muthuk_vanalingam

AppleZulu said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

AppleZulu said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

AppleZulu said:

Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.

Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.

The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.

The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.

The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.

This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make. When it comes to display sizes, Samsung showed the way for the rest of the industry (including Apple) from the beginning with their NOTE series. More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device. It is as simple as that. When you make a statement exact opposite to that which defies logic, you need to rethink your statement.

The need is there always. Does the fulfilling of the need involve compromises? Of course, Yes. Are those compromises worth it to pursue the device in question? - That is a difficult question to answer. Andriod OEMs have answered "Yes" to that question and have continued to make progress and minimized those compromises (particularly the Chinese OEMs Oppo/Vivo/Huawei/Xiaomi/Honor). Apple is yet to say "Yes" to that question. But never say never.

“More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device.”

That’s a pretty bold statement to make. Maybe they should make an origami phone that unfolds out to a hexagonal 25-inch screen. Because, you know. More is always better. 

Do you need evidence for that? Just answer a simple question - Why did Apple increase the largest display area available in the iPhone form factor from 44.1 cm2 in 2013 (iphone 5s screen diagonal - 4 inch) ) to 115.6 cm2 in 2024 (iPhone 16 Pro Max screen diagonal - 6.9 inch) - an increase of 162% in 11 years? If the NEED was NOT there, why did Apple do that?

Clearly there was some demand for an increase from 4 to 6.2 inches in iPhone screen size in a decade's time. Past increases in size do not, however, prove a demand (much less a need) for a folding phone that doubles the size into a square screen, all at double the price. More is not always better. Occasionally a second glass of wine is nice. A whole bottle or maybe two? Not nice. If the weather has been going through a dry spell, a little more rain can be welcome, but in most places an extra four inches of rain in an hour is not so welcome. Buying flowers a little more often for your sweetie is probably, well, sweet. Bringing six dozen roses every day without fail is going to come across as obsessive, creepy and definitely not needed.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, similar folding screen phones made by others are pretty evidently only serving a niche market, not a need. Just as Apple has seen no need to merge Macs and iPads into a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none personal computing version of the El Camino (like the Microsoft Surface), it is highly doubtful that Apple is looking at the folding phones already out there and saying, "man, we need to make one of those!"

charlesn said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

AppleZulu said:

Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.

Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.

The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.

The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.

The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.

This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make. 

Actually, it's not bold at all -- it reflects the now six year history of expensive folding phones like the one rumored to be coming from Apple. The lack of need beyond that of a small niche has been proven by the lack of sales success after six years of trying. Hey, if niche iPhones were of interest to Apple, they would have kept the Mini in the lineup, which is a form factor with a very devoted albeit smaller fan base. 

AppleZulu said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

AppleZulu said:

Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.

Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.

The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.

The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.

The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.

This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make. When it comes to display sizes, Samsung showed the way for the rest of the industry (including Apple) from the beginning with their NOTE series. More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device. It is as simple as that. When you make a statement exact opposite to that which defies logic, you need to rethink your statement.

The need is there always. Does the fulfilling of the need involve compromises? Of course, Yes. Are those compromises worth it to pursue the device in question? - That is a difficult question to answer. Andriod OEMs have answered "Yes" to that question and have continued to make progress and minimized those compromises (particularly the Chinese OEMs Oppo/Vivo/Huawei/Xiaomi/Honor). Apple is yet to say "Yes" to that question. But never say never.

“More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device.”

That’s a pretty bold statement to make. Maybe they should make an origami phone that unfolds out to a hexagonal 25-inch screen. Because, you know. More is always better. 

AppleZulu said:

Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.

Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.

First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.

The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.

The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.

The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.

This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?