How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays

[Renzatic]

The iPhone 6 is getting bigger. Simply doubling the pixels isn't as neat as before, there is no real reason to do this like there was before. Again, think of the iphone 4 as doubling the density rather than doubling the resolution (because the screen stayed the same size, it just happened that these went in hand). Do Apple want to increase the density on the iPhone 6? If they do, yes the simplest way is to double the density. That would be 326*2 = 652ppi. Over a bigger screen this is actually MORE pixels than doubling the existing pixels. They probably don't want to increase density though. They probably want to keep that the same. Thus if the screen is getting bigger, this means more pixels, proportional to the screen size change. The screen is not doubling, I don't see why they'd double the pixels.

The only reason they'd need to double the pixels is if they were going for a considerably higher PPI. What it looks like they're doing is going for the same pixel density, which means they only have to bump the resolution just enough to maintain 326 PPI on the larger screen. The end result will be just like it's showing in the photos on page 1, icons and widgets that are the same size as they are on the 5S, but with room to fit more in onscreen.

 

[cmChimera]

4 pages and not one gripe about fragmenting. Flip back just before the rumors piled up about Apple's switch to the different aspect ratio of the "5", and see a TON of bashes against Android phones for fragmenting resolutions to create "developer nightmares." Apple doing it? Not a gripe about it and the spin goes how developer-friendly Apple is for giving the developers all this time to adapt to these other (RUMORED) screen resolutions. What would be developer friendly is announcing the resolutions so that the developer would know what to target.

Similarly, I remember passionate arguments from those seemingly in the know who said iOS is set up so that ONLY pixel doubling works… that a resolution between an established size and actually doubling can't possibly work because iOS is not set up for variable screen resolutions. I think I had what seemed like 10 different discussions on this very topic with very passionate posters who all argued this. Now? No problem, let's guess at all kinds of resolutions in between- even different ones for a rumored 4.7" and a 5.5" and it's all fine (except for the "but I must be able to use it with one-hand crowd"- even though just about every one of us has 2 hands:roll eyes Personally, I'm in the "but it must be thinner" crowd because the current one is just so thick it's almost unbearable; I can hardly wait until all iDevices are thinner than a sheet of paper because thin is such a valuable and important tangible benefit in such devices. Also :roll eyes

On topic: pixel doubling to "beyond retina" seems stupid to me. Why waste the horsepower driving graphics that are apparently beyond our eyes ability to see the difference? If "retina" really is the MAX for human eyes, we don't need a super-retina or ultra-retina or whatever it might be called. Might as well spin infrared spectrum screen and all of the other spectrum that we can't possibly see as included in the next iPhone.

Based on the past passionate arguments about fragmentation and "iOS can't handle anything but doubling" vs. present rumors about resolutions ranging from all kinds of guesses in between and doubling, I don't know what to make of these rumors.

I think a 5.5 inch iPhone with its own resolution would be cause to worry about fragmentation, but I'm not convinced it exists. As it stands, the iPhone 4s will be getting phased out, and then its just the iPhone 5 resolution and the iPhone 6 resolution. 2 resolutions. So the status quo.

 

[pedromcm.pm]

If they stop supporting the 4s for new apps, just like the iPad 2, that's two resolutions that can go to hell, right?

If I was the boss, now that they have the tools and dev attention, they should start again with much more hard design guidelines and no fart apps.

 

[iCore24]

How is 326ppi not future proof? Unless you're eyes can suddenly pick up more details on their own, everything above 300ppi will be just fine.

I mean if they increase the phone size even more down the road...

 

[Jynto]

Dear sanity! Do not let Apple choose the odd-ball resolution of 1334x750. It's not proper 16:9, because 9 doesn't divide evenly into 750. It's unnecessary too because there's a standard resolution just 30 pixels away. I hope that Apple have seen sense and taken a slight hike in pixel density to give us a 720p screen instead. Maybe they could use 1080p on the 5.5'' one.

 

[Renzatic]

I think a 5.5 inch iPhone with its own resolution would be cause to worry about fragmentation, but I'm not convinced it exists. As it stands, the iPhone 4s will be getting phased out, and then its just the iPhone 5 resolution and the iPhone 6 resolution. 2 resolutions. So the status quo.

Different resolutions across different devices running the same OS isn't fragmentation. An app designed for a lower resolution device would still run just as well on the same hardware with a bigger screen. Assuming Apple has a good scalable API in place, about the worst that would happen is your app would have a lot of wasted space between the UI elements.

 

[itpromike]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with the things you said.. but you asking for launchpad is rather odd. The iOS home screen full of icons IS the OSX launchpad. Identically. Both are grids of icons that launch apps. Both can swipe between "pages" of these icon grids. Both can group icons into folders. Both have a type-to-search means of narrowing down the icon list for when simply browsing isn't finding the app you're looking for. So what feature do you think iOS is lacking when you're talking about launchpad??

Launchpad isn't the totality of OS X desktop. That's what you're not understanding and what my point is. Launchpad is invoked when you need it, and gone when you don't. On OS X you don't have a grid of icons in your face all day just sitting there taking up room and cluttering up your desktop. On OS X you can put just the icons of applications you use regularly either in your dock or on your desktop and use launchpad to house the rest. Additionally you can put shortcuts of actual documents/work products on your desktop to be used a moments notice without the need to dig through pages of apps, then open the app, then find the document you want and then finally opening the document. These aren't just nerd things, these actually add to the usability and efficiency of workflow used with the device.

Case in point, my mum is 70 years old and couldn't program a VCR or operate a cable box without assistance however one of her friends got a new android phone and showed her all this neat stuff she could do. Showed her how to align her icons on the screen so she didn't cover up the faces of her kids in the wallpaper, and how to save shortcuts to documents she needs to keep on hand (she helps runs a lady's Bible study at church). She learned this fairly quickly. When I she told me she got an Android, of course I go on my spiel of rant about Apple being better and easier to use yada yada and told her about FaceTime which was the convincing factor... and she returned her Android for an iPhone. Upon receiving it, I helped her set it up including the family pictures as wall papers etc... and her first question was "Ok so now how do I move them so they don't cover up the faces of the kids?" I told her she couldn't... Then she asked, Ok how do I add shortcuts of the writings the ladies send me? I again told her you can't... she then said "I thought you said the Apple phone was better and easier?" I didn't have a good response to that.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Just horrible as an Apple phablet. That's a mistake if it ever is made. So many Apple phablet rumours these days. We have 2 options:

1. The rumours are all wrong. No harm done.
2. Apple will make the mistake of making an Apple phablet.

If No.2 happens I will be upset. I want to buy an iPhone 6 maybe. But if Apple only releases the iPhablet 6 then I'll be forced to buy old tech or stick with my iPhone 1.

And making both an iPhone 6 and an iPhablet 6 is a no go as well. Apple already have enough SKUs. Too many is what ****ed Apple up in the 90s. No going and repeating that all over again.

Apple is on the cusp of me not buying the iPhablet 6 (or any iPhones anymore). Even though I do like the iPhone line, I don't want to buy a phablet.

Believe it or not, your opinion doesn't account for everyone else's.

Why would Apple be making a mistake? Is it because you don't want a phone that size? All of a sudden they made a mistake because you don't want it?

The solution is simple: don't buy the phone, as you've stated.

 

[GreyOS]

The only reason they'd need to double the pixels is if they were going for a considerably higher PPI.

Yeah. And if they want to increase PPI there is nothing particularly simple about just doubling the pixels when you consider that the physical size is increasing at a different rate. They could just as easily go for 1600x900 or 1920x1080 or something. To think they would go to 2268x1280 just because it's double a resolution for a screen size that's been abandoned... I see no reason!

 

[Renzatic]

I mean if they increase the phone size even more down the road...

326 PPI is 326 PPI, regardless of if it's on a 3.5" device, or a 7". The biggest concern is efficient use of space across multiple devices, which isn't that big of a deal. Developers have been doing it for years now already.

 

[Born Again]

I don't remember the iPhone 3 being so tiny.

 

[Dresling]

Ppi equals battery life.

I can really appreciate the ultra high ppi screens out there, but since there's a natural limitation on the human eye, everything above 300ppi is all just for show.

Most of you must have discovered by now that iPhone don't have the best specs, it's the combo of hardware and software that gives it the edge.

The more pixels the screen has, the more powerful the battery and gpu/cpu has to be.

I for one would like the iPhone 6 to have a more reasonable ppi number, and greater battery life. Any smartphone producer who can make a smartphone with actually great battery life would have a killerfeat.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I think a 5.5 inch iPhone with its own resolution would be cause to worry about fragmentation, but I'm not convinced it exists. As it stands, the iPhone 4s will be getting phased out, and then its just the iPhone 5 resolution and the iPhone 6 resolution. 2 resolutions. So the status quo.

That's not how it works. Even if the 4 is phased out, developers can't stop targeting it's resolution for all those that stick with 4s. I doubt developers have stopped targeting resolutions for earlier iPhones. There's probably a chart somewhere that shows a small percent might still be using the original iPhone.

While I agree, the 4 is probably jettisoned as a "new" iPhone to sell in the Apple product mix, it will have to be supported by apps for at least a few years.

My point though was not about counting how many different resolutions must be supported but how "we" bashed the competition for coming to market with different resolutions but "we" don't do the same when Apple does the same. Even with the 5 launch, all that pre-launch "Apple would never" did not translate to "How stupid of Apple to" when they didn't just scale up the screen vertically and horizontally but they actually changed the aspect ratio. Now- allegedly- here we (might) go again and are probably looking at letterbox or all-around black bars until the developers catch up with this new fragment or fragments. Not hardly one gripe about it; instead it's spun as how developer-friendly Apple is (while Apple is not revealing the actual resolutions to these developers until the thing(s) probably launches). Then, "we" will gripe at developers for not immediately switching their apps to get rid of the black bars.

 

[D.T.]

Dear sanity! Do not let Apple choose the odd-ball resolution of 1334x750. It's not proper 16:9, because 9 doesn't divide evenly into 750. It's unnecessary too because there's a standard resolution just 30 pixels away. I hope that Apple have seen sense and taken a slight hike in pixel density to give us a 720p screen instead. Maybe they could use 1080p on the 5.5'' one.

16:9 = 16/9 = 1.78 ratio

1334 / 750 = 1.78

 

[BaldiMac]

4 pages and not one gripe about fragmenting. Flip back just before the rumors piled up about Apple's switch to the different aspect ratio of the "5", and see a TON of bashes against Android phones for fragmenting resolutions to create "developer nightmares."

Probably because even with the rumored changes, fragmentation on iOS devices isn't anywhere near the fragmentation among Android devices.

Similarly, I remember passionate arguments from those seemingly in the know who said iOS is set up so that ONLY pixel doubling works… that a resolution between an established size and actually doubling can't possibly work because iOS is not set up for variable screen resolutions.

Things change. And you're oversimplifying. As pointed out in the article, Apple began to encourage auto-layout before the release of the iPhone 5 in anticipation of varying screen sizes.

On topic: pixel doubling to "beyond retina" seems stupid to me. Why waste the horsepower driving graphics that are apparently beyond our eyes ability to see the difference? If "retina" really is the MAX for human eyes, we don't need a super-retina or ultra-retina or whatever it might be called. Might as well spin infrared spectrum screen and all of the other spectrum that we can't possibly see as included in the next iPhone too. It seems like other than some kind of bragging rights (like Mhz or Ghz numbers), there's no actual benefit that any human will be able to see.

Retina was meant to indicate the resolution at which the average eye can't discern an individual pixel. That doesn't mean that you can't perceive differences at higher resolutions.

Based on the past passionate arguments about fragmentation and "iOS can't handle anything but doubling" vs. present rumors about resolutions ranging from all kinds of guesses in between and doubling, I don't know what to make of these rumors.

Sounds like you are making claims of hypocrisy when, in reality, you don't seem to understand the actual arguments.

 

[willcapellaro]

that letterbox looks terrible...

Yeah, that's just silly. Unoptimized apps could stretch to the full display and just look worse. But it will look better than when unoptimized apps first came on the scene with the first retina release.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I can really appreciate the ultra high ppi screens out there, but since there's a natural limitation on the human eye, everything above 300ppi is all just for show.

Most of you must have discovered by now that iPhone don't have the best specs, it's the combo of hardware and software that gives it the edge.

The more pixels the screen has, the more powerful the battery and gpu/cpu has to be.

I for one would like the iPhone 6 to have a more reasonable ppi number, and greater battery life. Any smartphone producer who can make a smartphone with actually great battery life would have a killerfeat.

I'm with you on all of the above. However, knowing Apple, they'll choose thin again and cut battery size to get it while spinning "about the same battery life" rather than reject thinner and fill that extra space with more battery for "more battery life". Because "thin" is so much more important than something actually useful like battery life. What do "we" do then? We buy a battery case to get the added battery life we need and thus thicken the device. When is thin for marketing spin, thin enough?

Else, why not just remove the battery entirely (you know like removing the superdrive from iMacs)? Then we can all do what "we" do by helping Apple spin it: "buying an external battery pack lets us all buy- and pay for- exactly what we need" around "wow! look how thin the iPhone is now!"

But Apple- if you do that- be sure to charge the same price for that iPhone.

 

[willcapellaro]

That's not how it works. Even if the 4 is phased out, developers can't stop targeting it's resolution for all those that stick with 4s. I doubt developers have stopped targeting resolutions for earlier iPhones. There's probably a chart somewhere that shows a small percent might still be using the original iPhone.

Yep. I still output all graphics at @2x and non-retina. Slows me down slightly. I believe it's still a requirement, at least my devs tell me that. Even though most of us haven't touched a non-retina iPhone in a long time.

App design development is pretty easy as long as there are some reasonable phase outs and considerations on developer bandwidth. Apple is okay about this. So is Google. If developer workload was the only consideration, we'd never have new phones.

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

How is 326ppi not future proof? Unless you're eyes can suddenly pick up more details on their own, everything above 300ppi will be just fine.

Not true AT ALL. I can easily see pixels at the 326, and even more so on iOS. 7 due to the thinner fonts, etc. If you are too old or blind to see them, that's your problem (or I guess it's actually advantageous to you). The 326 PPI is ONLY retina at a certain distance from the display, and if you never hold your phone closer than that distance, I hold it 5-8" frequently, and I can easily see pixels. I want retina to be from any comfortable viewing distance, NOT from the typical viewing distance.

 

[1Zach1]

Else, why not just remove the battery entirely (you know like removing the superdrive from iMacs)? Then we can all help Apple spin buying an external battery pack lets us all buy- and pay for- exactly what we need while "wow! look how thin the iPhone is now!"

"The revolutionary concept in the new iPhone, users can change the battery back on their own! No more needing to plug your phone in during the day, or for long outing! Apple = Innovation!"

 

[D.T.]

If developer workload was the only consideration, we'd never have new phones.

Hahaha, that’s fantastic!

 

[Skika]

Phablet is too large for a phone but too small for a good sized tablet. It's a qualitative description. Everyone has their own subjective views on what is and is not a phablet.

Not sure you understood my previous comment (based on your reply to it) but I'll reply again just in case you did.

its subjective term u dont understand

Nice backpedal.

 

[SmileyBlast!]

but Apple and all the fan boys said 3.5" is the perfect size

Not for eyes older than 40.

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

I can really appreciate the ultra high ppi screens out there, but since there's a natural limitation on the human eye, everything above 300ppi is all just for show.

Most of you must have discovered by now that iPhone don't have the best specs, it's the combo of hardware and software that gives it the edge.

The more pixels the screen has, the more powerful the battery and gpu/cpu has to be.

I for one would like the iPhone 6 to have a more reasonable ppi number, and greater battery life. Any smartphone producer who can make a smartphone with actually great battery life would have a killerfeat.

It's not. I can see pixels easily at 326. I hold mine frequently 5-8" from my eyes. Sorry to break it to you, but their definition of retina is based on distance and average human eyes. If I have mine at a foot, sure I won't see, but I'd love to know how many people find themselves holding it within what would make it not retina.

 

[Menel]

16:9 = 16/9 = 1.78 ratio

1334 / 750 = 1.78

16/9 = 1.777777777777777777777777777777~
!=
1334/750 = 1.778666666666666666666666666666~

Third of a row of pixels or so off.
Is that a problem? for most people, no.