Is the term trade-offs some regional expression that is unknown to most people?
No, but I think Tim and his crew may have different priorities than many smartphone buyers.
For example, one of the things they might have to sacrifice to get a larger screen is color accuracy. To Apple, that matters. To many buyers, it doesn't. People aren't using colorometers to calibrate their 4" movie viewing experience. Heck, they're not even comparing black levels when choosing a 50" TV. To that buyer, the ease-of-use provided by a larger screen may be a higher priority than color.
Same with pixel density. To my eyes, a super-sharp image that's too small to read is less valuable than a larger, easier to read display, even if it is sightly softer.
Then there's Messaging and email, both of which are easier on a larger keyboard. Is that more or less important than maximum brightness?
It's not my intention to initiate debate about any of the specific comparisons I've listed as examples, but to point out that the term "trade-offs" means making value judgements about the relative importance of several characteristics, and that some trade-offs matter more to me than they may to you and vice-versa. It's actually not at all unreasonable to expect that any given buyer may disagree with Apple's particular choices.
No tradeoffs? They added 4x the pixels which meant they needed a more powerful GPU just to get the same performance (trade off 1) then they needed a special backlighting system because the single light bar wasn't enough with the double density display (trade off 2), then they needed to put all that into a case that was just as thin and lighter (or thinner and lighter) than the previous generation (trade offs 3 and 4) and finally had to power it for around the same duration as the previous generation (trade off 5).
And that's all without considering any potential trade offs in display yields for a 264 PPI display at 9.7 4:3, without considering how the OS would need to be written and tested to support older apps at 2x resolution, without considering rewriting iOS to support the proper 2x for the iPad with bitmapped images, without considering how Xcode would have to be adopted for this second resolution, without considering app store changes, and without considering the cost of this display, the backlights, the Apple A chip, the 42% larger battery, and all other little costs that go into making it seem like an Apple product is perfect and without any trade offs.
+1. Exactly on point. Hell, just as a measly app developer, this cost our company upwards of 28k to retinaize one of our iPad apps. Custom controls updated, scaled design, QA, code optimizations, etc. There are always trade offs when making changes.
Hopefully auto layout will fix that from happening again.
I think the biggest issue here, is maintaining battery life quality and keeping the enclosure as thin or thinner. With the retina iPad, it got heavier and thicker over its predecessor. Something I don't want in my phone specs.
It's become reality that Tim Cook and Apple have completely lost touch with the market and what consumers want. This idea that a 5" display cannot be created with high specs and standards is insane, several devices currently have 4.7-5"+ displays that have even better specs and quality than the iPhone.
I've owned Apple since the 3G and currently use the 4s. Apple holds itself to a high standard, so much so that they air a sense superiority over everything they do. So much so that it's self limiting in terms of innovation. Let's face it, Apple has lagged behind in that department big time in the last year or so. For 3, 4, 5 years they were the leader in innovating and bringing top of the line products to market. Now they've fallen hard and this is born out by the ridiculous losses the company has been simmering over. Since September 2012 their stock has fallen from $700+/share to $406/share today equating to a $290 BILLION loss in market volume. The industry has passed them, while there might be a bazillion android/other smartphones available and maybe only 0.1% of them are worth a look, that's still more, better options that are available than today's iPhone. More frustrating is that Apple is sitting on $150 BILLION in cash and not investing in tech innovation. Their investors and the market is losing faith in the company, Tim Cook has lost touch and with so many other options it's easy to see Apple losing the death grip they've had on the industry for 5 years.
I've had my time with Apple and I'm moving on, there are just too many better phones with better displays and companies making them who are willing to continue to innovate. Apple can sit on it's high pedestal preaching about how it doesn't want to put sub-par products with large screens on the market, but the truth is that they are just full of themselves. Those options already exist with great screens and none of the lower quality specs that Apple seems to think are reasons they refuse to innovate.
"Still, smartphones with screen sizes of 5 inches and even greater have found noteworthy success in the growing smartphone space. Leading the way in that market has been Samsung's Galaxy Note series, which includes a stylus."
Bull$hit. Leading the way was the Galaxy SIII at 4.8" and now the S4 at 5". The Note series is an interesting niche product compared to the S series.
Cook is full of it when he talks about the poor quality of larger displays. Tim, you take the panel material used in the current phone and cut it into bigger pieces. Same panel, bigger size. It's not rocket science.
The 4.9" mockups are based on something even easier for Apple and all its developers: chop up iPad LCD material into 4.9" panels instead of 9.7" ones. Same pixel count as every other iPhone, but physically larger.
In both cases there's no quality sacrifice because it's the same display technology you're already using!
It's clear to me that Apple badly underestimated the appeal of large smartphones and is struggling to come up with a compelling new product that won't look like a carbon copy of something HTC or Samsung already makes.
The only reason the GS4 is higher pixel count is because there using S-AMOLED pentile which has much lower sub pixel density than IPS.(super part of the amoled name is just a samsung marketing ploy really there just AMOLED). Pentile displays have to have higher count to compete with iphones IPS (in plane switching) display because pentiles at lower ppi look really terrible when compared to an IPS display hence the reason for higher ppi on S-AMOLED to get the same sharpness. Also IPS displays have much wider viewing angles and better color control Than S-AMOLED. This is one reason that Apple is using an IPS display because color, white balance and sharpness are just plain better on an IPS. If amoled gets better then im sure apple will use it.
If you would like to really find out which display is more accurate and true to life and clearer you can get the info I put above at: http://www.displaymate.com/index.html
Ray Soneira who is CEO of displaymate is one of the industries foremost authorities on display technology and rates what displays are the best.
Which does scientific comparisons of the the displays of both. This is not just done holding both displays side by side and saying one looks better than the other. It is done with equipment used for color calibration and white and black level measurement.
When Displaymate gets the S4 im sure they will post there evaluations on that display as well.
There conclusions iPhone 5 display:
Quote:
Apple has again taken the lead in methodical refinements and factory calibration that are necessary to produce accurate very high picture quality. Based on our extensive Lab measurements the iPhone 5 has a true state-of-the-art accurate display – it’s not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvements (and competitors) but it is the best Smartphone display we have seen to date based on extensive Lab measurements and viewing tests. In particular it is a significant improvement over the display in the iPhone 4 with much lower screen Reflections, much higher image contrast and screen readability in high ambient lighting (the highest we have ever measured), and a significantly improved and accurate Color Gamut and Factory Calibration that delivers very accurate colors and very good picture quality. While it’s not quite as accurate as the new iPad, it is still probably more accurate than any consumer display you own (including your HDTV), unless you have a new iPad.
And for the Galaxy SIII:
Quote:
The display on the Samsung Galaxy S III uses OLED technology. It’s a new technology that has not yet been refined to the same degree as LCDs, particularly the IPS LCDs on the iPhones, so it doesn’t objectively test or perform as well as the iPhone 5. But OLEDs have been evolving and improving very rapidly as shown in our OLED Display Technology Shoot-Out so it has a very promising future. Here are the biggest issues we found in our extensive Lab measurements and viewing tests of the Galaxy S III: the Brightness is about half of the iPhone 5 due to power constraints resulting from the lower OLED power efficiency and concerns regarding premature OLED aging. As a result the image contrast and screen readability in high ambient lighting is much poorer than the iPhone 5. The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors, but the Gamut is quite lopsided, with Green being a lot more saturated than either Red or Blue, which adds a Green color caste to many images. And for some reason Samsung has not bothered to calibrate the Color Gamut on any of its OLED displays, so they are wildly inaccurate and produce inaccurate and over saturated colors.
The iPhone 5 is the current winner.
The Galaxy S4 may surprise this but the next iPhone will most definitely improve.
The whole point of this post is that there are a lot of reasons that Apple does not go to larger displays one is cost. IPS displays are much more expensive than AMOLED to produce, especially in larger sizes. They dont want to compromise on quality. AMOLED while cheaper to produce are a much lower grade display and have all kinds of issues on there own, a lot of what was said by Displaymate above.
I would rather Apple give me a higher quality display than compromise on quality just to garner the small market for huge displays on mobile devices.
I need to get my ass an apartment in the hood over in South Central with a gang banger upstairs so I can develop some thicker skin. AI is getting to be a rough neighborhood these days, at least based on the demeanor in this thread. And don't use words like demeanor unless you want to get your ass kicked.
Thanks for joining just to post that¡ We don't care, and you're lying anyway.
That's fine, you can believe whatever you want, I'm on my 4th iPhone (started with the 3G, got a 4 from a friend, then bought the 4s which got smashed by a car and I replaced with another 4s). I've done about all I can with the iPhone, even jailbreaking and all that with every one I've owned after lengthy periods running stock iOS.
You act like what I say is a bad thing, in terms of what it means for Apple. It's not. The market situation with Apple and the iPhone beginning to lag behind will only help the company. Having more options, even some that are better than what Apple is producing right now, is GOOD for the company AND the consumer. It will force Apple to reinvest in innovation and hopefully get back to a market leading producer of the highest quality smartphones. If they don't they will continue to lose money and investor confidence which is at a low point right now (how else do you explain a $300 per share loss over 7 months?). Besides that, what's best for consumers is best for everyone and that means having more options and competition. If you can't see that Apple and the iPhone stagnated in the last couple years than you are either a fool or completely delusional. The competition of having several smartphones on the market all at an equal or greater quality than the current iPhone will force Apple to release better iPhone's to the market in the future. Instead of just sitting on their piles of cash like they've done recently.
What was that again about Apple always denying something is worth doing, right before they do it themselves?
Exactly. This is classic Apple-speak. They've got a larger phone in the works but they're not going to rush it out without considering all the implications of making a high-quality larger device.
I need to get my ass an apartment in the hood over in South Central with a gang banger upstairs so I can develop some thicker skin. AI is getting to be a rough neighborhood these days, at least based on the demeanor in this thread. And don't use words like demeanor unless you want to get your ass kicked.
It's a massive mistake to not increase display size. Apple is being killed in Asia by not having larger screens. EVERYONE is changing to Samsung. I wish the American based execs would come to Hong Kong and walk down the street.
What's this bulge in your pocket? Is it your Samsung 10" phone or you're just happy to see me?
…get back to a market leading producer of the highest quality smartphones.
Except they never stopped being. So stop lying.
(how else do you explain a $300 per share loss over 7 months?)
Explain how it has anything to do with the quality of their products, which has only increased.
If you can't see that Apple and the iPhone stagnated in the last couple years than you are either a fool or completely delusional.
Shut up. I grow weary of keeping track of all the trolls we have here already. Either quit lying or quit posting. You were planning to do the latter anyway.
No, but I think Tim and his crew may have different priorities than many smartphone buyers.
For example, one of the things they might have to sacrifice to get a larger screen is color accuracy. To Apple, that matters. To many buyers, it doesn't. People aren't using colorometers to calibrate their 4" movie viewing experience. Heck, they're not even comparing black levels when choosing a 50" TV. To that buyer, the ease-of-use provided by a larger screen may be a higher priority than color.
Same with pixel density. To my eyes, a super-sharp image that's too small to read is less valuable than a larger, easier to read display, even if it is sightly softer.
Then there's Messaging and email, both of which are easier on a larger keyboard. Is that more or less important than maximum brightness?
It's not my intention to initiate debate about any of the specific comparisons I've listed as examples, but to point out that the term "trade-offs" means making value judgements about the relative importance of several characteristics, and that some trade-offs matter more to me than they may to you and vice-versa. It's actually not at all unreasonable to expect that any given buyer may disagree with Apple's particular choices.
Those all perfectly fine reasons as to what trade-offs you value, but since it's Apple's products they get to choose which trade-offs they value over others. If that focus is too out of sync with what custors want they will either adapt or suffer for it but it's clear so far their goals have been more inline with the "choiciest" parts of the iPhone segment that every other vendor otherwise they couldn't have come in and dominated so quickly.
PS: I've argued as to how I think Apple can make both a cheaper and larger iPhones for varing markets. I think the large size has benefits in less affluent markets where one handheld device (not two) is more likely and in markets where logographs (e.g.: Chinese characters) are more common used.
No, but I think Tim and his crew may have different priorities than many smartphone buyers.
For example, one of the things they might have to sacrifice to get a larger screen is color accuracy. To Apple, that matters. To many buyers, it doesn't. People aren't using colorometers to calibrate their 4" movie viewing experience. Heck, they're not even comparing black levels when choosing a 50" TV. To that buyer, the ease-of-use provided by a larger screen may be a higher priority than color.
Same with pixel density. To my eyes, a super-sharp image that's too small to read is less valuable than a larger, easier to read display, even if it is sightly softer.
Then there's Messaging and email, both of which are easier on a larger keyboard. Is that more or less important than maximum brightness?
It's not my intention to initiate debate about any of the specific comparisons I've listed as examples, but to point out that the term "trade-offs" means making value judgements about the relative importance of several characteristics, and that some trade-offs matter more to me than they may to you and vice-versa. It's actually not at all unreasonable to expect that any given buyer may disagree with Apple's particular choices.
Those all perfectly fine reasons as to what trade-offs you value, but since it's Apple's products they get to choose which trade-offs they value over others. If that focus is too out of sync with what custors want they will either adapt or suffer for it but it's clear so far their goals have been more inline with the "choiciest" parts of the iPhone segment that every other vendor otherwise they couldn't have come in and dominated so quickly.
PS: I've argued as to how I think Apple can make both a cheaper and larger iPhones for varing markets. I think the large size has benefits in less affluent markets where one handheld device (not two) is more likely and in markets where logographs (e.g.: Chinese characters) are more common used.
I have to call BS on the trade offs. Proof? iPad Retina. 9" display and there were no trade offs. Also, having a bigger form factor for a bigger display means having more room for a bigger battery. Try again, Tim.
I call BS on your BS call. With the iPad Retina, the trade offs were originally weight and heat, if I recall correctly. iPad Mini, no retina - that's also a trade off. And there are non-hardware trade offs to consider as well. Simply upping the physical size of a current 326ppi retina screen introduces a new screen size for developers to take into account, which Apple may not want to foist onto them so soon after the iPhone 5.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is the term trade-offs some regional expression that is unknown to most people?
No, but I think Tim and his crew may have different priorities than many smartphone buyers.
For example, one of the things they might have to sacrifice to get a larger screen is color accuracy. To Apple, that matters. To many buyers, it doesn't. People aren't using colorometers to calibrate their 4" movie viewing experience. Heck, they're not even comparing black levels when choosing a 50" TV. To that buyer, the ease-of-use provided by a larger screen may be a higher priority than color.
Same with pixel density. To my eyes, a super-sharp image that's too small to read is less valuable than a larger, easier to read display, even if it is sightly softer.
Then there's Messaging and email, both of which are easier on a larger keyboard. Is that more or less important than maximum brightness?
It's not my intention to initiate debate about any of the specific comparisons I've listed as examples, but to point out that the term "trade-offs" means making value judgements about the relative importance of several characteristics, and that some trade-offs matter more to me than they may to you and vice-versa. It's actually not at all unreasonable to expect that any given buyer may disagree with Apple's particular choices.
Originally Posted by Captain J
As for those who are digital.....ly challenged, like TS, keep the 5 form factor too.
It's funny that you think you have an argument when you're arguing against using a piece of technology the way it has been used for 138 years.
+1. Exactly on point. Hell, just as a measly app developer, this cost our company upwards of 28k to retinaize one of our iPad apps. Custom controls updated, scaled design, QA, code optimizations, etc. There are always trade offs when making changes.
Hopefully auto layout will fix that from happening again.
I think the biggest issue here, is maintaining battery life quality and keeping the enclosure as thin or thinner. With the retina iPad, it got heavier and thicker over its predecessor. Something I don't want in my phone specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lun_Esex
What was that again about Apple always denying something is worth doing, right before they do it themselves?
This.
It's become reality that Tim Cook and Apple have completely lost touch with the market and what consumers want. This idea that a 5" display cannot be created with high specs and standards is insane, several devices currently have 4.7-5"+ displays that have even better specs and quality than the iPhone.
I've owned Apple since the 3G and currently use the 4s. Apple holds itself to a high standard, so much so that they air a sense superiority over everything they do. So much so that it's self limiting in terms of innovation. Let's face it, Apple has lagged behind in that department big time in the last year or so. For 3, 4, 5 years they were the leader in innovating and bringing top of the line products to market. Now they've fallen hard and this is born out by the ridiculous losses the company has been simmering over. Since September 2012 their stock has fallen from $700+/share to $406/share today equating to a $290 BILLION loss in market volume. The industry has passed them, while there might be a bazillion android/other smartphones available and maybe only 0.1% of them are worth a look, that's still more, better options that are available than today's iPhone. More frustrating is that Apple is sitting on $150 BILLION in cash and not investing in tech innovation. Their investors and the market is losing faith in the company, Tim Cook has lost touch and with so many other options it's easy to see Apple losing the death grip they've had on the industry for 5 years.
I've had my time with Apple and I'm moving on, there are just too many better phones with better displays and companies making them who are willing to continue to innovate. Apple can sit on it's high pedestal preaching about how it doesn't want to put sub-par products with large screens on the market, but the truth is that they are just full of themselves. Those options already exist with great screens and none of the lower quality specs that Apple seems to think are reasons they refuse to innovate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
"Still, smartphones with screen sizes of 5 inches and even greater have found noteworthy success in the growing smartphone space. Leading the way in that market has been Samsung's Galaxy Note series, which includes a stylus."
Bull$hit. Leading the way was the Galaxy SIII at 4.8" and now the S4 at 5". The Note series is an interesting niche product compared to the S series.
Cook is full of it when he talks about the poor quality of larger displays. Tim, you take the panel material used in the current phone and cut it into bigger pieces. Same panel, bigger size. It's not rocket science.
The 4.9" mockups are based on something even easier for Apple and all its developers: chop up iPad LCD material into 4.9" panels instead of 9.7" ones. Same pixel count as every other iPhone, but physically larger.
In both cases there's no quality sacrifice because it's the same display technology you're already using!
It's clear to me that Apple badly underestimated the appeal of large smartphones and is struggling to come up with a compelling new product that won't look like a carbon copy of something HTC or Samsung already makes.
The only reason the GS4 is higher pixel count is because there using S-AMOLED pentile which has much lower sub pixel density than IPS.(super part of the amoled name is just a samsung marketing ploy really there just AMOLED). Pentile displays have to have higher count to compete with iphones IPS (in plane switching) display because pentiles at lower ppi look really terrible when compared to an IPS display hence the reason for higher ppi on S-AMOLED to get the same sharpness. Also IPS displays have much wider viewing angles and better color control Than S-AMOLED. This is one reason that Apple is using an IPS display because color, white balance and sharpness are just plain better on an IPS. If amoled gets better then im sure apple will use it.
If you would like to really find out which display is more accurate and true to life and clearer you can get the info I put above at: http://www.displaymate.com/index.html
Ray Soneira who is CEO of displaymate is one of the industries foremost authorities on display technology and rates what displays are the best.
Also here is a shootout between the iPhone 5 display and the Galaxy SIII: http://www.displaymate.com/Smartphone_ShootOut_2.htm
Which does scientific comparisons of the the displays of both. This is not just done holding both displays side by side and saying one looks better than the other. It is done with equipment used for color calibration and white and black level measurement.
When Displaymate gets the S4 im sure they will post there evaluations on that display as well.
There conclusions iPhone 5 display:
Quote:
Apple has again taken the lead in methodical refinements and factory calibration that are necessary to produce accurate very high picture quality. Based on our extensive Lab measurements the iPhone 5 has a true state-of-the-art accurate display – it’s not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvements (and competitors) but it is the best Smartphone display we have seen to date based on extensive Lab measurements and viewing tests. In particular it is a significant improvement over the display in the iPhone 4 with much lower screen Reflections, much higher image contrast and screen readability in high ambient lighting (the highest we have ever measured), and a significantly improved and accurate Color Gamut and Factory Calibration that delivers very accurate colors and very good picture quality. While it’s not quite as accurate as the new iPad, it is still probably more accurate than any consumer display you own (including your HDTV), unless you have a new iPad.
And for the Galaxy SIII:
Quote:
The display on the Samsung Galaxy S III uses OLED technology. It’s a new technology that has not yet been refined to the same degree as LCDs, particularly the IPS LCDs on the iPhones, so it doesn’t objectively test or perform as well as the iPhone 5. But OLEDs have been evolving and improving very rapidly as shown in our OLED Display Technology Shoot-Out so it has a very promising future. Here are the biggest issues we found in our extensive Lab measurements and viewing tests of the Galaxy S III: the Brightness is about half of the iPhone 5 due to power constraints resulting from the lower OLED power efficiency and concerns regarding premature OLED aging. As a result the image contrast and screen readability in high ambient lighting is much poorer than the iPhone 5. The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors, but the Gamut is quite lopsided, with Green being a lot more saturated than either Red or Blue, which adds a Green color caste to many images. And for some reason Samsung has not bothered to calibrate the Color Gamut on any of its OLED displays, so they are wildly inaccurate and produce inaccurate and over saturated colors.
The iPhone 5 is the current winner.
The Galaxy S4 may surprise this but the next iPhone will most definitely improve.
The whole point of this post is that there are a lot of reasons that Apple does not go to larger displays one is cost. IPS displays are much more expensive than AMOLED to produce, especially in larger sizes. They dont want to compromise on quality. AMOLED while cheaper to produce are a much lower grade display and have all kinds of issues on there own, a lot of what was said by Displaymate above.
I would rather Apple give me a higher quality display than compromise on quality just to garner the small market for huge displays on mobile devices.
Originally Posted by HeyDude
I've had my time with Apple and I'm moving on…
Thanks for joining just to post that¡ We don't care, and you're lying anyway.
Quality wise the galaxy s3 is no match for the 5 and 4s. Neither is the galaxy note
Lots of people just don't care and apple is being dumb not catering to the market
I need to get my ass an apartment in the hood over in South Central with a gang banger upstairs so I can develop some thicker skin. AI is getting to be a rough neighborhood these days, at least based on the demeanor in this thread. And don't use words like demeanor unless you want to get your ass kicked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks for joining just to post that¡ We don't care, and you're lying anyway.
That's fine, you can believe whatever you want, I'm on my 4th iPhone (started with the 3G, got a 4 from a friend, then bought the 4s which got smashed by a car and I replaced with another 4s). I've done about all I can with the iPhone, even jailbreaking and all that with every one I've owned after lengthy periods running stock iOS.
You act like what I say is a bad thing, in terms of what it means for Apple. It's not. The market situation with Apple and the iPhone beginning to lag behind will only help the company. Having more options, even some that are better than what Apple is producing right now, is GOOD for the company AND the consumer. It will force Apple to reinvest in innovation and hopefully get back to a market leading producer of the highest quality smartphones. If they don't they will continue to lose money and investor confidence which is at a low point right now (how else do you explain a $300 per share loss over 7 months?). Besides that, what's best for consumers is best for everyone and that means having more options and competition. If you can't see that Apple and the iPhone stagnated in the last couple years than you are either a fool or completely delusional. The competition of having several smartphones on the market all at an equal or greater quality than the current iPhone will force Apple to release better iPhone's to the market in the future. Instead of just sitting on their piles of cash like they've done recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lun_Esex
What was that again about Apple always denying something is worth doing, right before they do it themselves?
Exactly. This is classic Apple-speak. They've got a larger phone in the works but they're not going to rush it out without considering all the implications of making a high-quality larger device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I need to get my ass an apartment in the hood over in South Central with a gang banger upstairs so I can develop some thicker skin. AI is getting to be a rough neighborhood these days, at least based on the demeanor in this thread. And don't use words like demeanor unless you want to get your ass kicked.
LOL.
What's this bulge in your pocket? Is it your Samsung 10" phone or you're just happy to see me?
Can someone give me an example of a phone with a great 4.5+ screen that sells on the millions of units?
Originally Posted by HeyDude
…get back to a market leading producer of the highest quality smartphones.
Except they never stopped being. So stop lying.
(how else do you explain a $300 per share loss over 7 months?)
Explain how it has anything to do with the quality of their products, which has only increased.
If you can't see that Apple and the iPhone stagnated in the last couple years than you are either a fool or completely delusional.
Shut up. I grow weary of keeping track of all the trolls we have here already. Either quit lying or quit posting. You were planning to do the latter anyway.
Those all perfectly fine reasons as to what trade-offs you value, but since it's Apple's products they get to choose which trade-offs they value over others. If that focus is too out of sync with what custors want they will either adapt or suffer for it but it's clear so far their goals have been more inline with the "choiciest" parts of the iPhone segment that every other vendor otherwise they couldn't have come in and dominated so quickly.
PS: I've argued as to how I think Apple can make both a cheaper and larger iPhones for varing markets. I think the large size has benefits in less affluent markets where one handheld device (not two) is more likely and in markets where logographs (e.g.: Chinese characters) are more common used.
Those all perfectly fine reasons as to what trade-offs you value, but since it's Apple's products they get to choose which trade-offs they value over others. If that focus is too out of sync with what custors want they will either adapt or suffer for it but it's clear so far their goals have been more inline with the "choiciest" parts of the iPhone segment that every other vendor otherwise they couldn't have come in and dominated so quickly.
PS: I've argued as to how I think Apple can make both a cheaper and larger iPhones for varing markets. I think the large size has benefits in less affluent markets where one handheld device (not two) is more likely and in markets where logographs (e.g.: Chinese characters) are more common used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleFanPro
I have to call BS on the trade offs. Proof? iPad Retina. 9" display and there were no trade offs. Also, having a bigger form factor for a bigger display means having more room for a bigger battery. Try again, Tim.
I call BS on your BS call. With the iPad Retina, the trade offs were originally weight and heat, if I recall correctly. iPad Mini, no retina - that's also a trade off. And there are non-hardware trade offs to consider as well. Simply upping the physical size of a current 326ppi retina screen introduces a new screen size for developers to take into account, which Apple may not want to foist onto them so soon after the iPhone 5.
Really? The screens HTC uses are subpar?