The 5 is a great phone but I would buy the bigger one if it had a better battery life. Else I'm not sure I could justify the inconveniences of the larger screen.
why is apple bending to the big screen trend? ugh
Options and choices are confusing.
One size make it simple.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Are you denying that the Galaxy S brand is established since the original model ?
I don't get it. You say "the S3 offers people uniqueness, but not the iPhone 5!" when both were introduced...
That doesn't make sense. What uniqueness did the S3 offer than the iPhone 5 didn't ?
Explain it, seems contradictory "opinions". I'm talking facts :
- Galaxy S was an established brand
- iPhone was an established brand
- Galaxy S3 was a new model
- iPhone 5 was a new model
Why do you think these 2 things are any different when facts say they are the same ?
I hate math. I prefer iPhone History or iPhone Recess. Maybe this is the about to be rumored iPad Mini Mini, the newer, smaller iPad Mini for those that thinks the iPad Mini is too large and heavy.
First of all, it depends on why the iPhone 5 sold more than the Note 2. Was it because of the screen size, or the strength of the brand name?
Secondly, it's all about sales and profits. If Apple sells 15 million 4" iPhone 5s, does that mean they should ignore the potential 5 million extra they could pick up with a larger screen size? Sure, it's not as large as their main demographic, but there's still profits to be made there. Hell, they'd likely sell more large screen iPhones then they would retina Macbook Pros. And it wouldn't them nearly as much in R&D, so there'd be a better return on investments.
In the end, which would be preferable to you? Grabbing 15 million people, and letting the competition have the extra 5 million because they're "niche", or having 20 million people pay you for two products?
I'd expect that such a high resolution in such a small form factor would bring some kinds of problems with it (e.g. brightness, battery life, performance etc.). And the benefit over "traditional" (hm - funny term for such a young technology) Retina ppi numbers is small at best.If Apple chose to make a larger iPhone, they wouldn't need to hurt devs all the much. Simply doubling the iPhone 5's resolution gives you 2272x1280 - which would be a very high ppi phone (for a 4.8" - we'd be looking at about 535ish ppi - which could be labeled SuperRetina)
From all the iPhones i owned or know in my circle of friends and family - i can't remember one single home button breaking. Don't questioning it happens, but doubt it's a real problem...If Apple can make a 4.5 inch screen with a home button similar to the Lumia 920 instead of the mechanical one that breaks,
Do you also want Apple to grab the millions of people who buy cheap sub $100 Android phones that can't even run Angry birds? Because I'm sure those ANdroid manufacturers aint making any money on them.
Will be bought up in droves by Tiger Moms.
I'd expect that such a high resolution in such a small form factor would bring some kinds of problems with it (e.g. brightness, battery life, performance etc.). And the benefit over "traditional" (hm - funny term for such a young technology) Retina ppi numbers is small at best.
Thus i'd rather expect them to go for an already established resolution like the iPad 1/2/min's 1024x768, which may even be produced on the 9.7" Retina production lines...
Think different replaced by think for us.
Truly frightening, but not unexpected.
Apple needs to evaluate its competitors and the reason for their successes or failures. If there is a significant market for larger smartphones it would be pretty stupid for Apple to ignore it and gift these consumers to its competitors without even a fight.
Imagine Apple using the approach you suggest with the iPad: "Want a smaller, cheaper tablet? Buy a Kindle Fire, please.". It turns out it was a pretty good idea to provide a different product instead.
Nice misinterpretation.
I wish there were choices: 3.5" iPhone mini, 4" iPhone 5s and 5" iPhone Max.
People want more choices. U might not want a big screen, but some of us do.
So you're saying they abandon the 16:9 aspect ratio right after they introduced it and even though most every other high end smartphone currently sports a 16:9 screen?
I think 16:9 is what stays - and given IGZO's properties of allowing super dense pixels, very low power output and high efficiency, I'd argue the "small benefit" of the higher ppi over traditional retina would win out over more fragmentation.
But you forget that doubling the resolution in both X and Y means the GPU has to push four times as many pixels. There goes the power savings you got from switching to IGZO...