Apple May Adopt 1704 x 960 Resolution Display for Upcoming iPhone 6

Where I have criticized anything? I have said that I can see the difference between some devices.

And please, you can keep the sarcasm for yourself, I don't think that my ****ing answer doesn't attack anyone or anything. Too much defensive today?

Huh? When did I say YOU criticize anyone or anything? Simply that there are things the iPhone and iOS need to improve on (hence criticism of hardware or software not up to snuff), just that displays aren't one of them.

Relax....no ulterior motive here. Was I being sarcastic in my post? You said "Clearly", I disagreed.

Again, I don't think I'm the one being defensive. Merely countering points is all.
 
Right, but the displays are also MUCH smaller.

So saying I need the SAME # of pixels in both devices isn't necessarily true - simply the PPI of that smaller device should be higher because of the closer distance.

The iPhone already has a higher PPI than any HD TV out there....it is plenty crisp enough. No need adding resolution and battery/processor strain for little-to-no added benefit.

As for the "take advantage of the larger display" argument, the thing that isn't understood is Apple's philosophy when it comes to what the OS does vs what the Apps do. iOS isn't meant to do the heavy lifting. It provides a framework that is supposed to enhance but not take over the experience of the device. The APPS are where the work is done. Which is why the home screen is and likely never will be more than an app drawer.

iOS users, like myself, always find it odd that Android users tout wanting to stare at their home screens all the time....if I need immediate info, its available on my lock screen. If I've unlocked my phone, it means I intend to use it and will choose the app that best suits my needs. The home screen is irrelevant.
You don't seem to understand the retina concept. It's defined by when individual pixels can't be seen by your eyes. To calculate it, you need to measure the relation between distance from your eyes and pixel size. Wikipedia defines it by "displays that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance". So a 32" TV set with 1080p resolution is retina at few feet from you. If you get close, like 12" from it, you'll see the pixels. It's not going to have a good resolution at that point - size matters. So, if you keep the current resolution of 4" iPhone 5S of 1136 x 640 pixels on a 5.5" iPhone 6, looking at the same distance, I believe it will not be retina and will not look as good.
 
You don't seem to understand the retina concept. It's defined by when individual pixels can't be seen by your eyes. To calculate it, you need to measure the relation between distance from your eyes and pixel size. Wikipedia defines it by "displays that have a pixel density high enough that the human eye is unable to discern individual pixels at a typical viewing distance". So a 32" TV set with 1080p resolution is retina at few feet from you. If you get close, like 12" from it, you'll see the pixels. It's not going to have a good resolution at that point - size matters. So, if you keep the current resolution of 4" iPhone 5S of 1136 x 640 pixels on a 5.5" iPhone 6, looking at the same distance, I believe it will not be retina and will not look as good.

No, I understand the concept just fine. I never advocated keeping the same resolution. Obviously that would pull a larger display below the retina threshold.

You're actually making the point I always try to make. Resolution independently isn't everything. And "retina" is far more valuable than "HD" as the HD standards were standardized on much larger devices viewed at farther distances. Taking the same "standard" and then applying it to a smaller device viewed much closer to one's face makes zero sense.
 
But then what's the use of a move to 3x HiDPI? Only allow to enlarge the screen without losing in pixel density? Most of the time you'd only have everything larger but no more content (Safari as a counter-example).
Using the same resolution wouldn't offer the possibility to exploit the larger screen estate, unless you expect iOS to allow each apps to have two layouts and either "scale" or "adapt", with devs headscratching with the two approachs (two assets of bitmaps for the two cases, etc). So very unlikely.

Correct, that's the main downside of this hypothetical transition.

No solution is totally perfect. It's just, IMO, the best balance between simplicity for developers and a good end result for consumers.

While UI elements would be a tad bigger due to the lack of screen estate increase, they'd still not be that big. Icons and most hit targets will still be bigger on the iPad (even the mini). The iPad has always had bigger elements by design due to the fact its bigger screen mean people typically hold it further away. The same logic could justify bigger elements on a phablet compared to a smaller smartphone.
 
I'm happy they increase the PPI, because the PPI on the iPhone 5/5s/5c is clearly too low. This became noticable with iOS 7, because thin lines seem often jaggy (or the signal circles in the top bar).


You think so? iPhone had the same PPI (326) since iPhone 4.
I guess that with thinner lines of iOS7 pixels are easier to spot.

Not related to your reply:

to all 1080p agitators in the thread:
It's not like Samsung ever implemented true 1080p...
Galaxy S5 again uses the craptacular pentile arrangement. So does Galaxy S Note.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...crets-of-the-brightest-AMOLED-display_id54772

I rather have less "true" RGB pixels than more crappy pentile half-pixels.

So if samsung makes 4K it will probably be color-unbalanced pentile garbage we can see on their phones now.

Edit to clarify: samsungs 426 PPI is not *true* and borderlines false advertising. Sub pixels are not the same as on Apple devices which all use true RGB sub pixels.

So when apple makes 326PPI it means 326*3 sub pixels per inch, and on samsung its 426*2.5. Thats the reason why Samsung displays don't look any clearer than Apple displays. (the sub pixel count is almost the same)
 
Last edited:
No, I understand the concept just fine. I never advocated keeping the same resolution. Obviously that would pull a larger display below the retina threshold.

You're actually making the point I always try to make. Resolution independently isn't everything. And "retina" is far more valuable than "HD" as the HD standards were standardized on much larger devices viewed at farther distances. Taking the same "standard" and then applying it to a smaller device viewed much closer to one's face makes zero sense.
Ah! Nice we are in the same page. ;)
 
Correct, that's the main downside of this hypothetical transition.

No solution is totally perfect. It's just, IMO, the best balance between simplicity for developers and a good end result for consumers.

While UI elements would be a tad bigger due to the lack of screen estate increase, they'd still not be that big. Icons and most hit targets will still be bigger on the iPad (even the mini). The iPad has always had bigger elements by design due to the fact its bigger screen mean people typically hold it further away. The same logic could justify bigger elements on a phablet compared to a smaller smartphone.

The mini has the same pixel density as the retina iPhone, so the minimal touch target physical size are the same. But that's not really the debate here [as long as the touch target aren't smaller, ofc!]. With a 1704x960 4.7" screen, you come close to the iPad 9.7" physical size (132*3=396~416). Weird! Is that useful?

The only benefit of this solution is to not lower pixel density while going larger [and maintain app compatibility, but that's the initial idea ofc].

How do you accommodate the larger screen estate?
 
For 6" screen device

Maybe this resolution is for something else like 6" category (326 dpi at 6" screen which is Apple standard retina display): iPad Nano, Apple GamePad...?

----------

iPhone is becoming irrelevant and pathetic.
You meant it become irrelevant if 36% of Japanese and >40% of Americans or 11% of mobile phone owners in the world dump their iPhone?

----------

Would you really be able to tell a difference if the screen was 1080p?

Yes, 1080p screen will drain battery 2x faster than the current Retina display.

----------

I would LOVE this. I have an eye condition and am very near sighted, thus I tend to hold my iPhone closer than Apple's Retina display allows. I can clearly see some pixelation when I wear my glasses. Now a larger screen would help this since I could hold it an inch or two farther away, but I welcome any improvement here.

Typing that made me realize how "first world problem-ish" this is. :D

You are one out of millions having this issue. Apple ain't give sh.!t about you. So get over it for an android device or stay with 326 dpi.
 
We don't not larger phone width wise ...It's all about height...

What happens when Apple goes beyond 16:9 (16:10 for instance) with iPhone ?

They'll have to at some point since the height will grow.
 
I really don't see how Apple could possibly release an iPhone with a resolution below what is considered "retina" at this point.

I don't see how Apple could release anything with a resolution below what is considered Retina at this point!

Why have a non-retina iPad? They've also had two years to transition all MacBook Airs and Pros and have failed utterly.

PPC -> x86 transition took shorter than this and it was bigger.
 
I wouldn't mind a @3x system for compatibility with iOS7 apps.

I'd like them to keep the @2x system for iOS8 apps though and give more real estate.
 
The mini has the same pixel density as the retina iPhone, so the minimal touch target physical size are the same.

The minimal target yes, but app icons and a bunch of UI elements are still bigger (in pixels) on an iPad which means even the iPad mini (with the same PPI as an iPhone) will still display it bigger physically.

With a 1704x960 4.7" screen, you come close to the iPad 9.7" physical size (132*3=396~416). Weird! Is that useful?

I'm not following you here, what are those numbers exactly?

The only benefit of this solution is to not lower pixel density while going larger [and maintain app compatibility, but that's the initial idea ofc].

Well not only not lowering it, but also increasing it. The iPhone is falling behind Android flagships in pixel density. I don't think Apple should aim for a crazy 500PPI+ screen just to fight the Android flagships. You get diminishing returns with pixel density and at that point, the cons outweight the pros and it's more of a marketing bullet point than anything. However going in the ~400PPI range sounds reasonable.

How do you accommodate the larger screen estate?

I don't think they will force developers to accommodate it. "Unoptimized" apps will basically be the stretched-out 4" version, and IMO it's not a very big deal. There will probably be new tools for developers to make a big-iPhone-specific layout. Or Apple could just make you use separate Storyboards/XIBs as with iPhone vs iPad development.
 
After using a Nexus 5 for three months and then switching back to an iPhone 5, I can say without a doubt that the extra resolution makes a difference.

Even "retina" doesn't look as sharp as it used to. Granted, the difference isn't like going from iPhone 3G to 4; but it is in fact noticeable. Plus at this point, Apple is already lagging behind not only what is possible, but what has now become industry standard in terms of resolution. They really should be pushing for 1080p by now.
After watching "Game of Throne" on a 80" Sharp TV for a few months and then switching back to my 50" TV, I can say without a doubt that extra screen estate makes a difference, not resolution because both of them are 1080p and of course 50" have higher dpi, but the experience is much better with bigger screen.
So your analogy is correct on size, not resolution because 1080p won't be distinguishable from retina display at 10"-15" away just like 1080p on 80" (28dpi) and 50" (45dpi) TVs from 15" away.
 
If Apple did go with 1080p, I'm guessing half this forum would be saying how they somehow did it better than any Android phone. :cool:
 
How can you compare any TV to a Retina display phone ?

You do realize that maybe a Retina phone, or laptop display is better than a TV of any size because the dots are smaller

Bigger display, bigger dots, thus worse picture.
 
I don't see how Apple could release anything with a resolution below what is considered Retina at this point!

Why have a non-retina iPad? They've also had two years to transition all MacBook Airs and Pros and have failed utterly.

PPC -> x86 transition took shorter than this and it was bigger.

Because cheap sells.

The 13" cMBP has remained the most popular Mac as of WWDC 2013 despite using old hardware.

The non-Retina iPad mini was also outselling the rMini almost 2:1 as of December 2013.

Apple is responding to the market's demand. They won't discontinue high-margin products that sell.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, when I said TV, I meant the traditional television set. Jsameds mentioned that he/she remembered 'when people said that 1080p was pointless on anything 32"'. Well, that measurement is applied to television sets that you watch few feet away, not phones that you view at about 12 inches from your eyes...

You're ok about 32" TV a few feet away with 1080p resolution? Yeah, it's 70 dpi. Now, we talked about 326 dpi and you're not okay with it? Bigger epic fail.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top