How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays

[xmichaelp]

Am I the only who hates the bigger phones?

In the past the whole point was to make a smaller and smaller phone, I still remember Nokia 8800.

Now there is an insane idea, that a phone must as big as possible!?

My fingers didnt grove in the last years.

If you need a bigger display, buy iPad Mini!

The only way I could live with a bigger phone, is that the phone would be the size of iPhone 5/5s, but the screen would be from edge to edge.

Phones got smaller and smaller because they were dumb phones. They didn't do video and complex games and apps. Stop pretending there isn't a reason for a bigger screen. Go back to 2005 if you really want a tiny phone.

 

[GreyOS]

No, they are gonna call for 1080P on the next iPhone since it's now 2014 and all manufacturers have been offering this standard resolution for over 2 years all the while we are paying the and price for less screen.

Why though? Most people won't see any difference except in their battery life. My point is that there is nothing special about 1920x1080 abstracted from physical screen size. Its historical development in the market has nothing to do with screens the size of phones, but much bigger ones. For a decent sized sized TV in a living room, 1920x1080 is high enough that you can't see the pixels. In a cinema, you want a higher resolution, hence 4k, 8k etc.
Putting a 1080p screen on a 4.7" phone is odd, it's like trying to feed a baby the diet recommended for an adult, just because that's a standard?!

Rather than us adopt a bunch of fixed, holy resolutions, with no regard for the size and use of the device it's for, I'd much rather we agreed on a bunch of pixel densities. Like (makng this up), 400ppi for close devices, 300 for laptops, 200 for TVs, 100 for cinemas. Then we could cut everything from the same 4 sheets, production would be so much simpler

 

[1Zach1]

A bit off topic, but I can imagine how Apple will introduce these new size screens and explain away their obstinate refusal that you can use anything above 4".

They'll discuss how they closely analysed how people used their phones and how some operations were suited to being one handed and others are commonly two handed operations.

They then looked at the biggest issues facing single handed operations in the most popular cases. texting / emailing / browsing etc.

Then they explain:

TC: "it turns out - we already solved this! back in iOS 7!"

*people gasp with shock. Busty women in corsets faint elegantly onto chaise lounges. A single desperate individual stands up and wails "show us how, oh mighty Cook?"*

TC: "...It turns out we introduced the back swipe, that means you don't have to reach all the way up to the top left corner of your phone anymore. And with the introduction of the sleep/wake button on the side of the device, we really think we cracked this one"

*The audience roars with applause and confetti streams from the ceiling of the auditorium. Realising the error of their ways, scores of journalists and fanboys take part in a ritualistic smashing of their pathetic 4" screens under their New Balance heels and hail the arrival of their glorious new HD screens.*

Or...
The could shoehorn a 4.5" display into the 5s chassis and say "hey look, same size, bigger screen. Don't worry, we've already taken the money out of your bank account for the preorder, no need to start a stampede."

 

[497902]

My opinion is that 4,7" is a wrong choice, they should go to 4,5" so it's 720p at 326ppi and 1080p at 5,5" with new assets (@3x).

In addition I'd say 4 and a half inch is a much nicer number than 4 and 7/10 inch. Oh and it fits better when comparing iPhones. 3.5" -> 4" -> 4.5"

 

[D.T.]

1280x720 instead of 1334x750 is not a hike in pixel density, unless I misunderstand what "hike" means.

I’m never 100% sure with the large international contingent on here But I think they were saying a slight hike over the current phone (i.e., the 5/5c/5s). In other words, increase it, but not above a standard video resolution.

Bottom line for me: if it’s bigger, has higher resolution - standard (720 or 1080) resolution or not, I’m very likely a buyer. Especially because I’d like to score a device with TouchID and we take a +ton+ of photos, so any improvement to the camera (including dual flash which my 5 lacks) would be awesome (this device shows up with some kind of modular lens system, that’ll be even more, umm, awesomer )

 

[AppleGuesser]

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

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


And they better come up with something more productive and creative to take up the extra space on the iPad and the iPhone 6 with IOS 8. The iPad just got the hand me down features the iPhone got on IOS 7, The iPad needs features that take advantage of the huge landscape,
Split screen? Widgets? Live larger icons? SOMETHING!!!!!

I'd love a good GIF on my iPad mini home screen to brighten my day! Would put it in a whole other level

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It doesn't matter how many people want it, it's something that they know the devices are a million times better without. You don't let morons make decisions.

If the "morons" have the money, you adapt your decisions to give them what they want- you know, like larger-screen iphones- or you try to force upon them what you want them to want and see some of them take their business to competitors (like they have with larger-screen phones).

I appreciate your stance (and I'm sure Apple does too). And I must be a moron because I have long wanted the utility of an SD card slot in my iDevices as a way to readily transport more than 64GB when needed. Unlike apparently you, I don't think my want applies to every other person out there, but I bet there's at least a segment of fellow "morons" that might feel the same.

Interchangeable battery? Doesn't really turn me on. But then again, I buy a battery case every time because the stock battery can't last long enough for all of my own scenarios. So, in a manner of speaking, I already use an interchangeable battery because I NEED more battery than stock. The "beauty" of the device itself is hidden away inside that battery case.

As such, I (personally) don't think the device is "a million times better" without some option to cover both of these wants (at least for my particular needs). But I'm sure Apple is happy that you feel that way.

 

[GreyOS]

I’m never 100% sure with the large international contingent on here But I think they were saying a slight hike over the current phone (i.e., the 5/5c/5s). In other words, increase it, but not above a standard video resolution.

But they were talking about pixel density. If it's 4.7", then 1334x750 is what's required to keep the pixel density the same. 1280x720 @ 4.7" is lower density than the iPhone 5s - and at risk of getting flak re: 'Retina' etc. (even if by their own standards the drop is not enough to disqualify it as Retina). Yeah, it's an increased resolution, but a drop in pixel density. I'd personally rather see a slightly 'unusual' resolution than a drop in pixel density

 

[jljue]

It is for me. Whenever I have to go back to using my wife's iPhone 4 I just love it. It fits in my pocket. It's super easy to use because I don't have to do some crazy thumb stretch just to tap a button.

3.5" is the perfect size screen. There is no reason to make a bigger screen. The "bigger is better" crowd is ruining UX time and time again.

I'm willing to admit that I am a guy with small hands, for a guy. I still find it easier to use my iPhone 4 from work easier to use one-handed than my personal iPhone 5s, which is a necessity while taking care of a baby. My wife, who really does have small hands, did not want my old iPhone 5, because she though it was too long.

 

[Casiotone]

It's not pixel density that needs to remain constant, it's resolution.

Pixel density is just a measurement of the size of each individual pixel.
You need to either double the resolution (2272x1280) or keep resolution the same and reduce the pixel density on a larger screen to avoid scaling the image.

Sorry but unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that you have it backward.

iOS is already able to deal with resolution changes, as auto-layout can reflow the interface on a screen that has a different resolution. But its not meant to resize standard UI elements themselves to compensate for PPI changes.

If you change the PPI on iOS, it affects the physical size of the UI elements and touch targets on screen.

Let's say a developer define a button with a 80 points height (minimum recommended point size for usable touch targets). If you put this button as is on a 400 PPI screen, the button will appear too small and will be too hard to tap.

If you double the resolution to try to avoid this problem and put it on a 4.7" screen, the result is the same exact interface as the 4" version, which means unnecessary large buttons. Yes it would be sharper, but it would make no use of the additional screen estate and actually would waste some.

Not only that, but using the same trick as the first retina transition would require yet a new coordinate unit on top of pixels (legacy) and points (retina).

 

[D.T.]

I'm willing to admit that I am a guy with small hands, for a guy.

 

[kwikdeth]

please no, the way iOS7 spaces out icons, especially in the sub-folders, is a heinous waste of screen real estate. what is the point of having these bigger screens if all you do is just space out elements even farther apart than they were to begin with. keep the spacing as is and just add another column of icons. jeez.

 

[Elbon]

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

Now that's just crazy talk.

 

[Millah]

It wouldn't be overkill at all because it would allow for all apps to scale and work instantly with no work required by the developer. The current A7 could handle that resolution just fine because the iPad still has a higher res. And since with iOS7 apps are encouraged to generate items package sizes shouldn't change a lot for a good amount of apps.

The only developer friendly way is to simply double the pixels. Any other way would require apps to be re thought.

And what exactly would be the point of adding more screen real estate if the apps didn't utilize any of it? The most "developer friendly" approach is giving developers more tools and utilities to be even more creative. Developers do work and get paid for their efforts. That's always been Apples approach, letting developers who care get rewarded for their efforts. Not letting them take the easy way out.

Honestly, what would be the point of seeing the current applications stretched to look bigger/sharper? There's very little point. Especially with the Dynamic Type API in iOS 7, if your only goal is to see larger text, you now have an option within the OS to do that.

To me, the only reason for increasing the display size is to give developers more real-estate and having a larger canvas for them to be creative.

 

[atlatnesiti]

Well, I use my iPhone 5s as a phone
Phone calls, SMS and very occasional web browsing...
For everything else, I use my iPad Air.
Personally, I wish for iPhone NANO with something like 2" screen

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

please no, the way iOS7 spaces out icons, especially in the sub-folders, is a heinous waste of screen real estate. what is the point of having these bigger screens if all you do is just space out elements even farther apart than they were to begin with. keep the spacing as is and just add another column of icons. jeez.

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!!!!!

----------

Well, I use my iPhone 5s as a phone
Phone calls, SMS and very occasional web browsing...
For everything else, I use my iPad Air.
Personally, I wish for iPhone NANO with something like 2" screen

Would you rather have a 3" screen iphone with no bezel, or a 2" screen iphone with the current bezel? Assuming both were identical in their physical size.

 

[redscull]

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.

I see. The aspect of launchpad that iOS lacks is specifically the ability to NOT have it. To hide it. So it's not that you want iOS to have launchpad like OSX, you want it to NOT have launchpad "open" all the time (like OSX).

I get that icons hiding your background can be lame, you know, when the reason you have this device is just to stare at that one picture all day instead of quickly launching the various applications you frequently use. But to be fair, you can arrange your iOS home page not to block the background, similar to Android. You'll have to concede to one icon in the top left, but you can otherwise have a clear page, even your first/main page. You should show your mum that.

I suspect the reason that launchpad is "always open" on iOS is that it saves you the effort of having to open it every time you wake and unlock your phone. Why have to perform that extra action? Do you normally wake and unlock your phone to do some task, or just to look at the background picture? They have to pick a default, open or hidden, and I'd bet the default they chose, open, fits most people's needs best.

You can hot link to web pages and online docs from your home screen, but not local documents. That's a fair point, and Apple's refusal to put dummy-proof and streamlined file-system-like document repository in iOS truly is disappointing. It really hampers its ability to be a true productivity tool. But I'd have never questioned you on that example; I was only talking about launchpad functionality in my other reply, and that's unrelated to launchpad. It's a point for exposing the file system (though I would never do an iOS user file system the same as OSX).

 

[zipa]

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.

What do you mean by "suddenly"? Anyone under the age of 60 or so with fairly decent eyesight should be able to resolve far, far more detail than that.

 

[497902]

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!!!!!

Here you go:

 

[felipur]

Originally Posted by Beta Particle
It's not pixel density that needs to remain constant, it's resolution.

The both may cause problems depending on the developer needs. Changing resolutions causes problems for bitmaps which need to scale. Pixel doubling was a way to make it easier for developers to fix their apps. Changing density is a problem if you want things to remain the same size. Some apps do. If you don't use bitmaps and you don't care about absolute size, auto layout makes changes to either irrelevant.

People seem to want bigger phones for one of two reasons: they want more on the screen, or they want things to be bigger and easier to see. I suspect that the iPhone 6 will tell us which group Apple thinks is bigger.

 

[zipa]

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.

This is utter bollocks. Also, what does PPI or screen resolution have to do with battery consumption, except with GPU intensive apps, such as 3D games? The backlight that can handle a 4,7" inch screen will consume X watts whether the screen has one pixel or five millions of them.

 

[iCore24]

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.

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

 

[redscull]

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.

Yeah, is such an exact ppi match that crucial? They couldn't shoot for 1366x768? That does increase the ppi a small amount, making the touch areas a little smaller, but probably not enough to matter. It's the same 16:9 ratio as the iPhone 5, and it's a standard resolution: the widescreen equivalent of the iPad's 4:3 ratio. 1280x720 wouldn't have been sufficient too; less real estate and ppi, but certainly good enough. And a standard resolution.

 

[LordVic]

This is utter bollocks. Also, what does PPI or screen resolution have to do with battery consumption, except with GPU intensive apps, such as 3D games? The backlight that can handle a 4,7" inch screen will consume X watts whether the screen has one pixel or five millions of them.

Thats not true

The more pixels you drive, the more power is consumed for multiple reasons.

the more pixels you have... the following has to increase to be able to drive them at a reasonable rate

CPU / GPU technology must be adequate enough to be able to render and process the screen imagery fast enough. The more pixels, the more power you need. The more processing power you have, generally the greater battery draw.

Memory bandwith must improve to be able to move the increased data required for the larger resolutions. Generally, the faster the memory pipe, the more battery it tends to use.

more pixels means the more pixels you need to provide power to for all different states you need them in. Thus also more power.

the constant increase to resolution that we have seen is a direct detriment to battery life consumption. At somepoint when we go beyond the point that the human eye can tell the difference in resolution, there's little point in pushign further since the cost of power consumption will start to outweight the benefito to the visuals on the screen.

This is where the term "retina" came in. Apple coined it as marketting, but it's a good term to define that threshold where increasing resolution really doesn't have great impact on amount of pixels you can see, therefore going ridiculously past that line will generally have more cost than benefit.

 

[Tankmaze]

This is the most logical and probably "Apple" way to do bigger screen in iOS.