Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think this is what the disappointed were expecting from the iPhone 5
- Thread starter Funkymonk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WTF! No wireless charging? No NFC? Apple is lazy!
AND OMG!!! 8 Megapixels? It's the same as the 4s. It sucks, Epic Fail. Steve would not have allowed! I'll get a Samsung
AND OMG!!! 8 Megapixels? It's the same as the 4s. It sucks, Epic Fail. Steve would not have allowed! I'll get a Samsung
That phone.... would be a BEAST!
Of course that would have been better. I wouldn't mind having a bigger screen, but I am interested to see how the 4" screen feels in my hands before I judge.
Of course that would have been better. I wouldn't mind having a bigger screen, but I am interested to see how the 4" screen feels in my hands before I judge.
WTF! No wireless charging? No NFC? Apple is lazy!
AND OMG!!! 8 Megapixels? It's the same as the 4s. It sucks, Epic Fail. Steve would not have allowed! I'll get a Samsung
I would buy that iPhone in a heartbeat. Shame it will never happen
Eh, if that was the actual iPhone, people would complain about it being bigger, hotter, etc...
Eh, if that was the actual iPhone, people would complain about it being bigger, hotter, etc...
The only way to please the masses is to release a phone in multiple sizes (screen).
Which then further fragments the iOS ecosystem.
The one bold move I would have loved to have seen from Apple would have been a rapid standardized switch to the 16:9 ratio display. All the iPod touches, at least a modified iPhone 4S with the 4 inch screen (I'm not sure how the iPhone 4, with the A4, would have handled more pixels).
How much easier would it have been for developers, going forward, to only have to worry about a 16:9 ratio display. Instead, they've got to consider the 3:2 3.5 inch regular display on the base iPod touch, the 3:2 3.5 inch retina display, the 16:9 4 inch retina display. And that doesn't even include the regular iPad screen and the iPad retina display. Simplicity for developers is a good thing. The creation of the iTunes App Store was a key step in building the success of Apple's iDevices over the last few years.
This is all just for kicks since Apple already made their decision, but I'm curious why you would prefer a switch to 16:9 if you're worried about fragmentation. Wouldn't the easiest (and better) solution be to maintain the existing aspect ratio and then simply scale it to fit a 4" 3:2 screen? I'm still not finding a true example of how 16:9 is the "right" move while a bigger version of the existing size is "wrong". In fact, I got to try out a few android phones and the 3:2 aspect ratio doesn't get too wide at all if the screen size is only increased to 4" (and even 4.3 was surprisingly small). So why is 16:9 so important to people now?
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. 16:9 is convenient as far as media consumption is concerned (same aspect as most new television programs, and closer to movies than 3:2). I also think that, in a landscape view, the wider (longer in portrait) screen could offer some advantages in terms of software buttons while leaving a central area for viewing a game, manipulating a photo, etc.
And, on a more personal note, I like the current width of the iPhone. I've got a fairly large hand but fairly stubby fingers. When I grab my phone, I have about 1 segment of a finger of overlap. If it were any wider (which it would have to be for a 4 inch 3:2 ratio screen), I wouldn't have as good of a grip carrying it around in my hand, and it would be a little harder to reach the far edge of the screen the way I tend to hold it. But everyone's a little different in this area. I can't even imagine how I'd use one of the big Android phones with 1 hand, though I suspect my 2-handed use would be the same.
If you go to your carrier's store, you can try it one-handed. For my small hands, the screens were too wide. I like the fact that apple is still considerate of its smaller handed users.
OP, in your specs, you forgot to mention crappy battery usage. People seem to forget that an overly powerful phone means less battery usage. Apple is vertically integrated, which means they can optimize a less fast chip with their os. Android has to use a faster chip, because it's not optimized for their os.
Also, you forgot to mention how thick a phone like this would be too. We know apple is about thinner and lighter. Apple will work within the limitations to achieve this.
OP, in your specs, you forgot to mention crappy battery usage
. People seem to forget that an overly powerful phone means less battery usage. Apple is vertically integrated, which means they can optimize a less fast chip with their os. Android has to use a faster chip, because it's not optimized for their os. Also, you forgot to mention how thick a phone like this would be too. We know apple is about thinner and lighter. Apple will work within the limitations to achieve this.
There's no point of having all that power, when most apps don't even take advantage of it. All it does is drain battery, see android.
