How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays

[zipa]

Thats not true

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

The backlight is the same regardless of resolution, it only varies with size and it is the single biggest battery hog on any mobile phone.

And I also mentioned GPU intensive tasks as an exception to this. Any regular old 2D app isn't going to make any modern GPU to even break a sweat so the difference in power consumption would probably not even be measureable.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Apple's market research shows that consumers want bigger and cheaper smartphones. Since I've never had a smartphone, I don't know whether I'd prefer bigger or smaller, but the reason I don't have one is the price of the iPhone. If they could produced a current generation model (versus selling an old one with limited storage) for max $450 I would be interested, preferably $400. The last computer I bought was a Mac mini for $600, and I hope it will last me for many years. It's hard for me to justify in my mind spending that much on a cellphone.

 

[iMember]

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

Remeber when Apple said iPhone 4 and iPhone 5 is the perfect for a phone..Guess what is still is!
Is funny how.. the users how owns big LARGE phone -are the ones who insulting others for using normal sized phones

 

[mytakeontech]

Another row! Yeah!

Came here to say exactly this...

 

[o0bubbles0o1]

Here you go:

Hahah thank you!

 

[cmChimera]

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.

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"

The 4s won't be phased out until iOS 9.

Good point.

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.

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.

 

[macs4nw]

Image
Image

Article Link: How Apple Could Make the Move to 4.7" iPhone Displays

I'm getting (cautiously) excited about a larger screen for the iPhone, at least the option for one.

 

[Lepton]

I'm going to guess scaling instead of letterboxing. With a retina screen, scaling shouldn't be jaggy or blurry, would it? And the graphics processor could probably handle it well.

 

[Millah]

The backlight is the same regardless of resolution, it only varies with size and it is the single biggest battery hog on any mobile phone.

And I also mentioned GPU intensive tasks as an exception to this. Any regular old 2D app isn't going to make any modern GPU to even break a sweat so the difference in power consumption would probably not even be measureable.

Right , tell that to the 3rd and 4th generation iPads, which had to nearly double their light output in order to push enough light through the added pixels. At the cost of size/weight/battery. And the A5X chip, which was a powerhog, and still couldn't manage to run some of the basic 2D animations in iOS at a constant 60fps.

Your argument sounds plausible in theory, but in reality that's just not how it works at all. Seriously, where do people like you come up with this stuff? Talk so assuredly about something as if you were actually engineering the products yourself.

 

[davidChief]

Why would Apple increase the pixel density of the iPhone display? To make everything sharper. Does anyone want a display sharper than the iPhone 5S? Who has good enough eyesight to see the difference between 300 ppi and 500 ppi? It would look good on spec sheets but at the cost of requiring significant reworking of all iPhone apps.

Why would Apple increase the size of the iPhone display? In order to fit more content on the screen. More emails visible. More calendar entries visible. More immersive games. A better phone for watching video. A better phone for web browsing, particularly for browsing desktop websites that are not responsive. Who wants an iPhone with a larger display? An awful lot of people you'd have to assume, given what we've seen with Android and WP8.

A larger display iPhone 6 would be like their iPhone 5 keynote all over again. It is easy to sell a bigger display, one that can show more content.

Apple has already done enough to support app developers through the transition. The software technology is already built. I reckon that the developers who did a major redesign for iOS 7 may find the transition to a larger iPhone quite trivial.

If you were to line up Apple's range of devices, there is a massive gulf between the iPhone 5S and the iPad mini. Above the iPad Air, it is not a very big step up to the 11-inch MacBook Air. I think there is room for at least one device between the iPhone and the iPad mini. Perhaps two.

I find my iPad mini a much nicer device for reading and web browsing, compared to the iPhone. A bigger iPhone might be the best of both worlds: something you can carry in your pocket, but a device that is truly usable for most day-to-day tasks.

----------

I'm going to guess scaling instead of letterboxing. With a retina screen, scaling shouldn't be jaggy or blurry, would it? And the graphics processor could probably handle it well.

It would be a tiny bit blurry. But totally acceptable in my opinion. And it is just a stop gap. The expectation would be that app developers would quickly put out updated versions of their apps, optimised for the new display. Most developers completed the 3.5 inch to 4 inch transition expediently.

The graphics processor of the iPhone 5S is more than capable of doing the scaling. And you'd expect there to be a modest improvement in graphics capability in the iPhone 6.

 

[olowott]

and it continues to grow

 

[dannyyankou]

I'll probably keep the 5s for another few years before I upgrade. I think 4" is perfect, and I've tried 5" phones which I feel are too big.

/opinion

 

[Sy7ygy]

NO MORE iPHONE 6 SCREEN SIZE RUMOURS.

Seriously; what is the deal with this site - just to get headlines? This isn't informative; nor interesting just speculative nonsense.

Let's report something interesting about Apple - not 1000 posts about the iPhone 6. I am far more interested in what people are doing with their current iPhone technology than speculating what 'might' happen.

It's like flies around a dog ****.

 

[LordVic]

The backlight is the same regardless of resolution, it only varies with size and it is the single biggest battery hog on any mobile phone.

And I also mentioned GPU intensive tasks as an exception to this. Any regular old 2D app isn't going to make any modern GPU to even break a sweat so the difference in power consumption would probably not even be measureable.

you are still incorrect.

every single pixel you add increases battery load, regardless of the actual image on display.

every pixel has it's own power draw, even if it's microscopic numbers in power draw, as you increase the pure count of pixels, you increase the power draw. there is no way around this. it's the laws of physics (unless you come up with a way of not drawing power to each individual pixel). the Nature of LCD display is that in order to change state (or colour) it must recieve an electric signal in order to change that state.


But even not counting that, it doesn't matter. As you increase the amount of pixels you always have to drive them, no matter what. the display itself doesn't care if it's a 3d rendered image or a 2d rendered image. the display HAS to receive a signal, per pixel, that tells that individual pixel on the screen what colour to display.

as you increase pixel cont, that amount of data always has to increase. That increase to the amount of data will always have a power cost. that comes in the way of GPU usage, CPU usage and memory bandwith considerations.

What is being on the display is completely irrelevant to this. your screen itself could have it's backlight at 0% and the remaining factors I named will still be in effect.

driving a 720p screen means driving 921,600 pixels.
driving a 1080p screen means driving 2,073,600 pixels.
now, lets say given a 60hz refresh rate at 8bit colour (just for example purposes) (also someone check my math, i'm usually bad at it)
720p requires 44,236,800 bits per second
1080p would require 995,328,000 bits per second


the increase in battery resolution (if all else being equal such as powe efficiency of the display, CPU, GPU and memory), will always be more more power hungry. This does not include the backlight, which, will need to be at least sufficient to drive enough light through the display,

 

[Sy7ygy]

Apple's market research shows that consumers want bigger and cheaper smartphones. Since I've never had a smartphone, I don't know whether I'd prefer bigger or smaller, but the reason I don't have one is the price of the iPhone. If they could produced a current generation model (versus selling an old one with limited storage) for max $450 I would be interested, preferably $400. The last computer I bought was a Mac mini for $600, and I hope it will last me for many years. It's hard for me to justify in my mind spending that much on a cellphone.

More doesn't mean better. Apple have PROVEN this time & time again.

Sometimes you shouldn't give people what they think they want, but what they need.

There_are_plenty_of_other_options_out_there_if_you_want_to_carry_a_brick.

 

[Casiotone]

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.

I'm with you on that, it doesn't have to be an exact match, but it can't go too much over 326 PPI. 1366x768 would be 333 PPI which would not really affect usability.

Densities like 400+ PPI on the other hand would make many UI elements too small unless devs resize them by some ugly non-integer ratio like 1.2269938x (something they never had to deal with before on iOS).

 

[1Zach1]

NO MORE iPHONE 6 SCREEN SIZE RUMOURS.

Seriously; what is the deal with this site - just to get headlines? This isn't informative; nor interesting just speculative nonsense.

Let's report something interesting about Apple - not 1000 posts about the iPhone 6. I am far more interested in what people are doing with their current iPhone technology than speculating what 'might' happen.

It's like flies around a dog ****.

You're on the wrong website.

 

[xmichaelp]

Except that these displays don't exist. Has nothing to do with processor power. Simply that Apple sources displays from various manufacturers and none of them produce a 4.7" display with 500+ ppi at this point.

Do you really think the weird resolution 4 inch screens existed before Apple made the 5? They can get custom displays.

 

[davidChief]

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.

No, it isn't crucial. Apple's approach with their Macs has been quite telling. There is a broad range of PPIs across recent Macs, but they have avoided putting out products where the UI is tiny (and fiddly) and they've also avoided putting out products where the UI is huge. The current 13-inch retina MacBook Pro has a pretty chunky looking UI compared to the current 13-inch MacBook Air.

The same goes for the iPad line. The Mini and the Air share the same resolution but their PPIs are 326 and 264 respectively.

I'd say a PPI much greater than 326 is unlikely, unless they can achieve a clean 1.5X or 2X multiplier. That's because it would make the UI too fiddly. A PPI much lower than 326 might be seen negatively in the marketplace as a retrograde step. So it doesn't have to be exactly 326 - I think there is a little wiggle room - but not very much.

 

[simon48]

that letterbox looks terrible...

It would help if it was actually letterboxing not windowboxing.

 

[jrswizzle]

Do you really think the weird resolution 4 inch screens existed before Apple made the 5? They can get custom displays.

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.

 

[paulrbeers]

I'm all for this method, retain the same 326ppi and expand screen resolution to fill the new size. But that 1334x750 is stupid. It's not divisible by 16!! At least 1344x752, or 1360x768 if size go to near 4,8". 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).

What does 16 have to do with anything? 16:9 is a ratio of 1.778 (as already stated in this thread), which is what 1334x750 is roughly....

 

[LordVic]

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.

I agree. Unless Apple has some display that they've managed to keep super secret that they've managed to inhouse develop, I dont think you're going to see a 2x doubling of the resolution in a 4" or < 5" device.

LG and Samsung, arguably leaders in display technologies are only now just showing tech samples of 1440p displays at 5.7"s. so, unless Apple managed to invent a screen tech themselves, Liklihood is we'll see them going a standards rout with 1080p display.. or same resolution in a bigger device, but risking lower PPI (i don't think this is the likely option)

 

[paradox00]

I can use a 5 inch device with only one hand. A smaller screen is just more comfortable to use.

And no my hands aren't huge.

You're mixing up perfect and possible. I can use my iPhone 5 in one hand too, but I have to be more wary of my grip than with my old 3GS. If one handed use is the only criteria, you can't get better than the 3.5" screen for most people with an average sized thumb. You can reach any part of the screen without ever thinking about your grip. Once you go bigger than that, you start to lose that benefit. Hence the suggestion that it is still "perfect" for one-handed use. A more appropriate term would really be "best" though.

Obviously one handed use isn't the only criteria, so I wouldn't call it a perfect size in general. I think that is fairly subjective.

 

[alexgowers]

despite apple not needing to increase screen resolution or pixel density it will because the rest of the industry making small screens is doing 1080p i would be very very very surprised if apple went with anything other than a 1080p screen for the larger iPhone 6.

I mean look at the market, despite no one being able to even see the difference 1080p is a understandable resolution for everyone. It's seen as the best you could ever need in TVs so people are wanting to see that spec causing every screen maker to chase it too.

It's not that apple need to but that 1080p is probably cheaper than making a custom resolution screen. In fact there is probably a surplus.

All i know is screens are cut from larger sheets and it's the first time 1080p is available at the quantities apple requires.

Personally 350ish ppi is great for me and anything above is overkill anyway.