would be interesting how apple would market a larger screen seeing as the iPhone 5 is marketed as the perfect size for one hand operation
Apple realizes people spend far more time these days staring and interacting with the display than talking. Even then you have bluetooth, headsets, and speaker phone a an option.
Reading websites, typing out text, and every other activity is far easier and more enjoyable on a larger screen. Easier on the eyes, looks better, and more room which means less scrolling. Have you not noticed how many apps now run in landscape mode only or at least as an option. That is a quantum change from a few years ago where portrait only apps favoring one handed use seemed more dominant. At least that is the experience I see with the apps I use. In landscape mode whether you have an iPhone 4S with a 3.5" screen or a Note II with a 5.5" screen, chances are you will rest it in the palm of one hand and touch the display with your other hand. Once you reach iPad sizes then it reverses again and portrait mode is fine simply because you have such a large display.
Apple are very well aware of this shift and will act accordingly.
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.
What do you mean there's no precedence for it? iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 was an exact doubling of the pixels. iPad 2 to iPad 3 was an exact doubling of the pixels. And you're right about the ppi on a 5 inch screen. I updated my post to use the right number.
What do you mean there's no precedence for it? iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 was an exact doubling of the pixels. iPad 2 to iPad 3 was an exact doubling of the pixels. And you're right about the ppi on a 5 inch screen. I updated my post to use the right number.
Think about it for a second. They did not take a 480x320 3.5" display then double it to a 960x640 5" display. It still stayed at the same size! The whole reason for the doubling was to make the transition invisible to the user so that old apps still look at good as before but idealized apps look much better as 1 pixel now takes up 4 pixels in a block thus keeping everything the same.
Think about it for a second. They did not take a 480x320 3.5" display then double it to a 960x640 5" display. It still stayed at the same size! The whole reason for the doubling was to make the transition invisible to the user so that old apps still look at good as before but idealized apps look much better as 1 pixel now takes up 4 pixels in a block thus keeping everything the same.
You're right that they've never combined a doubling of pixels with an increase in screen size, but that doesn't mean they won't. Plus there has only been one change in screen size in an existing product line (unless you consider the iPad mini a part of the same line of iPads).
I think that there is a snowball's chance in hell for Apple to keep the same resolution when bumping the screen size up by the better part of an inch, so based on their history I'd say there's a good chance that they double the number of pixels if they release a bigger iPhone.
You're right that they've never combined a doubling of pixels with an increase in screen size, but that doesn't mean they won't.
Sure, but you asked about my use of the term precedence.
I think that there is a snowball's chance in hell for Apple to keep the same resolution when bumping the screen size up by the better part of an inch, so based on their history I'd say there's a good chance that they double the number of pixels if they release a bigger iPhone.
I can see many logical paths. It all depends on factors we can't possibly know. I hope they don't do a 264 PPI 4.9404" iPhone and instead use the 326 PPI panels at some new resolution, but desire is a poor way to predict a future I have no control over.
iPhone Plus? Hmm. Plus size makes me think of fat woman's clothing (sorry ladies). Didn't Apple, once before, designed the iPod that made it look fat? Don't think that way of design worked out too well as Apple went back to its slender ways.
I would think iPhone for the new 5 inch (if rumors are true) and iPhone Mini for the 4 inch... AND DROP THE 4, 4S, 5, 5S, stuff!
People always said that about the 2007 iPod Nano. But in truth it really wasn't fat, it was just short.
Just because the phones are getting older from a design perspective, doesn't mean they are continually getting cheaper. At some point they may even become more expensive as the components become completely outdated.
OTOH, the assembly lines, test jigs, and skillset training are totally paid for, and the profit actually increases. it balances out.
The 4s form factor can be effectively internally upgraded with components 'upstream' (a new processor, new memory etc), may temporarly increase the cost of a component supplier or subcomponent on the apple assembly line, but the footprint costs of final assembly and testing remain at zero, with only the component cost and the labor costs (again lower per quality checked assembled unit).
The key thing is factory footprint costs, and any quality bumps.... in theory the first working iPhone costs 4Billion or so to make, and sells for 625, the next 400million phones cost 180/unit, and sell for 625. Somewhere near 10Million mark, the 'manufacturing CapEx' is recovered, and it's pretty much pure profit after that.
building out a new size, new materials, new anything that requires a reprogramming of the automated assembly requires a new assembly line to be built (Apple doesn't retool until it retires)...
It makes little sense to retire both the 4 and the 4s. for a new high nd (5s), and new low end (??).
The problem is that if Apple were to create a larger phone competitors would simply make a larger phone. There are already rumors of a 6.3" Samsung phone.
Samsung wants a race to see how much garbage they can throw in the street to attract flies. Apple can't beat Samsung by playing the Samsung game.
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
You have an Apple TV on the subway?! Awesome! I don't, nor do I have that option at work.
The problem is that if Apple were to create a larger phone competitors would simply make a larger phone. There are already rumors of a 6.3" Samsung phone.
Samsung wants a race to see how much garbage they can throw in the street to attract flies. Apple can't beat Samsung by playing the Samsung game.
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
So your solution is to buy and Apple TV and never leave your house if you want a larger iPhone?
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).
To be fair to Apple (and I've been bitching a lot about them lately mostly over their restricting of options both on Macs [pooh-poohing touch screens for when they're handy] and mobiles [small screens, e.g. and file/app sandboxing]), Samsung's "441 ppi" is for a pentile screen that plays pixel tricks and may not be truly be "higher res" in terms of the viewing experience it offers compared to Apple's pure 326 ppi.
I am guessing even the cheaper iPhone with the all the cost savings will still cost $499, that is with the same margin while being $200 cheaper then the $699 iPhone. Apple will properly go with lower margin with further reduced pricing to Channels or Mobile Networks. I.e Your iPhone will turns out cheaper if you buy them from a Mobile Network with a contract.
Which means as a consumer it should cost them ~$399.
However even with last generation A6 SoC, less expensive touch screens and panels, Plastic etc... i still fail to see how Apple could cut $40 off its iPhone BOM cost. Apple would have to work some magic without scraficing their margin too much.
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.
?
The earlier iphones were HVGA. VGA phones already existed
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They start it with the word rumor. That seems sufficient to me.
since when what someone (no matter how stupid he/she is) says is considered a "rumor"?
You are absolutely right, getting old doesn't necessarily mean they will get cheap. Besides that, iPhones are always gonna be quality products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal
would be interesting how apple would market a larger screen seeing as the iPhone 5 is marketed as the perfect size for one hand operation
Apple realizes people spend far more time these days staring and interacting with the display than talking. Even then you have bluetooth, headsets, and speaker phone a an option.
Reading websites, typing out text, and every other activity is far easier and more enjoyable on a larger screen. Easier on the eyes, looks better, and more room which means less scrolling. Have you not noticed how many apps now run in landscape mode only or at least as an option. That is a quantum change from a few years ago where portrait only apps favoring one handed use seemed more dominant. At least that is the experience I see with the apps I use. In landscape mode whether you have an iPhone 4S with a 3.5" screen or a Note II with a 5.5" screen, chances are you will rest it in the palm of one hand and touch the display with your other hand. Once you reach iPad sizes then it reverses again and portrait mode is fine simply because you have such a large display.
Apple are very well aware of this shift and will act accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
What do you mean there's no precedence for it? iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 was an exact doubling of the pixels. iPad 2 to iPad 3 was an exact doubling of the pixels. And you're right about the ppi on a 5 inch screen. I updated my post to use the right number.
As far as back as the 17th century or 14th century depending on where draw the line: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rumor
Think about it for a second. They did not take a 480x320 3.5" display then double it to a 960x640 5" display. It still stayed at the same size! The whole reason for the doubling was to make the transition invisible to the user so that old apps still look at good as before but idealized apps look much better as 1 pixel now takes up 4 pixels in a block thus keeping everything the same.
You should get a prize. (I am serious).
Because the person has no direct firsthand knowledge of the subject. Rumors are always what someone says....
You're right that they've never combined a doubling of pixels with an increase in screen size, but that doesn't mean they won't. Plus there has only been one change in screen size in an existing product line (unless you consider the iPad mini a part of the same line of iPads).
I think that there is a snowball's chance in hell for Apple to keep the same resolution when bumping the screen size up by the better part of an inch, so based on their history I'd say there's a good chance that they double the number of pixels if they release a bigger iPhone.
Sure, but you asked about my use of the term precedence.
I can see many logical paths. It all depends on factors we can't possibly know. I hope they don't do a 264 PPI 4.9404" iPhone and instead use the 326 PPI panels at some new resolution, but desire is a poor way to predict a future I have no control over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
iPhone Plus? Hmm. Plus size makes me think of fat woman's clothing (sorry ladies). Didn't Apple, once before, designed the iPod that made it look fat? Don't think that way of design worked out too well as Apple went back to its slender ways.
I would think iPhone for the new 5 inch (if rumors are true) and iPhone Mini for the 4 inch... AND DROP THE 4, 4S, 5, 5S, stuff!
People always said that about the 2007 iPod Nano. But in truth it really wasn't fat, it was just short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Just because the phones are getting older from a design perspective, doesn't mean they are continually getting cheaper. At some point they may even become more expensive as the components become completely outdated.
OTOH, the assembly lines, test jigs, and skillset training are totally paid for, and the profit actually increases. it balances out.
The 4s form factor can be effectively internally upgraded with components 'upstream' (a new processor, new memory etc), may temporarly increase the cost of a component supplier or subcomponent on the apple assembly line, but the footprint costs of final assembly and testing remain at zero, with only the component cost and the labor costs (again lower per quality checked assembled unit).
The key thing is factory footprint costs, and any quality bumps.... in theory the first working iPhone costs 4Billion or so to make, and sells for 625, the next 400million phones cost 180/unit, and sell for 625. Somewhere near 10Million mark, the 'manufacturing CapEx' is recovered, and it's pretty much pure profit after that.
building out a new size, new materials, new anything that requires a reprogramming of the automated assembly requires a new assembly line to be built (Apple doesn't retool until it retires)...
It makes little sense to retire both the 4 and the 4s. for a new high nd (5s), and new low end (??).
Samsung wants a race to see how much garbage they can throw in the street to attract flies. Apple can't beat Samsung by playing the Samsung game.
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
You have an Apple TV on the subway?! Awesome! I don't, nor do I have that option at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
The problem is that if Apple were to create a larger phone competitors would simply make a larger phone. There are already rumors of a 6.3" Samsung phone.
Samsung wants a race to see how much garbage they can throw in the street to attract flies. Apple can't beat Samsung by playing the Samsung game.
I would consider a 4.5" iPhone but I really have difficulty imagining myself wanting a phone larger than that especially when I can simply AirPlay content to my AppleTV.
So your solution is to buy and Apple TV and never leave your house if you want a larger iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
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).
To be fair to Apple (and I've been bitching a lot about them lately mostly over their restricting of options both on Macs [pooh-poohing touch screens for when they're handy] and mobiles [small screens, e.g. and file/app sandboxing]), Samsung's "441 ppi" is for a pentile screen that plays pixel tricks and may not be truly be "higher res" in terms of the viewing experience it offers compared to Apple's pure 326 ppi.
I am guessing even the cheaper iPhone with the all the cost savings will still cost $499, that is with the same margin while being $200 cheaper then the $699 iPhone. Apple will properly go with lower margin with further reduced pricing to Channels or Mobile Networks. I.e Your iPhone will turns out cheaper if you buy them from a Mobile Network with a contract.
Which means as a consumer it should cost them ~$399.
However even with last generation A6 SoC, less expensive touch screens and panels, Plastic etc... i still fail to see how Apple could cut $40 off its iPhone BOM cost. Apple would have to work some magic without scraficing their margin too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
?
The earlier iphones were HVGA. VGA phones already existed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal
would be interesting how apple would market a larger screen seeing as the iPhone 5 is marketed as the perfect size for one hand operation
Previously, 3.5" was the perfect size. I guess some people see perfect as being relative...