Been making many of these arguments for the past few years
despite counter-arguments that Apple doesn't have to compete
Jump to content
Posted April 06 2014 - 07:28 PM
I get a kick out of the users posting that God (or Steve Jobs) decreed a certain screen size, and no one can possibly know enough to disagree with him. The introduction of larger screen sizes will officially kill the "we never listen to the market" attitude, no matter how much Iphone users gnash their teeth about it.
Posted April 07 2014 - 06:44 AM
I'll challenge you to find me saying anything of the sort. Jobs was a showman and his 'file down your finger' didn't even make sense regarding phones, no matter how funny it was.
On the other hand I VALUE one handed operation. The enlongated iPhone 5 works wonderfully one handed. Existing Androids have not worked well for me in my VERY limited tests. If you can reduce the real estate of backing and bezel enough and still retain enough tensile strength that pocket keeping is not a dangerous sport it is clearly possible to make a 1 hand operated 5.5" phone. The actual operation of that in real life is not a known quantity.
The fact that these big ass phones look rediculous isn't that big a factor to me, if it means visually impaired folks can use them too I'm all for it.
Battery life, as always, remains key too.
I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt
Posted April 07 2014 - 01:16 PM
I'll challenge you to find me saying anything of the sort.
Where does my post say you were the one who said it, Sam?
Posted April 07 2014 - 05:46 PM
That's what you get for not reading the posts in Ron's link.
Posted April 10 2014 - 11:50 AM
They may not, because they won't be keen on releasing a 4.7" phone if the battery can't last. The 4.7" iPhone would have to run a 1707 X 960 resolution with 417ppi. That's clearly going to put more strain on the GPU plus the extra backlighting for the larger panel. They have 400+ ppi panels on Android phones since 2013, so the tech is there. But across the board, improving battery life in the 2014 devices was a big priority for all Android manufacturers and they all seem to have succeeded so far. Apple has no excuse now.
But here's the thing -- Apple has already lost. Have you seen the global numbers? It's over 80% marketshare for Android. Windows Phone will probably overtake iPhone in quite a few countries in the next few years. Where are the big areas of growth? China and India. But since they aren't willing to put out a budget iPhone, they've already lost those markets.
The one big anomaly, of course, is the US. On its home turf, Apple has 40-something% of the market compared to Android's 50-something%. So we Americans don't realize that whatever Apple does, it's just to stop the bleeding. Unless they have a new breakthrough product like the iPad, it looks like the Mac-PC battle all over again.
Yes yes, Apple makes most of the profits now. At one point, Mac made most of the profits. But once you start becoming a niche product, the profits will shrink accordingly.
So MUST they make a larger phone? If this were 2012, I would say yes. But it's 2014. That ship has sailed.
Posted April 10 2014 - 11:57 AM
I argued that Apple should have made a bigger iPhone two years ago
when Android was selling their Galaxy phones.
But "oh no" cried some of the purists -- "that is not what Apple is all about."
Well, it took Apple long enough to realize that they would have to compete
to keep their market share. I mean 5+ years of iPhones and they are tiny
little tinkertoys compared to the variety of phones Android offers.
You bet the ship has sailed.
...and I don't say that out of allegiance to any brand. I would have stayed
with the iPhone 2-3 years ago if only they had evolved the way other phones did.
Posted April 10 2014 - 12:08 PM
That's what Apple gets for following some silly "we don't make what sells, we tell people what to buy" ideology.
Posted April 10 2014 - 02:54 PM
Posted April 10 2014 - 04:49 PM
This I don't understand. They could have also increased the screen horizontally (ignoring issues of body style, etc). The iPhone 4 is 960x640. Growing it 25% would have been 1200x800; a 4.4" phone at the same ppi. That's what I was guessing during early rumors of the larger iPhone 5.
That's why the "4 inch" iPhone was merely taller - it was the only way to keep the "Retina" ppi and grow the screen size. Until 400+ ppi screens were feasible, Apple couldn't build a larger iPhone. They can now.
Posted April 10 2014 - 07:01 PM
Posted April 11 2014 - 06:13 PM
I don't understand what you're saying. (not arguing. really don't understand what mean here ) The 5 also isn't an integer scaling from the 4: pixel count increased from 960x640 to 1136 x 640, an 18.333% increase vertically.
Rather than only growing -- and customizing -- in the vertical direction, Apple could have (conceivably) grown more and equally in both directions, and needed customization for it.
Assuming larger iPhones, the big unknown is how they do it. There are basic basic options:
A) Larger pixels at the same pixel count to grow the screen (25% larger pixels to get a 5" screen).
B) More pixels at the same pixel size to grow the screen (25% more pixels to get a 5" screen)
I wonder if the rumors around two new sizes could be because Apple is experimenting with both options to determine what they want?
Posted April 14 2014 - 06:01 AM
What I am trying to explain, Dave, is that iOS can only scale in multiples of integers. That's why the first Retina screen was 960 X 640 -- it was a linear doubling of the original 480 X 320. One of the reasons iOS looks "prettier" than Android is that the graphics are pixel perfect. Because of the scaling necessary for multiple resolutions, Android graphics aren't able to reach that level of graphic complexity.
If they use a different resolution, like the 1024 X 768 used on the original iPad, they need a brand new app ecosystem since the iPhone apps won't scale properly. That's why phone apps run on the iPad were in a windowed area and not scaled to 1024 X 683.
Or you could make a modified resolution like 1136 X 640 and jam these new apps into the existing app store. But it does not need to scale -- the same app on the 4/4S is simply cut off on the sides.
For a larger iPhone that keeps Retina ppi, you would have to either go with a 960p 16:9 resolution or establish an entirely different resolution with its own app store. Call it "Retina HD" and charge a dollar more for all the apps you need to re-buy. I know Apple loves to suck their customers dry by introducing new overpriced stuff you need to re-buy, so I'm surprised this never happened. I'm sure it was batted around as a possibility. Fragmentation is fine as long as there's profit in it. Obscene profit.
But there are no rumors of devs making new apps for another resolution. So I think it's going to be 960p. If it actually happens, that is.
Posted April 14 2014 - 09:35 AM
Or you can go to vectors and make everything infinitely scalable =p
I think Hanson overstates it tho. It's not that Apple 'Can't' do these things, they certainly could. Doing so has tradeoffs and downsides, like the windowboxing (not cutting off sides) that they have done in the past. Apple has always taken their own approach to these types of technical limitations, and often their solutions are head slappingly simple and obvious in retrospect.
Anyway, better scalability has been something hinted and rumored for a long time, and we haven't seen it. Will it hit with iOS 9 and next OSX? Dunno. But a new form factor -would- be an excellent time to introduce it.
I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt
Posted April 14 2014 - 06:38 PM
And Apple violated that "rule" with the iPhone 5. So they apparently aren't shackled to integer scaling. (But in any case, they only stretched in one direction, not both.)As for that "rule", iOS has been adding dynamic layout tools to allow for more flexible layouts. It seems Apple is building to allow for multiple screen resolutions with less screen-specific tweaking.
What I am trying to explain, Dave, is that iOS can only scale in multiples of integers.
No way Apple will introduce a new flagship iPhone with lower resolution that the two year old iPhone 5.Also, an iPhone 4 stretched to 5" will be less retina-y than an iPhone 5 stretched to same size. Which brings us back to the big question: more pixels or bigger pixels?
For a larger iPhone that keeps Retina ppi, you would have to either go with a 960p 16:9 resolution or establish an entirely different resolution with its own app store. ...But there are no rumors of devs making new apps for another resolution. So I think it's going to be 960p. If it actually happens, that is.
Posted April 17 2014 - 02:21 PM
Going from 960 X 640 to 1136 X 640 does not require scaling. It was a clever pivot to get to 4" without losing ppi.
When I say 960p, I mean 1704 X 960, not 960 X 640.
You've lost me. Going to 1200x800 doesn't require scaling either, as I understand your usage. it's an expansion of pixel count. The screen gets both taller (as with the actual 5 and also wider) and allows apps to haver more real estate, as happened with the taller screen.
That is: I expected Apple to do what they did with the iPhone 5: introduce a new screen resolution. But i figured it would be a 25% increase in both dimensions to 1200x800 for a 4.5" screen. There would have been no scaling of apps, just as there wasn't for the 1136 x 640 screen.
I doubt there will be scaling for a new 5" iPhone. I expect it will be same resolutions with larger pixels (no change in apps) or new resolutions with more pixels (app redesigns required). The latter should be getting easier, as Apple has been making the app layout features more flexible and based more on relative placement rather than pixel-specific placement (according to my recollection of misc blogs on the topic).
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users