whoever made those has tiny hands and your against the ear comparison is pretty lousy, they are not that much bigger, it's not like you are putting an ipad to your head
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.
iOS 6 Automatically Scales to Fit Taller 1136x640 iPhone Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
whoever made those has tiny hands and your against the ear comparison is pretty lousy, they are not that much bigger, it's not like you are putting an ipad to your head
Why was the former sexy and this stupid? You don't even give any reasons. Because you are unused to the size?
So that people can multitask by mistake while playing a game? It's an easy fix but not a very elegant one at all. Then again, elegance hasn't been Apple's objective lately based on the iPhone leaks. I really hope they prove me wrong in September.
Even said so myself. A bit quick in replying there uh ?
Since they coined the term, they can change the "normal viewing distance" of any screen to fit the definition and baring that, change the whole definition and pretend it's always been like that.
----------
Sure there is. Pixels per inch, the number of pixels in an inch. Pretty strict if you ask me.
300 PPI has nothing to do with Retina.
thats the bottom line here but im sure for profit reasons they found it better to just make it taller so they can keep using their current factory fabs that are making the 4 and 4S..
this is sad though.. but partly bigger is better that not bigger at all i guess
It may be unfashionable, but I trust Apple to do the right thing. Automatic scaling sounds good even if only for one more pixel size. It sure doesn't sound like breaking up the universality of iOS over the various sized iDevices. Also a taller iPhone and a 16x9 screen sound good too.
i hope this tall iphone crap is all a joke and we gat a nice big proper screen in the 5... but i will laugh if its another 4/4S clone
Well, that would be true if 300ppi were the definition Apple provided for 'retina display' when they made the original announcement. That's *not* the definition they used though. The definition involves ppi *and* viewing distance, and the point at which the typical (20:20) human retina can no longer resolve one of a pair of adjacent points distinctly from the other. The math is out there and easily available, as are captures of the original slide which showed the math which was used.
Don't make up a different definition for something, and then claim that reality doesn't match that definition. It's a classic example of the straw man fallacy.
For my uses this development sounds good. I am always frustrated when watching 16:9 video, never being able to decide between tiny or cropped. Now this issue will be gone. I am always wishing I could see just a little further when firing my Angry Birds. And a little more reading room in Readablity will save me some scrolling. On top of this I look forward to an improved camera, faster chip, and all the other enhancements that are sure to be there.
Design-wise I bet the 4/4S will feel squat after an hour with the new one.
Design-wise I bet the 4/4S will feel squat after an hour with the new one.
Every smartphone that will compete with this new iPhone will have a 720p display and Apple thinks that 1136x640 is alright?
The general population isn't as dumb as they once were about tech thanks to companies like Apple. With each new phone release the public knows more and more about what different brands are offering and right now having a great display is what everyone is talking about. Just look at the S3 and One X.
95% of me knows that this is the new iPhone but the last 5% of me is hoping that this will be an upgrade to the 4S, and they'll unveil a brand new design to be the flagship.
The general population isn't as dumb as they once were about tech thanks to companies like Apple. With each new phone release the public knows more and more about what different brands are offering and right now having a great display is what everyone is talking about. Just look at the S3 and One X.
95% of me knows that this is the new iPhone but the last 5% of me is hoping that this will be an upgrade to the 4S, and they'll unveil a brand new design to be the flagship.
It's so much fun to use semantics to twist a simple claim.Here is the actual definition.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1335308/
I hope Apple has some UI-change coming that will take advantage of the bigger screen, perhaps as some have suggested a notification area or task manager.
Simply making the screen taller won't be of much help for things other than movies, to most other apps it would just allow for more content (which, now that I think about it could be a bit useful as many apps have ways hiding their UIs to display more content, perhaps this size could prove ideal in avoiding that).
As many have stated, width is often more important than height, many web pages require more width in portrait mode than the current screen in order to be viewable. This results in either the user having to constantly keep zooming in and out, or flip to landscape mode and do a whole lot of scrolling instead. A taller sceen doesn't help in either case, it might actually make landscape browsing worse if there aren't any changes to safari, as most pages are zoomed to fill the landscape width and are impossible to zoom out from.
All that for better movie playback, and SLIGHTLY less vertical scrolling in portrait? I really do hope there's more to it than that.
Simply making the screen taller won't be of much help for things other than movies, to most other apps it would just allow for more content (which, now that I think about it could be a bit useful as many apps have ways hiding their UIs to display more content, perhaps this size could prove ideal in avoiding that).
As many have stated, width is often more important than height, many web pages require more width in portrait mode than the current screen in order to be viewable. This results in either the user having to constantly keep zooming in and out, or flip to landscape mode and do a whole lot of scrolling instead. A taller sceen doesn't help in either case, it might actually make landscape browsing worse if there aren't any changes to safari, as most pages are zoomed to fill the landscape width and are impossible to zoom out from.
All that for better movie playback, and SLIGHTLY less vertical scrolling in portrait? I really do hope there's more to it than that.
Here is the actual definition.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1335308/
Huh? I was agreeing with you. And the link I posted is an explanation in english vs one that you posted which is just a diagram?
I really hope the "tall-screen" does not happen. If it does, then, S3 it is for me!
It's interesting how many "looks like I'm going to S3 if this taller phone happens" comments there are when the rumored iPhone 5 and the S3 both have about 16:9 aspect ratio. Actually, the S3 is slightly taller. Are people only going with iPhone because they want the smaller aspect ratio?
S3: 1280x720; 1280/720 = 16/9.
5: 1136x640; 1136/640 is a tiny bit less than 16/9.
This is a pretty good-looking phone. I think the long iPhone 5 will look great.
Last edited:
Yep that would be me. Plus considering the amount of money I've spent in the App Store, they could become the next blackberry and I'd still be dedicated until the end. For better or worse.
Even said so myself. A bit quick in replying there uh ?
Not at all. I was simply *agreeing* with that part of your statement. Hence the 'yep'.
Actually, not. There are studies which have been done about how far people typically keep certain size screens from their face during normal usage scenarios. It turns out that it is *largely* dependent upon screen size, and how much of your field of vision the screen takes up. For hand held screens, with users who have typical vision, the ranges are pretty narrow, and are consistent with the numbers Apple has used in their retina calculations.
For desktop/laptop scenarios, the ranges are substantially broader, until you break them down by 'working' vs. 'viewing'. At that point they get more consistent, with the 'viewing' range (when someone is sitting back and just reading, and maybe scrolling, through something), typically 1-1.5 feet further back than their 'working' distance, which is (again) largely dependent upon screen size.
TVs are where this breaks down, because the two major distance factors with TVs are: the size of the room the TV is in, and the size of the screen the people can afford (or justify to themselves). Most HDTVs are already well beyond 'retina' at the distances people commonly view them. (My own 46" TV, for example, would still be retina if I sat on the near side of the coffee table rather than the couch. If I wanted a non-'retina' TV at couch-distance, I'd need a 75" set or larger, and I can't justify that to my wife even though she's the one who watches more TV.)
Nope apple doesn't give you that much customization, you can have whatever size app you want as long as its what apple says...lol
This amazes me that you think cost was a factor in choosing 4" over any larger size rather than usability. My Lumia 900's width makes it nearly impossible to use one handed even with a very small bezel on the sides...I think that is the major deciding factor here. Not the mere pennies it would cost Apple to cut those panels into slightly larger rectangles.
As you said, they did provide a formula for calculating 'retina-required' PPI at a certain viewing distance. But apple has just "randomly" stated what the typical viewing distance for eah device type is. If I remember correctly , when the iPhone 4 and it's 640*960 display was released most android phones were like 3.7" 480*80 displays that would've been 'retina' at say two inches further away.