How are they going to fit the larger components in that thin case? iPhone 5 case requires an iPhone 5 screen making the rest of the guts sort of incompatible from the start.
Remember this is about making the shift to a more user friendly platform for a better experience by pushing 3.5" devices from being new sales. That means they make this 4" iPhone with 4S components that resembles the iPhone 5 case thicker than the iPhone 5. But I don't think that would happen as there are many ways they could adjust the components.
For instance, in the iPhone 4S they could use a 28nm chip with the same speed and functionality. Just a smaller lithography like they tested with the iPad 2 Rev.2. Then they could use the newer display tech if it was cheaper to do so but it's not a requirement. On top of that going to 28nm means they can reduce the battery size whilst still keeping the same (or even more battery life) than before.
You also have to consider the back panel on the iPhone 4 and 4S is thick compared to the back panel of the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 has a smaller overall volume than the iPhone 4 and 4S but the internal volume for components may actually be higher. Do we know the internal volume and the internal height of the current iPhone 5, or the current height of the logic board in the iPhone 4S?
That said, I wouldn't put too much effort into seeing the 3.5" iPhones replaced with an equivalent 4" iPhone until we start seeing 3.5" iPhone supplies dry up.
I moved to Android to get a bigger screen than my iPhone 4 about 1.5 yrs ago. I would definitely come back to Apple if they sold an iPhone as big as my Samsung Galaxy Nexus , or ideally bigger.
I have a few more friends these days with Androids and the reason most of them give for getting one is screen size, and cost. iPhones are a bit pricey compared to top end androids here in the UK.
People do a lot more with their phones now than make calls... And not everyone wants to carry an iPad with them as well.
I don't see why it does any harm to give people a choice. The standard 4" iPhone 5 for those who appreciate all things small, and a larger 5" version with added benefits like bigger battery etc for those that want it. It's win win.
Just don't take all year to release it,otherwise I will have given up hope and bought another big screen android by then.
For those thAt have followed Brian Whites track record, it's probably the worst of any analyst !!!! It's amazing that the SEC hasn't gotten involved in this market manipulating
The high end geek market would, of course, laugh their asses off at a 4.9" phone with 640x1136 resolution, but they all have rooted Android devices and wouldn't be caught dead inside the walled garden. Apple isn't losing any sales from that crowd.
Not just the high end geek market. Such a phone would be suicide when every competing flagship has almost double the PPI. I'd laugh my ass off, then cry, then abandon iOS, because reverting to pre-retina resolutions would mean Apple have well and truly lost it.
That means yet another resolution developers have to support. I would think they would do what they did with the iPad mini and simply use the iPhone's old PPI (i.e.: display panels) but still use 1024x768. That would mean using the 264 PPI of the iPad 4 and keeping the 1136x640 resolution which ends up being a 4.9404" display. However, i find that size to be questionable in terms of being called Retina as it means the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect is 13.02".
At a 5" display size a minimum viewing distance for Retina at 13" doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. In fact, it seems about right.
Not just the high end geek market. Such a phone would be suicide when every competing flagship has almost double the PPI. I'd laugh my ass off, then cry, then abandon iOS, because reverting to pre-retina resolutions would mean Apple have well and truly lost it.
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
My point exactly; those posters who claim Apple would revert to shitty PPI are completely deluded.
At a 5" display size a minimum viewing distance for Retina at 13" doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. In fact, it seems about right.
That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
They released an iPad mini with an 163 PPI display. Many said it would be DOA because this or that Android tablet had a certain PPI and that Apple had moved to a 264 PPI for the Retina iPad 3. Eventually the iPad mini will be 326 PPI but the technology didn't exist in 2012 for that to be feasible. That isn't to say your prediction is wrong, but your basis as to why it can't happen is flawed.
They released an iPad mini with an 163 PPI display. Many said it would be DOA because this or that Android tablet had a certain PPI and that Apple had moved to a 264 PPI for the Retina iPad 3. Eventually the iPad mini will be 326 PPI but the technology didn't exist in 2012 for that to be feasible. That isn't to say your prediction is wrong, but your basis as to why it can't happen is flawed.
You said it yourself, the tech wasn't there last year, hence the Mini got a low-res display. However, there would be no excuse for releasing a flagship smartphone with less than 300 PPI in 2013 (ideally it'd have 400+ to catch up to the competition).
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
This is right. I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model. At 5", double the resolution gives 521 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone. Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.
That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.
Sure, but does the bitching and moaning really matter? Look at what that the b&m hasn't done to the iPad mini. With the iPad mini, Schiller was deft enough at marketing it that there was virtually no PR backlash, even at a significantly higher price than the so-called competition. I'm not convinced the phone category would be any different.
You said it yourself, the tech wasn't there last year, hence the Mini got a low-res display. However, there would be no excuse for releasing a flagship smartphone with less than 300 PPI in 2013 (ideally it'd have 400+ to catch up to the competition).
That's only if you look at it from a technical standpoint. Look at the way Apple has.
Consider the original iPhone. The PPI and resolution was higher than other smartphones. By the 2nd gen others were catching up but Apple most still held a lead. By the 3rd gen they were behind most others in that category. So why did they let others get ahead of them instead of saying "Oh, you have that PPI, well we have that PPI + 1"? Apple simply doesn't react that way.
Instead they waited another year and released the iPhone 4 with not only an exact doubling of the resolution and PPI (4x the number of pixels)… as well as made it an IPS display, better backlight, better color gamut, and closer to the glass.
They did the same thing with the iPad 2 to the 3rd generation iPad, except this time instead of waiting what could negatively be described as "too long" they did it "too soon" as the additional weight and thickness proves is we look at Apple having a strong desire to keep making their products thinner.
In each of these two similar — but different — cases we see Apple not wanting to simply jump the resolution to something that causes a lot of extra work for developers that inevitably creates a time frame of poorly idealized apps for the primary I/O. They clearly have a history of wanting to scale 2:1 when they alter the pixel density. The same goes for the all Retina Macs to date.
The only variance is with the iPhone 5 but lets remember that it's still the same display width and pixel density as all previous iPhone before it so your finger can still pivot from the side. Believe me when I tell you Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the top and bottom bars for apps still coded for the 3.5" display.
With all that in mind do you think they will simply jump the PPI just to say beat out some other vendor's device that will be lucky to turn a profit for said vendor? I don't. I think the best you can reasonable ask for is keeping the 326 PPI and having bars on the left, right, top and bottom, but even that sounds fairly un-Apple to me.
That's only if you look at it from a technical standpoint. Look at the way Apple has.
Consider the original iPhone. The PPI and resolution was higher than other smartphones. By the 2nd gen others were catching up but Apple most still held a lead. By the 3rd gen they were behind most others in that category. So why did they let others get ahead of them instead of saying "Oh, you have that PPI, well we have that PPI + 1"? Apple simply doesn't react that way.
Instead they waited another year and released the iPhone 4 with not only an exact doubling of the resolution and PPI (4x the number of pixels)… as well as made it an IPS display, better backlight, better color gamut, and closer to the glass.
They did the same thing with the iPad 2 to the 3rd generation iPad, except this time instead of waiting what could negatively be described as "too long" they did it "too soon" as the additional weight and thickness proves is we look at Apple having a strong desire to keep making their products thinner.
In each of these two similar — but different — cases we see Apple not wanting to simply jump the resolution to something that causes a lot of extra work for developers that inevitably creates a time frame of poorly idealized apps for the primary I/O. They clearly have a history of wanting to scale 2:1 when they alter the pixel density. The same goes for the all Retina Macs to date.
The only variance is with the iPhone 5 but lets remember that it's still the same display width and pixel density as all previous iPhone before it so your finger can still pivot from the side. Believe me when I tell you Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the top and bottom bars for apps still coded for the 3.5" display.
With all that in mind do you think they will simply jump the PPI just to say beat out some other vendor's device that will be lucky to turn a profit for said vendor? I don't. I think the best you can reasonable ask for is keeping the 326 PPI and having bars on the left, right, top and bottom, but even that sounds fairly un-Apple to me.
Or, you know, an exact doubling of the current resolution on a 5" screen.
PS: I think the "stretch model" was a tactical mistake as it is - as it won't scale well if expanded in both directions, making something very top-heavy in a "pocketable." Hoping tactical won't become strategic as form factors evolve, but not hopeful.
Well, the whole iOS is a strategic mistake making it "pixel perfect". Now, if you want to make aniOS phone or tablet with a different resolution, you suddenly in danger of "fragmentation": iphone, iphone retina, iphone 5, ipad, ipad retina, ipod, AppleTV. Big problem. The "pixel perfect" iOS is the reason Apple is stuck with one resolution. iPhone 5 solutionis just a band aid to the problem. The iOS UI needs to be completely rewritten so it could be used with various resolutions, just like Mac.
Google, on the other hand, did not make that mistake with Android. From the version 1.0 Andoid has a scalable resolution-independent UI.
This is right. I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model. At 5", double the resolution gives 492 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone. Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.
That sounds great in theory, but if you're Apple how do you take it to market? Who would pay significantly more on-contract for that phone? In subsidy-based markets like the US, the elderly certainly wouldn't in any large numbers. Teens who otherwise might gravitate to big phones as a single-screen computing solution wouldn't pay an extra hundred bucks or so subsidized. Those both are fairly price-sensitive demographics who, not coincidently, may care less about such high resolution specs.
What would the un-subsidized market be like? What would the un-sub price be for such a phone? From what I have gathered the largest markets for such a big phone would be the subsidy-free, developing world, and Asia markets, where there also is more price sensitivity. I think Apple got it right in that the lower-resolution/lower-cost smaller iPad was a great solution for those markets.
Or, you know, an exact doubling of the current resolution on a 5" screen.
I guess they technically could do that but there is absolutely no precedence for it. Even the iPad mini is using the PPI that came on the original iPhone. That's what it's 7.85". They save a lot of money by going with equipment and expertise they've built up over half a decade.
On top of that it doesn't look technically feasible. The 4" iPhone is 1136x640; if you double that you get 2272x1280. That's a 521.55 PPI for a 5" display. That PPI would be costly and there is likely only a minor visual benefit to the user over Apple's 326 PPI. Once you get to around 400 PPI there is probably no discernible benefit.
Worst of all, that's 2.9 million pixels on a phone. That's only 200k pixels less than the iPad 3! If the HTC One with a 1080p display only has 2 million pixels and shitty battery life. So why would Apple want to incur the cost of the display tech difficulty, new equipment investments for making the display, more and faster GPU cores for pushing to nearly 3 million pixels and/or a slow down in visual performance, and much worse battery life and/or a heavier and thicker device? The only reason is to measure their tech dick but that's not what Apple usually does, especially when the only benefit is to put one item on a spec sheet with many, many issues with the UX as a result.
Comments
Remember this is about making the shift to a more user friendly platform for a better experience by pushing 3.5" devices from being new sales. That means they make this 4" iPhone with 4S components that resembles the iPhone 5 case thicker than the iPhone 5. But I don't think that would happen as there are many ways they could adjust the components.
For instance, in the iPhone 4S they could use a 28nm chip with the same speed and functionality. Just a smaller lithography like they tested with the iPad 2 Rev.2. Then they could use the newer display tech if it was cheaper to do so but it's not a requirement. On top of that going to 28nm means they can reduce the battery size whilst still keeping the same (or even more battery life) than before.
You also have to consider the back panel on the iPhone 4 and 4S is thick compared to the back panel of the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 has a smaller overall volume than the iPhone 4 and 4S but the internal volume for components may actually be higher. Do we know the internal volume and the internal height of the current iPhone 5, or the current height of the logic board in the iPhone 4S?
That said, I wouldn't put too much effort into seeing the 3.5" iPhones replaced with an equivalent 4" iPhone until we start seeing 3.5" iPhone supplies dry up.
To an extent I agree choice is good.
I moved to Android to get a bigger screen than my iPhone 4 about 1.5 yrs ago. I would definitely come back to Apple if they sold an iPhone as big as my Samsung Galaxy Nexus , or ideally bigger.
I have a few more friends these days with Androids and the reason most of them give for getting one is screen size, and cost. iPhones are a bit pricey compared to top end androids here in the UK.
People do a lot more with their phones now than make calls... And not everyone wants to carry an iPad with them as well.
I don't see why it does any harm to give people a choice. The standard 4" iPhone 5 for those who appreciate all things small, and a larger 5" version with added benefits like bigger battery etc for those that want it. It's win win.
Just don't take all year to release it,otherwise I will have given up hope and bought another big screen android by then.
Not just the high end geek market. Such a phone would be suicide when every competing flagship has almost double the PPI. I'd laugh my ass off, then cry, then abandon iOS, because reverting to pre-retina resolutions would mean Apple have well and truly lost it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That means yet another resolution developers have to support. I would think they would do what they did with the iPad mini and simply use the iPhone's old PPI (i.e.: display panels) but still use 1024x768. That would mean using the 264 PPI of the iPad 4 and keeping the 1136x640 resolution which ends up being a 4.9404" display. However, i find that size to be questionable in terms of being called Retina as it means the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect is 13.02".
At a 5" display size a minimum viewing distance for Retina at 13" doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. In fact, it seems about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Not just the high end geek market. Such a phone would be suicide when every competing flagship has almost double the PPI. I'd laugh my ass off, then cry, then abandon iOS, because reverting to pre-retina resolutions would mean Apple have well and truly lost it.
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
My point exactly; those posters who claim Apple would revert to shitty PPI are completely deluded.
That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.
They released an iPad mini with an 163 PPI display. Many said it would be DOA because this or that Android tablet had a certain PPI and that Apple had moved to a 264 PPI for the Retina iPad 3. Eventually the iPad mini will be 326 PPI but the technology didn't exist in 2012 for that to be feasible. That isn't to say your prediction is wrong, but your basis as to why it can't happen is flawed.
You said it yourself, the tech wasn't there last year, hence the Mini got a low-res display. However, there would be no excuse for releasing a flagship smartphone with less than 300 PPI in 2013 (ideally it'd have 400+ to catch up to the competition).
Nope
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
If Apple makes a larger phone it will have not have a poor resolution. They were the first to introduce such high PPI and it is doubtful they would release anything with about half the PPI of competing Android phones. Of that you can be sure. I have no idea what the resolution would be and that largely depends on large they decide to make the display, but it would not be a sub-par experience.
This is right. I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model. At 5", double the resolution gives 521 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone. Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That would be the minimum distance so anything closer, even just 12.5" away, would lose the Retina effect based on Apple's equation which uses 20/20(6/6) vision. Now one could argue that it's good enough or that most people in the world do not have "perfect" vision but that could be a PR issue for Apple. At the very least there will be plenty of people signing to up here to bitch and moan, especially when there are several IPS 400+ PPI phones coming to market this year.
Sure, but does the bitching and moaning really matter? Look at what that the b&m hasn't done to the iPad mini. With the iPad mini, Schiller was deft enough at marketing it that there was virtually no PR backlash, even at a significantly higher price than the so-called competition. I'm not convinced the phone category would be any different.
That's only if you look at it from a technical standpoint. Look at the way Apple has.
Consider the original iPhone. The PPI and resolution was higher than other smartphones. By the 2nd gen others were catching up but Apple most still held a lead. By the 3rd gen they were behind most others in that category. So why did they let others get ahead of them instead of saying "Oh, you have that PPI, well we have that PPI + 1"? Apple simply doesn't react that way.
Instead they waited another year and released the iPhone 4 with not only an exact doubling of the resolution and PPI (4x the number of pixels)… as well as made it an IPS display, better backlight, better color gamut, and closer to the glass.
They did the same thing with the iPad 2 to the 3rd generation iPad, except this time instead of waiting what could negatively be described as "too long" they did it "too soon" as the additional weight and thickness proves is we look at Apple having a strong desire to keep making their products thinner.
In each of these two similar — but different — cases we see Apple not wanting to simply jump the resolution to something that causes a lot of extra work for developers that inevitably creates a time frame of poorly idealized apps for the primary I/O. They clearly have a history of wanting to scale 2:1 when they alter the pixel density. The same goes for the all Retina Macs to date.
The only variance is with the iPhone 5 but lets remember that it's still the same display width and pixel density as all previous iPhone before it so your finger can still pivot from the side. Believe me when I tell you Apple spent a lot of time thinking about the top and bottom bars for apps still coded for the 3.5" display.
With all that in mind do you think they will simply jump the PPI just to say beat out some other vendor's device that will be lucky to turn a profit for said vendor? I don't. I think the best you can reasonable ask for is keeping the 326 PPI and having bars on the left, right, top and bottom, but even that sounds fairly un-Apple to me.
Or, you know, an exact doubling of the current resolution on a 5" screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
PS: I think the "stretch model" was a tactical mistake as it is - as it won't scale well if expanded in both directions, making something very top-heavy in a "pocketable." Hoping tactical won't become strategic as form factors evolve, but not hopeful.
Well, the whole iOS is a strategic mistake making it "pixel perfect". Now, if you want to make an iOS phone or tablet with a different resolution, you suddenly in danger of "fragmentation": iphone, iphone retina, iphone 5, ipad, ipad retina, ipod, AppleTV. Big problem. The "pixel perfect" iOS is the reason Apple is stuck with one resolution. iPhone 5 solution is just a band aid to the problem. The iOS UI needs to be completely rewritten so it could be used with various resolutions, just like Mac.
Google, on the other hand, did not make that mistake with Android. From the version 1.0 Andoid has a scalable resolution-independent UI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
This is right. I think Apple will double the resolution of the iPhone's display when they make a larger model. At 5", double the resolution gives 492 ppi, and that number will go up to 543 ppi if they make a 4.8" phone. Considering every large, high-end Android phone this year will come with a 1080p display with ppi's ranging from the mid to upper 400s, I don't think Apple is going to come to the party with a display that doesn't compare.
That sounds great in theory, but if you're Apple how do you take it to market? Who would pay significantly more on-contract for that phone? In subsidy-based markets like the US, the elderly certainly wouldn't in any large numbers. Teens who otherwise might gravitate to big phones as a single-screen computing solution wouldn't pay an extra hundred bucks or so subsidized. Those both are fairly price-sensitive demographics who, not coincidently, may care less about such high resolution specs.
What would the un-subsidized market be like? What would the un-sub price be for such a phone? From what I have gathered the largest markets for such a big phone would be the subsidy-free, developing world, and Asia markets, where there also is more price sensitivity. I think Apple got it right in that the lower-resolution/lower-cost smaller iPad was a great solution for those markets.
I guess they technically could do that but there is absolutely no precedence for it. Even the iPad mini is using the PPI that came on the original iPhone. That's what it's 7.85". They save a lot of money by going with equipment and expertise they've built up over half a decade.
On top of that it doesn't look technically feasible. The 4" iPhone is 1136x640; if you double that you get 2272x1280. That's a 521.55 PPI for a 5" display. That PPI would be costly and there is likely only a minor visual benefit to the user over Apple's 326 PPI. Once you get to around 400 PPI there is probably no discernible benefit.
Worst of all, that's 2.9 million pixels on a phone. That's only 200k pixels less than the iPad 3! If the HTC One with a 1080p display only has 2 million pixels and shitty battery life. So why would Apple want to incur the cost of the display tech difficulty, new equipment investments for making the display, more and faster GPU cores for pushing to nearly 3 million pixels and/or a slow down in visual performance, and much worse battery life and/or a heavier and thicker device? The only reason is to measure their tech dick but that's not what Apple usually does, especially when the only benefit is to put one item on a spec sheet with many, many issues with the UX as a result.