26% larger 16:9 iPhone screen would retain single-hand operability

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 126
    Yes 16:9 is crap, I develop both Android and iOS, the 16:9 screen of android tablets just feel stupid, adding the task bar permanently at the bottom made it more like moronic. The soft keypad is stretched so wide yet so short, making keys so narrow, it is just bizarre. Surprisingly I can type much faster on iPhone than on 4 inch android phones(Atrix and Galaxy S) with less error.
  • Reply 122 of 126
    nicolbolasnicolbolas Posts: 254member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BwhAgain View Post



    Yes 16:9 is crap, I develop both Android and iOS, the 16:9 screen of android tablets just feel stupid, adding the task bar permanently at the bottom made it more like moronic. The soft keypad is stretched so wide yet so short, making keys so narrow, it is just bizarre. Surprisingly I can type much faster on iPhone than on 4 inch android phones(Atrix and Galaxy S) with less error.


     


    considering 16:9 was made to save money first and make movies look better second.  Why be surprised?

  • Reply 123 of 126
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    nicolbolas wrote: »
    considering 16:9 was made to save money

    Is that the truth? I've heard that 16:9 is less expensive, but mostly as hearsay. I really don't understand why it would be that way.
  • Reply 124 of 126
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    Is that the truth? I've heard that 16:9 is less expensive, but mostly as hearsay. I really don't understand why it would be that way.


     


    I don't know if it's true either, but this just popped into my head when I read that:


     


    Since 16:9 frames are shorter than 4:3 frames, the physical length of the film require to shoot 16:9 is shorter than the same movie in 4:3, so it would save money on film. 


     


    Theoretically, at least. This theory having been created by me five seconds ago. image

  • Reply 125 of 126
    nicolbolasnicolbolas Posts: 254member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I don't know if it's true either, but this just popped into my head when I read that:


     


    Since 16:9 frames are shorter than 4:3 frames, the physical length of the film require to shoot 16:9 is shorter than the same movie in 4:3, so it would save money on film. 


     


    Theoretically, at least. This theory having been created by me five seconds ago. image



     


    The pixel density is generally less (not gonna go looking this up, but generally same screen sizes went from 1440x900 -> 1336x768 / 1680x1050 -> 1600x900 / 1920x1200 -> 1920x1080) 


    The physical screen is generally smaller also.


     


    Cheaper to make the screens (see above).  PLUS you can use them as a marketing term.  Note that 16:10 and 4:3 screens do not have anything like "widescreen" (That i know of).


     


    And of course they are much less productive when viewing things side by side (excluding 1920x1080, which doesn't make much of a difference tbh).  That being said i wish Apple made something like Windows 7's making windows cover half of screen easily....  Maybe it does exist, i cannot find it :)

  • Reply 126 of 126
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    Apple's development model allows there to be mostly common code for all screen variations but using different .nibs setting up the different displays. I don't think it's going to be a hardship, more an inconvenience of having to add another aspect ratio nib for each screen.


    You obviously don't design games. In MY business, this means half more work on design. Who pays for these hours?

Sign In or Register to comment.