Apple toying with larger iPhone screen and 13" iPad - report

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 104


    That is probably a good idea. If they design an aluminum keyboard designed specifically for the iPad, it will be amazing!

  • Reply 62 of 104
    I would love a 13" iPad! At that size the keyboard would probably be large enough to type on just like a regular keyboard, which is something I've wanted from tablets from day one.

    The larger iPhone is a given, and this talk of resolution independence in iOS 7 is pointing to a break from the practice of doubling pixels when increasing resolution. That will make a large screen much easier to implement as Apple wouldn't have to wait so long for suppliers to reliably create screens with outrageous pixel densities above 500. Lots of suppliers are reliably creating 1080p displays at sizes between 4.7" and 5".
  • Reply 63 of 104
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BuddyRevell View Post





    So would it have been better to have only one size MB Air, MB Pro, iMac, iPad, etc. then? "Discernable benefit" has always been highly subjective.


     


    Having TWO different sizes in a desktop/laptop machine is a very, very different prospect than introducing differently sized iPads.  Obviously.


     


    And the point isn't that there should only be one size iPad.  The point is how far do you want to go?  A 13" iPad would sell ... to niche users, with obscure use case needs.  When has that been Apple's approach?


     


    Apple staying focused on a handful -- ok, a couple of handfuls -- of products is one of the reasons why I believe they are able maintain quality, distinction, and a movement in a forward direction.

  • Reply 64 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    LOL how is choice bad?

    1000

    You cannot mean that.
    If there's a market for it, might as well make it.

    Except that's the opposite of everything Apple has ever done, ever, during-, post-, back-, and post-Steve, and the reason that every single other company in every industry in which Apple competes is making next to zero money or leaving the industry entirely.

    Please think about what you say.
    And what reason is that? Pride? Arrogance? Whatever the reason might be, it's not a smart business decision.

    Common sense, money, actually looking at the usage stats... :no:
    evilution wrote: »
    You'll learn about TS the longer you come here. His opinions are facts and other's opinions are worthless.

    Think for a second: do you REALLY want to take the side of the person that says "how is choice bad"? :rolleyes:
  • Reply 65 of 104
    Tallest Skil, explain why having two sizes or MBA, MBP, iPad works, but is terrible for the iPhone again? Oh, right. You can't.
  • Reply 66 of 104
    aaronj wrote: »
    Having TWO different sizes in a desktop/laptop machine is a very, very different prospect than introducing differently sized iPads.  Obviously.

    And the point isn't that there should only be one size iPad.  The point is how far do you want to go?  A 13" iPad would sell ... to niche users, with obscure use case needs.  When has that been Apple's approach?

    Apple staying focused on a handful -- ok, a couple of handfuls -- of products is one of the reasons why I believe they are able maintain quality, distinction, and a movement in a forward direction.

    Explain the differences that make it fine to have two sizes of MBA, MBP, iPad, etc. but not for the iPhone. I doubt you'll have any that are significant.
  • Reply 67 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Tallest Skil, explain why having two sizes or MBA, MBP, iPad works, but is terrible for the iPhone again? Oh, right. You can't.

    Explain how that's the argument at hand first. I won't be strawmanned. :no:
  • Reply 68 of 104

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    Common sense, money, actually looking at the usage stats... image

     


     


    That makes no sense.  What common sense would guide a company to not address a wider swath of the market?


     


    Money is not an issue for Apple at all.  They could develop prototypes simply to throw into a furnace to heat the campus for the next 15 years and be no worse off.


     


    Usage stats don't tell you about the market for a larger iPhone.  I have to assume you're referring to the web usage data.  Let's go with that for argument's sake.  Right now Android is at 28% of the usage share, and that share is likely almost solely due to the flagship models, which are all large.  For simplicity if we assume that Apple's web usage share is due entirely to iPhone usage and if we assume that iPhones outsell all flagship Android models by a ratio greater than about 2:1 (which I don't know about, but most members here would say they do), then each large-screened flagship Android phone is being used to consume more web content than each iPhone.


     


    You'll likely ignore all of that reasoning, so I'll just pose a question.  Apple is doing fine right now, but what if they could be doing even better?

  • Reply 69 of 104
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BuddyRevell View Post





    Explain the differences that make it fine to have two sizes of MBA, MBP, iPad, etc. but not for the iPhone. I doubt you'll have any that are significant.


     


    The main difference is that the way apps interact with resolution on an iOS device is different than the way applications interact with resolution on an OSX device.


     


    Also On an iOS device, the app is the only thing on the screen, and elements need to be designed for a touch interface.  On an OSX device, the number of applications visible -- and thus able to be interacted with -- can be a very large number.  For instance, on the my desktop #4 on my iMac 27", the one I use for TextEdit and Notes, there are presently 11 different open windows, all of which I can see a portion of (and in some cases, I can see all of a window).  I can interact with each and every one; for instance, I can scroll on a window that is behind two different windows, since I just need to move the cursor over that window.  This doesn't change the active window, however.


     


    And this doesn't even touch on the menu-bar and dock.


     


    One my desktop #1, I have Twitter, 2 Safari screens, and a Chrome (don't ask) screen a visible.


     


    This sort of behavior isn't possible on an iPad, obviously.  And to be honest, with a touch interface, I'm not entirely sure why one would it want it to be.  The keyboard/trackpad paradigm and the touch paradigm are simply two very different approaches.  Apple realized this from the beginning, which is why we have iOS and OSX.


     


    But does the 10" iPad really limit what anyone can do, except for those few niche use cases I mentioned before?  What advantage would there be to having two sizes?  And let's face it: Introducing a lower volume model would likely mean that the components would cost more (due to scale).

  • Reply 70 of 104
    markbvtmarkbvt Posts: 4member
    If they create an iOS-based laptop, they have to call it an eMate. Or maybe an iMate for consistency...
  • Reply 71 of 104


    Well let's do some math.


     


    If today's iPhone apps are made at 1136 x 640 and 960 x 640 and Apple is experimenting with an increase to the size of the display... let's say they want to make it a 4.3 inch display instead of their current display.


     


    The resolution would be increased by .3 percent on each side, being 20 pixels more rounded off from 19.2 being 660 width and 1170 height at 326 ppi


     


    There are new IGZO display technologies being developed by sharp which enable the ppi to be quadrupled and if Apple would keep their current display at 1136 x 960 they could increase the ppi to 489 if they went with a 1.5 ppi increase and that would give them a resolution of 1704 x 960 and that's still at 1.5x their ppi. If they went to 1.8x their ppi they could possible reach a 4.3 inch display at 2044 x 1152 which is even above the standard of HD at 4.3 inches, so 4.2 inches and below would end up being the resolution of 1930x1088 at 1.7x their current 326 ppi. Apple can reach the standard of 1920x1080 below that 4.2 inch mark at 554 ppi for the 1930x1088 so a slightly lower ppi might be used at 1.69 x the 1136 and 960 resolution giving enough room for improvement in the future of the x2 resolution of 1136x960 mark x 2 at 2272 x 1920 which is reachable with igzo displays at 652 ppi




    So in conclusion Apple would have to bump their display size up by less than .3 inches to gain full 1920 x 1080 format if they used IGZO displays at 1.69x their current ppi rounding off to 554 pixels per inch or lower.


     


    That being said Apple developed icons for their current iPhone at 326 ppi so unless iOS 7 has hidden icons at a higher ppi there is no true display size bump up.


     


    Only time will tell when a jailbreak is reached.

  • Reply 72 of 104
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    aaronj wrote: »
    The main difference is that the way apps interact with resolution on an iOS device is different than the way applications interact with resolution on an OSX device.

    Also On an iOS device, the app is the only thing on the screen, and elements need to be designed for a touch interface.  On an OSX device, the number of applications visible -- and thus able to be interacted with -- can be a very large number.  For instance, on the my desktop #4 on my iMac 27", the one I use for TextEdit and Notes, there are presently 11 different open windows, all of which I can see a portion of (and in some cases, I can see all of a window).  I can interact with each and every one; for instance, I can scroll on a window that is behind two different windows, since I just need to move the cursor over that window.  This doesn't change the active window, however.

    And this doesn't even touch on the menu-bar and dock.

    One my desktop #1, I have Twitter, 2 Safari screens, and a Chrome (don't ask) screen a visible.

    This sort of behavior isn't possible on an iPad, obviously.  And to be honest, with a touch interface, I'm not entirely sure why one would it want it to be.  The keyboard/trackpad paradigm and the touch paradigm are simply two very different approaches.  Apple realized this from the beginning, which is why we have iOS and OSX.

    But does the 10" iPad really limit what anyone can do, except for those few niche use cases I mentioned before?  What advantage would there be to having two sizes?  And let's face it: Introducing a lower volume model would likely mean that the components would cost more (due to scale).

    Not only are people making the same arguments regarding different sized iPhones as they made about the iPad last year, we now have people making last years arguments. Again.

    We have two sizes of iPad already.

    Seriously.
  • Reply 73 of 104
    aaronj wrote: »
    The main difference is that the way apps interact with resolution on an iOS device is different than the way applications interact with resolution on an OSX device.

    Also On an iOS device, the app is the only thing on the screen, and elements need to be designed for a touch interface.  On an OSX device, the number of applications visible -- and thus able to be interacted with -- can be a very large number.  For instance, on the my desktop #4 on my iMac 27", the one I use for TextEdit and Notes, there are presently 11 different open windows, all of which I can see a portion of (and in some cases, I can see all of a window).  I can interact with each and every one; for instance, I can scroll on a window that is behind two different windows, since I just need to move the cursor over that window.  This doesn't change the active window, however.

    And this doesn't even touch on the menu-bar and dock.

    One my desktop #1, I have Twitter, 2 Safari screens, and a Chrome (don't ask) screen a visible.

    This sort of behavior isn't possible on an iPad, obviously.  And to be honest, with a touch interface, I'm not entirely sure why one would it want it to be.  The keyboard/trackpad paradigm and the touch paradigm are simply two very different approaches.  Apple realized this from the beginning, which is why we have iOS and OSX.

    But does the 10" iPad really limit what anyone can do, except for those few niche use cases I mentioned before?  What advantage would there be to having two sizes?  And let's face it: Introducing a lower volume model would likely mean that the components would cost more (due to scale).

    Thank you for your input, but I was not talking about the iPad, which already affords a choice for two common usage cases, but the iPhone, which has been limited to one size which I believe is a poor compromise between the excellent one-handed use 3.5 size and a larger size for those who don't need one-handed use.
  • Reply 74 of 104
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BuddyRevell View Post





    Thank you for your input, but I was not talking about the iPad, which already affords a choice for two common usage cases, but the iPhone, which has been limited to one size which I believe is a poor compromise between the excellent one-handed use 3.5 size and a larger size for those who don't need one-handed use.


     


    Sorry.  I'm tired. :)


     


    I do not feel it's a poor compromise, but different strokes, and all that.

  • Reply 75 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    That makes no sense.  What common sense would guide a company to not address a wider swath of the market?

    The usage stats... which show that larger phones... don't make up a wider swath of the market.
    Money is not an issue for Apple at all.

    Which doesn't mean they can throw intelligence to the wind and come out with crap.

    Do you know anything about Apple?
    They could develop prototypes simply to throw into a furnace to heat the campus for the next 15 years and be no worse off.

    Why should we listen to the whims of someone who wants companies to waste their shareholders' money?
    You'll likely ignore all of that reasoning...

    Only because it's wrong; not because it's contrary.
    Apple is doing fine right now, but what if they could be doing even better?

    An extra billion in revenue (NOT PROFIT) a quarter isn't meaningfully better.
  • Reply 76 of 104
    The usage stats... which show that larger phones... don't make up a wider swath of the market.

    Do you know anything about Apple?
    Why should we listen to the whims of someone who wants companies to waste their shareholders' money?

    Apple would address a wider swath of the market by continuing to sell their current 4" model while expanding the lineup to include a larger model. They don't have to stop selling the current model to sell a new one. Don't be obtuse.

    For the record I don't recommend that Apple burn prototypes for heat. I was using hyperbole.
  • Reply 77 of 104
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Apple would address a wider swath of the market by continuing to sell their current 4" model while expanding the lineup to include a larger model. They don't have to stop selling the current model to sell a new one. Don't be obtuse.

    And don't claim I've said things I haven't. In your model, they cut out a larger portion of the market than if they were to keep up what they're doing now.
    For the record I don't recommend that Apple burn prototypes for heat. I was using hyperbole.

    And that I did not interpret your statement as such is already evident in my reply.
  • Reply 78 of 104
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,785member
    blackbook wrote: »
    0.4 inches really isn't much, unless you're talking about the 16:9 screen ratios of those tablets? I personally find large 16:9 tablets odd to use in that everything is too narrow in portrait, and in landscape everything is short.  
    It depends upon what your are using it for. If they where to target the portable player market as a major selling point a 16:9 or a 16:10 screen would work well.


    Probably won't happen yet. There are still too many things in OS X that are not finger friendly and need the precision of a mouse/trackpad. We will probably see more functionality from OS X make it's way into iOS instead of OS X becoming a touch based interface. At least not yet.
    They will likely remain separate products for some time. I would see them merging with some sort of on board AI to facilitate interfacing to the OS. People tend to look towards the past instead of the future. The future is AI as a facilitator of computer usage.

    Good news is that iOS 7 for iPad appears to still be in its infancy so maybe we'll see some surprises in usability when Apple unveils the new iPads pre-loaded with iOS 7.

    Well hopefully!
  • Reply 79 of 104
    curtis hannahcurtis hannah Posts: 1,756member
    aaronj wrote: »
    Personally, I can't for the life of me see the value in increasing the size of the iPad. I can't imagine a single use case where that would be beneficial.

    A sit down at the table tablet...
    drblank wrote: »
    The only problem with a 13inch, is weight and battery life.  If they can figure out a way to do a 13inch iPad that weights 1.5 lbs or less, long battery life, the hook might grab my inner check and I'd probably bite.  
    Both of those are apples main goals.

    If apple were to release a 13 IPad this year (not that they likely will). 13 inches retina start off.

    128-$800. 256-$900. 512-$1050. Good price point?

    Quard core A7X chip 2 gb ram (above normal specs for A7)

    5 megapixel iSight camera, 1.5 megapixel FaceTime.

    12 hour battery life on web-(LTE same for same price)

    New stero sound.

    Yes forgot about the minus $100 for a wifi only as low as $700

    Is this good specs?
  • Reply 80 of 104
    fazzterfazzter Posts: 120member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jusephe View Post





    Nice point ! Apple should stay with 3,5 but now when we got 4 inches it starts to get over the "ultra comfortable one hand usability"

    I know many android fans were telling me that their 4.3, 4.5, or even 4.8 are "comfortable" to use with one hand, but iPhone was ultra comfortable.

    Now If Apple wants to be ultra comfortable again they shouldn't make bigger screen but rather shrink the bezel of iPhone 5 to almost nothing in iPhone 6. That could make the phone by up to 8 mm narrower (but 4-5 mm is more realistic). Such huge difference could potentially bring the usability of iPhone 5 back to previous iPhones level while offering a bigger screen.


    Most people have two hands available anyway so who cares if it is "ultracomfortable" for one hand operation? I don't.


     


    But I would like to be able to see the crap on my phone without reading glasses.

Sign In or Register to comment.