Apple Suppliers Starting to Ship 4" Screens for Next iPhone?

[rjohnstone]

Yup, I'm lying. I'm using that new lying math. In fact, I'm such a good liar I've even managed to change math when you use it. That's impressive lying skills.

And seriously, up votes? Are you people serious? It's math.

The iPhone is 30% smaller. That's a fact. Not an opinion. And the thickness is the closest measurement. The width and height both have bigger differences.

Your math is a bit flawed.
The Atrix has 24% more volume than an iPhone 4, not 30%.
Also, to simply say it's 24% larger is misleading.
You have to factor in how the extra volume is displaced.
It's 1.2 mm thicker and 2.5mm taller.
The bulk of that volume is spread over the length of the phone as it's 4.9mm wider.
For a point of reference, one US Dime is 1.35mm thick and one US Nickle is 1.95mm thick.
The average person couldn't spot that difference on their own.

And here is the difference in terms most people will easily be able to identify with.
It's a little over a Dime taller and less than a Dime thicker and a little over two Nickles wider.

So I will say it again.
Saying it is "a significantly larger phone" is a stretch.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Your math is a bit flawed.
The Atrix has 24% more volume than an iPhone 4, not 30%.

Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Atrix: 81,875 mm^3
iPhone: 62,782 mm^3

Difference: 19,093 mm^3

19093 / 62782 = 30.4%

Also, to simply say it's 24% larger is misleading.

You're right, because it's 30% larger. Volume is what matters. Volume is how much space it's taking up in your pocket.

You have to factor in how the extra volume is displaced.
It's 1.2 mm thicker and 2.5mm taller.
The bulk of that volume is spread over the length of the phone as it's 4.9mm wider.
For a point of reference, one US Dime is 1.35mm thick and one US Nickle is 1.95mm thick.
The average person couldn't spot that difference on their own.

For an even easier reference -- divide your iphone into 4 equal parts. Add one of those parts onto your phone again. Now imagine a bit more than that. That's how much more space this phone will take up in your pocket.

So I will say it again.
Saying it is "a significantly larger phone" is a stretch.

Not at all. 30% is 30% is 30%.

 

[thenerdal]

Volume is what matters. Volume is how much space it's taking up in your pocket.

No one compares phones using volume. No one. Except you. They compare the thickness and weight, not volume.

 

[bpaluzzi]

No one compares phones using volume. No one. Except you. They compare the thickness and weight, not volume.

Then they're idiots. Otherwise, I'll sell you a phone that is 2mm thinner than every phone on the market. But, oh, forgot to mention that it's the size of a sheet of A4 paper. Because only thickness matters, right?

 

[bruinsrme]

Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Atrix: 81,875 mm^3
iPhone: 62,782 mm^3

Difference: 19,093 mm^3

19093 / 62782 = 30.4%



You're right, because it's 30% larger. Volume is what matters. Volume is how much space it's taking up in your pocket.




For an even easier reference -- divide your iphone into 4 equal parts. Add one of those parts onto your phone again. Now imagine a bit more than that. That's how much more space this phone will take up in your pocket.





Not at all. 30% is 30% is 30%.

I came up with 24%

 

[bpaluzzi]

I came up with 24%

How? I showed my work above. Do the same.

 

[rjohnstone]

Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Atrix: 81,875 mm^3
iPhone: 62,782 mm^3

Difference: 19,093 mm^3

19093 / 62782 = 30.4%

There is the flaw in your math.

19093 / 81875 = 23.3%
The iPhone has 23.3% less volume than the Atrix.

But again... the displacement of that volume is key to the perception of size.

I can take a 100mm x 100mm x 1mm object and increase it's volume by 100% and you would be hard pressed to notice or feel the difference.

 

[thenerdal]

Then they're idiots. Otherwise, I'll sell you a phone that is 2mm thinner than every phone on the market. But, oh, forgot to mention that it's the size of a sheet of A4 paper. Because only thickness matters, right?

I'm pretty sure you're calling most, if not all, phone reviewers idiots then.

If not, prove me wrong with an article of someone comparing phones using volume.

 

[bruinsrme]

How? I showed my work above. Do the same.

You are saying the iPhone is 30% smaller.

Then you should be able to take the size of the Atrix and multiply it by .7 or 70%

However when you do that it comes out to 57,xxx

You have to divide the smaller into the larger to come up with the size difference

iPhone / atrix 62.xxx / 82.xxx =~76%

You divided the difference of the two phones into the iPhone.

 

[bpaluzzi]

There is the flaw in your math.

19093 / 81875 = 23.3%
The iPhone has 23.3% less volume than the Atrix.

That's not what I originally said (nor what you said above). The Atrix is 30% larger than the iPhone. I did (mistakenly) say the opposite in my second post, which I've now corrected and flagged as edited.

But again... the displacement of that volume is key to the perception of size.

I can take a 100mm x 100mm x 1mm object and increase it's volume by 100% and you would be hard pressed to notice or feel the difference.

It would be twice as large. If it was being used in a space that was a tight fit (which, given the tolerances of this extreme example, would need to be a VERY tight fit, admittedly), you'd have a problem with your new, twice-as-large version. Luckily, we're not dealing with extreme examples like this, nor are we holding one or two dimensions the same. It's an increase in all dimensions. Is it a huge difference? No. But the iPhone 3GS -> iPhone 4 is a noticeable difference in size, and so is this.

----------

You are saying the iPhone is 30% smaller.

Then you should be able to take the size of the Atrix and multiply it by .7 or 70%

However when you do that it comes out to 57,xxx

You have to divide the smaller into the larger to come up with the size difference

iPhone / atrix 62.xxx / 82.xxx =~76%

You divided the difference of the two phones into the iPhone.

I originally said that the Atrix was 30% larger. I made a mistake in my second post (which I've corrected, but not before it was quoted). The Atrix is 30% larger. The iPhone is 23% smaller.

 

[thenerdal]

The Atrix is 30% larger. The iPhone is 23% smaller.

Is such a thing even possible?

 

[bpaluzzi]

Is such a thing even possible?

Only if you understand math, apparently.

Widget A costs $100. Widget B costs $50.

Widget A is 100% more expensive than Widget B.
Yet widget B is only 50% cheaper than Widget A.

Comparisons are asymmetrical.

This isn't tough stuff, guys.

 

[rjohnstone]

Is such a thing even possible?

Nope... not in the physical world anyway.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Nope... not in the physical world anyway.

Is such a thing even possible?

You're either trolls or quite thick.

Either way, I'm done with you. I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[thenerdal]

Only if you understand math, apparently.

Widget A costs $100. Widget B costs $50.

Widget A is 100% more expensive than Widget B.
Yet widget B is only 50% cheaper than Widget A.

Comparisons are asymmetrical.

This isn't tough stuff, guys.

I'm not that good at math, but I know that's really not true. Widget B is 100% cheaper than widget A, because if you add another 100% to Widget B. then it will equal Widget A. If you add half of Widget B to Widget B, that would get you $75.

But, since you used money as an example, it confuses people.

At least, that's what I think, I'm not that good at math like I used to be. Algebra 2 and Precal messed me up.

 

[bpaluzzi]

I'm not that good at math

Boy howdy.

, but I know that's really not true. Widget B is 100% cheaper than widget A, because if you add another 100% to Widget B. then it will equal Widget A. If you add half of Widget B to Widget B, that would get you $75.

But, since you used money as an example, it confuses people.

I weep for our future.

 

[rjohnstone]

It would be twice as large. If it was being used in a space that was a tight fit (which, given the tolerances of this extreme example, would need to be a VERY tight fit, admittedly), you'd have a problem with your new, twice-as-large version. Luckily, we're not dealing with extreme examples like this, nor are we holding one or two dimensions the same. It's an increase in all dimensions. Is it a huge difference? No. But the iPhone 3GS -> iPhone 4 is a noticeable difference in size, and so is this.

You only need to increase one dimension to have a 100% increase in volume.
To obtain a 100% increase in the volume of 100 x 100 x 1 object, you simply double one of the dimensions.
100 x 100 x 1 = 10000
100 x 100 x 2 = 20000
You have a 100% increase in volume with the least visual impact.
Remember, consumers don't break out the tape measure when buying a phone, the hold it and see how they look relative to another object.
Perception is reality.

 

[thenerdal]

Boy howdy.





I weep for our future.

Even though I'm not good at math, I was very good before Algebra 2. I know my percentages well.

----------

Turns out I might be wrong in the math part, either way, no one compares phones using volume.

 

[something3153]

Phones with 4" screens are huge! Difficult to fit in your pocket! They do look cool but aren't practical unless you don't carry them in your pocket.

Weird. What are the things on my pants that my 4" Samsung Focus fits into easily? I could have sworn they were pockets. They sure as hell LOOK like pockets.

 

[saturn88]

I originally said that the Atrix was 30% larger. I made a mistake in my second post (which I've corrected, but not before it was quoted). The Atrix is 30% larger. The iPhone is 23% smaller.

Your mhe math is correct: The Atrix is 30% larger or the iPhone is 23% smaller. In terms of volume.

But in terms of feel, take a look at the picture again:

It does not look like it's 30% bigger. Does it? So I think this is a deceiving phenomenon of volume based on dimensions multiplied by 3.

By the way, my Galaxy S II has 4.5" screen and dimensions 130 x 69 x 9.6 mm, which is volume of 86,000 - just a bit larger then Atrix. The Galaxy fits easily even into the inner nested (smaller) pocket of my trousers.

 

[leroypants]

How am I not surprised apple steals an idea from a superior product.

 

[bpaluzzi]

It does not look like it's 30% bigger. Does it? So I think this is a deceiving phenomenon of volume based on dimensions multiplied by 3.

How it looks is not important. It _IS_ 30% larger. A dark shirt can make a heavy person look slimmer, but they're still a heavy person. And the Atrix still takes 30% more space in your pocket, even though it spreads that size out in a way that is hardly noticeable to the naked eye.

 

[marcusj0015]

Disagree. 1) iPad and iPhone difference doesn't really count much because they're two different devices. The OS isn't fragmented in-device. I.E. if a dev wants to make an app for the iPhone/iPod touch device - its for that device. Not the iPad. & Vice-versa. 2) So that brings us to 1 fragmentation: retina and non-retina. Which isn't really a fragmentation in that a non-retina app will display just fine on a 4 & 4S, just as a retina app will display fine on a 1st gen - 3Gs. 3) You can make an app multitask, and still run it on a non-multitasking device.

So that brings us to this fact: you can currently make one version of an app for an Apple iOS device, and have it run on every version of that device (so long as the device has the processing power to do so). With a screen size increase, that will no longer be the case.

Thus, the first REAL fragmentation. As of now, there is no real fragmentation of iOS. So no, it's not too late to worry about iOS purity. It's a very good time to worry about iOS purity.

Compared to the current non-fragmented iOS and the simplicity of making an iPhone app that utilizes all the features of the newest phone (multitasking support. retina display) and having that one app work with every iPhone and iPod touch ever released, the process becomes, as I stated, fragmented with a screen size increase. A dev who makes an app utilizing all the features of the 4" phone will not have that app work on every iPhone/iPod touch device ever released. In fact, that app works on ONE device. The least bang-for-app making-buck ever in iOS per one app creation. Subsequently, all apps that now exist will have to be re-done to properly fit the 4" phone, and any new app who's dev wants to support more than just one iPhone will have to make two versions of the same app - again, for the first time in iOS history.

Fragmentaion is overused and people just panic about the though, as soon as iOS 7 comes out, we will hypothetically be left with only Retina and iPad res. iOS itself is slowly losing the fat it's being pumped with, so it could certainly support another resolution or two, as the prevoious res would be faded out with EOL of the OG devices anyway. hell if the iPhone 3GS wasn't made free, it wouldve been EOL'd 2013 with the release of iOS 7, assuming they support it with new iOS versions as they have in the past. but now god only knows.

*My math may be off, but the concept is correct.*

 

[Drunken Master]

Well put.

Sadly Apples burning desire to brainwash, influence, or eliminate choices for those of us who like their products is very frustrating.

Much like the argument that a 7" iPad, in addition to the current model would be all wrong, Apple can be a very conflicted company.

On one hand they bring out the new MacBook Air in TWO sizes.

For years they've offered MacBook Pros in THREE sizes, and yet we can't have just TWO sizes of iPads and iPhones ?

Then to top if off when this hypocrisy is identified and Apple is called on it by some of us, the fanbois go ballistic.

Sadly it's Apples dominance over their worshipers that takes them down as well.

Think back to the original iMac G3: all the different versions had one screen size (15").

All the versions of the iMac G4 only had one screen size, 17 inches. The standard MacBook has only ever had a 13.3 inch display (not talking MBP here). The Powerbook G4 only ever had one screen size (though two different resolutions). The original Macintosh had one screen size.

It seems to me like Steve Jobs was not terribly interested in offering multiple screen sizes, and the fact that Apple did was probably bending to the complaints of consumers. Jobs and Ive sat down and found the best size for the iPad, for example, and stuck with that.

 

[thenerdal]

How it looks is not important. It _IS_ 30% larger. A dark shirt can make a heavy person look slimmer, but they're still a heavy person. And the Atrix still takes 30% more space in your pocket, even though it spreads that size out in a way that is hardly noticeable to the naked eye.

Problem is that we don't know the exact volume of the phones, because they are not a specific shape...