You are taking the manufacturing consideration over developer consideration. While using the same 326PPI would be great. Resolution does not make any sense. It isn't a iPhone 5 Multiple. Nor It is a iPad Multiple. You are basically creating a third category of devices that developers had to take care of. And NO, it is not as simple as another Fat Binaries. If that is the case Android wouldn't have fragmentation problems. ( Fragmentation isn't only OS version, screen size and resolution as well )
We have been through this before.
Either Double the Resolution, 2272 x 1280 , with the current and next year display tech that is only possible at 4.8" screen and up. Starting at 543PPI. The current A7 chip is already capable driving this resolution as shown with iPad Air and Retina Mini.
Or you create a 1.5x resolution. Which would be the best compromise. As the higher PPI the more power usage. But then some Apps and resolution doesn't do very well with the 0.5x multiple.
But with 50% larger screen and phone area, you are going get 70%+ larger battery since all part area stays constant, think this will more than offset the problem. Again only Apple would know.
Then there is price point, larger screen protected glass ( I dont think Sapphire front display are coming next year yet, although i would love to be proven wrong ), much better and larger display, larger battery. Although my estimate is that it will only add $5 to $10 to BOM cost. Apple will likely price their larger screen at $50 premium. Making the starting price increase from $649 to $699.
Having resolutions that are multiple of existing ones was useful for devices that have the same screen size, because UI elements could stay exactly at the same place and with the same size on screen (and the iOS made the 2x coordinate conversion automatically).
Avoiding fractional multiplication of screen coordinates is not a necessity with a screen size changes since UI elements need to be moved around and layouts have to be redone anyway. The iPad doesn't have a multiple of the iPhone resolution.
Using 324PPI is not only a hardware manufacturing consideration, but also a developer consideration. By keeping 324PPI as a maximum, devs only have to redo their layouts when the screen size changes, which is done automatically if they use the auto-layout APIs.
If you go beyond 324, it forces devs to provide yet another set of bitmaps, as well as scale all of their touch targets and buttons to compensate for the increased density, and they still have to work on the layouts because of the screen size change (having a PPI that is a multiple doesn't change that). Auto-layout APIs do nothing to help scaling apps between different screen densities.
vl-tone wrote: »
Your whole point was based on the idea that it would require "FAR more work" to go from the 16:9 app to a 3:2 phablet because the aspect ratio was different. But you forgot (and I forgot too) that every single iPhone app has to support 3:2 screens anyway so your point is moot.
I see phablets as something between phones and tablets (hence the name). So to me 3:2 is ok, especially if it opens the possibility to split-screen apps on the iPad and help manufacturing by using the good half an iPad mini screen when the other half has a defect.
But yeah, perhaps you're right too! It's just some wild speculation from my part.
jobsonmyface wrote: »
Wait....I thought 3.5 inches was the perfect size??
This is obviously just an anecdote, but honestly I've never seen a "phablet" (I HATE that neologism, btw) in the wild. Not. One. Single. Time.
And no one has been able to explain to me what curved glass would accomplish.
macbook pro wrote: »
I apologize to the other forum members. I didn't realize this was a throw-away account so I responded.
jprobbo wrote: »
I feel like we go through this every year
Give me one good BUSINESS reason why Apple will not develop a 5.5" phone.
I'll give you FOUR reasons why they should:
1. Apple is forgoing a large and growing market by not entering into the phablet category.
2. Phablets are expensive and consumers are accustomed to paying a premium for then. This is right in Apple's strike zone.
3. Phablets are popular in Asia, a stated growth area for Apple.
From Business Insider...
Phablets have experienced phenomenal growth in shipments across the Asia-Pacific region.
Shipments increased by an average of 88 percent quarter-on-quarter between year-end 2011 and June 30 of this year, according to IDC.
4. Apple is relinquishing this category to Samsung and will cause damage to Samsung if they can grab some of this market.
For one Apple doesn't go behind market share and what the majority people think is best for the consumer.
For that matter they don't even rely on what the consumer itself thinks is best for him.
Apple's agenda is entirely different from the rest of the guys out there. They aim at creating the best in class device for a particular category.
And it is a very well known fact that a larger screen size especially in the 5" + area, would sacrifice heavily on single handed operations.
Apple will move to 5" for one reason alone. If it can find a technological method to still keep the device usable with a single hand.
It is what makes Apple what it is today. They don't follow the masses or what the masses do .
Now talking about your business reasons, you should realize that even after the so called "Exponential" growth of Phablets, Apple's earning is still higher than Samsung, LG, Nokia and other mobile phone manufacturers (for the mobile computing sector), all COMBINED !.
That speaks volumes about not following what the masses do, and following your own principles.
4 is right out. Apple is not about 'causing damage.' It's not a job they feel a phone needs to solve for a consumer.
Now, if Samsung created a phone that create a demand that is defining a job... Apple would jump (iPad Mini), but I see a distribution decay between 4 and 6" that is normal for the demographic... there is no other sweet spot, just a distribution curve decay.
2 is out as Apple is not going to charge a premium for it's flagship phone in a class. It will be $299 for a 16gb phone with subsidies. Now you may say that the 'premium' market is shifting (see iPad Mini) to a larger format portable phone/tablet... I would argue that the two does not follow, and infact the higher priced iPad retina is more delivery of 'smaller costs more' (miniturization of retina costs more to produce than a non-retina or a larger retina).
1 and 3 are the same. and that's pretty much the question. What is the 'center mass' for the 'quality seeking' market. Is it split between 2 sizes like the tablet market (highly portable vs laptop replacement), or is it most people want a pocket phone and that phone is 3.5 to 5" in size?
I do think that next phone will be larger, and I believe the reason is that as the market age gets older, the size will need to increase for dexterity and visual acuity reasons. While Teens are the 'new growth' market in classic markets, in this post boomer age, we've reached Peak Teen (world wide, the number of children under 18 will remain constant... all population growth will be due to extending the life expectancy post adulthood). A 60 year old who bought a 3.5" phone 5 years ago, will likely want a 5" in 5 more years... just to increase the font by 20%. So I see a 4" and a 5-5.5" as the dual phone sizes... maybe 6" but not 2 'new' sizes along with a 3rd' old size.
Larger screen? Curved display? Please be kidding...
Unless you're Mickey Mouse, you can't operate a Shitsung S3 or S4 with one hand. Looking content is always better on a larger screen, but the question is, can you really make it larger beyond the normal operable limits of a human hand? That's the kind of thing Apple understands and spends in R&D for. All Shitsung and its brethrens want is money money money with a larger market share, any way they can.
It seems everyone is talking size... but very few have mentioned the "curve" aspect of this rumour which IMHO is enough to debunk it. I cannot think of a single benefit in the current form factor for the use of a curved surface, but plenty of user impacting negatives. Even the simple topic of finger interactions to a screen that is curved... it will make swiping a major pain. Also, the use of a curved surface will add to the general depth of the device. So with the two aforementioned points, how can anyone believe this rumour to be plausible in the slightest.
note: I guarantee you that Apple R&D is doing all kinds of crazy things... which is the only place where you will find the only likely place for these insane rumours.
The classics ... They just don't make 'em like they used to.
FYI, the MHz race wasn't a fad.