DigiTimes Claims Display Improvements in Next-Generation iPhone

[apttap]

Have you, during your use of an iPad encountered a situation where you wish the iPad had more RAM? In fact, have you even used an iPad? What benefit do you think throwing RAM at the iPad will have? There's more to life than specs

While it is true that there's more to life than specs, I do own an iPad and can say more RAM is desperately required when switching back and forth between "tabs" in safari you'll notice that it's constancy dumping pages from cache. It's more than mildly annoying when filling out forms and cross referencing information.

I also have apps on my 3GS (256mb of RAM) that give me a low memory warning everytime I start them up, even on a fresh reboot.

Current apps may run, but you're limiting the potential of future apps, especially when adding features like a high res screen and front facing camera.

More RAM or I'll pass.

 

[JulianL]

A fairly big part of me hopes that the next iPhone doesn't have 512MB of memory and sticks with 256MB. My reason is because I have an iPad on pre-order which I plan to use for "sofa surfing" in front of the TV so multi-tab Safari browsing will be the main thing I do on it and these comments about lack of memory causing frequent tab-reloads bothers me a lot. If the next generation iPhone is similarly memory limited then it makes it more likely that Apple will address the problem in a future software release. It seems to me that the fix would be reasonably simple and it doesn't necessarily require iPhone OS to implement virtual memory.

Page (tab) buffer management code could be added to Safari so that Safari only needed to keep the contents for the active tab in a RAM buffer and implement a fairly basic swap system (like the very first mainframe virtual memory systems in the days before demand paging systems) where the data for the other tabs is swapped on and off flash storage which would be quicker than reloading from the internet. If RAM permitted then there could be more than one RAM buffer of course with some sort of LRU algorithm used to manage the contents. Also, since Safari is an in-house Apple app it is free to use private APIs so if the Safari developers wanted to make the swapping as fast as possible then they could confer with the core OS developers and get some private APIs that were right down to the metal in terms of shuffling sequential data on and off a contiguous region of Flash that was carved out from the rest of the iPhone filing structures.

It's all eminently fixable but it won't happen by the time my iPad arrives next Friday so I'm a bit nervous about that.

- Julian

 

[iQuit]

Apple needs to reiterate the MHz Myth.

 

[BigJimmyC]

i doubt they'll put 512mb of RAM in when the ipad only has 256. That would piss off early ipad adopters, and rightly so.

 

[Anuba]

You claim you own a MacBook but yet last year wrote this:

Your feeble attempts to discredit me in order to dig yourself out of a grave are now getting so desperate you've resorted to lying. As you can see for yourself, I didn't write that "last year", I wrote it in January of 2007 when even the 17" model only had 1680x1050. When Apple changed their stance on resolution, I changed my stance on their laptops, and I'm using an MBP 17" since last summer, and it's great. Much unlike my POS iMac.

This is quite typical of you; you build strawmen, either out of spite or because you have serious issues with reading comprehension and logic. Like, "Aha! First you said that YOU own the iMac, and now you're claiming your GIRLFRIEND is using it!". Sure, because as everyone familiar with the concept of a household knows, owning and using are mutually exclusive. Impressive, Sherlock Slingblade.

Now, if you have any further "issues" with me, use PM and stop wasting thread space on your petty grudges with other users, this isn't your personal sandbox.

 

[Jaro65]

i doubt they'll put 512mb of RAM in when the ipad only has 256. That would piss off early ipad adopters, and rightly so.

I can easily see how they would do just that. And then, the 2nd gen iPad will not only have a front-facing camera, but also double the amount of RAM. They may even market it as being optimized for multitasking.

 

[derek1984]

i doubt they'll put 512mb of RAM in when the ipad only has 256. That would piss off early ipad adopters, and rightly so.

Well 512mb is coming at somepoint. It's inevitable. The iPhone gets updated once a year. The iPad will probably be updated more often than that.

 

[derek1984]

I can easily see how they would do just that. And then, the 2nd gen iPad will not only have a front-facing camera, but also double the amount of RAM. They may even market it as being optimized for multitasking.

Very good point and why it's never wise to hurry up and buy a brand new product before it gets revised.

 

[Geckotek]

I'm sorry, but how could they possibly release a new phone a year later that will be expected to run bigger, badder versions of the OS and NOT upgrade the RAM? Makes me wonder what's going on with that Vietnamese phone...

That Vietnamese phone was marked as a PRO2 which Engadget has determined to mean it's an early prototype. Too early in the game to assume that the specs are set based on that model.

If the next iPhone really does have 512MB of RAM, I wouldn't be that surprised. I feel that the Vietnam prototype (as well as the one from Twitter in February) are older revisions, unlike Grey Powell's which was never dissected to know the specs (at least to our knowledge).

+1

Why release specs that are different than the leaked specs?

Did they not see the leaked iPhones?

Leaked "Prototype". Read above.

 

[StefSSU]

The problem is that T-Mobile USA uses an odd frequency (1700MHz) for 3G data services. The current iPhone does not support this frequency, so T-Mobile USA customers using unlocked iPhones only have access to the pokey EDGE data service. GSM voice service on T-Mobile works fine apparently.

The two other major U.S. mobile operators (Verizon, Sprint) use a different and incompatible cellular technology (CDMA). If you're a Verizon or Sprint customer, the iPhone is a handy paperweight.

Oh right. Yeah, remember reading about that. The Nexus One currently has the same (Well opposite) issue yes?

 

[hefeglass]

To everyone that doesn't believe the resolution increase to be true:


PLEASE understand that the doubleing of resolution will allow all current iPhone apps to run and look completely unaltered. When devs take the time to make the apps for the new native resolution, the only benefits that will be obvious would be much sharper text and viewable text at much smaller sizes.

Anyone who thinks that the current iPhone screen is good enough either has poor vision, or they have never tried another phone from is year. Go to a verizon store and check out a droid....the pixels are unable to be seen by the naked eye and text is approaching the quality and readability of printed magazines.

Apple made it explicitly clear that they are going to rival the readability of printed text with the new iPhone....the only possibly resolution bump that makes sense for the iPhone is 960x640. If they went with 720 or some other aspect ratio, then the millions of current iPhone apps wouldn't display correctly on the new phone and thus would require modifications. Apple doesn't want to have any problems with people using their already paid for apps....bumping to double the resolution on the same screen size allows the use of all current apps..and they will look identical to the current iPhone (each pixel on the 3GS would be displayed by 4 pixels square on the new iPhone...those 4 pixels being so tiny that they will take up the space of one pixel on current gene hardware)


I hope people understand this explanation...I'm tired of reading the same posts about how the resolution is too high or it will make rewriting of apps necessary...its just completely untrue.

Can't effing wait for this new iPhone ....I'll be waiting in line on launch day (which I sure hope is at the beginning of June rather than late June....cant wait!!!!!)

 

[MacMan86]

I wasn't referring to the A4 chip since that is a known item anyhow, sorry I didn't make that clear.
So driving and processing four times as many display pixels comes for free? I doubt it.
Even if this were so, 960x640 @ 330 PPI? I doubt it.

Step 1: Ok can we all agree the current iPhone resolution is below that of the newer smartphones? Nexus One: 800×480 > iPhone: 480X320

Step 2: It's fair to assume that Apple will increase their display resolution; they have to if only to stay competitive.

Step 3: If you're going to go to the effort of changing the display resolution, would you simply double (quadruple) the resolution so that all of the 200,000 apps still work fine through simple pixel doubling, or would you shift to a completely arbitrary resolution which would either require more computationally expensive pixel manipulation or a whole new class of apps to work fullscreen? (It's one thing to do it with the iPad - it's a physically bigger screen so apps should be re-written for it, but not for a display that's the same size)

The fact that 330PPI may or may not be 'overkill' is probably irrelevant if it makes an easy transition for the 200,000 apps out there.

We know the A4 chip is more power efficient than the chip in current iPhones. We also know the greatest power draws in a mobile device are the display backlight and the multitude of radios inside. I think it's reasonable to assume that any extra power draw from the extra pixels will be more than offset by the A4 chip and possibly better battery tech.

 

[LagunaSol]

Historically, anyone who has EVER bought and Apple 1.0 product has regretted it IMHO.

I never regretted my gen 1 iPhone. Nor did any other gen 1 iPhone owner that I know.

 

[mcmlxix]

Here is the iPhone killer

http://www.dezeen.com/2010/05/17/iphonekiller-by-ronen-kadushin/

 

[derek4484]

Disappointed...

Anybody that's expecting 960x640 resolution on the new iphone is going to be hugely disappointed. To start with, that would require a 4 times the graphics processing power as a 3Gs just to get the same FPS in games. Also, is there even a screen technology out there now that has 330 pixels per inch?

I have read on several other websites that the new iphone has a 3.4" screen, not 3.5" screen. Some chinese devices already sport a 3.4" capacitive touch screen that has 720x480 resolution. I believe thats what's coming on the new iphone. 720x480. Its a good increase over whats currently available and would be about equal to the N1 and Incredible's 800x480. This would allow apple to compete directly with them and also maintain good battery life and wouldnt necessitate a massive GPU.

Anybody who's supposed to be be up on apple knows that they never go all out for the bleeding edge technology, they go with tech thats about a half generation old but focus on user experience.

 

[Anuba]

IPS/FFS also uses more energy than, say, a TN panel so it'll be interesting to see if Apple can pull off both. I would wager on higher resolution first since a super-wide viewing angle really isn't needed on such a small screen.

Higher resolution is welcome and it will no doubt be great for vector based text and so forth (in theory they could even skip anti-aliasing at 330 PPI ). I'm just a bit worried that this will eat up a lot of the increased battery capacity and faster processor... All bitmap-based UI graphics will have to be either scaled to fit (in which case the higher resolution goes to waste), or it has to be remade at 4x the resolution which means they will eat more memory, and animations will be more sluggish.

 

[LagunaSol]

Step 1: Ok can we all agree the current iPhone resolution is below that of the newer smartphones? Nexus One: 800×480 > iPhone: 480X320

Or actually 653x392 > 480x320...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...exus-ones-screen-science-color-and-hacks.ars/

 

[JakeTheMac]

No way too good to be true.

Why would Apple put all this in that ugly shell, assuming the leaked one is real. Obviously not if this true. But if it is true I don't care what it looks like. This is like a 12 core processor running Panther. It would be amazing! They need to include a pan and oven mits. Because you probably could cook on this. Now introducing 2mm fans. Please be true!

 

[StefSSU]

To everyone that doesn't believe the resolution increase to be true:


PLEASE understand that the doubleing of resolution will allow all current iPhone apps to run and look completely unaltered. When devs take the time to make the apps for the new native resolution, the only benefits that will be obvious would be much sharper text and viewable text at much smaller sizes.

Anyone who thinks that the current iPhone screen is good enough either has poor vision, or they have never tried another phone from is year. Go to a verizon store and check out a droid....the pixels are unable to be seen by the naked eye and text is approaching the quality and readability of printed magazines.

Apple made it explicitly clear that they are going to rival the readability of printed text with the new iPhone....the only possibly resolution bump that makes sense for the iPhone is 960x640. If they went with 720 or some other aspect ratio, then the millions of current iPhone apps wouldn't display correctly on the new phone and thus would require modifications. Apple doesn't want to have any problems with people using their already paid for apps....bumping to double the resolution on the same screen size allows the use of all current apps..and they will look identical to the current iPhone (each pixel on the 3GS would be displayed by 4 pixels square on the new iPhone...those 4 pixels being so tiny that they will take up the space of one pixel on current gene hardware)


I hope people understand this explanation...I'm tired of reading the same posts about how the resolution is too high or it will make rewriting of apps necessary...its just completely untrue.

Can't effing wait for this new iPhone ....I'll be waiting in line on launch day (which I sure hope is at the beginning of June rather than late June....cant wait!!!!!)

As you point out yourself later, its not a doubling of the resolution, but a quadrupling (total pixels). That just seems like to huge a jump for whats imo a reasonable res on a phone today. I still get people commenting on the quality of my phones display when I pull it out of my pocket. Granted, I live in Africa, so take that how you will. Do we really need the call button to be rendered any sharper? Its a phone!

 

[Anuba]

Historically, anyone who has EVER bought and Apple 1.0 product has regretted it IMHO.

Not quite. I have a Mighty Mouse from the very first generation (wired, oldschool red LED tracking instead of laser) and it's actually better than the later MM:s I bought. It tracks much better than the new ones, and the scroll ball never failed. Mighty Mouse 1.0 ftw!!

Now, about the 1st gen Nano...

 

[RebelScum]

I never regretted my gen 1 iPhone. Nor did any other gen 1 iPhone owner that I know.

We clearly know different people

 

[ChocoboNL]

i'm curious how this is going to affect the screen's resistance (or lack, thereof) to crack.

I'd figure that as long as the other components are solid and more or less fixed to the back of it, it would not make much of a difference? Or be stronger? I'm thinking in terms of how multiple layers of thin wood glued together are more flexible than one solid piece. Right?
But I'm an economist, not a physician.

 

[Compile 'em all]

Almost a Mac Mini in your hand.

My problem with the iPhone is typing, and I wish I had a software like Black Berry Pin.

Does anybody knows about an application like that or a BB Pin emulator?

I type very fast on my iPhone. I have had one since 2007 though, so typing problems on the iPhone for me are non-existent.

 

[MacMan86]

I'd figure that as long as the other components are solid and more or less fixed to the back of it, it would not make much of a difference? Or be stronger? I'm thinking in terms of how multiple layers of thin wood glued together are more flexible than one solid piece. Right?
But I'm an economist, not a physician.

Physicist maybe? Material scientist even? But definitely not Physician

 

[koach]

I'm no tech head, but, If an app is suspended in memory, isn't that memory resource unavailable?

I'm not sure what "...then it goes away" means.

I find it hard to believe that more RAM "won't help with anything." How could having greater system resources not be helpful when everything is running or being managed in <EDIT: Flash Memory or RAM>?

An app gets suspended to the disk, which in this case is Flash memory. The terminology is just confusing because the iPhone/iPad's "hard drive" is flash memory. Think of it like a computer dumping contents from RAM to the spinning hard drive and it makes more sense. It's the sample principle but instead of a spinning disk it is flash memory. Instead of running in RAM it will take up space out of our storage. When you relaunch the program it simply pulls it off of the disk and loads it back into RAM. This isn't as good a a real virtual memory system but it's a start. The iPhone OS desperately needs a virtual memory system if Apple is going to continually deprive the systems of RAM.

This is not true. iPhone 0S 4 does not suspend an app to Flash memory, The app stays in ram until you run out, then the OS kills it.
I would like more ram!

Correct. The SDK has some provisions for saving the state, but it's not a true virtual memory system, which is what the OS really needs.