How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays

[johnnyturbouk]

I love how some people think that as soon as Apple release a larger screen phone millions of people who went to Android will come flooding back.

Sure, some may come back, just they same way as some may go from Apple to Android.

Well Dave, Apple themselves recognised larger screens as a driving force for some customers leaving apple for android! Yes these may be the fashion (un)conscious, icon-whores... but these are the people whom took apple mainstream. Not us mac prosumers.


I really can't see a huge nexus of customers shunning apple for transitioning to larger screens - they may still offer the 5s, or a 6c! One can make all the wild guesses one wants - shipping and sales will ultimately dictate whether a larger iphone screen will deter or attract upgrades! [/QUOTE]

 

[definitive]

YES! I can't wait for another row of icons on the home screen!

 

[swingerofbirch]

Quite Simply, you are not Apples target market. What you are describing are the customers they are letting go to the cheaper android devices because there is no (or less) margin in it for them. I don't see them leaving the Premium device market, where they make oodles of $, to join the low cost ranks of every other phone maker that is currently loosing money. (except maybe Samsung).

I think the reason they've been able to do that is because of people who don't see the actual price when they're buying a phone. They're the same ones who have upgraded every two years in exchanged for a new contract, even if it was just to get a new bedazzled feature phone. Then they started being offered iPhones and then Android phones. It's been hidden by the subsidy. With the iPad, they came in at a more reasonable price point because they didn't have that system. But it seems like there's a movement started by T-mobile to decouple the price of the phone and the plan, so maybe that will affect their decisions. They've also been willing to lose margins before to ensure a product is successful, such as when the original iPhone came out and they cut the price almost immediately (I think by a $100 or so?). And that was back when they were in a market more like the one we're in now. They were not the smartphone leader. They had somewhat decoupled the product and plan back then, as well (although, I think AT&T was paying them some of the monthly service fee).

 

[7enderbender]

I can only repeat myself: I do not want a larger screen. I do not want a larger phone.
I hope apple also listens to those of us who still use their phones as phones and email devices and not as gaming devices and video players.
If it doesn't fit in a shirt pocket and if I can't operate it with one hand it becomes useless.

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

Actually, if you remember back to 2007, many people said the 3.5" iPhone screen was TOO LARGE. (People were used to very small 2.5" screens with dialing buttons below).

I think a screen that filled up without bezels would be amazing, but maybe back then it would have seemed WAY TOO LARGE. I don't know.

Image

Yeah but my point is that if the device remains the exact same physical size, no one would elect to have a smaller display, it just doesn't make sense. You might elect to have a smaller physical device keeping the same size display if it went from bezel to bezeless but that's it.

 

[mirko.meschini]

The virtual points system and the scaling involved in Retina displays isn't predicated on doubling the number of pixels. It's predicated on whole-number multiples of pixels.

It's not that 2x is double the number of pixels from non-Retina displays, it's just that 2 is the first multiplier up from 1.

In other words, the next logical multiplier to keep a 4.7" or 5.07" display's pixels small enough to still be considered scientifically in the "Retina" size range would be 3x.

Meaning today's 1136 x 640 screen goes to 1704 x 960.

That screen resolution keeps all current apps functioning properly and requires only new assets and no code changes to make them "retina sharp" for a new screen (sound familiar?) -- actually an easier proposition for developers than it was to go from 1x to 2x.

The pixel density, according to my calculations, with an @3x Retina display/scaling:

4.7" screen : 416ppi
5.07" screen: 385ppi

at @4x, both numbers are over 500ppi. That's likely not going to happen in 2014 because of memory and energy considerations.

In this case you will have the same real estate of the 4" screen, you will see the same thing but bigger (and crisper, when optimized with @3x assets). This could work for a 4,7 but not for a 5,5.

 

[tdream]

326 ppi is so god damn arbitrary if it happened to be 325 ppi, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Above 200 ppi is beyond what most people will recognise so defining the resolution based on ppi is moronic. Just like the people who hire these 'analysts'

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

I can only repeat myself: I do not want a larger screen. I do not want a larger phone.
I hope apple also listens to those of us who still use their phones as phones and email devices and not as gaming devices and video players.
If it doesn't fit in a shirt pocket and if I can't operate it with one hand it becomes useless.

You do not want a larger phone, if you say you do not want a larger display it is only because you expect the device to get larger, right?

 

[robotphood]

Resolutions and PPI arguments aside, I still wonder how the device size will be if they retain the home button. With touchID it doesn't look like they will abandon it any time soon and I'm not sure about the limitations of shrinking it now with the embedded sensor. For comparison, an HTC one just feels very long compared to a moto x (both 4.7") because of the speakers and extra bezel space. I'm all for a larger screen but I'd also like it to be as compact as it could be. Thinness on the other hand, I'd sacrifice for battery life any day (a couple mm makes a big difference).

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

326 ppi is so god damn arbitrary if it happened to be 325 ppi, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Above 200 ppi is beyond what most people will recognise so defining the resolution based on ppi is moronic. Just like the people who hire these 'analysts'

Not at all true, I can easily see pixels at normal viewing distance for me which is about 6-8" sometimes more, in which case I then can't, but the point is I can , especially in iOS 7 because of thinner fonts. 200ppi is definitely far far below what most people could see, and even at 326 people like myself can see them. I wish they would increase the PPI until you couldn't see it at 4" from the screen.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Having nothing but rows of icons on your home screen made sense when the original iPhone came out because the power just wasn't there. Phones these days are desktop class machines of yesteryear and Apple needs to get you more functionality out of the home screen. People multitask and having to go to the home screen every time I want to do something else is getting very bothersome.

The only reason I still have an iPhone is that my jailbreak gets me the functionality I want (and allows me to stick with the wonderful ecosystem). Apps like BiteSMS, activator, flipcontrolcenter, springtomize are the only reason I'm still using an iPhone!

Sorry but the power was there long before the iPhone, Windows Mobile devices had many of those features instead of just rows of icons. It was simplifying it all that started the revolution...

 

[robotphood]

You do not want a larger phone, if you say you do not want a larger display it is only because you expect the device to get larger, right?

I can only repeat myself: I do not want a larger screen. I do not want a larger phone.
I hope apple also listens to those of us who still use their phones as phones and email devices and not as gaming devices and video players.
If it doesn't fit in a shirt pocket and if I can't operate it with one hand it becomes useless.

What if the phone wasn't significantly larger at all?

Moto X (4.7"): 129.3 x 65.3 x 10.4 mm
iPhone 5: 123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm
iPhone 3G: 115.5 by 62.1 by 12.3 mm

Wouldn't be surprised if Apple could produce something a bit smaller than the Moto X, especially a whole year after it was released.

 

[apolloa]

Well, my current phone has a 4.95" screen with a resolution of 1920 X 1080 and PPI of 445.
You will tell the difference between this screen and an iPhone 6 screen, and the Oppo Find 7 has a 5.5" screen with a resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels and PPI of 538.

So whilst 538ppi is crazy, the screen technology already exists and Apple would do well to just double it's PPI, otherwise it will be seen as behind the curve, again.

 

[isopepper]

Nevermind the resolution, make the text bigger

I want text and controls I can see.

Ives needs more people over 40 on his staff. Resolution is fine, make the controls and text more usable.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Well, my current phone has a 4.95" screen with a resolution of 1920 X 1080 and PPI of 445.
You will tell the difference between this screen and an iPhone 6 screen, and the Oppo Find 7 has a 5.5" screen with a resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels and PPI of 538.

So whilst 538ppi is crazy, the screen technology already exists and Apple would do well to just double it's PPI, otherwise it will be seen as behind the curve, again.

Do those screens have the subpixel cheat going on?

 

[brilliantthings]

I think it is unlikely Apple would present a 4-inch app layout letter-boxed on a 4.7-inch device. I think it is much more likely that they'd simply scale it up. The display's aspect ratio will presumably still be 16:9.

It wouldn't be too bad in terms of blurriness. They could even try and be clever and automatically set the device text size to 85.1% of the normal size when accessing a 4-inch app.

Yes. Good point. What would the effective resolution be for those scaled up apps?

 

[Renzatic]

I don't think you understand. If they make a BIGGER phone in the future. They can't use THAT RESOLUTION and STILL be 326ppi. It would be less so they would need another new resolution again making app fragmentation happen very couple of years. Or double the resolution and no matter how big the phone screen up to 8" it would be over 300 ppi

Not really. So long as they maintain the same pixel density and aspect ratio, any app that uses Apple's APIs will maintain their basic layout. Yeah, you might have a few older apps that haven't been updated in years that won't look quite right on a larger screen, but most of them will scale accordingly.

 

[pmz]

This article completely misses the point a 1920 x 1080 screen would still
A)be the same aspect ratio and b) require devs to update apps.

This proposed resolution does little to improve upon the iPhone display.

 

[MacSince1990]

I'd rather see a lower PPI than different resolutions.

Uh.. why? Higher res makes web pages a LOT more manageable.

----------

I still think they will double the iPhone 5s resolution, 326 ppi on a 4.7" is good but is not future proof.

*facepalm*

326 ppi at 4.7" looks exactly the same as 326ppi at 47 feet at the same distance. Only difference is you won't need to hold a 4.7" device as close to your face as a 4". So it's actually effectively a higher ppi, at least as far as the eye is concerned. You really have an issue with pixel density in the iPhone? Or you just don't think the number is arbitrarily high enough?

Please stop talking about things you clearly do not understand.

The iPhone can more then handle the higher resolution, just look at the Retina iPad Mini.

Great. So can the Beige G3 I have from 1998. It runs 2048x1536.

And they better come up with something more productive and creative...

*eyeroll*

----------

They will just double the pixels, like they did on the iphone, like they did on the iPad, like they did on the Macbook etc etc.

Apple have always been developer friendly, and while this may seem like overkill, it will mean apps just work full screen day one, and it will put them just over the pixel density of the current 1080p screens, so it's not unfathomable.

Right, because it would be so much more difficult to set a scale multiplier of 1.2-1.3 than 2.0? What's the difference?

 

[kwikdeth]

Yes another row of icons!!!! Can't wait!! Oh wait... the screen is already massively overly congested with icons. It would be far better to go the route of the iPads at this point. Sorry but if you think more icons on the screen is better, there is no hope for you. Would you like an iPad with the same spacing, so you can get all of your hundred apps on the first page? Yes it would look gorgeous!!!!!

----------

actually what im referring to is the heinous mis-use of the sub-screens, where on the ipad, despite having 2-3" available on all sides, you're still confined to a 3x3 grid, whereas in iOS 6 you got a screen similar in usable area and available options that are appropriate for the screen size. hell, 3x3 is still limiting on an iphone 5/5S.

In design parlance, its whats referred to as "negative space" and is generally avoided unless going for a specific aesthetic.

as for "no hope"? go **** yourself. looking over your other posts you seem to have serious problems with treating other people with even the most minimal amount of respect. you sound like a teenager.

 

[itpromike]

I agree for the most part. I just used the same terminology as the poster I quoted. I just mean a sort of "resolution fragmentation"

Good point.

Having 50 different manufacturers coming out with devices with differing resolutions and operating systems is a far cry from one manufacturer, one OS, and 2 or 3 resolutions. I don't think it's hypocritical to bash Android phones for actual fragmentation.

You do realize that Android fragmentation doesn't really exist anymore (well at least in the US). Resolutions for Androids are pretty standard at 720P or 1080P... There are newer displays coming at that are 2K displays (basically the resolution of the iPad air) but again those panels will be the same display resolution no matter which manufacture chooses to use it. Actually Apple is the only one that really uses non-standards based resolutions...

Additionally the chipsets are standardized for the most part with most manufacturers using Qualcomm snap dragon. There is the 1 off's that use Nvidia chipsets however those are few and far between. Either way most of the chipsets are based off of the same line within the Qualcomm snapdragon family.

Having said that if you consider that fragmentation then iOS is just as fragmented and with the newest addition of the 2 rumored devices with 2 more resolutions iOS will actually be more fragmented than Android...

If the rumors are true:

iPhone - 4 supported resolutions (640x960, 1136x540, 1600x966, 1920x1080)
4 Supported processors/chipsets (A5, A6, A7, A8)

Android - Many supported resolutions however developers don't need to do much to support since they are designed to scale automatically. However what little needs to be done is overwhelmingly done to support only 2 resolutions 720P and 1080P

- Majority standardized for Qualcomm chipsets support (Snapdragon 400, 600, 800, and 801)

I say all this to be fair and objective to the arguments laid out here. I'm an Apple fan because I like their products not because I fall for the typical fud the comes along with waiting competitors 'just cus'.

 

[SwissMac2]

Bigger, not more

I don't want more screen space, I want more visible content!

Everything on current iPhone screens is too small for eyes over 40. That's why so many people move to Android phones, not just bigger screens, but bigger icons and text ON those screens. Of course, they are crap phones, but they give many users what they want - a phone where they can actually read the labels and text!

 

[xmichaelp]

Again - resolution isn't the problem. It's the ppi. The technology isn't there for 4.7" displays with that kind of pixel density. We're just now seeing 5.5" displays at 500+ ppi.

Not to mention the fact that Apple never does more than needed. More than 326 ppi is debatable as necessary. Higher than 500? It's marketing fluff - no real discernible benefit but it would put more strain on battery life.

Ah, I see. Still I think Apple could push someone to make them that display if they wanted. I would have to disagree about the PPI though, I could definitely tell a difference of 720p (~300 PPI) android vs 1080p. It's negligible but it's there.

I think mobile displays are fine the way they are though, they already look beautiful. What I want to see is retina MBA's and retina desktop displays. It bothers me that the 27 inch iMac is the same resolution as a 5.5 inch phone.

 

[mib1800]

I just don't understand why is it so difficult for Apple to change screen size? Is it because ios is very outdated and inflexible wrt resolution support.

I see android at 4 to 6+ inch screen with no issues whatsoever. Many flagships screen size change every year without so much technical difficulties as discussed in this thread.

 

[apolloa]

Do those screens have the subpixel cheat going on?

You need to explain some more as the iPhone uses subpixels too.