Nope, the first iPhone 3G was made available in White...I waited in line for 8 hours at my local mall on Launch day for it. Not surprisingly at the time, White was a very unpopular color...at the time.
Aw the good ol' days. I was 99th in line for the white 3G at the Apple Store nearest me (someone was counting people in line), took 4 hours to purchase and about another 4-6 hours to activate at home on AT&T's slammed network.
Could you give examples where a 16:9 display is at a disadvantage instead of making a blanket statement that it's a bad idea?
I would like to, because I hate the idea of 16:9 anywhere but a television screen specifically, but until I get one of these in my hand I'm not going to be able to tell you why (if) it's bad in a phone. I know, though, that it's terrible in a tablet.
Sales of the larger Android phones bring strong evidence for that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I haven't seen any evidence that this Android-based devices with considerably larger screens than the iPhone are outselling the iPhone.
That's because they aren't iPhones Solip. Some people would rather have a larger screen- but being on Android isn't worth leaving iOS just for real estate. The real comparison would be large screen Android vs small screen Android- and that would determine the demand. I don't have any numbers- nor do I care to look them up- but I would assume that larger sells more because that seems to be what the Android handset makers push.
Either way- I might not want the same aspect ratio- or I might. But I'm going to wait until we see the software to make an opinion. If it's just the same iOS features, but longer- I think I'd rather have it be a little wider. But I'm absolutely not going to count Apple out on adding a feature with that new height...
I do NOT like the "ergonomic" shape of the 3GS - or the iPod Touch.
While it may be marginally more comfortable to hold in your bare hand with no case - it is needlessly more difficult to perform operations such as plugging in the charging cable and pressing the buttons on the side due to the curved shape of the side - far more difficult to take a picture using the volume up button thanks to the curved shape - and IMPOSSIBLE to stand up on its own on a surface to use for video calls or stop motion video capture etc (not that it is always easy to find a surface at the right height for best effect but still).
You have some good points, people use/handle these devices differently. I didn't have those same opinions.
However, there are simple solutions to your gripes. But first, the iPhone is a hand-held device, it's meant to be held in your hand and in your pocket. I never had a problem laying my 3GS flat. And one can argue that trying to stand up the iP4 on it's end (without a case, and without resting it against a vertical surface) is not as easy either since the slick metal rim can slip around on a flat surface. There are a ton of grippy cases that allow you to rest it against something vertical that adequately works for either device.
Taking pictures to me was fine because it had a very grippy rocker button, granted i never used the volume buttons to take photos.
Plugging in things is not really that big of a deal, I never had a problem. Not you mention you have WiFi sync now so half your plugging in stuff is eliminated there.
In all I think you have valid points, but they are quite marginal compared to having a firm/comfortable grip on your phone.
I do NOT like the "ergonomic" shape of the 3GS - or the iPod Touch.
While it may be marginally more comfortable to hold in your bare hand with no case - it is needlessly more difficult to perform operations such as plugging in the charging cable and pressing the buttons on the side due to the curved shape of the side - far more difficult to take a picture using the volume up button thanks to the curved shape - and IMPOSSIBLE to stand up on its own on a surface to use for video calls or stop motion video capture etc (not that it is always easy to find a surface at the right height for best effect but still).
<div id="user_myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>
This is the correct way to think about the shape of the 4/4s. It is meant to be a camera first, a phone second. Going to 16:9 means it will be more of a movie camera and player, which I think is something we haven't seen before—a pocket cinema device that also happens to be a phone.
The sharp edges of the device and the extension to 16:9, without widening it, reflect the disciplined thinking that goes into these designs. They seem to be instruments, not gadgets.
Rounded backs are much more difficult when it comes to stabilizing on a table or a tripod.
I would like to, because I hate the idea of 16:9 anywhere but a television screen specifically, but until I get one of these in my hand I'm not going to be able to tell you why (if) it's bad in a phone. I know, though, that it's terrible in a tablet.
I've thought about it and decided there are two instances that it could be less desirable.
1. Photo viewing. A lot of photos are not in 16:9 and a display with that dimensions wouldn't be used to its full potential when viewing them.
2. Web browsing. Webpages benefit from length and width. I think that's why so many people dislike 16:9 computer displays. (Perhaps that's why Windows 8 is trying a side-scrolling Start/Home Screen.)
I think it would be fantastic if display aspect ratios would standardize into one format for general purpose use so everyone could develop everything around that, then there wouldn't be a problem.
The 3GS is only 3.5mm wider than the 4S. That small amount of width difference for the display wouldn't have allowed for even the .5 inch jump in display size the all-but-certain next gen iPhone makes. If both length and width of the display kept the same ratio, both length and width would have to be expanded equally. I admit to not being a mathematical genius, but considering the 16:9 next gen display is about 15mm longer than the current gen display, I believe the length and width a 4-inch 3:2 display would need to increase by about 7.5mm (15mm/2), more than double the difference between the 3GS and the 4S. I won't argue what width a perfect phone should have because that's different for each person. I'm just trying to convey that the dimensions of the 3GS, in and of themselves, don't prove a wider phone with a wider screen of those dimensions would've been feasible for a 3:2 display size increase.
Most top-tier phones have 16:9 aspect ratios, Apple is following suit and increasing display size at the same time. Honestly it's the best of both worlds. Video for the most part is becoming a 16:9 affair and the new display aspect ratio will be more fully utilized for such. In portrait, lists and menus will have more room to display vertically. But no one can really argue what is the best aspect ratio other than to say a larger screen with the same PPI is a better screen (within reason of course).
I have no idea why you have no idea why that isn't a good idea.
Could you give examples where a 16:9 display is at a disadvantage instead of making a blanket statement that it's a bad idea?
I disagree with you about the increase in size. And my drawing for a 3:2 iPhone 5 display were based on what we've already seen in leaked photos. So I thin the assumption of bezels on my drawing could be considered fairly accurate. I'm not assuming a teardrop shape, only based on what we've seen in leaks. Plus, if our leaked photos are accurate and my drawing is scaled accurately, the bezels seem to be getting smaller and smaller with subsequent releases, not to mention thickness. Additionally, the 3:2 iPhone 5 display drawing actually has more surface area than the 16:9 mock-up. So it could get thinner even due to different organization of parts.
All i'm saying is that the differences in size is so marginal that it is quite feasible to make a 4" display at 3:2. Looking at thumb sweeps also proves it's no worse off than a 16:9 iPhone 5.
Examples of how a 16:9 display is not better or even worse than a 3:2
1. Anything requiring using the keyboard in landscape mode would be worse (IMO). Keyboard is wider and you don't gain any more visible screen space. to read above the keyboard. So in this case, it's a wash to possibly worse off.
2. thumb sweep reach ranges would be worse, based on my drawing by at least 10mm.
3. basically in general, movies and games are probably the only aspects of a 16:9 screen that make the user experience better. The rest of the user experience is just a taller screen but same size text and images. So not really improved.
Someone needs to tell these Chinese rumor leakers a couple of things.
1) There was never an iPhone "3" - that would've been the 3GS - 3rd Generation
2) The iPhone "5" is the 4S - 5th Generation iPhone
3) Apple will be dropping the suffix from the iPhone name - the next iPhone will NOT be called iPhone 5. If they can't get a clue after the name change on the 3rd Generation iPad, then there's no hope for these idiots.
It was the Chinese leaks last year that got everyone harping on the name iPhone 5 that never came to be. Their dreamed up iPhone 5 will never come, either. Is it really hard to say "next iPhone"?
It isn't hard to grasp the naming structure Apple has used for the iPhones. The only one named after its generation was the iPhone 4 - 4th Generation. The other names used were somewhat of significant value to the iPhone's features of the time - 3G for 3G Network capability - 3GS was the same phone, internally updated for Speed (more powerful) - iPhone 4S is the 4, internally updated for Speed (more powerful).
I think at this point, most everyone is referring to this next phone as the iPhone 5. Personally I agree with you that the next iPhone will probably not be called the iPhone 5, since it will be the 6th Gen iPhone. But i think at this point it's just easier to call it then the new iPhone...i guess. I think I might just call it the "next iPhone" rather than iPhone 5. But then you can't shorten it to iP5.
I think it would be fantastic if display aspect ratios would standardize into one format for general purpose use so everyone could develop everything around that, then there wouldn't be a problem.
That's about the worst idea. Different aspect ratios fit best in different places. The world seems to be trying to standardize 16:9 across everything, and we're seeing just how terrible that is.
Originally Posted by antkm1
I think at this point, most everyone is referring to this next phone as the iPhone 5. Personally I agree with you that the next iPhone will probably not be called the iPhone 5, since it will be the 6th Gen iPhone. But i think at this point it's just easier to call it then the new iPhone...i guess. I think I might just call it the "next iPhone" rather than iPhone 5.
"At this point"? They'll just call it the real name five seconds after it's announced. The entire tables will be turned; instead of a small group calling it the real name correcting everyone else for their own sake, it'll be a small group calling it "iPhone 5" being corrected by the rest of the world. Like "iTouch" and "MAC" and "Steve Job's".
But then you can't shorten it to iP5.
Why would you want to? Shortening iPhone to iPhone is fine with me.
I would like to, because I hate the idea of 16:9 anywhere but a television screen specifically, but until I get one of these in my hand I'm not going to be able to tell you why (if) it's bad in a phone. I know, though, that it's terrible in a tablet.
Strange that you don't like "16:9 anywhere but a television" when the majority of cinema content is originally made for 1.85:1 and 2.40:1 (among others) and not 16:9/1.78:1. So unless you like cropped, letter-boxed or stretched video lets add the television to the list.
Of course it's your list, so if you really do like it please disregard...
If people were as adamant about televisions as they apparently are about phones perhaps movies would look better when viewed at home.
Strange that you don't like "16:9 anywhere but a television" when the majority of cinema content is originally made for 1.85:1 and 2.40:1 (among others) and not 16:9/1.78:1. So unless you like cropped, letter-boxed or stretched video lets add the television to the list.
Of course it's your list, so if you really do like it please disregard...
If people were as adamant about televisions as they apparently are about phones perhaps movies would look better when viewed at home.
Oh, well yeah, I know what you're saying here. I WOULD prefer a 2.39:1 TV, but those aren't catching on, so I can't really get one. The point I'm making is more important than the ratio used to explain it: different scenarios call for different ratios. There is no one size fits all, and there are plenty of wrong resolutions in scenarios.
1) I haven't seen any evidence that this Android-based devices with considerably larger screens than the iPhone are outselling the iPhone. The only evidence we have are questionable stats from Google execs about activations. If you look at most Android-based devices on the market most are much smaller than the iPhone and most don't seem to be used as anything more than a feature phone, not an app phone.
3) Why do you think a 5" is ridiculous but not something that <5"? Why do you draw the line there? What is the magic number? Why aren't you considering other aspects like aspect ratio, thickness, bezel and other things that affect the usability for the average hand of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Totally agree.
I get a little irritated when so many comments are based on their personal subjective likes and dislikes...it's often just too narrow-minded. Apple does NOT (want to) make products for the minor subsets of humanity.
I'd like to think that Apple has painstakingly researched many, many size factors but in the end, they stick with philosophy of producing/marketing an elite, selective choice of options. The beauty of Apple's culture is that it consumes mountains of data & feedback, much of it convoluted and spurious...then churning it thru the Apple machine... all we (common-folk) see is the beautiful and affordable products. Sure they make mistakes, but insofar as mobile phones, Apple is best to stay conservative.
Bottom line, Apple is smart NOT to make too many sizes and options. Maybe announce a single new design or size each year...let the other hardware manufacturers try the plethora of 4.1", 4.2" all they way up to 5.5" phones. Apple doesn't need to win each 0.1" iteration of size options. If Apple ONLY grows in relation to the growth of the phone market segment, trillion $ annual revenue is a done deal.
But let me throw this bomb out there...I'd like to see Apple roll-out an iPhone nano if it can make it profitable. Maybe a throw back to the flip phone? Flip phones are durable, miniature, yet functional enough to text, email, and call. And it'll still be a divergent enough of a product (from other Apple products). Why not?! And "no" I do not want Apple to become a typical, conventional phone maker, but in this one case, I'll risk it & make an exception. Don't hate me.
"At this point"? They'll just call it the real name five seconds after it's announced. The entire tables will be turned; instead of a small group calling it the real name correcting everyone else for their own sake, it'll be a small group calling it "iPhone 5" being corrected by the rest of the world. Like "iTouch" and "MAC" and "Steve Job's".
What I mean by “vertical centering” is that the green distance should be equal to the red distance.
I thought that didn't look right too but they'd have to match the strip on the back to the strip on the front and the bit on the front has to be as small as possible to save the phone being excessively long. The camera component has a square back to it so they don't have much freedom to position it symmetrically.
If the back was completely metal, it wouldn't look out of place but they have to avoid blocking the signals. They obviously don't want to go with the plastic Apple logo like with the iMac and a plastic rim might not be enough to prevent signal attenuation and would be prone to cracking.
Some shots make it look worse than others but from a straight on view, I think it looks ok.
What I mean by “vertical centering” is that the green distance should be equal to the red distance.
Good attention to detail but I don't think that's a big deal. If they couldn't get the camera HW any smaller and/or make other concessions with the frame and components to allow for it to be more centered top to bottom that would leave making the forehead and chin glass(plastic?) more pronounced which may be more visually unpleasing and perhaps cause other issues seeing as how that demarcation point between the black and metal back lines up with the demarcation point of the antenna frame on the sides.
Could they design the antenna to be a little longer on the sides without negatively affecting the signal or requiring other components to be moved. This could be an oversight that they only realized long after the primary R&D was complete or perhaps they had to go with a different camera vendor. I can see Apple wanting to consider that aesthetic in the future but I don't think it's something they would pull the plug on.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Product red is cool and all but almost the only thing tackier than black and red together would be leopard print.
There are many women in their 50s sitting in bars right now who would snap a leopard print iPhone up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Nope, the first iPhone 3G was made available in White...I waited in line for 8 hours at my local mall on Launch day for it. Not surprisingly at the time, White was a very unpopular color...at the time.
Aw the good ol' days. I was 99th in line for the white 3G at the Apple Store nearest me (someone was counting people in line), took 4 hours to purchase and about another 4-6 hours to activate at home on AT&T's slammed network.
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Could you give examples where a 16:9 display is at a disadvantage instead of making a blanket statement that it's a bad idea?
I would like to, because I hate the idea of 16:9 anywhere but a television screen specifically, but until I get one of these in my hand I'm not going to be able to tell you why (if) it's bad in a phone. I know, though, that it's terrible in a tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
Sales of the larger Android phones bring strong evidence for that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I haven't seen any evidence that this Android-based devices with considerably larger screens than the iPhone are outselling the iPhone.
That's because they aren't iPhones Solip. Some people would rather have a larger screen- but being on Android isn't worth leaving iOS just for real estate. The real comparison would be large screen Android vs small screen Android- and that would determine the demand. I don't have any numbers- nor do I care to look them up- but I would assume that larger sells more because that seems to be what the Android handset makers push.
Either way- I might not want the same aspect ratio- or I might. But I'm going to wait until we see the software to make an opinion. If it's just the same iOS features, but longer- I think I'd rather have it be a little wider. But I'm absolutely not going to count Apple out on adding a feature with that new height...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
I do NOT like the "ergonomic" shape of the 3GS - or the iPod Touch.
While it may be marginally more comfortable to hold in your bare hand with no case - it is needlessly more difficult to perform operations such as plugging in the charging cable and pressing the buttons on the side due to the curved shape of the side - far more difficult to take a picture using the volume up button thanks to the curved shape - and IMPOSSIBLE to stand up on its own on a surface to use for video calls or stop motion video capture etc (not that it is always easy to find a surface at the right height for best effect but still).
You have some good points, people use/handle these devices differently. I didn't have those same opinions.
However, there are simple solutions to your gripes. But first, the iPhone is a hand-held device, it's meant to be held in your hand and in your pocket. I never had a problem laying my 3GS flat. And one can argue that trying to stand up the iP4 on it's end (without a case, and without resting it against a vertical surface) is not as easy either since the slick metal rim can slip around on a flat surface. There are a ton of grippy cases that allow you to rest it against something vertical that adequately works for either device.
Taking pictures to me was fine because it had a very grippy rocker button, granted i never used the volume buttons to take photos.
Plugging in things is not really that big of a deal, I never had a problem. Not you mention you have WiFi sync now so half your plugging in stuff is eliminated there.
In all I think you have valid points, but they are quite marginal compared to having a firm/comfortable grip on your phone.
This is the correct way to think about the shape of the 4/4s. It is meant to be a camera first, a phone second. Going to 16:9 means it will be more of a movie camera and player, which I think is something we haven't seen before—a pocket cinema device that also happens to be a phone.
The sharp edges of the device and the extension to 16:9, without widening it, reflect the disciplined thinking that goes into these designs. They seem to be instruments, not gadgets.
Rounded backs are much more difficult when it comes to stabilizing on a table or a tripod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I would like to, because I hate the idea of 16:9 anywhere but a television screen specifically, but until I get one of these in my hand I'm not going to be able to tell you why (if) it's bad in a phone. I know, though, that it's terrible in a tablet.
I've thought about it and decided there are two instances that it could be less desirable.
1. Photo viewing. A lot of photos are not in 16:9 and a display with that dimensions wouldn't be used to its full potential when viewing them.
2. Web browsing. Webpages benefit from length and width. I think that's why so many people dislike 16:9 computer displays. (Perhaps that's why Windows 8 is trying a side-scrolling Start/Home Screen.)
I think it would be fantastic if display aspect ratios would standardize into one format for general purpose use so everyone could develop everything around that, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
The 3GS is only 3.5mm wider than the 4S. That small amount of width difference for the display wouldn't have allowed for even the .5 inch jump in display size the all-but-certain next gen iPhone makes. If both length and width of the display kept the same ratio, both length and width would have to be expanded equally. I admit to not being a mathematical genius, but considering the 16:9 next gen display is about 15mm longer than the current gen display, I believe the length and width a 4-inch 3:2 display would need to increase by about 7.5mm (15mm/2), more than double the difference between the 3GS and the 4S. I won't argue what width a perfect phone should have because that's different for each person. I'm just trying to convey that the dimensions of the 3GS, in and of themselves, don't prove a wider phone with a wider screen of those dimensions would've been feasible for a 3:2 display size increase.
Most top-tier phones have 16:9 aspect ratios, Apple is following suit and increasing display size at the same time. Honestly it's the best of both worlds. Video for the most part is becoming a 16:9 affair and the new display aspect ratio will be more fully utilized for such. In portrait, lists and menus will have more room to display vertically. But no one can really argue what is the best aspect ratio other than to say a larger screen with the same PPI is a better screen (within reason of course).
I have no idea why you have no idea why that isn't a good idea.
Could you give examples where a 16:9 display is at a disadvantage instead of making a blanket statement that it's a bad idea?
I disagree with you about the increase in size. And my drawing for a 3:2 iPhone 5 display were based on what we've already seen in leaked photos. So I thin the assumption of bezels on my drawing could be considered fairly accurate. I'm not assuming a teardrop shape, only based on what we've seen in leaks. Plus, if our leaked photos are accurate and my drawing is scaled accurately, the bezels seem to be getting smaller and smaller with subsequent releases, not to mention thickness. Additionally, the 3:2 iPhone 5 display drawing actually has more surface area than the 16:9 mock-up. So it could get thinner even due to different organization of parts.
All i'm saying is that the differences in size is so marginal that it is quite feasible to make a 4" display at 3:2. Looking at thumb sweeps also proves it's no worse off than a 16:9 iPhone 5.
Examples of how a 16:9 display is not better or even worse than a 3:2
1. Anything requiring using the keyboard in landscape mode would be worse (IMO). Keyboard is wider and you don't gain any more visible screen space. to read above the keyboard. So in this case, it's a wash to possibly worse off.
2. thumb sweep reach ranges would be worse, based on my drawing by at least 10mm.
3. basically in general, movies and games are probably the only aspects of a 16:9 screen that make the user experience better. The rest of the user experience is just a taller screen but same size text and images. So not really improved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA
Someone needs to tell these Chinese rumor leakers a couple of things.
1) There was never an iPhone "3" - that would've been the 3GS - 3rd Generation
2) The iPhone "5" is the 4S - 5th Generation iPhone
3) Apple will be dropping the suffix from the iPhone name - the next iPhone will NOT be called iPhone 5. If they can't get a clue after the name change on the 3rd Generation iPad, then there's no hope for these idiots.
It was the Chinese leaks last year that got everyone harping on the name iPhone 5 that never came to be. Their dreamed up iPhone 5 will never come, either. Is it really hard to say "next iPhone"?
It isn't hard to grasp the naming structure Apple has used for the iPhones. The only one named after its generation was the iPhone 4 - 4th Generation. The other names used were somewhat of significant value to the iPhone's features of the time - 3G for 3G Network capability - 3GS was the same phone, internally updated for Speed (more powerful) - iPhone 4S is the 4, internally updated for Speed (more powerful).
I think at this point, most everyone is referring to this next phone as the iPhone 5. Personally I agree with you that the next iPhone will probably not be called the iPhone 5, since it will be the 6th Gen iPhone. But i think at this point it's just easier to call it then the new iPhone...i guess. I think I might just call it the "next iPhone" rather than iPhone 5. But then you can't shorten it to iP5.
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
I think it would be fantastic if display aspect ratios would standardize into one format for general purpose use so everyone could develop everything around that, then there wouldn't be a problem.
That's about the worst idea. Different aspect ratios fit best in different places. The world seems to be trying to standardize 16:9 across everything, and we're seeing just how terrible that is.
Originally Posted by antkm1
I think at this point, most everyone is referring to this next phone as the iPhone 5. Personally I agree with you that the next iPhone will probably not be called the iPhone 5, since it will be the 6th Gen iPhone. But i think at this point it's just easier to call it then the new iPhone...i guess. I think I might just call it the "next iPhone" rather than iPhone 5.
"At this point"? They'll just call it the real name five seconds after it's announced. The entire tables will be turned; instead of a small group calling it the real name correcting everyone else for their own sake, it'll be a small group calling it "iPhone 5" being corrected by the rest of the world. Like "iTouch" and "MAC" and "Steve Job's".
But then you can't shorten it to iP5.
Why would you want to?
Looks sexy. Remember how everyone panned the iPhone 4 when it was leaked? Opinions will change after this is revealed.
Strange that you don't like "16:9 anywhere but a television" when the majority of cinema content is originally made for 1.85:1 and 2.40:1 (among others) and not 16:9/1.78:1. So unless you like cropped, letter-boxed or stretched video lets add the television to the list.
Of course it's your list, so if you really do like it please disregard...
If people were as adamant about televisions as they apparently are about phones perhaps movies would look better when viewed at home.
Originally Posted by Vadania
Strange that you don't like "16:9 anywhere but a television" when the majority of cinema content is originally made for 1.85:1 and 2.40:1 (among others) and not 16:9/1.78:1. So unless you like cropped, letter-boxed or stretched video lets add the television to the list.
Of course it's your list, so if you really do like it please disregard...
If people were as adamant about televisions as they apparently are about phones perhaps movies would look better when viewed at home.
Oh, well yeah, I know what you're saying here. I WOULD prefer a 2.39:1 TV, but those aren't catching on, so I can't really get one. The point I'm making is more important than the ratio used to explain it: different scenarios call for different ratios. There is no one size fits all, and there are plenty of wrong resolutions in scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I haven't seen any evidence that this Android-based devices with considerably larger screens than the iPhone are outselling the iPhone. The only evidence we have are questionable stats from Google execs about activations. If you look at most Android-based devices on the market most are much smaller than the iPhone and most don't seem to be used as anything more than a feature phone, not an app phone.
3) Why do you think a 5" is ridiculous but not something that <5"? Why do you draw the line there? What is the magic number? Why aren't you considering other aspects like aspect ratio, thickness, bezel and other things that affect the usability for the average hand of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Totally agree.
I get a little irritated when so many comments are based on their personal subjective likes and dislikes...it's often just too narrow-minded. Apple does NOT (want to) make products for the minor subsets of humanity.
I'd like to think that Apple has painstakingly researched many, many size factors but in the end, they stick with philosophy of producing/marketing an elite, selective choice of options. The beauty of Apple's culture is that it consumes mountains of data & feedback, much of it convoluted and spurious...then churning it thru the Apple machine... all we (common-folk) see is the beautiful and affordable products. Sure they make mistakes, but insofar as mobile phones, Apple is best to stay conservative.
Bottom line, Apple is smart NOT to make too many sizes and options. Maybe announce a single new design or size each year...let the other hardware manufacturers try the plethora of 4.1", 4.2" all they way up to 5.5" phones. Apple doesn't need to win each 0.1" iteration of size options. If Apple ONLY grows in relation to the growth of the phone market segment, trillion $ annual revenue is a done deal.
But let me throw this bomb out there...I'd like to see Apple roll-out an iPhone nano if it can make it profitable. Maybe a throw back to the flip phone? Flip phones are durable, miniature, yet functional enough to text, email, and call. And it'll still be a divergent enough of a product (from other Apple products). Why not?! And "no" I do not want Apple to become a typical, conventional phone maker, but in this one case, I'll risk it & make an exception. Don't hate me.
I still don’t understand why the back camera is not centered vertically within the glass piece. It just looks un-Apple-like.
Originally Posted by yakovlev
I still don’t understand why the back camera is not centered vertically within the glass piece. It just looks un-Apple-like.
Because of all the other hardware centered vertically on the front. Stuff can only be so thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"At this point"? They'll just call it the real name five seconds after it's announced. The entire tables will be turned; instead of a small group calling it the real name correcting everyone else for their own sake, it'll be a small group calling it "iPhone 5" being corrected by the rest of the world. Like "iTouch" and "MAC" and "Steve Job's".
so what are you trying to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because of all the other hardware centered vertically on the front. Stuff can only be so thin.
What I mean by “vertical centering” is that the green distance should be equal to the red distance.
I thought that didn't look right too but they'd have to match the strip on the back to the strip on the front and the bit on the front has to be as small as possible to save the phone being excessively long. The camera component has a square back to it so they don't have much freedom to position it symmetrically.
If the back was completely metal, it wouldn't look out of place but they have to avoid blocking the signals. They obviously don't want to go with the plastic Apple logo like with the iMac and a plastic rim might not be enough to prevent signal attenuation and would be prone to cracking.
Some shots make it look worse than others but from a straight on view, I think it looks ok.
Good attention to detail but I don't think that's a big deal. If they couldn't get the camera HW any smaller and/or make other concessions with the frame and components to allow for it to be more centered top to bottom that would leave making the forehead and chin glass(plastic?) more pronounced which may be more visually unpleasing and perhaps cause other issues seeing as how that demarcation point between the black and metal back lines up with the demarcation point of the antenna frame on the sides.
Could they design the antenna to be a little longer on the sides without negatively affecting the signal or requiring other components to be moved. This could be an oversight that they only realized long after the primary R&D was complete or perhaps they had to go with a different camera vendor. I can see Apple wanting to consider that aesthetic in the future but I don't think it's something they would pull the plug on.