Why wouldn't you want to preserve the current screen resolution of 960 x 640?
Doesn't quite make sense otherwise.
He means 960 x 640 instead of 960 x 540: it's a typo (a 960 x 540 4 inch display would have a pixel density of roughly 275 ppi).
His story is otherwise top notch. It just makes sense for Apple to use a 32 nm A5 chip. They could clock the A5 chip at higher speeds and still save battery life.
"
@mjzin
iOS user experience superiority has Always relied on GPU superiority. The fact that people can't understand this speaks to how little most consumers understand the processes and priorities that go on in their iOS devices."
No, the fact that you are so ignorant speaks to how little you understand the processes and priorities that go into Apple's iOS devices.
You are assuming all kinds of things like that the display will be bigger (which is far from certain) and even then you are assuming that the resolution will be higher.
You do realise the A5X chip is HUGE (I truly mean huge)? Let's say Apple does increase screen size and does increase the resolution, than they could still use the A5 chip (depending on what resolution they settle on).
Let's look at the facts here. If Apple does increase the resolution of the next generation iPhone, than the MAXIMUM resolution will be 1440 x 960. That's 768.000 pixels more than the current iPhone 4S. In comparison: when Apple switched to a 2048 x 1536 display, they added an additional 2.359.296 pixels compared to the iPad 2. So, in comparison: the iPad 3's increase in resolution would be three times as much the increase in pixels for the next generation iPhone.
That's a HUGE difference. Apple added two cores for those 2.36 million pixels. At best they would need to add 1 core for those extra 0.78 million pixels - and that's being generous.
Currently, Apple is using a 45 nm A5 chip with two UNDERCLOCKED GPU cores.
The most logical thing to do for Apple is to use a 32 nm A5 chip with the same GPU cores but only slightly higher clocked. That would compensate for those 780.000 pixels AND it would possibly still reduce battery life AND it would save a lot of internal space for, for example, a LTE radio or a bigger battery.
Apple settles with something that will give users the best experience, and an A5X won't: less internal space, more heat and higher cost (A5X is more expensive to produce).
And let's not even talk about the fact that the A5X chip is REALLY power hungry. It's rumoured that the A5X chip alone uses more power than one whole iPhone 4S unit (including the display, radio, etc.).
So tell me again: what is more logical for Apple to do? To use an over-powered 45 nm A5X chip which is more expensive for Apple, produces more heat, uses A LOT of power and leaves less internal space for other components? Or a 32 nm A5 chip that would result in much better battery life, less heat, could compensate for the higher resolution, leaves more space for internal components and is cheaper for Apple to produce?
