I don't think they'll go 16:9. 16:10 at the widest but I think 4:3 works well on the iPad. The iPhone is designed for one handed operation so 16:9 works great but the iPad is more like holding a sheet of electronic paper. An A4 page is pretty close to 4:3 so I don't see much reason to change it.
1. Verizon sales staff are pushing people away from the iPhone. HARD. It's totally obvious. I straight out asked them if they got smaller commissions on iPhone sales and they said (to a person), no, absolutely not - we just like the Android phones better. I did NOT think to ask (at the time) if their managers were pushing them to push Android for reasons of less cost to Verizon though. Not sure I got a straight answer to what I was asking, or especially if I would have to the question I didn't ask, but more's the pity.
Whatever, expect the "hard non-sell" if you go to a Verizon store for your new iPhone....
They aren't exactly lying (about their "commissions"), but they aren't being entirely honest either. It may not change their "commission" but it's pretty well known that most of the Android manufacturers are paying spiffs. It's also well known that Verizon (and other carriers) are pushing their sales staff very hard to push Android phones onto customers because they get more control and it costs them less.
I don't think they'll go 16:9. 16:10 at the widest but I think 4:3 works well on the iPad. The iPhone is designed for one handed operation so 16:9 works great but the iPad is more like holding a sheet of electronic paper. An A4 page is pretty close to 4:3 so I don't see much reason to change it.
I don't think they'll go 16:9. 16:10 at the widest but I think 4:3 works well on the iPad. The iPhone is designed for one handed operation so 16:9 works great but the iPad is more like holding a sheet of electronic paper. An A4 page is pretty close to 4:3 so I don't see much reason to change it.
"Update: It appears this is probably a case of mistaken identity (or intercontinental confusion)—the display bears almost the exact same structure as the Kindle Fire's, as seen here."
I don't think even a smaller one would have a different aspect beyond 3:2 (old iPhone). A4 paper is halfway between 4:3 and 3:2 and makes the most sense for a tablet. While 16:10 isn't bad, it doesn't look very good in portrait.
"Update: It appears this is probably a case of mistaken identity (or intercontinental confusion)—the display bears almost the exact same structure as the Kindle Fire's, as seen here." http://gizmodo.com/5935129/is-this-the-ipad-minis-tiny-new-screen
I don't think even a smaller one would have a different aspect beyond 3:2 (old iPhone). A4 paper is halfway between 4:3 and 3:2 and makes the most sense for a tablet. While 16:10 isn't bad, it doesn't look very good in portrait.
They aren't exactly lying (about their "commissions"), but they aren't being entirely honest either. It may not change their "commission" but it's pretty well known that most of the Android manufacturers are paying spiffs. It's also well known that Verizon (and other carriers) are pushing their sales staff very hard to push Android phones onto customers because they get more control and it costs them less.
There's very little loyalty in business, whomever pays the most gets the most, loyalty that is. Can't fault them on that. Someone working on commission will always sell whatever makes them the most money not what's best for the customer.
There's no screen yet. I'm not sure if you'd be able to hold it in one hand like a phone either given that it's wider than 2 iPhones. 16:9 certainly makes it easier to do that but I think you're still going to need a larger side bezel. If they did change the aspect, I'd say it would be to 3:2 and not 16:9. I'd be very surprised to see a 16:9 tablet from Apple.
The Galaxy Tab is 16:9 but I don't think that looks very good in portrait:
Those are mockups based on this: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/47430/iphone-5-ipad-mini-cases-comparison
There's no screen yet. I'm not sure if you'd be able to hold it in one hand like a phone either given that it's wider than 2 iPhones. 16:9 certainly makes it easier to do that but I think you're still going to need a larger side bezel. If they did change the aspect, I'd say it would be to 3:2 and not 16:9. I'd be very surprised to see a 16:9 tablet from Apple.
The Galaxy Tab is 16:9 but I don't think that looks very good in portrait:
I get your point, but 16:9 fits in with the company's long-term plans than the other formats. If you have 16:9 throughout your product offerings, apps could be designed for use in that format and never have to be redesigned again and again. Even the new iPod Nano has a 16:9 screen! (Yes, I will bet that the long term plan includes opening up the iPad Mini for developers to offer apps for it through the app store).
Beyond the iPad Mini and the next iPad, Apple TV will eventually open up to developers too (my prediction) and apps will be available through a new Apple TV app store. Since the Apple TV connects to HDTV sets, Apple TV apps, naturally, are formatted for 16:9. Those same apps will also be available for Apple's rumored television product, which, too, should have a 16:9 aspect ratio.
See, the future, if I'm right, starts with the iPod Nano, then the iPhone/iPod Touch, then the iPad Mini, then the iPad, then the real Apple TV, with sizes all larger than the iPad, and all having a 16:9 aspect ratio, enabling seemless cross-Apple iDevice platform app operability.
I get your point, but 16:9 fits in with the company's long-term plans than the other formats. If you have 16:9 throughout your product offerings, apps could be designed for use in that format and never have to be redesigned again and again.
As long as they are compatible, it should be fine. An iPhone/iPod app will pixel double to the iPad. It can't do this any more as that would require 2272 resolution but interestingly, 2272 divided by the current smallest side 1536 = 1.48. This is pretty much 3:2.
If they move the iPad to ~3:2, iPhone/iPod apps in 16:9 will pixel double with 128 pixels either side and original iPad apps will work with 112 pixels top and bottom.
A 16:9 aspect doen't look right in portrait at such a big size. Tilt your head to the side while looking at your monitor and imagine holding it in portrait. You could get used to it like with the Galaxy Tab but it squashes up the keyboard:
shidell - The difference is that Apple didn't sacrifice battery life to do it. They also have a more polished OS. Anyone who has owned both phones will tell you that.
That's partly a feature of iOS 6, but iOS 6 is a major part of the upgrade! People are also saying; ugh, the camera is the same. But it's not. It's got the same Rez, but better low light ability, and lower noise, with higher dynamic range, along with a new lens.
Dpreview has posted an initial review of the camera in the iPhone 5, and as I suspected the improvements are mainly in the software - better (as in, adaptive) noise reduction and sharpening, and an extension of the ISO range to a max of ISO 3200 (from ISO 1000 in the 4s). What's interesting is that at higher ISO's (above ISO 1000) it appears the iPhone 5 is using pixel binning to reduce noise, however the tradeoff of doing so is a loss of resolution.
Have a look at their initial review, in particular the section on low-light:
Comments
I don't think they'll go 16:9. 16:10 at the widest but I think 4:3 works well on the iPad. The iPhone is designed for one handed operation so 16:9 works great but the iPad is more like holding a sheet of electronic paper. An A4 page is pretty close to 4:3 so I don't see much reason to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
1. Verizon sales staff are pushing people away from the iPhone. HARD. It's totally obvious. I straight out asked them if they got smaller commissions on iPhone sales and they said (to a person), no, absolutely not - we just like the Android phones better. I did NOT think to ask (at the time) if their managers were pushing them to push Android for reasons of less cost to Verizon though. Not sure I got a straight answer to what I was asking, or especially if I would have to the question I didn't ask, but more's the pity.
Whatever, expect the "hard non-sell" if you go to a Verizon store for your new iPhone....
They aren't exactly lying (about their "commissions"), but they aren't being entirely honest either. It may not change their "commission" but it's pretty well known that most of the Android manufacturers are paying spiffs. It's also well known that Verizon (and other carriers) are pushing their sales staff very hard to push Android phones onto customers because they get more control and it costs them less.
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/08/15/alleged-ipad-mini-screen-points-to-7-85-inch-display/
"Update: It appears this is probably a case of mistaken identity (or intercontinental confusion)—the display bears almost the exact same structure as the Kindle Fire's, as seen here."
http://gizmodo.com/5935129/is-this-the-ipad-minis-tiny-new-screen
I don't think even a smaller one would have a different aspect beyond 3:2 (old iPhone). A4 paper is halfway between 4:3 and 3:2 and makes the most sense for a tablet. While 16:10 isn't bad, it doesn't look very good in portrait.
http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/28861/new-photos-show-size-comparisons-cases-new-ipad-mini-and-new-iphone-5
There's very little loyalty in business, whomever pays the most gets the most, loyalty that is. Can't fault them on that. Someone working on commission will always sell whatever makes them the most money not what's best for the customer.
Those are mockups based on this:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/47430/iphone-5-ipad-mini-cases-comparison
There's no screen yet. I'm not sure if you'd be able to hold it in one hand like a phone either given that it's wider than 2 iPhones. 16:9 certainly makes it easier to do that but I think you're still going to need a larger side bezel. If they did change the aspect, I'd say it would be to 3:2 and not 16:9. I'd be very surprised to see a 16:9 tablet from Apple.
The Galaxy Tab is 16:9 but I don't think that looks very good in portrait:
I get your point, but 16:9 fits in with the company's long-term plans than the other formats. If you have 16:9 throughout your product offerings, apps could be designed for use in that format and never have to be redesigned again and again. Even the new iPod Nano has a 16:9 screen! (Yes, I will bet that the long term plan includes opening up the iPad Mini for developers to offer apps for it through the app store).
Beyond the iPad Mini and the next iPad, Apple TV will eventually open up to developers too (my prediction) and apps will be available through a new Apple TV app store. Since the Apple TV connects to HDTV sets, Apple TV apps, naturally, are formatted for 16:9. Those same apps will also be available for Apple's rumored television product, which, too, should have a 16:9 aspect ratio.
See, the future, if I'm right, starts with the iPod Nano, then the iPhone/iPod Touch, then the iPad Mini, then the iPad, then the real Apple TV, with sizes all larger than the iPad, and all having a 16:9 aspect ratio, enabling seemless cross-Apple iDevice platform app operability.
As long as they are compatible, it should be fine. An iPhone/iPod app will pixel double to the iPad. It can't do this any more as that would require 2272 resolution but interestingly, 2272 divided by the current smallest side 1536 = 1.48. This is pretty much 3:2.
If they move the iPad to ~3:2, iPhone/iPod apps in 16:9 will pixel double with 128 pixels either side and original iPad apps will work with 112 pixels top and bottom.
A 16:9 aspect doen't look right in portrait at such a big size. Tilt your head to the side while looking at your monitor and imagine holding it in portrait. You could get used to it like with the Galaxy Tab but it squashes up the keyboard:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And If they made it wider you'd be able to fit 5 apps across instead of 4. Whoope!
iphone 5s?! :-P
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That's partly a feature of iOS 6, but iOS 6 is a major part of the upgrade! People are also saying; ugh, the camera is the same. But it's not. It's got the same Rez, but better low light ability, and lower noise, with higher dynamic range, along with a new lens.
Dpreview has posted an initial review of the camera in the iPhone 5, and as I suspected the improvements are mainly in the software - better (as in, adaptive) noise reduction and sharpening, and an extension of the ISO range to a max of ISO 3200 (from ISO 1000 in the 4s). What's interesting is that at higher ISO's (above ISO 1000) it appears the iPhone 5 is using pixel binning to reduce noise, however the tradeoff of doing so is a loss of resolution.
Have a look at their initial review, in particular the section on low-light:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6867454450/quick-review-apple-iphone-5-camera/2
While you're at it, here's their review of the outstanding camera in the Nokia 808 Pureview:
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/4388245494/nokia-808-pureview-review
That said, I'm loving my new iPhone 5.