4.7" iOS Scaling Concept

J.gerbes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 11, 2012
269
11
Hey Guys,

I have been busy mocking up my idea of the iPhone 6.

(View my other thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1709554)

It has the exact same physical dimensions of the 5/5S, yet accommodates a 4.7" display at 1280 x 720 (vs the 1136 x 640 of the 5 etc.)

The display is 112% the size of the current 4".

To scale iOS up to the larger size, the icons would need to be spaced out, like on iPad. I attempted fitting extra rows in, and it became very obvious why Apple has vouched for a 4 x 5 icon grid. It just looks cramped.

I have included a picture of iOS stretched out to fill the display vs spaced out to keep in scale.

Let me know what you think!

iOS-Stretched-vs-Scaled.png
 

Shuri

macrumors 6502
Nov 23, 2011
330
0
Hey Guys,

I have been busy mocking up my idea of the iPhone 6.

(View my other thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1709554)

It has the exact same physical dimensions of the 5/5S, yet accommodates a 4.7" display at 1280 x 720 (vs the 1136 x 640 of the 5 etc.)

The display is 112% the size of the current 4".

To scale iOS up to the larger size, the icons would need to be spaced out, like on iPad. I attempted fitting extra rows in, and it became very obvious why Apple has vouched for a 4 x 5 icon grid. It just looks cramped.

I have included a picture of iOS stretched out to fill the display vs spaced out to keep in scale.

Let me know what you think!

View attachment 462089
4" diagonal times 1.12 (112%) results in a 4.48" Display, doesn't it?
 

J.gerbes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 11, 2012
269
11
4" diagonal times 1.12 (112%) results in a 4.48" Display, doesn't it?
I worked it out by resolution. So 1280/1136 = 1.12 (112%). Also 720/640 = 1.12 (112%).

I may be wrong in saying that it is 112% larger diagonally, I'm no mathematician :D
 

Shuri

macrumors 6502
Nov 23, 2011
330
0
I worked it out by resolution. So 1280/1136 = 1.12 (112%). Also 720/640 = 1.12 (112%).

I may be wrong in saying that it is 112% larger diagonally, I'm no mathematician :D
No worries, just checked it and with this resolution you can only go 4.5" without lowering density (which won't happen for sure). ;)

I think the concept is realistic, but I'd like to see apple do more with the new space, if they'd really increase the display size. I mean: Wow more space between the icons; that's not what the world was waiting for. Yet, as I said, i guess that's what would happen.
If you want to extend your concept, maybe you have some ideas how the apps or the keyboard could win capabilities? Or do you think they gonna just make everything bigger?
 

J.gerbes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 11, 2012
269
11
No worries, just checked it and with this resolution you can only go 4.5" without lowering density (which won't happen for sure). ;)

I think the concept is realistic, but I'd like to see apple do more with the new space, if they'd really increase the display size. I mean: Wow more space between the icons; that's not what the world was waiting for. Yet, as I said, i guess that's what would happen.
If you want to extend your concept, maybe you have some ideas how the apps or the keyboard could win capabilities? Or do you think they gonna just make everything bigger?
Great idea!

I'll get onto it tomorrow. Bed time for me :) 3:30AM here in NZ
 

Altis

macrumors 68030
Sep 10, 2013
2,986
4,425
...I think the concept is realistic, but I'd like to see apple do more with the new space, if they'd really increase the display size. I mean: Wow more space between the icons; that's not what the world was waiting for. Yet, as I said, i guess that's what would happen.
If you want to extend your concept, maybe you have some ideas how the apps or the keyboard could win capabilities? Or do you think they gonna just make everything bigger?
Have you seen the iPad? ;)
 

Shuri

macrumors 6502
Nov 23, 2011
330
0
Have you seen the iPad? ;)
Yeah, that's why I said, that this is probably going to happen, but I just wanted to say, that I hope apple has something in its minds, that would totally be killer. ;)
 

Infinus.gold

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2014
144
0
Hey Guys,

I have been busy mocking up my idea of the iPhone 6.

(View my other thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1709554)

It has the exact same physical dimensions of the 5/5S, yet accommodates a 4.7" display at 1280 x 720 (vs the 1136 x 640 of the 5 etc.)

The display is 112% the size of the current 4".

To scale iOS up to the larger size, the icons would need to be spaced out, like on iPad. I attempted fitting extra rows in, and it became very obvious why Apple has vouched for a 4 x 5 icon grid. It just looks cramped.

I have included a picture of iOS stretched out to fill the display vs spaced out to keep in scale.

Let me know what you think!

View attachment 462089
This is totally ergonomically Fail
1. 1/4 of screen will be always covered by fingers.
2. Screen (display) will absorb shocks even if device fell on sideways, result in decrease in overall life.
3. Due to large screen crammed in small chassis, some of equipment has to be overlapped resulting in increase in device width
4. Large screen size will result in faster drain of battery, as chassis is smaller and non-proportionate
5. Most of screen will be wet after long talking without headset (bad design).
6. Diagonal ends (screen) can't be reached with one hand.
7. Two hand operation is mandated.
Etc…
 

J.gerbes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 11, 2012
269
11
This is totally ergonomically Fail
1. 1/4 of screen will be always covered by fingers.
2. Screen (display) will absorb shocks even if device fell on sideways, result in decrease in overall life.
3. Due to large screen crammed in small chassis, some of equipment has to be overlapped resulting in increase in device width
4. Large screen size will result in faster drain of battery, as chassis is smaller and non-proportionate
5. Most of screen will be wet after long talking without headset (bad design).
6. Diagonal ends (screen) can't be reached with one hand.
7. Two hand operation is mandated.
Etc…
Totally ergonomically fail? That doesn't even make sense.

Look up the definition of ergonomics. It has nothing to do with battery drain and the like, by the way.

1. One quarter? By what means do you suggest that?
2. The overall life of the phone is completely unaffected by this design change. Since when has life span been relational to unforeseen damage? Phones are designed for function, not careless users. Besides, the entire front all all iPhones has been glass. The glass is what shatters .This would be no exception. If nothing else, the glass would be reinforced by the larger screen to blank space ratio.
3. Which equiptment needs to be overlapped? Volume buttons? Perhaps. But have you ever looked at a teardown of an iPhone? Besides, new screen technology is leading to thinner panels anyway.
4. True. But remember in 2012, when Apple released the iPhone 5? Larger screen, thinner device, smaller battery capacity. Its the optimisation of the A6 chip that allowed for equal battery life.
5. How is this different to iPhone 1, 3G, 3Gs, 4, 4s, 5, 5s or 5c?
6. The device is the same external dimensions. In fact, having the screen all the way to the edge makes for easier gestures from the left/right.
7. Oh really?

I don't believe this is the best possible design for the new iPhone. I simply wanted to show how increasing the screen to 4.7" can be achieved without increasing the external dimensions. Feel free to make up your own concept, I'd love to see it.
 

stephen1108

macrumors 65816
Sep 30, 2007
1,063
158
Totally ergonomically fail? That doesn't even make sense.

Look up the definition of ergonomics. It has nothing to do with battery drain and the like, by the way.

1. One quarter? By what means do you suggest that?
2. The overall life of the phone is completely unaffected by this design change. Since when has life span been relational to unforeseen damage? Phones are designed for function, not careless users. Besides, the entire front all all iPhones has been glass. The glass is what shatters .This would be no exception. If nothing else, the glass would be reinforced by the larger screen to blank space ratio.
3. Which equiptment needs to be overlapped? Volume buttons? Perhaps. But have you ever looked at a teardown of an iPhone? Besides, new screen technology is leading to thinner panels anyway.
4. True. But remember in 2012, when Apple released the iPhone 5? Larger screen, thinner device, smaller battery capacity. Its the optimisation of the A6 chip that allowed for equal battery life.
5. How is this different to iPhone 1, 3G, 3Gs, 4, 4s, 5, 5s or 5c?
6. The device is the same external dimensions. In fact, having the screen all the way to the edge makes for easier gestures from the left/right.
7. Oh really?

I don't believe this is the best possible design for the new iPhone. I simply wanted to show how increasing the screen to 4.7" can be achieved without increasing the external dimensions. Feel free to make up your own concept, I'd love to see it.


Go IN!
 

MikeyMike01

macrumors 6502
Apr 4, 2010
389
100
Not a fan of the asymmetrical top and bottom bezel. I definitely prefer the spaced out icons though.

As far as concepts go, this is definitely one of the more realistic and better ones.
 

J.gerbes

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 11, 2012
269
11
Not a fan of the asymmetrical top and bottom bezel. I definitely prefer the spaced out icons though.

As far as concepts go, this is definitely one of the more realistic and better ones.
Thanks for the comment. I really like the spaced out icons too, it elevates the wallpaper nicely and gives a more 'pro' look to the product - in my opinion.

I didn't like the idea of the asymmetrical top and bottom at first either.

After playing around with the design it became obvious that it would be the only minimalistic way to fit in the larger screen. That or changing the Touch ID sensors shape.

About the debate of whether or not it would be Apple-like to do it, I'll leave you with this image :)