Apple likely to launch 4.5" to 5" iPhones in 2014, analyst says

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

     

    Please mock everyone of them to show that there's indeed an audience for as many repetitions as they care to post.

     

    Just kidding :)


     

     

    Trust me: Nothing I say or do here makes a damn bit of difference. It's all for fun.

    If it really mattered to me, I'd post something in a more serious tone.

  • Reply 62 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    The resolution is an issue that I keep wondering about. For the current size, the current resolution is enough, and higher is wasted. But as the phone gets bigger, at some point more resolution is needed. But a problem I'm seeing is that some new screens have ridiculous numbers; past 450 ppi, which serves no purpose other than for marketing.



    So what would be done for a 4.5" model? It's not so big that goi g up much would matter, but people would not be happy seeing the same resolution as now, with a lower ppi. Moving to 5" would call for higher Rez. But if Apple keeps the same 16:9 format they moved to, they can't have the same resolution as the iPad. So to me, 1280x720 would be fine. Going higher would be a waste. But now they have the problem Google has, with an odd multiplication factor, which they've been avoiding so far.



    But if they continue doing what they have been, the phone would have a ridiculous 2560x1440 Rez. I just can't see the purpose in that.

     

    Changing the DPI to anything higher than 324 DPI would mean having to deal with yet another set of bitmap assets at 3x or whatever multiple/fraction vs. the current max DPI is, so I don't think Apple will do that. They will likely stay within the 263-324 DPI "retina" range and let developers focus on flexible layouts instead.

  • Reply 63 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

    ...

     

    They need to stay under 5", perhaps 4.3" makes the most sense.  4.7" is a tad big for some women and teenagers.  


     

    My observation is that a lot of women carry those large screen phones. And as a trend they don't put it in a purse but carry it in their hands all the time. Don't know if that is sign of addiction or something else.

     

    I use my phone for making phone calls :p managing my contacts and calendar, reading e-mail and looking things up on the web when on the road.

    The 4'' screen of my iP 5 is big enough for my usage pattern. I just hope Apple will continue to make high end phone with smaller screens.

  • Reply 64 of 73

    Some math: if they go to 4,5" mantaining the same 326ppi retina, resolution will go to 1280x720, 1366x768 if they go to 4,8", both with an increase in screen real estate like they did with iPhone 5, so old apps will be letterboxed. I think they will go to 4,5" if they want to sell a single iPhone 6 model, or 4" + 4,8" if they sell two different models (both iPhone 6).

  • Reply 65 of 73
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member
    mirkodiego wrote: »
    Some math: if they go to 4,5" mantaining the same 326ppi retina, resolution will go to 1280x720, 1366x768 if they go to 4,8", both with an increase in screen real estate like they did with iPhone 5, so old apps will be letterboxed. I think they will go to 4,5" if they want to sell a single iPhone 6 model, or 4" + 4,8" if they sell two different models (both iPhone 6).

    I like the idea of keeping the PPI consistent and simply letter boxing legacy apps. It's not the most elegant solution but
    It worked for the iPhone 5.

    Apples next iPhone will probably put a larger screen in a device that's smaller by volume, just as the iPhone 5 was smaller than the 4S by volume.

    I expect it to be significantly thinner and possibly with a curved liquid metal back to make it easier to hold.
  • Reply 66 of 73
    ksecksec Posts: 1,568member

    People keeps talking about size without the perspective of Aspect Ratio. Of coz i suspect everyone were assuming Apple would stick to 16:9.

     

    I really never liked 16:9. Would have loved If Apple were to choose 16:10 or 15:9. And I dont think changing AR is completely off the chart.

     

    If, Apple were to release a Bigger iPhone model, It would either be 

     

    1. Sticking to current resolution , 1136 x 640, moving to 4.9"with PPI of 26x. Same Panel PPI as the current iPad. At a Distance of ~33cm it is still arguably Retina. But It is 2014, and LG already have Panel ready in that timeframe for ~540 PPI. Although Apple has been known to not follow these marketing / technical numbers.

     

    2. Something similar to 1 but at 1.5x the resolution, 1704 x 960. The current 32x PPI Panel for iPhone 5 will be used for Retina iPad Mini. Which fits perfectly. 

     

    3. Completely Redesign everything with Multi Resolution and Screen Size in Mind. Currently iOS is running on iPad and iPhone with different resolution, screen size and aspect ratio. The Original iOS was much more geared towards iPhone, and iPad Screen Size as well as 4" was added on more like a workaround. I don't think anything concrete about larger size iPhone were made when the decision were made on 4" iPhone. The Simply hack was using the same PPI and Panel without much Software changes.

  • Reply 67 of 73

    I can't see them lowering to 264ppi on the flagship model, go with the same screen area and bigger ui elements, or wasting pixel count going to 3x retina (1704x960) with a very expensive screen, higher battery consumption and a useless higher-than-retina ppi count. I think the actual 326ppi is almost perfect, so adding more pixels in both directions and mantain the 16:9 aspect ratio should be the most feasible solution.

  • Reply 68 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MirkoDiego View Post

     

    I can't see them lowering to 264ppi on the flagship model, go with the same screen area and bigger ui elements, or wasting pixel count going to 3x retina (1704x960) with a very expensive screen, higher battery consumption and a useless higher-than-retina ppi count. I think the actual 326ppi is almost perfect, so adding more pixels in both directions and mantain the 16:9 aspect ratio should be the most feasible solution.


     

    But they "could" lower to 264ppi, make a 10x better screen then every other OEM, have more gains in performance (same or less pixels) and still have our love. How? 

     

    Another type of screen tech. Like, what was the name, I... IG... IGZomething. (lol)

  • Reply 69 of 73

    Let's pretend the 4.5 to 5.5 idevice-line will actually be sold in a few months.

     

    Since it would be a different design (for sure) is it safe to assume that Apple would "only" make a device thin enough to cut meat, or use the extra size for a bigger battery and extra horsepower?

     

    Can Apple build it in a way that it would be seen as a different device category (not just because of the extra power), worthy of another name (not phablet, please)? It would be an awesome marketing opportunitty. Why not use those "ET (to the current industry)" materials like IGZO and Liquidmetal and make them exclusive to this device (at least fora year) and leverage that (and all the "extra" things)for another app store, starting from 0, more curated, intuitive and consistent, with 0 legacy holding things back?

     

    Start with it as a "pro" smartphone. The masses will dream with it, love it, want it. Price it accordingly. Profit.

    iOS is becoming increasingly powerful, together with the current gen of devices. it's time to re-imagine the "app" as we know. Fart apps don't cut it anymore.

  • Reply 70 of 73
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,120member
    vl-tone wrote: »
    Changing the DPI to anything higher than 324 DPI would mean having to deal with yet another set of bitmap assets at 3x or whatever multiple/fraction vs. the current max DPI is, so I don't think Apple will do that. They will likely stay within the 263-324 DPI "retina" range and let developers focus on flexible layouts instead.

    Apple hasn't thought about doing that except to elongate the screen and add some pixels to that. It caused minimal trouble for developers. But to maintain a specific ppi would be a problem. Each different screen size would then have a different resolution. Developers don't program to a ppi, they program to a total number. So this would cause a lot of problems. The same as we see with Android, where Google's solution causes a lot of strange on screen problems.
  • Reply 71 of 73
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,120member
    blackbook wrote: »
    I like the idea of keeping the PPI consistent and simply letter boxing legacy apps. It's not the most elegant solution but
    It worked for the iPhone 5.

    Apples next iPhone will probably put a larger screen in a device that's smaller by volume, just as the iPhone 5 was smaller than the 4S by volume.

    I expect it to be significantly thinner and possibly with a curved liquid metal back to make it easier to hold.

    It worked for the 5 because it was just a bit on the top and bottom. Apple couldn't get away with letter boxing all around the screen. At best, it would need to be a very temporary solution. Or they would need to come up with some very sophisticated software to Rez up current apps in a high quality way so that people didn't look at them and think that they looked horrible, while developers, again, rewrote their apps.
  • Reply 72 of 73
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,120member
    ksec wrote: »
    People keeps talking about size without the perspective of Aspect Ratio. Of coz i suspect everyone were assuming Apple would stick to 16:9.

    I really never liked 16:9. Would have loved If Apple were to choose 16:10 or 15:9. And I dont think changing AR is completely off the chart.

    If, Apple were to release a Bigger iPhone model, It would either be 

    1. Sticking to current resolution , 1136 x 640, moving to 4.9"with PPI of 26x. Same Panel PPI as the current iPad. At a Distance of ~33cm it is still arguably Retina. But It is 2014, and LG already have Panel ready in that timeframe for ~540 PPI. Although Apple has been known to not follow these marketing / technical numbers.

    2. Something similar to 1 but at 1.5x the resolution, 1704 x 960. The current 32x PPI Panel for iPhone 5 will be used for Retina iPad Mini. Which fits perfectly. 

    3. Completely Redesign everything with Multi Resolution and Screen Size in Mind. Currently iOS is running on iPad and iPhone with different resolution, screen size and aspect ratio. The Original iOS was much more geared towards iPhone, and iPad Screen Size as well as 4" was added on more like a workaround. I don't think anything concrete about larger size iPhone were made when the decision were made on 4" iPhone. The Simply hack was using the same PPI and Panel without much Software changes.

    They have to stick with 16:9 now. There's no going back, even by a little. It makes sense on a phone, though I wasn't thrilled when they did it, but as I've used it over time, I've gotten used to it. In order for them to have a bigger screen, 16:9 makes sense. Otherwise, the screen needs to be way too wide, and difficult to hold. Not happening.
  • Reply 73 of 73
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,120member
    But they "could" lower to 264ppi, make a 10x better screen then every other OEM, have more gains in performance (same or less pixels) and still have our love. How? 

    Another type of screen tech. Like, what was the name, I... IG... IGZomething. (lol)

    It's just not going to happen. Apple came up with the name "Retina screen", and the definition of what they were. For a phone, it's at least 320 ppi. They can't go back on that now. It would be a crippling marketing move.

    The screen type is IGZO. Whether Apple will ever use them is up in the air.
Sign In or Register to comment.