Should they? A 5" phone is a ridiculous product. It is neither a smartphone nor a tablet. You can't put it in your pocket. It won't fit in your hand while speaking. Tablet apps look tiny on that screen. You can't compress the tablet experience on such a form factor, or stretch it from a smartphone. All in all you end up with a bad user experience. Such a product can do anything, but it can't do anything right!
The tendency for bigger and bigger smartphone screens is just a hype and most people think that they have to go along with that hype otherwise they loose connection. It is simple: The bigger the screen, the more expensive the product. Most people see innovation in size. However, it is the other way around. Innovation takes place in the apps. It is more difficult to design an app that uses the space efficiently rather than an app with just more features that utilizes more space.
Whereas I agree, that Apple should release 2 differently sized iPhones, it is because people have different sized hands and not because of a hype. A 4,3" sized iPhone would fit in the hands of large people. A 3,8" iPhone would fit in the hands of small people. Both, the iPhone and the "iPhone mini" could have the same resolutions, similar to the iPads. And developing apps would be as easy as before.
We can see many parallels in the development of the laptops in the late 1990s. Most people bought Windows laptops because they were bigger and supposedly had more features. However, they had a bad user experience and were (still are) complicated to use. Apple did the right thing. They ditched OS 9 and replaced it with OS X. They dropped most features because most of them were just redundant or too complicated. And then the people said the Mac is innovative again, because Apple added new features. It's all about the features. Adding features does not necessary mean innovation. You'll end up with bloat. Creating the apps that do the things you want in the most simple way is the real innovation. However, most people nag and grumble and can not imagine how the situation can be improved. Most people just do not get it.
And if not, doesn't matter. If this guy uses the 3G forever and never buys an app, song or movie in iTunes, that person is basically out of the market and no one is getting his cash anyway.
This is silly. You just discard the needs of a multitude of users as "ridiculous". By what right? Maybe I think it's "ridiculous" to want to browse the web on a postage-stamp sized screen - at least that's how I feel using my antiquated 4S. And please, "the bigger the screen, the more expensive the product"? When has THAT ever stopped Apple? When the iPad got its retina display last year I'll bet it was the most expensive tablet screen on the market. So what? It offered and continues to offer huge benefits over the crappy low-res screen that came before. The same would be true for a quality five inch screen with double the resolution of the current iPhone.
I'd agree that a significant portion of the "innovation" everyone is clamoring for lies in the software, but you seem to place an awful lot of trust in Apple in this regard. iOS 6 was thoroughly disappointing, so I'm rather skeptical as far as my expectations for iOS 7 are concerned. Meanwhile, Android offers a much more intuitive and information-centric home screen concept that, frankly, makes my 4S with its static grid of icons look like something out of the stone age.
The comparison to the laptop market does not compute, by the way. Most of those "big" Wintel laptops had horrible displays, while Apple traditionally used high quality display panels. This is not the case in the smartphone market; the 1080p display in a phone like the HTC One is probably at least as good as the iPhone's in terms of color accuracy and viewing angles, with the added benefit of, you know, offering a SIGNIFICANTLY higher PPI. Same goes for the Xperia Z (apart from the viewing angles) and the LG Optimus G Pro. Even my Nexus 4, which only has a 720p screen, looks a lot better than my 4S.
You still don't understand what I am saying, and you argue with the arguments of other people.
You can marvellously browse the web with the 4S (and even the very first iPhone btw). The problem is, that most websites are designed for large computer screens. Those websites won't look much better on a 5" display, because the text will still be very small. You can increase the ppi by x-times, it won't make the text bigger, only a little sharper.
The reasons you argue with we had before with the famous Windows vs. Macintosh debates. Most features you like on your Android phone are just redundant. Those things are really bad designed and complicated to use, because they miss clear user guidelines. iOS could be improved as well in this regard, but still has a more clean and logical interface than Android. The only thing the iOS lock screen should have is something like "Lock Calendar" with more options, available through Cydia when jailbroken, for example.
The Apple displays were sub-optimal most of the time and still are (except the new Retina displays). Just look at the MacBook and iBook displays a few years ago. The TN-panel of the MBA is still much of a controversy. The only thing with Windows-laptops were that most of them had even worse displays. However, some expensive Windows-laptops had better screens. However, this has nothing to do with design. It just proofs that you didn't got the message. A faster processor with 16 cores doesn't necessarily mean that the user interface is faster, clean programming and design are more important than processing power alone.
There is no real world difference between 400 ppi or 320 ppi, except you look at these displays in 2cm distance or you test both numbers statistically. The displays of the iPhone were better rated in terms such as color rendition by some serious websites like Anandtech. Don't believe every myth you read here and there. But what has this to do with design? Nothing. You are studying spec sheets. Better technology doesn't make a better product. User experience and design does. It is important what's on the screen rather that how much. Windows 8 provides a very clean and intuitive interface on smartphones. Nobody really cares because it's no hype and because Windows is not cool anymore.
I'm no Apple-fangirl. The only thing that differentiates me from most people is, that I'm reading between the lines and do not listen to silly marketing arguments made up by the industry (such as the Retina display) or some "Zeitgeist" hypes.
Android phones are well suited for the larger screens due to the customizable home screens and large widgets. With the iPhone i just question the looks and feel of either bumping the icon size up, or dramatically increasing the number of icons on screen.
Yes I realize bigger screens are better for reading, browsing, etc. but apple has always been obsessed with the appearance of their iOS, and has limited our ability to customize because of it.
Should they? A 5" phone is a ridiculous product. It is neither a smartphone nor a tablet. You can't put it in your pocket. It won't fit in your hand while speaking. Tablet apps look tiny on that screen. You can't compress the tablet experience on such a form factor, or stretch it from a smartphone. All in all you end up with a bad user experience. Such a product can do anything, but it can't do anything right!
The tendency for bigger and bigger smartphone screens is just a hype and most people think that they have to go along with that hype otherwise they loose connection. It is simple: The bigger the screen, the more expensive the product. Most people see innovation in size. However, it is the other way around. Innovation takes place in the apps. It is more difficult to design an app that uses the space efficiently rather than an app with just more features that utilizes more space.
Whereas I agree, that Apple should release 2 differently sized iPhones, it is because people have different sized hands and not because of a hype. A 4,3" sized iPhone would fit in the hands of large people. A 3,8" iPhone would fit in the hands of small people. Both, the iPhone and the "iPhone mini" could have the same resolutions, similar to the iPads. And developing apps would be as easy as before.
We can see many parallels in the development of the laptops in the late 1990s. Most people bought Windows laptops because they were bigger and supposedly had more features. However, they had a bad user experience and were (still are) complicated to use. Apple did the right thing. They ditched OS 9 and replaced it with OS X. They dropped most features because most of them were just redundant or too complicated. And then the people said the Mac is innovative again, because Apple added new features. It's all about the features. Adding features does not necessary mean innovation. You'll end up with bloat. Creating the apps that do the things you want in the most simple way is the real innovation. However, most people nag and grumble and can not imagine how the situation can be improved. Most people just do not get it.
But an iPad Mini with cellular, install a VoIP App there's your prepaid phablet with inexpensive minutes.
Holding it to your head looks ridiculous anyways, so you'd use a Bluetooth headset or headphones, which the iPad Mini is perfectly capable of.
People tried.How do you know? Apple will call it the iPad Nano. While the first generation only has very basic functionality, the second generation will have the commercial: "Now with phone capabilities."![]()
Gawd you guys are so easily influenced by analysts and the media.
Here.. Pull my finger.
My 5 inch screen fits in my pocket, holds in my hand well and the apps look great....!