Apple Working on New Device with 5-Inch Retina Display for 2013?

[tbrinkma]

Wow, you really went out of your way to try and make him look stupid, when it was obvious he meant that the two iOS devices which were designated by JUST a number like "iPhone 5" in the past, were actually that generation of device as well.

iPhone 4 WAS the fourth gen iPhone

iPad 2 WAS the second gen iPad

I guess you think those devices being named 2 & 4 had nothing to do with the generation they were, "because that is what you are saying"

His theory was sound. Apple can/may call it whatever they like, or drop the designation all together but what you said, was not at all what he was saying.

No, that's *exactly* what he was saying. He claimed that because it's the 6th generation iPhone they obviously *must* call it the iPhone 6 (generation counter) rather than the iPhone 5 (model designation). For that to be even remotely supported, the 3G, 3Gs, and 4s must also have been called that because they were, respectively the 3Gth, 3Gsth, and 4sth generation iPhones.

The fact that the iPhone 4 was the 4th generation device is undisputed, but based on the existing model numbers it's a coincidence, not an indication of the naming scheme.

Also undisputed is that the iPad (not even mentioned in my post) used a *different* naming scheme. Notice that the 3rd generation iPad is *not* the iPad 3, though. Based on that, it would appear that the generation of the device has little to no influence on the model designation Apple chooses to use on those devices.

Do I need to point out that the iBook G4 was not the 4th generation of iBook? Nor was the iMac G4, the PowerMac G4 (any of them), the PowerMac G5, etc.

As you can see, the generation of the device, historically, has virtually nothing to do with the model designation given to the device by Apple. That is *directly* contrary to the original poster's claim that the next iPhone *must* be called the iPhone 6, rather than the iPhone 5, *because* it happens to be the 6th generation iPhone. Based on the prior pattern of iPhone model designations, we're *much* more likely to see a 5, followed by a 5s than see it skip straight to 6.

(Of course, I think we're going to see them *drop* the model designation like they did with the iPad, but that's just my guess.)

 

[dblessin]

I just want a Mac Pro refresh!
Y U KEEP RELEASING NEW SERIES OF DEVICES?

Image

AGREED!! I'm in need of a new Mac Pro for work and am awaiting a refresh as well... Hey Apple!... Sooner rather than later would be good. Please and thank you!

 

[217833]

No, that's *exactly* what he was saying. He claimed that because it's the 6th generation iPhone they obviously *must* call it the iPhone 6 (generation counter) rather than the iPhone 5 (model designation). For that to be even remotely supported, the 3G, 3Gs, and 4s must also have been called that because they were, respectively the 3Gth, 3Gsth, and 4sth generation iPhones.

The fact that the iPhone 4 was the 4th generation device is undisputed, but based on the existing model numbers it's a coincidence, not an indication of the naming scheme.

Also undisputed is that the iPad (not even mentioned in my post) used a *different* naming scheme. Notice that the 3rd generation iPad is *not* the iPad 3, though. Based on that, it would appear that the generation of the device has little to no influence on the model designation Apple chooses to use on those devices.

Do I need to point out that the iBook G4 was not the 4th generation of iBook? Nor was the iMac G4, the PowerMac G4 (any of them), the PowerMac G5, etc.

As you can see, the generation of the device, historically, has virtually nothing to do with the model designation given to the device by Apple. That is *directly* contrary to the original poster's claim that the next iPhone *must* be called the iPhone 6, rather than the iPhone 5, *because* it happens to be the 6th generation iPhone. Based on the prior pattern of iPhone model designations, we're *much* more likely to see a 5, followed by a 5s than see it skip straight to 6.

(Of course, I think we're going to see them *drop* the model designation like they did with the iPad, but that's just my guess.)

No way, the next iPhone will be called "the new iPhone" with no 5, no 6, no number anymore.

You can mark my words, I was already saying that for the iPad and I guess I was right.

Apple is stepping away from numbers... Just like for the iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, iPod, etc... There's no MacBook Pro 7, 8, 9 or whatever number we should and could possibly be. It's just "MacBook Pro" and any new model is the "new MacBook Pro".

It's gonna be the same for iPad AND iPhone from now... So don't expect any 5, 6, etc...

Just: "the new iPhone"

 

[iClive]

No way, the next iPhone will be called "the new iPhone" with no 5, no 6, no number anymore.

You can mark my words, I was already saying that for the iPad and I guess I was right.

Apple is stepping away from numbers... Just like for the iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, iPod, etc... There's no MacBook Pro 7, 8, 9 or whatever number we should and could possibly be. It's just "MacBook Pro" and any new model is the "new MacBook Pro".

It's gonna be the same for iPad AND iPhone from now... So don't expect any 5, 6, etc...

Just: "the new iPhone"

I agree 100%, although I, like many others, am already calling the "new iPad" the "iPad 3" and I think the same will happen with "the new iPhone".

I have say, we've gone a bit off topic here...

 

[Bernard SG]

His theory was sound. Apple can/may call it whatever they like, or drop the designation all together but what you said, was not at all what he was saying.

Apple could begin naming their devices the Android phone way. For example, "iPhone Formidable Erection Prime"

 

[iClive]

I've been reading through all the various comments in this thread and it's got me thinking.

If any of this does come to fruition, I would do away with the iPhone and just get a "basic" phone for making calls and sending the odd text message.

My "working tools" would then be:

- an iPad Mini (whatever size that may be) for everything I currently use the iPhone for when on the move (apart from making calls of course) but doing it so much better

- my current 13" Mac Book Air for all the stuff that simply isn't possible on an iPad.

Just my 2p/2c.

 

[IscariotJ]

I've been reading through all the various comments in this thread and it's got me thinking.

If any of this does come to fruition, I would do away with the iPhone and just get a "basic" phone for making calls and sending the odd text message.

My "working tools" would then be:

- an iPad Mini (whatever size that may be) for everything I currently use the iPhone for when on the move (apart from making calls of course) but doing it so much better

- my current 13" Mac Book Air for all the stuff that simply isn't possible on an iPad.

Just my 2p/2c.

Right with ya. I've been hoping for a iPad Mini since the rumours started. What would complement that, is a stripped down iPhone that only had the Message app ( most of my text messages go via iMessage as opposed to SMS ), though I know that'll never happen.

 

[iClive]

Right with ya. I've been hoping for a iPad Mini since the rumours started. What would complement that, is a stripped down iPhone that only had the Message app ( most of my text messages go via iMessage as opposed to SMS ), though I know that'll never happen.

I'm with you there too, but as you say it will never happen

 

[Moonjumper]

Apple could begin naming their devices the Android phone way. For example, "iPhone Formidable Erection Prime"

And there would be a similarly named version to tempt those who cannot stretch to a Prime: "iPhone Formidable Erection Mini"

 

[pat park]

Wirelessly posted

Touch screen remote for the apple tv.

I really don't see another tablet. The remote or some kind of controller to interface with Apple Tv/media seems more likely.

 

[MacinDoc]

Not going to happen. Too big for a phone (not just unpocketable, but it'll give you cramps in the hand if you hold it very long, and you won't be able to reach your thumb all the way around it for gestures), too small for a pad.

 

[MythicFrost]

I'm hoping to see a 5.3 inch 1440x960 resolution IPS iPod touch, with a dual or quad-core Cortex A15, and PowerVR SGX 600 series graphics. Starting at $299 price point.

It'd maintain app compatibility (because the resolution is a multiple of 480x320) and it'd be an alternative to devices like the PS Vita, at least in a year or so when we've got some top notch games taking advantage of its hardware.

 

[APlotdevice]

I'm hoping to see a 5.3 inch 1440x960 resolution IPS iPod touch, with a dual or quad-core Cortex A15, and PowerVR SGX 600 series graphics. Starting at $299 price point.

It'd maintain app compatibility (because the resolution is a multiple of 480x320) and it'd be an alternative to devices like the PS Vita, at least in a year or so when we've got some top notch games taking advantage of its hardware.

That's fine if you only want to scale up pre-retina graphics. Otherwise the resolution must also be a multiple of 960×640.

 

[Medic278]

This sounds interesting, and I hope its the iPhone 5. I skipped the 4s instead holding out for the 5. Although regardless of what this mystery product is I already know that I must have, they can just take my money now please.

 

[MythicFrost]

That's fine if you only want to scale up pre-retina graphics. Otherwise the resolution must also be a multiple of 960×640.

It doesn't need to be a multiple of 960x640 to use retina assets, it would still look better scaling 960x640 up to 1440x960 than scaling up 480x320 assets to 1440x960.

 

[APlotdevice]

It doesn't need to be a multiple of 960x640 to use retina assets, it would still look better scaling 960x640 up to 1440x960 than scaling up 480x320 assets to 1440x960.

Apple has consistently relied on a simple pixel doubling technique for rescaling apps. Even the resolution independence feature in OSX works this way for the most part. So until and unless they implement a more advanced scaling method in iOS, the resolution must indeed be an exact multiple.

 

[MythicFrost]

Apple has consistently relied on a simple pixel doubling technique for rescaling apps. Even the resolution independence feature in OSX works this way for the most part. So until and unless they implement a more advanced scaling method in iOS, the resolution must indeed be an exact multiple.

It's actually not pixel doubling, that's what the iPad uses when running iPhone apps, and it makes them look pixelated. iOS is just scaling (not upscaling) the app to the retina display, drawing the UI and such at a higher resolution.

What you say is true of the UI, but not of images.

 

[APlotdevice]

It's actually not pixel doubling, that's what the iPad uses when running iPhone apps, and it makes them look pixelated. iOS is just scaling (not upscaling) the app to the retina display, drawing the UI and such at a higher resolution.

What you say is true of the UI, but not of images.

iPhone apps look pixelated on the iPad in 2x mode because they are being displayed at more than* double their intended size. Pre-retina apps are displayed at exactly the same physical size they were before on their respective device. So you barely notice the rescaling. They're just not as sharp as retina optimized apps.

*the slightly lower PPI of the iPad 1/2 vs iPhone 2G/3S/3GS and new iPad vs iPhone 4/4s means that even in 1x mode an iPhone app is rendered physically larger on the iPad.

 

[MythicFrost]

iPhone apps look pixelated on the iPad in 2x mode because they are being displayed at more than* double their intended size. Pre-retina apps are displayed at exactly the same physical size they were before on their respective device. So you barely notice the rescaling. They're just not as sharp as retina optimized apps.

*the slightly lower PPI of the iPad 1/2 vs iPhone 2G/3S/3GS and new iPad vs iPhone 4/4s means that even in 1x mode an iPhone app is rendered physically larger on the iPad.

Actually, no. iPhone apps look pixelated on the iPad because they're literally being upscaled. In other words, it's being rendered at 480x320 and then stretched to 960x640. That's not the same process which takes place when an iPhone or iPad app is being displayed on an iPhone 4+ or iPad 3.

There's no such thing as a pre-retina app. All iPhone apps are coded for 480x320 points, and the OS handles the scaling. All the developer has to do is update their app with higher resolution media, such as images, and iOS will (if you use the appropriate APIs) automatically choose the higher resolution images on retina devices.

In other words, it's only the graphics in the apps which aren't as sharp as retina sized graphics.

 

[Comeagain?]

Can you keep these pictures to non-productive sites like failblog and Facebook please? Personally, I find them seriously annoying, pointless and immature.

Productive site? What's that?

Personally, I find this quote seriously annoying that you had to say it, pointless, because it isn't going to stop, and immature that you couldn't just ignore it.

 

[APlotdevice]

Actually, no. iPhone apps look pixelated on the iPad because they're literally being upscaled. In other words, it's being rendered at 480x320 and then stretched to 960x640. That's not the same process which takes place when an iPhone or iPad app is being displayed on an iPhone 4+ or iPad 3.

There's no such thing as a pre-retina app. All iPhone apps are coded for 480x320 points, and the OS handles the scaling. All the developer has to do is update their app with higher resolution media, such as images, and iOS will (if you use the appropriate APIs) automatically choose the higher resolution images on retina devices.

In other words, it's only the graphics in the apps which aren't as sharp as retina sized graphics.

I forgot to consider the other elements that aren't rerendered on the iPad, though I was aware that retina devices do this. Still if you look back on my original post you will see that I was of course talking about graphics. Those graphics are part of why Apple has repeatedly chosen to exactly double the PPI. Even on the Mac. It's the easiest and most reliable thing to upscale an image to when you want to keep all of its detail intact.

 

[MythicFrost]

I forgot to consider the other elements that aren't rerendered on the iPad, though I was aware that retina devices do this. Still if you look back on my original post you will see that I was of course talking about graphics. Those graphics are part of why Apple has repeatedly chosen to exactly double the PPI. Even on the Mac. It's the easiest and most reliable thing to upscale an image to when you want to keep all of its detail intact.

The graphics scale up best when it's by a multiple of its original resolution, yeah, but it won't be better using 480x320 graphics than 960x640 graphics, you'll see a noticeable increase in quality with the latter, even though it's not being scaled to 1920x1280, but 1440x960. (EDIT: stretched, or upscaled, I should say.)