9" = 310 PPI) to be a retina display. Interestingly, when I mapped the dimensions from these photos onto the current iPhone 4 in the mockup on the previous page, it came out at 3.9" diagonal while keeping the iPhone at the same width. I had to scale it up to get to 4.1" diagonal.

    The article image shows a 16:10 screen so 1136 x 640 wouldn't work if these are genuine. Plus it would be 640p (1138 x 640).
    timbit wrote:
    This is much better. Same phone size with larger screen, reduce bezel on top and bottom.

    I like this idea in principle as it retains the iconic side bezel and looks very nice but the mockup there has no physical home button. You can see here how much better the widescreen is for movies (this would be 640p):

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/112805/iphone-4w-widescreen
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/116701/apple-could-remove-home-button-in-next-gen-ipad-iphone-rumor/80

    but it requires shrinking the home button or changing it into capacitive or a gesture bar to maintain the same phone height. I'm in favour of this if it works well in practise but if not, they can't build the phone that way just yet.
  • Reply 63 of 75
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,803member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    16x9 is just stupid.  Why is the whole world changing everything around to support the makers of widescreen movies?  


    There is much more to life than movies (books for example)



     


    Widescreen movies are usually wider than 16x9, more like 24x10. But let's say it was influenced by HDTV, which was influenced by wide movies. The practice is nothing new. The 4:3 aspect ratio used by iPad, older CRT and LCD computer displays, and just about every TV before the HD era was also originally from the world of movies: it's the aspect ratio used by silent films of the 1920s.

  • Reply 64 of 75
    sennensennen Posts: 1,468member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Have you noticed you can't buy 16:10 computer monitors anymore? And the MacBook Pro is basically the only laptop left that comes with a 16:10 screen.


     


    It's a crying shame.





    Love the 16:10 aspect ratio of my MBP. It would be a crying shame if it was changed.

  • Reply 65 of 75
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    Marvin wrote: »
    I like the design of the one at that link (the location gets censored by the forum unfortunately) but 16:9 is not a good ratio and the home button is removed. The one in the article photo seems to be around the following size, give or take:

    The screen size chosen is the perfect compromise and really not much larger than the current iPhone as they shaved down the bezels by about half. 1280 x 800 would be quite good as 720p content is native but 1024 x 640 would be a good size to go with.
    This won't affect most iOS content because of resolution independence in iOS 6 and also because most content will scale seamlessly. Games can be set to a different OpenGL context resolution and it will just resterize at that resolution. I don't really know why they haven't done this on every game (maybe cashing in on the iPad versions).
    I hope this is the size of both the next iPhone and iPod.

    Everyone is dabling on this screen size, which is understandible. But why aren't there lengthy discussions on the adjusted innards of the phone? We can't simply say that with a smaller bezel the screen can become larger. That would affect so many things, including battery life.
    drdoppio wrote: »
    It is quite possible to design the UI so that it won't require access to the upper part of the screen for frequent actions. Just don't put buttons and controls at the top.

    That would be one possibility; for iOS to have a permanent notifications bar in view, that simply scrolls down when new info arrives and is being displayed at the top. Could still be tapped on, to open the app like it does now.

    nht wrote: »
    One-handed operation is a must...ROFLMAO.

    If two hands are required for operation you're golden.
  • Reply 66 of 75
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Marvin wrote: »
    I'd have said 1024 x 640 makes the most sense as it only means 32 pixels top and bottom for apps limited to 960. 1024 is also a multiple of the iPad resolution.
    It does lower the PPI below 300 on a 4.1" display though:
    960 x 640 spread over 5.65 sqi = 329 ppi
    so 329 ppi spread over a 16:10 4.1" display (7.56 sqi) = 818300 pixels.
    1280 x 800 is 1,024,000 pixels = 368 PPI
    1136 x 640 is 727,040 pixels = 310 PPI
    1024 x 640 is 655,360 pixels = 294 PPI
    1024 x 640 would require a smaller screen (3.9" = 310 PPI) to be a retina display. Interestingly, when I mapped the dimensions from these photos onto the current iPhone 4 in the mockup on the previous page, it came out at 3.9" diagonal while keeping the iPhone at the same width. I had to scale it up to get to 4.1" diagonal.
    The article image shows a 16:10 screen so 1136 x 640 wouldn't work if these are genuine. Plus it would be 640p (1138 x 640).

    I am not expecting any change in the PPI. I'm expecting that current 960x640 apps will fit on this new proposed size pixel for pixel taking up the exact same area.

    1136x640 in a 3.9996" device is the exact same PPI as the current iPhone.


    edit: I see how you got 310 PPI now.
  • Reply 67 of 75
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member


    HOW SMALL ARE IPHONE USERS HANDS?!!


     


    I can easily operate a galaxy s2 with one hand (even while driving, shhh...don't tell anyone) and that has 4.3 inch screen. And my hands are normal sized, not lebron james sized monstrosities. Like everything in life you just adjust. All you is adjust your grip. It takes about 20 seconds to get used to it. And the only two times i dropped my phone had nothing to with one handed operation and more to do with 1. soapy hands and 2. "what the hell was that thing that just crawled across the floor?"


     


    Why do you people seem so afraid of change?


     


    And like i said in another thread, lets not pretend we don't know how this will play out


     


    The iphone will get a bigger screen, all apple fans will deny any knowledge of ever saying they didn't want it, apple will market it as if its the first ever phone with a 4 inch screen and its the best thing ever, most likely there will be a little kid in the ad (most likely a little girl), and everyone here will buy it anyway, including me.


     


    Its been done before with siri, multitasking, 8MP cameras, and soon to be 4G. Its the apple way.

     

  • Reply 68 of 75
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,615moderator
    philboogie wrote: »
    Everyone is dabling on this screen size, which is understandible. But why aren't there lengthy discussions on the adjusted innards of the phone? We can't simply say that with a smaller bezel the screen can become larger. That would affect so many things, including battery life.

    The phone itself would be bigger so there's more room inside for a bigger battery. It's not like the iPad 3 where they upped the res in the same space. Plus, they are on a die-shrink of their processor, which improves battery life and makes for a smaller chip:

    http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/04/revised-ipad-2-with-32-nm-a5-offers-15-30-greater-battery-life/
    http://www.intomobile.com/2012/04/12/a5-chip-399-ipad-2-40-smaller-thanks-samsungs-32-nm-technology/

    Here's a mockup of a 3.9":

    299

    Same width as the iPhone 4
    1024 x 640 3.9" screen
    A5X processor
    1GB RAM
    Aluminium plate replacing the glass back. I'd say not unibody as they will probably be able to carve flat plates out much more easily and they would be more resistant to dents. They would use the existing antenna band so it won't matter about the back plate affecting signals. I expect they can make the aluminium backing plate thinner than the glass too.

    I don't think they should worry about it being entirely scratch-proof in the same way they don't worry about the iPad.
  • Reply 69 of 75
    mr. jeffmr. jeff Posts: 44member


    All of these comments and no one has pointed out yet that this is most definitely a mock-up and not a "leaked part" as it's been billed as? Seriously, look at the shading to begin with. It's completely even around the entire thing, even in the hole for the homescreen. If the lighting were really set up to do that, the plastic would not look nearly as flat as it does, but would glow around the edges due to the nearly perfect circular lighting. The entire thing looks ridiculously fake and I have no clue why people are reporting it as anything less. 

  • Reply 70 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr. Jeff View Post

    All of these comments and no one has pointed out yet that this is most definitely a mock-up and not a "leaked part" as it's been billed as? Seriously, look at the shading to begin with. It's completely even around the entire thing, even in the hole for the homescreen. If the lighting were really set up to do that, the plastic would not look nearly as flat as it does, but would glow around the edges due to the nearly perfect circular lighting. The entire thing looks ridiculously fake and I have no clue why people are reporting it as anything less. 


     


    I said it. People tend not to listen to me because I'm against the idea of an unusably big phone. image

  • Reply 71 of 75
    rtm135rtm135 Posts: 310member


    Ballmer said the iPhone and iPad would NEVER take off.


     


    You look as silly as Ballmer when you make NEVER statements like that.


     


    Of COURSE voice control will eventually replace using our fingers.  It's the natural evolution to things.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I don't subscribe to a future where I'm forced to talk to my phone.


     


    Voice control will never be the standard means of interaction.


  • Reply 72 of 75
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post


    Ballmer said the iPhone and iPad would NEVER take off.


     


    You look as silly as Ballmer when you make NEVER statements like that.


     


    Of COURSE voice control will eventually replace using our fingers.  It's the natural evolution to things.


     



    I don't recall the quote, but I doubt he really believed it. I don't see a time where voice commands become all that is available in that regard. Consider texting. It came later, and it rid us of having to listen to many annoying loud people talk on their cell phones (not that I've heard anyone call them cell phones in a long time, but it's appropriate to the time I'm describing here). Voice control isn't a natural evolution at all here, as it lacks the same level of discretion. I think you may just be unimaginative as you're making a really common mistake. You see something, and you assume the direction is tangent to a current marketing feature. 

  • Reply 73 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post

    Of COURSE voice control will eventually replace using our fingers.  It's the natural evolution to things.




    No, it isn't. Not in the slightest. Voice control has been around for decades, and it has been usable for decades. Siri isn't the first near system-wide implementation, and it isn't the first working system-wide implementation.

  • Reply 74 of 75
    rtm135rtm135 Posts: 310member


    Ye luddites have little faith...



    Voice Control technology, like all technologies, will improve over time.  Since using speech is quicker than using our fingers to type or make gestures, the technology will eventually become one of the primary forms of control.  

  • Reply 75 of 75
    rtm135rtm135 Posts: 310member


    This looks really good to me.  Reduce the upper and lower bezels and keep the current form factor,  #Win


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Timbit View Post


    image


    This is much better. Same phone size with larger screen, reduce bezel on top and bottom.


Sign In or Register to comment.