It's okay talking about which diagonal screen size is ideal and how it compares to the big Android phones out there, but there's one big difference; the aspect ratio.
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
The vertical screen dimension is the important one because that defines the width of the phone overall. With any given vertical screen dimension, an iPhone's diagonal dimension will always be smaller. To increase an iPhone screen to a diagonal size of a top end Android phone for instance, would make it comparatively much more unwieldy.
A few screen size examples. What would be the ideal for a new iPhone?:
2.95 x 1.96 = 3.54" (current iPhone)
3.17 x 2.11 = 3.8"
3.33 x 2.22 = 4"
3.58 x 2.39 = 4.3"
3.87 x 2.58 = 4.65"
And for comparison with Samsung offerings with 16:9 screens:
3.75 x 2.11 = 4.3" (Galaxy S2)
4.05 x 2.28 = 4.65" (Galaxy Nexus)
4.62 x 2.60 = 5.3" (Galaxy Note)
Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
You lost me on the iPad bit. The iPad was refreshed last March with the iPad 2 which was ahead of when it was expected to be refreshed. The iPad 3 can realistically be refreshed in the 1st calendar quarter of 2012. ...
I got the date wrong for last year's iPad. I was calculating for July instead of March I think.
Apple is far too deliberate in their moves. They don't introduce a new screen size because "the market demands it," they don't actually care what people want in that sense at all.
To put it in an English way ... Apple decides first what is the "proper" size for the screen and then makes it, and sells it irrespective of what people tell them they want.
If they end up moving to a 4" screen size it will be because they decided for very valid, logical reasons that this is the "proper" size now and that 3.5 screens are no longer the proper size for a hand held screen. They will never make some 3.5, and some 4 inch screens on the idea that some people like them smaller or bigger. If they were going to do that, they would make iPads and iPhones in multiple sizes from the start as it's fairly clear that different people have different sized hands. They don't do that, they almost never have with any of their products.
The only product they make where screen size really varies at all is laptops and that might be more out of convention than anything else since *everyone* in the business does that and has since the beginning. Even with desktops which they originally offered in multiple sizes, they now offer in two only. ACD's used to be in three sizes and now they only offer one.
Apple *may* move to a 4" screen size based on whatever unknown calculation they do on what's best, but it's really very very unlikely they will ever offer more than one single screen size for the iPhone and since they've best that one size to be 3.5" for the life of the product so far, odds are it will remain so.
Never or very very unlikely?
The biggest problem with Apple introducing a larger display is that it changes the dimensions of the primary I/O which means a new UI needs to be optimized which means a certain level of fragmentation and a new SDK that needs to be introduced for App Store developers.
So how do you do this and keep Apple's flagship device as pristine as possible when there is a certain ramp up period for devs to respond? (Remember how long it took for apps to get optimized for the iPhone 4?)
One method might be to introduce the new display size first in their gaming PMP 6 months before the [I]6[/B]th gen iPhone launches. This gives a significant heads up to devs without affecting too many users who depend on the device for their day to day. Plus, games rendering with slightly larger pixels wouldn't offer the same interface issues as productivity apps might be for users.
Note the iPod Touch has yet to be updated to the 5th gen. If I were going to eventually introduce a larger display that is how I'd do it.
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
[/LIST]Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
I believe if Apple DOES change the screen rez, it will go to the iPads 4:3 ratio.
but yes, black bars are bad and Apple probably will stick 3:2.
As a note (to those who quoted my post) i used large caps for two reasons:
first, i believe retina just meant over 300 ppi. which turns out to be false
secondly, i wanted to make the point very simple-- you don't need to read anything inbetween (yes, still better ways i could have done that)
It's okay talking about which diagonal screen size is ideal and how it compares to the big Android phones out there, but there's one big difference; the aspect ratio.
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
The vertical screen dimension is the important one because that defines the width of the phone overall. With any given vertical screen dimension, an iPhone's diagonal dimension will always be smaller. To increase an iPhone screen to a diagonal size of a top end Android phone for instance, would make it comparatively much more unwieldy.
<snip>
Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
Shackled?!
Personally, I prefer 3:2 and I don't think that Apple has to go beyond 4" with the iPhone. iirc one survey said that only 12% of the people were concerned about screen size.
As I've said in the past... a 4" iPhone will bury the competition if and when it is introduced.
They just don't even give a flying frick that they're blatantly stealing, do they?
They look at it as inspired by, not stealing. That is the way the world has worked from the beginning of civilization. The idea of intellectual property is a relatively new concept.
This will create a big challenge for Apple at public presentation time : how will they manage to show 3D capability on he meeting room screen ?
You have a good point there. And how will they stream or later webcast the video?
I have to think about this. Any stereophiles out there with an idea?
Meanwhile, a poster on MacRumors, StrudelTurnover, mentions that Sharp makes parallax barriers for glasses-free 3D screens. Maybe a relevant detail, maybe not.
So Sony, Hitatchi and Toshiba have to merge their display businesses in order to survive? I'd read that Sony let Samsung beat them in worldwide LCD display shipments. Japan needs to get its manufacturing groove back.
They look at it as inspired by, not stealing. That is the way the world has worked from the beginning of civilization. The idea of intellectual property is a relatively new concept.
Well it is almost 2012 now. We are not in the stone age anymore.
People bathing daily is also a relatively new concept, yet we expect most civilized people to be on board with that concept.
Well it is almost 2012 now. We are not in the stone age anymore.
People bathing daily is also a relatively new concept, yet we expect most civilized people to be on board with that concept.
Did you run that by the rest of the world? Most people do not have indoor plumbing. That is the Android is better because there are more of them argument
Did you run that by the rest of the world? Most people do not have indoor plumbing. That is the Android is better because there are more of them argument
I wasn't thinking about the rest of the world, only the civilized world. Much of the world can still be considered primitive and a great many people still live in non free societies.
I wasn't thinking about the rest of the world, only the civilized world. Much of the world can still be considered primitive and a great many people still live in non free societies.
The definition of 'civilized' is somewhat controversial. Apple is not opposed to using non-free people to manufacture the goods that they sell to the civilized world.
The only thing I am wondering is how will that affect supply? Many seem to come to the assumption that no one wants to buy a big screened phone (as evidenced in the Galaxy SII commerical satire thread). Couldn't we assume that most people would stick with the 3.5'' screen? I mean, I had some issues getting my 4S due to supply and I can imagine if they change up the product mix there will be issues to be had.
The only way a 4'' phone would work is if they slimmed down everything else. The top of the iPhone has a bit of space up there I think they could get rid of the nonsense. A bigger screen doesn't necessarliy mean a large phone, and the Galaxy series from Samsung has proven that. The Galaxy SII seems a lot smaller than the Evo simply because it is thinner. Anything over 4'' is too much. I had an EVO and hated it. Even though my hands were big and the kickstand came in handy, it's not pocketable.
You'd already have at least 4 SKUs alone on one carrier by adding another screen to the line up. So a total of 12 different lines if the carriers stay the same for the US, correct? Doesn't seem plausible unless Apple deicdes to get rid of the 3.5'' screen, which I really hope they do. 3.9''-4' is like the perfect size. As long as there are no big bezels...
I believe if Apple DOES change the screen rez, it will go to the iPads 4:3 ratio.
but yes, black bars are bad and Apple probably will stick 3:2.
No, going 4:3 aspect ratio would be even worse than 3:2. It's okay for the iPad, but for an iPhone, it would mean even less screen real estate at any given vertical size.
For illustration, assuming you want to retain a reasonably manageable vertical screen size of 2.1 inch, screen sizes for each aspect ratio would be:
No, going 4:3 aspect ratio would be even worse than 3:2. It's okay for the iPad, but for an iPhone, it would mean even less screen real estate at any given vertical size.
For illustration, assuming you want to retain a reasonably manageable vertical screen size of 2.1 inch, screen sizes for each aspect ratio would be:
4:3 - 3.5 inch at 5.9 sq inch
3:2 - 3.8 inch at 6.6 sq inch
16:9 - 4.3 inch at 7.8 sq inch
Thanks for these figures.
But I also think "shackled" was a questionable word to use in your earlier post. They probably "settled on" 3:2 and 4:3 for reasons of harmonious geometry. It's all about aesthetics when it comes to aspect ratio in a handheld device.
The definition of 'civilized' is somewhat controversial. Apple is not opposed to using non-free people to manufacture the goods that they sell to the civilized world.
You're not opposed to buying oil from companies that use non-free people to drill and pump that oil out of the ground.
Comments
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
The vertical screen dimension is the important one because that defines the width of the phone overall. With any given vertical screen dimension, an iPhone's diagonal dimension will always be smaller. To increase an iPhone screen to a diagonal size of a top end Android phone for instance, would make it comparatively much more unwieldy.
A few screen size examples. What would be the ideal for a new iPhone?:
- 2.95 x 1.96 = 3.54" (current iPhone)
- 3.17 x 2.11 = 3.8"
- 3.33 x 2.22 = 4"
- 3.58 x 2.39 = 4.3"
- 3.87 x 2.58 = 4.65"
And for comparison with Samsung offerings with 16:9 screens:- 3.75 x 2.11 = 4.3" (Galaxy S2)
- 4.05 x 2.28 = 4.65" (Galaxy Nexus)
- 4.62 x 2.60 = 5.3" (Galaxy Note)
Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.Why go "almost OLED" when you can go OLED?
Because of the inherent disadvantages of OLED.
You lost me on the iPad bit. The iPad was refreshed last March with the iPad 2 which was ahead of when it was expected to be refreshed. The iPad 3 can realistically be refreshed in the 1st calendar quarter of 2012. ...
I got the date wrong for last year's iPad. I was calculating for July instead of March I think.
Except this will never happen.
Apple is far too deliberate in their moves. They don't introduce a new screen size because "the market demands it," they don't actually care what people want in that sense at all.
To put it in an English way ... Apple decides first what is the "proper" size for the screen and then makes it, and sells it irrespective of what people tell them they want.
If they end up moving to a 4" screen size it will be because they decided for very valid, logical reasons that this is the "proper" size now and that 3.5 screens are no longer the proper size for a hand held screen. They will never make some 3.5, and some 4 inch screens on the idea that some people like them smaller or bigger. If they were going to do that, they would make iPads and iPhones in multiple sizes from the start as it's fairly clear that different people have different sized hands. They don't do that, they almost never have with any of their products.
The only product they make where screen size really varies at all is laptops and that might be more out of convention than anything else since *everyone* in the business does that and has since the beginning. Even with desktops which they originally offered in multiple sizes, they now offer in two only. ACD's used to be in three sizes and now they only offer one.
Apple *may* move to a 4" screen size based on whatever unknown calculation they do on what's best, but it's really very very unlikely they will ever offer more than one single screen size for the iPhone and since they've best that one size to be 3.5" for the life of the product so far, odds are it will remain so.
Never or very very unlikely?
The biggest problem with Apple introducing a larger display is that it changes the dimensions of the primary I/O which means a new UI needs to be optimized which means a certain level of fragmentation and a new SDK that needs to be introduced for App Store developers.
So how do you do this and keep Apple's flagship device as pristine as possible when there is a certain ramp up period for devs to respond? (Remember how long it took for apps to get optimized for the iPhone 4?)
One method might be to introduce the new display size first in their gaming PMP 6 months before the [I]6[/B]th gen iPhone launches. This gives a significant heads up to devs without affecting too many users who depend on the device for their day to day. Plus, games rendering with slightly larger pixels wouldn't offer the same interface issues as productivity apps might be for users.
Note the iPod Touch has yet to be updated to the 5th gen. If I were going to eventually introduce a larger display that is how I'd do it.
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
[/LIST]Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
I believe if Apple DOES change the screen rez, it will go to the iPads 4:3 ratio.
but yes, black bars are bad and Apple probably will stick 3:2.
As a note (to those who quoted my post) i used large caps for two reasons:
first, i believe retina just meant over 300 ppi. which turns out to be false
secondly, i wanted to make the point very simple-- you don't need to read anything inbetween (yes, still better ways i could have done that)
It's okay talking about which diagonal screen size is ideal and how it compares to the big Android phones out there, but there's one big difference; the aspect ratio.
Apple have settled on 3:2 for all their iDevices. Everyone else has settled on 'widescreen' 16:9.
The vertical screen dimension is the important one because that defines the width of the phone overall. With any given vertical screen dimension, an iPhone's diagonal dimension will always be smaller. To increase an iPhone screen to a diagonal size of a top end Android phone for instance, would make it comparatively much more unwieldy.
<snip>
Of course this all assumes Apple are intent on sticking with 3:2. But if suddenly they started doing 16:9, that would introduce an element of fragmentation that currently they don't have to deal with. Looks like they may have shackled themselves to 3:2 whether they like it or not.
Shackled?!
Personally, I prefer 3:2 and I don't think that Apple has to go beyond 4" with the iPhone. iirc one survey said that only 12% of the people were concerned about screen size.
As I've said in the past... a 4" iPhone will bury the competition if and when it is introduced.
They just don't even give a flying frick that they're blatantly stealing, do they?
They look at it as inspired by, not stealing. That is the way the world has worked from the beginning of civilization. The idea of intellectual property is a relatively new concept.
This will create a big challenge for Apple at public presentation time : how will they manage to show 3D capability on he meeting room screen ?
You have a good point there. And how will they stream or later webcast the video?
I have to think about this. Any stereophiles out there with an idea?
Meanwhile, a poster on MacRumors, StrudelTurnover, mentions that Sharp makes parallax barriers for glasses-free 3D screens. Maybe a relevant detail, maybe not.
They look at it as inspired by, not stealing. That is the way the world has worked from the beginning of civilization. The idea of intellectual property is a relatively new concept.
Well it is almost 2012 now. We are not in the stone age anymore.
People bathing daily is also a relatively new concept, yet we expect most civilized people to be on board with that concept.
Well it is almost 2012 now. We are not in the stone age anymore.
People bathing daily is also a relatively new concept, yet we expect most civilized people to be on board with that concept.
Did you run that by the rest of the world? Most people do not have indoor plumbing. That is the Android is better because there are more of them argument
Did you run that by the rest of the world? Most people do not have indoor plumbing. That is the Android is better because there are more of them argument
I wasn't thinking about the rest of the world, only the civilized world. Much of the world can still be considered primitive and a great many people still live in non free societies.
I wasn't thinking about the rest of the world, only the civilized world. Much of the world can still be considered primitive and a great many people still live in non free societies.
The definition of 'civilized' is somewhat controversial. Apple is not opposed to using non-free people to manufacture the goods that they sell to the civilized world.
Apple is not opposed to using non-free people to manufacture the goods that they sell to the civilized world.
That is true. You're not going to get any disagreements from me on that point.
The only thing I am wondering is how will that affect supply? Many seem to come to the assumption that no one wants to buy a big screened phone (as evidenced in the Galaxy SII commerical satire thread). Couldn't we assume that most people would stick with the 3.5'' screen? I mean, I had some issues getting my 4S due to supply and I can imagine if they change up the product mix there will be issues to be had.
The only way a 4'' phone would work is if they slimmed down everything else. The top of the iPhone has a bit of space up there I think they could get rid of the nonsense. A bigger screen doesn't necessarliy mean a large phone, and the Galaxy series from Samsung has proven that. The Galaxy SII seems a lot smaller than the Evo simply because it is thinner. Anything over 4'' is too much. I had an EVO and hated it. Even though my hands were big and the kickstand came in handy, it's not pocketable.
You'd already have at least 4 SKUs alone on one carrier by adding another screen to the line up. So a total of 12 different lines if the carriers stay the same for the US, correct? Doesn't seem plausible unless Apple deicdes to get rid of the 3.5'' screen, which I really hope they do. 3.9''-4' is like the perfect size. As long as there are no big bezels...
I believe if Apple DOES change the screen rez, it will go to the iPads 4:3 ratio.
but yes, black bars are bad and Apple probably will stick 3:2.
No, going 4:3 aspect ratio would be even worse than 3:2. It's okay for the iPad, but for an iPhone, it would mean even less screen real estate at any given vertical size.
For illustration, assuming you want to retain a reasonably manageable vertical screen size of 2.1 inch, screen sizes for each aspect ratio would be:
No, going 4:3 aspect ratio would be even worse than 3:2. It's okay for the iPad, but for an iPhone, it would mean even less screen real estate at any given vertical size.
For illustration, assuming you want to retain a reasonably manageable vertical screen size of 2.1 inch, screen sizes for each aspect ratio would be:
Thanks for these figures.
But I also think "shackled" was a questionable word to use in your earlier post. They probably "settled on" 3:2 and 4:3 for reasons of harmonious geometry. It's all about aesthetics when it comes to aspect ratio in a handheld device.
The definition of 'civilized' is somewhat controversial. Apple is not opposed to using non-free people to manufacture the goods that they sell to the civilized world.
You're not opposed to buying oil from companies that use non-free people to drill and pump that oil out of the ground.
You're not opposed to buying oil from companies that use non-free people to drill and pump that oil out of the ground.
Good one. Even worse, mstone is implying that China is not civilized. Seems we have a long way to go as well.