It really depends on how much of a headache Apple's software developers, and 3rd party developers, want to have. By going to a taller aspect ratio screen, every single application has to be redone, or requalified, to fit the new aspect ratio screen. If they want to, they could put a 4.5" 2:1 960x480 screen in there with 0.2" bezels on all sides, but I'm imagining that's a pretty big headache for basically all of the software guys. Not that I wouldn't want such a device, nay, I would love such a device.
By maintaining the same aspect ratio, it minimizes the amount of work all around. Most apps using all Cocoa touch graphics and such will work. Anything with custom graphics (which is basically all of the good apps) will have to be redone a bit. Going to a different aspect ratio screen, is another big step, and I imagine some apps have to be redesigned.
I understand that a different aspect ratio might create some problems. But the thing is, if Apple wants to make the screen bigger and not increase the size of the device they have to go more widescreen. There's a lot of room on the top and buttom, but not so much on the sides. And I really think Apple should make the screen bigger, but not the iPhone. I would love a bigger iTablet, but that's another story.
2:1 would be an odd aspect ratio (bad for movies, fotos etc.). I really would only go so far as 16:9 widescreen. 640x360 like Nokia would be a possibility (half 720p) if Apple doesn't want to increase the resolution too much. 800x480 is not as wide as 16:9 so it's better for 4:3 content and a pretty standard resolution so there should be more possible manufactures out there. Also you don't see that much of a difference any more if you increase the resolution above 800x480 for a ~4" screen so Apple wouldn't have to upgrade the resolution for quite some time. And as you can see with the Touch HD, even just a 3.8" 800x480 display would be a quite noticeable improvement in size and resolution.
I understand that a different aspect ratio might create some problems. But the thing is, if Apple wants to make the screen bigger and not increase the size of the device they have to go more widescreen. There's a lot of room on the top and buttom, but not so much on the sides. And I really think Apple should make the screen bigger, but not the iPhone. I would love a bigger iTablet, but that's another story.
Like I said in my earlier post, if they can make the iPhone bezels on the side 0.1 inches, they can place a 4 inch 3:2 screen in an iPhone that's 2.4" wide. It'll feel and look wider because there won't be as much of a rounded edge, but it'll still be 2.4" wide. The HTC Touch HD is actually 2.5" wide, (and not very rounded to boot), so it'll be doable if they widen the iPhone to the width of the Touch HD.
My software speculation will be put to the test if Apple releases an iPhone nano that isn't 480x320 3:2 aspect ratio and 3 to 3.2" diagonal. If they do something other than that, then they'll be perfectly willing to have something different for a higher end model. It just would be bad business if they do it because of the gigantic software ecosystem built around 480x320 and 3.5" diag. It will inevitably lead to software incompatibilities. In my mind, 480x320 will be in an Apple cellphone/iPod touch/handheld for at least half a decade (2012).
I think we will get hints before Apple changes aspect ratio, perhaps even screen resolution, as it would bleed its way into the iPhone SDK before a device ships.
Quote:
2:1 would be an odd aspect ratio (bad for movies, fotos etc.). I really would only go so far as 16:9 widescreen. 640x360 like Nokia would be a possibility (half 720p) if Apple doesn't want to increase the resolution too much. 800x480 is not as wide as 16:9 so it's better for 4:3 content and a pretty standard resolution so there should be more possible manufactures out there. Also you don't see that much of a difference any more if you increase the resolution above 800x480 for a ~4" screen so Apple wouldn't have to upgrade the resolution for quite some time. And as you can see with the Touch HD, even just a 3.8" 800x480 display would be a quite noticeable improvement in size and resolution.
2:1 aspect ratio is actually a nice resolution for movies. I'm sure Apple went through this very process in choosing 3:2 aspect ratio for the iPhone. 3:2 is nice tweener resolution for 4:3 aspect ratio TV & photos and 16:9 to 2.35:1 movies. I think they struck a pretty good balance there as it was the sweet spot for TV and movies. With analog going away next Feb, TV will gradually move to 16:9 while movies will be staying at 2.35:1. Cameras may move to wider formats in the future too. So in maybe 3 years all content will be in an aspect ratio between those, and 2:1 will serve as a nice sweet spot resolution to play both.
Not that I think Apple will go to 2:1, or 15x9 (HTC Touch HD's aspect ratio), or 16x9, or 16x10. I think they are sticking with 3:2, and leaving the white space (er, black space) on the top and bottom. The symmetry, the speaker ear piece on top and the button on the bottom are all part of Apple's design decisions. The fact that it's there tells me Apple thinks that it is important for people to perceive the iPhone as a cellphone.
And I actually think 2.4:1 screens (for PC monitors, cell phones, laptops) would be a brilliant idea.
I guess if Apple just goes with a higher clocked ARM11+SGX520/530 in 2009 it would make sense to keep the 3:2 480x320 resolution. And then switch to something better (different aspect ratio and/or higher resolution) in 2010 when their own custom designed 40nm ARMv7+SGX54x chip is ready.
I guess if Apple just goes with a higher clocked ARM11+SGX520/530 in 2009 it would make sense to keep the 3:2 480x320 resolution. And then switch to something better (different aspect ratio and/or higher resolution) in 2010 when their own custom designed 40nm ARMv7+SGX54x chip is ready.
Why wouldn't they just use a Cortex A8 in 2010 with the SGX 540? It seems like the Cortex are the heir apparent and ARM's thrust past phones into Netbooks (they're working with Canonical for Ubuntu support) and more.
Why wouldn't they just use a Cortex A8 in 2010 with the SGX 540? It seems like the Cortex are the heir apparent and ARM's thrust past phones into Netbooks (they're working with Canonical for Ubuntu support) and more.
What do you mean? The Cortex-A8 is based on the ARMv7 architecture. As is Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A9 MPCore and a custom core like the Qualcomm Scorpion (part of Snapdragon). So instead of picking one specific ARMv7 core and possibly be wrong I just picked the ARMv7 architecture for 2010
I really hope for Cortex-A9 but I guess Cortex-A8 is the safer bet for 2010. A custom Apple core would most likely take too much time and I'm not sure if Apple even has the license for that. And I guess Cortex-A9 MPCore is a no-go for smartphones till 32nm.
Man, whatever on the CPU and GPU. I'd like to get into it, but you'd have to fork over some real time, and probably real money, to find out anything about all these cell phone chips. This is like Apple's dream come true market where nobody talks!
Anyways, the next gen iPhone and iPod touchs (Summer 09) will hopefully have a 667 MHz processor (~1.5x faster than current including FPU), 4x increase in GPU performance and 4x increase in memory (from 128 MB to 512 MB) to accompany that 4" 720x480 screen all in the same 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.5 package. This is wishful thinking though. It'll probably be half of everything: 550 MHz CPU, 2x GPU performance, 256 MB memory, an a 3.7" 480x320 screen.
I'd be fine with an iPhone pro that's Blackberry Bold wide (2.6") too. They could probably squeeze a 4.5" 3:2 screen in a device that wide.
What do you mean? The Cortex-A8 is based on the ARMv7 architecture. As is Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A9 MPCore and a custom core like the Qualcomm Scorpion (part of Snapdragon). So instead of picking one specific ARMv7 core and possibly be wrong I just picked the ARMv7 architecture for 2010
I really hope for Cortex-A9 but I guess Cortex-A8 is the safer bet for 2010. A custom Apple core would most likely take too much time and I'm not sure if Apple even has the license for that. And I guess Cortex-A9 MPCore is a no-go for smartphones till 32nm.
Mike
Thanks for the clarification. I'm new to following the SoC market and I certainly made a noob assumption. I agree with the A 9MPcore sounds like a Nebook class product initially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
I'd be fine with an iPhone pro that's Blackberry Bold wide (2.6") too. They could probably squeeze a 4.5" 3:2 screen in a device that wide.
4.5" screen...drool.
I'm wondering what effect OLED screens will have on device borders. My assumption is that since there's no need for a potentially more rigid backlight like on LCD we may see more "flexible" (pun not intended) screens that don't need as much reinforcement.
Well, the HTC Touch HD has a 3.8" display with a 800x480 resolution and is the same size as the iPhone and is already available since November 08 in Europe. The 0.3" doesn't sound like a lot but combined with the 2.5x resolution it's a big improvement over the iPhone's display (size and resolution wise).
The problem is resolution increased don't automatically lead to better user experieces. At it's current resolution the IPhones screen looks pixel free even close up and it does a good job with reproduction of colors and such. The first thing that happens with higher resolution screens is that you loose light transmission which means a lot more power goes to the backlight. I'm not convinced that a much high resolution screen really puts usable pixels on screen. I mean just how thin of a font do you want?
Quote:
It's Windows Mobile but the hardware is pretty impressive
So a bigger screen (3.8" - 4") and higher resolution without an overall increase in size should be no problem for a new iPhone in Mid 2009.
The bigger sceen would be very welcomed even if it means a slightly larger device. I would not want the dpi to change though but even holding dpi would still result in a lot more pixels on screen. A small growth in the short dimension of the iPhone should allow for more than a quarter of inch increase in screen size. That is add a quarter inch in hieght and get rid of some of the bezel and we should get more than a quarter inch increase in usable screen hieght. Then take this dimension and blow out the screen to 16:9 width or wider. This might require some increase in length but first Apple should deal with the wasted bezel area.
So yeah a very slightly bigger iPhone but significantly more screen real estate. All those extra pixels would make for substantially better E-Mailing and web experiences. These are two things that Apple should be focusing a lot of effort on to improve as both are impacted significantly by the lack of screen area.
Something else just came to mind also. There have been comments about the bezel area covering inactive areas of the screen which is true if you have seen many of the LCDs out there. But there is another issue that must be considered, that is the capacitive Touch screen. The physical gap might have to be there to reduce interference from the gripping fingers. This we may be seeing a bezel for sometime to come no mater what is done with the LCD.
Still I want my larger screen and I want to get there by reducing wasted face area as much as possible. Then expand the physical dimensions. If you look at a horizontal keyboard it is pretty easy to see that a quarter inch in hieght will increase your visible text area by almost half. That is a significant amount of text. The corresponding increase in width helps even more.
The problem is resolution increased don't automatically lead to better user experieces. At it's current resolution the IPhones screen looks pixel free even close up and it does a good job with reproduction of colors and such. The first thing that happens with higher resolution screens is that you loose light transmission which means a lot more power goes to the backlight. I'm not convinced that a much high resolution screen really puts usable pixels on screen. I mean just how thin of a font do you want?
I don't want thin or smaller fonts. I want them to be just as big as now, but a lot sharper. But I have to admit that I'm used to some of the 800xXYZ mobile phone resolution screens that are out there. For example when I'm reading an ebook on my Nokia E90 communicator (800x352) the text looks just like printed. And I can quickly scan through a website and theoretically read everything before even zooming in. Try doing that for example with nytimes.com on an iPhone in portrait mode. Before zooming in it's almost impossible to see what each column says and where to zoom in.
So at least for the heavy reader and surfer i can see the benefits of a higher resolution screen. And just I hope the technical advantages will compensate for the lost light transmission and stuff like that by 2010.
to read from while I ate a bowl of cold cereal, i was struck by how much the experience resembled this scene from 2001:
So?howzabout a much bigger screen (oled for lightness), same processor (plus some extra co-processing GPU oomph for the increased video), and rest of the case is all large, flat battery.
VNC from my touch is reasonably responsive over wifi, I could see easily controlling other machines (a la screensharing) if only I had a larger viewport. If only?
to read from while I ate a bowl of cold cereal, i was struck by how much the experience resembled this scene from 2001:
I mean REALLY COOL!
This might be slightly bigger than what I want to see in iPod Touch Maxi / Newton2 but it does embody some key concepts. That is thinness, portability, operable hand held, nice screen and hopefully outstanding performance. I'd like to see voice recognition/command input though I know this is a few weeks err years off .
Quote:
So?howzabout a much bigger screen (oled for lightness), same processor (plus some extra co-processing GPU oomph for the increased video), and rest of the case is all large, flat battery.
You have to be kidding about the same processor right? I love my iPhone and all but it isn't exactly a performance power house. A device of this size needs to support multi tasking or back ground apps and continous connection to the outside world. It needs to do so seamlessly, something the iPhone can't do with one task running. I can tell al most immediately when my iPhone is recieving an E-Mail due to system lag in many apps. A tablet like this needs at a minimal dual processors where each is at least twice as fast as the current iPhone. Ideally Apple would jump to four processors right off the bat.
To much you might say! Not really would be my reply. All one needs to do is to total up the number of ARM processors currently in the iPhone. Sure these are special purpose processors not suitable for apps or SMP but it indicates that it is possible to drive multiple ARM processors from battery power.
In a nut shell I want such a device to be bleeding edge powerwise.
Quote:
VNC from my touch is reasonably responsive over wifi, I could see easily controlling other machines (a la screensharing) if only I had a larger viewport. If only?
Unfortunately I'm not interested in reasonable good performance I want fluid performance from the apps I use the most. I find all the apps on iPhone to be wanting with respect to performance or features, on such a tablet that would be unacceptable. I'm especially displeased with Safari on iPhone and that is not just the bugs and crashes. It is the lag often experienced and the lack of support for things desktop Safari does fine with.
This of course is part processor support and part an issue of coding. The thing is I want the processor limitations to drop out of the equation. Well as best they can and I believe processor performance would be far less of an issue with a multi core chip where each CPU is significantly faster. Of course that is obvious but is it doable, I think so with some of ARMs advance processors on state of the art silicon technology.
There is even some interesting battery technology coming that may just keep yhis guy extremely thin. Make the front glass/display a solar cell and things become even more interesting.
This might be slightly bigger than what I want to see in iPod Touch Maxi / Newton2 but it does embody some key concepts. That is thinness, portability, operable hand held, nice screen and hopefully outstanding performance. I'd like to see voice recognition/command input though I know this is a few weeks err years off .
You have to be kidding about the same processor right? I love my iPhone and all but it isn't exactly a performance power house. A device of this size needs to support multi tasking or back ground apps and continous connection to the outside world. It needs to do so seamlessly, something the iPhone can't do with one task running. I can tell al most immediately when my iPhone is recieving an E-Mail due to system lag in many apps. A tablet like this needs at a minimal dual processors where each is at least twice as fast as the current iPhone. Ideally Apple would jump to four processors right off the bat.
To much you might say! Not really would be my reply. All one needs to do is to total up the number of ARM processors currently in the iPhone. Sure these are special purpose processors not suitable for apps or SMP but it indicates that it is possible to drive multiple ARM processors from battery power.
In a nut shell I want such a device to be bleeding edge powerwise.
Unfortunately I'm not interested in reasonable good performance I want fluid performance from the apps I use the most. I find all the apps on iPhone to be wanting with respect to performance or features, on such a tablet that would be unacceptable. I'm especially displeased with Safari on iPhone and that is not just the bugs and crashes. It is the lag often experienced and the lack of support for things desktop Safari does fine with.
This of course is part processor support and part an issue of coding. The thing is I want the processor limitations to drop out of the equation. Well as best they can and I believe processor performance would be far less of an issue with a multi core chip where each CPU is significantly faster. Of course that is obvious but is it doable, I think so with some of ARMs advance processors on state of the art silicon technology.
There is even some interesting battery technology coming that may just keep yhis guy extremely thin. Make the front glass/display a solar cell and things become even more interesting.
Dave
HAL9000: I can't agree with you Dave…
…but I can see where you're coming from. Here's what I was trying to point out:
A "reader" focussed product like the one I described could be sub-$200, and would have outstanding battery life, and dispplay. Add those beefy processors and you're right back to it being a battery-hungry laptop again that costs $4-500+. I think it's time to take some of the computer out of the device.
We're seeing a point in time when computing's first real forays off the desktop and into devices and appliances will begin. Rather than items specifically identified as "computers", we'll see specifically focussed convenience devices for reading, for correspondence, for car travel, for tax time, etc., that all share internet access and better portability thanks to a lack of input devices and keyboards. They won't be powerful enough to be generically useful, to do many tasks - but rather so specifically targetted to their uses that they'll actually be better than current computers are at those tasks.
My toaster may make a lousy cup of coffee, but the bagels it prepares for me make its usefulness invaluable. The iPhone may seem to be a conflation of cellphone and computer, I think it's really a very specific kind of mobile computing, that is as much defined by what it doesn't do, as what it does.
Comments
It really depends on how much of a headache Apple's software developers, and 3rd party developers, want to have. By going to a taller aspect ratio screen, every single application has to be redone, or requalified, to fit the new aspect ratio screen. If they want to, they could put a 4.5" 2:1 960x480 screen in there with 0.2" bezels on all sides, but I'm imagining that's a pretty big headache for basically all of the software guys. Not that I wouldn't want such a device, nay, I would love such a device.
By maintaining the same aspect ratio, it minimizes the amount of work all around. Most apps using all Cocoa touch graphics and such will work. Anything with custom graphics (which is basically all of the good apps) will have to be redone a bit. Going to a different aspect ratio screen, is another big step, and I imagine some apps have to be redesigned.
I understand that a different aspect ratio might create some problems. But the thing is, if Apple wants to make the screen bigger and not increase the size of the device they have to go more widescreen. There's a lot of room on the top and buttom, but not so much on the sides. And I really think Apple should make the screen bigger, but not the iPhone. I would love a bigger iTablet, but that's another story.
2:1 would be an odd aspect ratio (bad for movies, fotos etc.). I really would only go so far as 16:9 widescreen. 640x360 like Nokia would be a possibility (half 720p) if Apple doesn't want to increase the resolution too much. 800x480 is not as wide as 16:9 so it's better for 4:3 content and a pretty standard resolution so there should be more possible manufactures out there. Also you don't see that much of a difference any more if you increase the resolution above 800x480 for a ~4" screen so Apple wouldn't have to upgrade the resolution for quite some time. And as you can see with the Touch HD, even just a 3.8" 800x480 display would be a quite noticeable improvement in size and resolution.
I understand that a different aspect ratio might create some problems. But the thing is, if Apple wants to make the screen bigger and not increase the size of the device they have to go more widescreen. There's a lot of room on the top and buttom, but not so much on the sides. And I really think Apple should make the screen bigger, but not the iPhone. I would love a bigger iTablet, but that's another story.
Like I said in my earlier post, if they can make the iPhone bezels on the side 0.1 inches, they can place a 4 inch 3:2 screen in an iPhone that's 2.4" wide. It'll feel and look wider because there won't be as much of a rounded edge, but it'll still be 2.4" wide. The HTC Touch HD is actually 2.5" wide, (and not very rounded to boot), so it'll be doable if they widen the iPhone to the width of the Touch HD.
My software speculation will be put to the test if Apple releases an iPhone nano that isn't 480x320 3:2 aspect ratio and 3 to 3.2" diagonal. If they do something other than that, then they'll be perfectly willing to have something different for a higher end model. It just would be bad business if they do it because of the gigantic software ecosystem built around 480x320 and 3.5" diag. It will inevitably lead to software incompatibilities. In my mind, 480x320 will be in an Apple cellphone/iPod touch/handheld for at least half a decade (2012).
I think we will get hints before Apple changes aspect ratio, perhaps even screen resolution, as it would bleed its way into the iPhone SDK before a device ships.
2:1 would be an odd aspect ratio (bad for movies, fotos etc.). I really would only go so far as 16:9 widescreen. 640x360 like Nokia would be a possibility (half 720p) if Apple doesn't want to increase the resolution too much. 800x480 is not as wide as 16:9 so it's better for 4:3 content and a pretty standard resolution so there should be more possible manufactures out there. Also you don't see that much of a difference any more if you increase the resolution above 800x480 for a ~4" screen so Apple wouldn't have to upgrade the resolution for quite some time. And as you can see with the Touch HD, even just a 3.8" 800x480 display would be a quite noticeable improvement in size and resolution.
2:1 aspect ratio is actually a nice resolution for movies. I'm sure Apple went through this very process in choosing 3:2 aspect ratio for the iPhone. 3:2 is nice tweener resolution for 4:3 aspect ratio TV & photos and 16:9 to 2.35:1 movies. I think they struck a pretty good balance there as it was the sweet spot for TV and movies. With analog going away next Feb, TV will gradually move to 16:9 while movies will be staying at 2.35:1. Cameras may move to wider formats in the future too. So in maybe 3 years all content will be in an aspect ratio between those, and 2:1 will serve as a nice sweet spot resolution to play both.
Not that I think Apple will go to 2:1, or 15x9 (HTC Touch HD's aspect ratio), or 16x9, or 16x10. I think they are sticking with 3:2, and leaving the white space (er, black space) on the top and bottom. The symmetry, the speaker ear piece on top and the button on the bottom are all part of Apple's design decisions. The fact that it's there tells me Apple thinks that it is important for people to perceive the iPhone as a cellphone.
And I actually think 2.4:1 screens (for PC monitors, cell phones, laptops) would be a brilliant idea.
I guess if Apple just goes with a higher clocked ARM11+SGX520/530 in 2009 it would make sense to keep the 3:2 480x320 resolution. And then switch to something better (different aspect ratio and/or higher resolution) in 2010 when their own custom designed 40nm ARMv7+SGX54x chip is ready.
Why wouldn't they just use a Cortex A8 in 2010 with the SGX 540? It seems like the Cortex are the heir apparent and ARM's thrust past phones into Netbooks (they're working with Canonical for Ubuntu support) and more.
Why wouldn't they just use a Cortex A8 in 2010 with the SGX 540? It seems like the Cortex are the heir apparent and ARM's thrust past phones into Netbooks (they're working with Canonical for Ubuntu support) and more.
What do you mean? The Cortex-A8 is based on the ARMv7 architecture. As is Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A9 MPCore and a custom core like the Qualcomm Scorpion (part of Snapdragon). So instead of picking one specific ARMv7 core and possibly be wrong I just picked the ARMv7 architecture for 2010
I really hope for Cortex-A9 but I guess Cortex-A8 is the safer bet for 2010. A custom Apple core would most likely take too much time and I'm not sure if Apple even has the license for that. And I guess Cortex-A9 MPCore is a no-go for smartphones till 32nm.
Anyways, the next gen iPhone and iPod touchs (Summer 09) will hopefully have a 667 MHz processor (~1.5x faster than current including FPU), 4x increase in GPU performance and 4x increase in memory (from 128 MB to 512 MB) to accompany that 4" 720x480 screen all in the same 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.5 package. This is wishful thinking though. It'll probably be half of everything: 550 MHz CPU, 2x GPU performance, 256 MB memory, an a 3.7" 480x320 screen.
I'd be fine with an iPhone pro that's Blackberry Bold wide (2.6") too. They could probably squeeze a 4.5" 3:2 screen in a device that wide.
What do you mean? The Cortex-A8 is based on the ARMv7 architecture. As is Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A9 MPCore and a custom core like the Qualcomm Scorpion (part of Snapdragon). So instead of picking one specific ARMv7 core and possibly be wrong I just picked the ARMv7 architecture for 2010
I really hope for Cortex-A9 but I guess Cortex-A8 is the safer bet for 2010. A custom Apple core would most likely take too much time and I'm not sure if Apple even has the license for that. And I guess Cortex-A9 MPCore is a no-go for smartphones till 32nm.
Mike
Thanks for the clarification. I'm new to following the SoC market and I certainly made a noob assumption. I agree with the A 9MPcore sounds like a Nebook class product initially.
I'd be fine with an iPhone pro that's Blackberry Bold wide (2.6") too. They could probably squeeze a 4.5" 3:2 screen in a device that wide.
4.5" screen...drool.
I'm wondering what effect OLED screens will have on device borders. My assumption is that since there's no need for a potentially more rigid backlight like on LCD we may see more "flexible" (pun not intended) screens that don't need as much reinforcement.
Well, the HTC Touch HD has a 3.8" display with a 800x480 resolution and is the same size as the iPhone and is already available since November 08 in Europe. The 0.3" doesn't sound like a lot but combined with the 2.5x resolution it's a big improvement over the iPhone's display (size and resolution wise).
The problem is resolution increased don't automatically lead to better user experieces. At it's current resolution the IPhones screen looks pixel free even close up and it does a good job with reproduction of colors and such. The first thing that happens with higher resolution screens is that you loose light transmission which means a lot more power goes to the backlight. I'm not convinced that a much high resolution screen really puts usable pixels on screen. I mean just how thin of a font do you want?
It's Windows Mobile but the hardware is pretty impressive
http://i1.phonearena.com/showimage.p...=name&id=43585
So a bigger screen (3.8" - 4") and higher resolution without an overall increase in size should be no problem for a new iPhone in Mid 2009.
The bigger sceen would be very welcomed even if it means a slightly larger device. I would not want the dpi to change though but even holding dpi would still result in a lot more pixels on screen. A small growth in the short dimension of the iPhone should allow for more than a quarter of inch increase in screen size. That is add a quarter inch in hieght and get rid of some of the bezel and we should get more than a quarter inch increase in usable screen hieght. Then take this dimension and blow out the screen to 16:9 width or wider. This might require some increase in length but first Apple should deal with the wasted bezel area.
So yeah a very slightly bigger iPhone but significantly more screen real estate. All those extra pixels would make for substantially better E-Mailing and web experiences. These are two things that Apple should be focusing a lot of effort on to improve as both are impacted significantly by the lack of screen area.
Something else just came to mind also. There have been comments about the bezel area covering inactive areas of the screen which is true if you have seen many of the LCDs out there. But there is another issue that must be considered, that is the capacitive Touch screen. The physical gap might have to be there to reduce interference from the gripping fingers. This we may be seeing a bezel for sometime to come no mater what is done with the LCD.
Still I want my larger screen and I want to get there by reducing wasted face area as much as possible. Then expand the physical dimensions. If you look at a horizontal keyboard it is pretty easy to see that a quarter inch in hieght will increase your visible text area by almost half. That is a significant amount of text. The corresponding increase in width helps even more.
Dave
The problem is resolution increased don't automatically lead to better user experieces. At it's current resolution the IPhones screen looks pixel free even close up and it does a good job with reproduction of colors and such. The first thing that happens with higher resolution screens is that you loose light transmission which means a lot more power goes to the backlight. I'm not convinced that a much high resolution screen really puts usable pixels on screen. I mean just how thin of a font do you want?
I don't want thin or smaller fonts. I want them to be just as big as now, but a lot sharper. But I have to admit that I'm used to some of the 800xXYZ mobile phone resolution screens that are out there. For example when I'm reading an ebook on my Nokia E90 communicator (800x352) the text looks just like printed. And I can quickly scan through a website and theoretically read everything before even zooming in. Try doing that for example with nytimes.com on an iPhone in portrait mode. Before zooming in it's almost impossible to see what each column says and where to zoom in.
So at least for the heavy reader and surfer i can see the benefits of a higher resolution screen. And just I hope the technical advantages will compensate for the lost light transmission and stuff like that by 2010.
It is wonderful!
my alltel contract is up in January so this is perfect timing if they do an upgrade at macworld.
Just keeping my fingers crossed that they will be one because I can not wait til june.
So?howzabout a much bigger screen (oled for lightness), same processor (plus some extra co-processing GPU oomph for the increased video), and rest of the case is all large, flat battery.
VNC from my touch is reasonably responsive over wifi, I could see easily controlling other machines (a la screensharing) if only I had a larger viewport. If only?
What is wrong with getting the 16 GIG iphone now?
It is wonderful!
nothing wrong with the phone....I just would never buy anything this close to macworld, plus the alltel contract does not end til the 24th anyway.
to read from while I ate a bowl of cold cereal, i was struck by how much the experience resembled this scene from 2001:
I mean REALLY COOL!
This might be slightly bigger than what I want to see in iPod Touch Maxi / Newton2 but it does embody some key concepts. That is thinness, portability, operable hand held, nice screen and hopefully outstanding performance. I'd like to see voice recognition/command input though I know this is a few weeks err years off
So?howzabout a much bigger screen (oled for lightness), same processor (plus some extra co-processing GPU oomph for the increased video), and rest of the case is all large, flat battery.
You have to be kidding about the same processor right? I love my iPhone and all but it isn't exactly a performance power house. A device of this size needs to support multi tasking or back ground apps and continous connection to the outside world. It needs to do so seamlessly, something the iPhone can't do with one task running. I can tell al most immediately when my iPhone is recieving an E-Mail due to system lag in many apps. A tablet like this needs at a minimal dual processors where each is at least twice as fast as the current iPhone. Ideally Apple would jump to four processors right off the bat.
To much you might say! Not really would be my reply. All one needs to do is to total up the number of ARM processors currently in the iPhone. Sure these are special purpose processors not suitable for apps or SMP but it indicates that it is possible to drive multiple ARM processors from battery power.
In a nut shell I want such a device to be bleeding edge powerwise.
VNC from my touch is reasonably responsive over wifi, I could see easily controlling other machines (a la screensharing) if only I had a larger viewport. If only?
Unfortunately I'm not interested in reasonable good performance I want fluid performance from the apps I use the most. I find all the apps on iPhone to be wanting with respect to performance or features, on such a tablet that would be unacceptable. I'm especially displeased with Safari on iPhone and that is not just the bugs and crashes. It is the lag often experienced and the lack of support for things desktop Safari does fine with.
This of course is part processor support and part an issue of coding. The thing is I want the processor limitations to drop out of the equation. Well as best they can and I believe processor performance would be far less of an issue with a multi core chip where each CPU is significantly faster. Of course that is obvious but is it doable, I think so with some of ARMs advance processors on state of the art silicon technology.
There is even some interesting battery technology coming that may just keep yhis guy extremely thin. Make the front glass/display a solar cell and things become even more interesting.
Dave
I mean REALLY COOL!
This might be slightly bigger than what I want to see in iPod Touch Maxi / Newton2 but it does embody some key concepts. That is thinness, portability, operable hand held, nice screen and hopefully outstanding performance. I'd like to see voice recognition/command input though I know this is a few weeks err years off
You have to be kidding about the same processor right? I love my iPhone and all but it isn't exactly a performance power house. A device of this size needs to support multi tasking or back ground apps and continous connection to the outside world. It needs to do so seamlessly, something the iPhone can't do with one task running. I can tell al most immediately when my iPhone is recieving an E-Mail due to system lag in many apps. A tablet like this needs at a minimal dual processors where each is at least twice as fast as the current iPhone. Ideally Apple would jump to four processors right off the bat.
To much you might say! Not really would be my reply. All one needs to do is to total up the number of ARM processors currently in the iPhone. Sure these are special purpose processors not suitable for apps or SMP but it indicates that it is possible to drive multiple ARM processors from battery power.
In a nut shell I want such a device to be bleeding edge powerwise.
Unfortunately I'm not interested in reasonable good performance I want fluid performance from the apps I use the most. I find all the apps on iPhone to be wanting with respect to performance or features, on such a tablet that would be unacceptable. I'm especially displeased with Safari on iPhone and that is not just the bugs and crashes. It is the lag often experienced and the lack of support for things desktop Safari does fine with.
This of course is part processor support and part an issue of coding. The thing is I want the processor limitations to drop out of the equation. Well as best they can and I believe processor performance would be far less of an issue with a multi core chip where each CPU is significantly faster. Of course that is obvious but is it doable, I think so with some of ARMs advance processors on state of the art silicon technology.
There is even some interesting battery technology coming that may just keep yhis guy extremely thin. Make the front glass/display a solar cell and things become even more interesting.
Dave
HAL9000: I can't agree with you Dave…
…but I can see where you're coming from. Here's what I was trying to point out:
A "reader" focussed product like the one I described could be sub-$200, and would have outstanding battery life, and dispplay. Add those beefy processors and you're right back to it being a battery-hungry laptop again that costs $4-500+. I think it's time to take some of the computer out of the device.
We're seeing a point in time when computing's first real forays off the desktop and into devices and appliances will begin. Rather than items specifically identified as "computers", we'll see specifically focussed convenience devices for reading, for correspondence, for car travel, for tax time, etc., that all share internet access and better portability thanks to a lack of input devices and keyboards. They won't be powerful enough to be generically useful, to do many tasks - but rather so specifically targetted to their uses that they'll actually be better than current computers are at those tasks.
My toaster may make a lousy cup of coffee, but the bagels it prepares for me make its usefulness invaluable. The iPhone may seem to be a conflation of cellphone and computer, I think it's really a very specific kind of mobile computing, that is as much defined by what it doesn't do, as what it does.
And on it goes…