Larger iPhone will have 4.94" screen

[LostSoul80]

My estimate would be that the 132 PPI of the iPad will some day be used for a larger iPhone.

Aside from the incorrect use of the term "PPI", there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all. Nothing does even suggest Apple wants to keep a 16/9 aspect ratio.
Everyone can make up a number and have the related diagonal size at will.

I like the number 150 because it's nice and Apple like nice things. Let's post a thread about it, shall we?

You did a bit of high school maths and figured out Apple's future iPhone strategy? Go home OP, you're drunk.

Alex

You learnt divisions at high school?

 

[vomhorizon]

There is really no reason why Apple would not introduce a larger phone in the future (probably the 6)..Tim Cook said that he'd be willing to consider the larger screen size if the tradeoffs disappeared or became more favourable..Apple would like to diversify the iphone portfolio so it seems only logical that they offer the iphone in 2 sizes and a price range. A 5C, 5S, 6 and 6X is a pretty solid iphone base especially if you can start discounting the c to a point where carriers give it away free on a contract...

 

[TC03]

Aside from the incorrect use of the term "PPI", there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all. Nothing does even suggest Apple wants to keep a 16/9 aspect ratio.
Everyone can make up a number and have the related diagonal size at will.

I like the number 150 because it's nice and Apple like nice things. Let's post a thread about it, shall we?

You're not making any sense.

1. 'Points per inch' is a unit I introduced myself, which happens to have PPI as an abbreviation. Nothing wrong about that, I can use whatever unit I want. There are no rules for that.

2. There actually is a very good reason for Apple to maintain the same points for the width of an iPhone, which is fragmentation. It would be a pain for developers having to support two different screen widths for the iPhone. Apple always keeps a keen eye on making sure developers have to take zero effort to make apps work on as most devices as possible. We can safely assume that they will continue to execute this strategy.

If you say there is 'no reason' at all for Apple to keep to the standards they introduced themselves, you haven't been really paying attention. There is lots of reason to assume they will.

3. "Nothing does even suggest Apple will want to keep a 16:9 aspect ratio". Are you serious? You are right that there is no hard evidence for that, but I can think of a LOT of reason why Apple will stick to 16:9.

4.

Everyone can make up a number and have the related diagonal size at will.

I like the number 150 because it's nice and Apple like nice things. Let's post a thread about it, shall we?

I'm not making anything up, I'm making assumptions based on history and logic. I'm not choosing arbitrary sizes or dimensions, I've chosen densities and dimensions Apple previously has chosen for certain reasons, and I'm sticking to those dimensions and densities.

I really don't think you understood what I was trying to say because your arguments don't make any sense.

 

[TC03]

There is really no reason why Apple would not introduce a larger phone in the future (probably the 6)..Tim Cook said that he'd be willing to consider the larger screen size if the tradeoffs disappeared or became more favourable..Apple would like to diversify the iphone portfolio so it seems only logical that they offer the iphone in 2 sizes and a price range. A 5C, 5S, 6 and 6X is a pretty solid iphone base especially if you can start discounting the c to a point where carriers give it away free on a contract...

I agree.

I always thought Tim Cook meant this:

1. If Apple were to make a larger iPhone, it would have to have the iPad density (points per inch) for ergonomic reasons and consistency.

2. However, that would lead to 264 pixels per inch on a phone assuming it would have the same resolution as the iPhone 5 (bigger pixels), which is not good enough to be considered retina.

3. Consequently, Apple has to implement a 'super retina' display which doubles the iPhone 5 resolution. However, such displays would requite lots of calculation power, thus making it difficult to provide decent weight, battery life, speed, etc. Untill now, Apple can't make this trade-off, which is why they hold off on making an iPhone with a larger screen.

Not surprisingly, Tim Cook issued the following statement:

My view continues to be that iPhone 5 has the best display in the industry. We always strive to create the very best display. Some customers value large screen size. Others value other factors such as resolution, color quality, white balance, reflectivity, power consumption, compatibility of apps, and portability. Our competitors have made some significant tradeoffs in many of these areas to ship a larger display. We would not ship a larger display iPhone while these tradeoffs exist.

He talks about trade-offs after mentiong (a.o.) resolution, power consumption, compatibility of apps.

If Apple wants to make zero trade-offs with a larger iPhone, they should make a phone that has:
1. 'Super retina' resolution
2. A chip efficient and powerfull enough to drive such a display
3. A 4.94" to ensure maximum compatibility of apps

My guess is, Apple is waiting for #1 and #2 to be available for mass production, then we will see a 4.94" iPhone: a phone without compromises. There is only one BUT, if iOS 7 somehow is much more scalable than iOS 6, Apple might not have to double the iPhone resolution, 1280*720 might be enough then.

However, no matter what you'll do, portability always will be hurt when making a larger iPhone, so that is a trade-off. However, if Apple was certain it was going to stick to its "4 inch is the sweet spot because you can use it with one hand"-mantra, Tim Cook would have emphasized that in stead of saying "I won't comment on what we will or won't do in the future". Because of the above quote, I'm pretty certain Apple will release an iPhone with a larger screen some day.

 

[LostSoul80]

1. 'Points per inch' is a unit I introduced myself, which happens to have PPI as an abbreviation. Nothing wrong about that, I can use whatever unit I want. There are no rules for that.

PPI refers to pixel density. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

You can't just use "cm" as a unit for "cave men".

2. There actually is a very good reason for Apple to maintain the same points for the width of an iPhone, which is fragmentation. It would be a pain for developers having to support two different screen widths for the iPhone. Apple always keeps a keen eye on making sure developers have to take zero effort to make apps work on as most devices as possible. We can safely assume that they will continue to execute this strategy.

If you say there is 'no reason' at all for Apple to keep to the standards they introduced themselves, you haven't been really paying attention. There is lots of reason to assume they will.

Have you even read what I posted?

Aside from the incorrect use of the term "PPI", there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all.

I have never stated Apple would stop using 320 "points" as a reference. I have stated that there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all.

I can think of a LOT of reason why Apple will stick to 16:9.

Good for you, I guess.

4. I'm not making anything up, I'm making assumptions based on history and logic. I'm not choosing arbitrary sizes or dimensions, I've chosen densities and dimensions Apple previously has chosen for certain reasons, and I'm sticking to those dimensions and densities.

Which makes as much sense as the number 150 "PPI". It's very nice, logical and if you look at Apple's history, they've always used very nice and good looking number.
The fact that iPads have a certain "point density" is not conclusive of anything regarding iPhone models.

 

[dvoros]

5 inch screen iPhone

Its about time. Apple needs to develop and produce it NOW instead of waiting for yearly product launches. Every sane company in the world is moving out product. This is a concept that marketing VP Schiller has no idea about. As an example, even if the iWatch is better than Samsungs, its too late. Samsung has the product, design and ads all over the place so Apple will again look so out of date. Come out of the Clouds Schiller or quit or be fired.

 

[TC03]

PPI refers to pixel density. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

You can't just use "cm" as a unit for "cave men".



Have you even read what I posted?



I have never stated Apple would stop using 320 "points" as a reference. I have stated that there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all.



Good for you, I guess.



Which makes as much sense as the number 150 "PPI". It's very nice, logical and if you look at Apple's history, they've always used very nice and good looking number.
The fact that iPads have a certain "point density" is not conclusive of anything regarding iPhone models.

Whatever man, I can abbreviate any unit how I want it, I'm not making any scientific paper, it's just a forum thread and it is clear what I meant. No reason to start crying about that.

Second, I *exactly* read what you said, and my argument against you was a description of reasons why Apple will stick that many points for the width. Again: have you read what I said? My assumption: Apple will keep 320 points in width for the new iPhone. It's just my assumption for which I have good arguments, you can see that right?

Finally, 150 PPI does not make any sense at all because Apple has NEVER used it in iOS devices, but they HAVE used 132 and 164 PPI (yeah, my own unit with my own abbreviation, irritating huh?) before. How hard is it for you to understand that? 150 PPI is something which is made up, 132 or 163 PPI are NOT made up, these are densities Apple has used for more than 5 years. Nothing arbitrary about that. You're logic is completely flawed.

*sigh*

 

[LostSoul80]

Second, I *exactly* read what you said, and my argument against you was a description of reasons why Apple will stick that many points for the width. Again: have you read what I said? My assumption: Apple will keep 320 points in width for the new iPhone. It's just my assumption for which I have good arguments, you can see that right?

That is ridiculous, Lol. Let me highlight you a keyword:

Aside from the incorrect use of the term "PPI", there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all.

Get it now?

Finally, 150 PPI does not make any sense at all because Apple has NEVER used it in iOS devices, but they HAVE used 132 and 164 PPI (yeah, my own unit, irritiatng huh?) before.

So, since it hasn't happened in the past, it won't happen, and doesn't make any sense?

Very logical.

How hard is it for you to understand that?

Understand what, exactly?

Again: 150 PPI is something which is made up, 132 or 163 PPI are NOT made up, these are densities Apple has used for more than 5 years. Nothing arbitrary about that.

How is it not arbitrary you using iPads' "PPI" for a new iPhone model?
As I said, 150 is a very nice number. I'm starting to think that'll be the real deal... Someone should open a thread uselessly speculating on it.

 

[TC03]

That is ridiculous, Lol. Let me highlight you a keyword:



Get it now?



So, since it hasn't happened in the past, it won't happen, and doesn't make any sense?

Very logical.



Understand what, exactly?



How is it not arbitrary you using iPads' "PPI" for a new iPhone model?
As I said, 150 is a very nice number. I'm starting to think that'll be the real deal... Someone should open a thread uselessly speculating on it.

No I don't get it. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say. You're not making any sense.

Furthermore, history happens to be a very good indicator since Apple is company of consistency with clear goals, consequently previous actions combined with Apple's goals give a pretty good indication of what might be acceptable and what not.

150 is not a very nice number, because it's inconsistent and Apple is a company of consistency. You're just making that up, while 132 PPI is something Apple has done multiple times in the past for a good reason.

Stop ruining my thread with your flawed logics, please.

----------

How is it not arbitrary you using iPads' "PPI" for a new iPhone model?

This is not arbitrary, because again: Apple has applied this strategy before (iPad mini with iPhone 'PPI'.) So not arbitrary, not at all.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

Its about time. Apple needs to develop and produce it NOW instead of waiting for yearly product launches. Every sane company in the world is moving out product. This is a concept that marketing VP Schiller has no idea about. As an example, even if the iWatch is better than Samsungs, its too late. Samsung has the product, design and ads all over the place so Apple will again look so out of date. Come out of the Clouds Schiller or quit or be fired.

I partially agree with you here. They're sticking to their guns with product releases and not looking at the competition. The rumour is that Steve Jobs gave the thumbs up to the design of the iPhone 5 and 6, which Apple are still following. I wouldn't be surprised by that, but theywould be following the road map of a dead man who isn't around to see how the tech world has changed since his death.

I wouldn't be too hasty about the iWatch though. Let's see how the 'Gear' does in terms of reviews and units shipped. If it's poor then Apple still has that niche to fill. Remember, Microsoft made a tablet waaaaay many years ago, but it was rubbish and no-one bought it (looks like history has repeated itself again ). Apple can do they've done before - take an existing technology and make it great. The iWatch could still be the best despite the competition from the Samsungs of the world.

Off topic, I know.

Alex

 

[LostSoul80]

No I don't get it. I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say. You're not making any sense.

Seriously? Even after I highlighted the keyword?

You can refer again to a previous post of mine for further information:

I have never stated Apple would stop using 320 "points" as a reference.

I'm afraid I can't be more clear than that.

Furthermore, history happens to be a very good indicator since Apple is company of consistency with clear goals, consequently previous actions combined with Apple's goals give a pretty good indication of what might be acceptable and what not.

So consistent that the same company released a 4" screen phone from years of using 3.5", while now planning to release a bigger screen phone. Not to mention many others consistent characteristics indicators, like the release of iPad 4 or the iPad Mini.

150 is not a very nice number, because it's inconsistent and Apple is a company of consistency. You're just making that up, while 132 PPI is something Apple has done multiple times in the past for a good reason.

That is, again, your own speculation. It isn't any better than anyone else's thought.
As I said:
150 is very nice, logical and if you look at Apple's history, they've always used very nice and good looking number.

This is not arbitrary, because again: Apple has applied this strategy before (iPad mini with iPhone 'PPI'.) So not arbitrary, not at all.

It is completely arbitrary. You have no evidence at all supporting such a move, outside an arbitrarily used fact, such as the use of iPhone "PPI" in the iPad Mini.

 

[TC03]

Seriously? Even after I highlighted the keyword?

You can refer again to a previous post of mine for further information:



I'm afraid I can't be more clear than that.



So consistent that the same company released a 4" screen phone from years of using 3.5", while now planning to release a bigger screen phone. Not to mention many others consistent characteristics indicators, like the release of iPad 4 or the iPad Mini.



That is, again, your own speculation. It isn't any better than anyone else's thought.
As I said:
150 is very nice, logical and if you look at Apple's history, they've always used very nice and good looking number.




It is completely arbitrary. You have no evidence at all supporting such a move, outside an arbitrarily used fact, such as the use of iPhone "PPI" in the iPad Mini.

We're talking in circles. Maybe you can rephrase your statement and start over, because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Highlighting 'per inch' doesn't make things more clear.

Furthermore, Apple has never used good looking numbers simply because they look good so could you please stop being so childish and try to reason on a more mature level? You're becoming really annoying.

Furthermore, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. I don't know many times I have to repeat myself. Maybe you could look up the meaning of 'arbitrary'. It is not arbirtrary, PERIOD. That's a fact.

 

[BSDanalyst]

Wrong.

There won't even be a larger iPhone.

/thread

 

[TC03]

Wrong.

There won't even be a larger iPhone.

/thread

This is a 'what if' thread.

Furthermore, it is impossible for us to know what the future brings, so keeping the possibility of a larger iPhone open makes sense, right?

If we could only talk about what we knew for certain, MacRumors would be an endless space of emptiness.

 

[LostSoul80]

We're talking in circles.

Seems to me you are the one that is skipping what I posted, and keep repeating it.

Maybe you can rephrase your statement and start over, because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Highlighting 'per inch' doesn't make things more clear.

You are free to read what I posted as many times as you need.
I highlighted "per inch", because it is apparent that you completely missed it. I have never stated Apple would stop using 320 points in width as a reference for future products. What I stated is:

Aside from the incorrect use of the term "PPI", there is no reason for Apple to retain that many points in width per inch at all.

"Points in width per inch" is the accurate description of the ambiguous term "PPI" you have introduced. Is it really that hard to understand?

Furthermore, Apple has never used good looking numbers simply because they look good

150 is too good for Apple not to use it, trust me. Let's speculate on it.

Furthermore, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. I don't know many times I have to repeat myself. Maybe you could look up the meaning of 'arbitrary'. It is not arbirtrary, PERIOD. That's a fact.

The use you are making of a fact referred to a context where there is no evidence supporting it is completely arbitrary.

 

[TC03]

Seems to me you are the one that is skipping what I posted, and keep repeating it.



You are free to read what I posted as many times as you need.
I highlighted "per inch", because it is apparent that you completely missed it. I have never stated Apple would stop using 320 points in width as a reference for future products. What I stated is:



"Points in width per inch" is the accurate description of the ambiguous term "PPI" you have introduced. Is it really that hard to understand?

I understand you completely.

Your point: Apple does not have to keep using 132 points per inch or 163 points per inch (doesn't matter if it's in width or height). I say: Apple will, because they want to ensure app compatibiility with a minimum effort for developers (I have already responded!).

We've already had this discussion man... Come on, just read.

----------

The use you are making of a fact referred to a context where there is no evidence supporting it is completely arbitrary.

Now you're simply trolling. You're really annoying.

 

[bigjim83]

I swear. Iphone users must have the smallest hands in the world

 

[LostSoul80]

Your point: Apple does not have to keep using 132 points per inch or 163 points per inch (doesn't matter if it's in width or height).

If Apple want to release a phone with a screen larger than 4", they will have to use a number smaller than 163 points in width per inch.
The number itself is subject to speculation, since there are no indications anywhere at all. Taking the iPads' points in width per inch is arbitrary, and nothing if not pure speculation.

I say: Apple will, because they want to ensure app compatibiility with a minimum effort for developers (I have already responded!).

The number of points in width per inch has nothing to do with compatibility.
The number of points in width has.
We are talking about density, not about the number of points...

Now you're simply trolling. You're really annoying.

So you call highlighting the many flaws and the pure speculation of the thread you wrote trolling now?

 

[kenknotts]

Its about time. Apple needs to develop and produce it NOW instead of waiting for yearly product launches. Every sane company in the world is moving out product.

NOW? Apple just sold 9 million iPhone 5s over opening weekend and who knows how many more millions since then. Don't think they are in a hurry to release any new phones.

 

[TC03]

If Apple want to release a phone with a screen larger than 4", they will have to use a number smaller than 163 points in width per inch.
The number itself is subject to speculation, since there are no indications anywhere at all. Taking the iPads' points in width per inch is arbitrary, and nothing if not pure speculation.

That is not arbitrary, because Apple chose to use the iPhone density for the iPad mini. Introducing a new density might lead to fragmentation, because that would mean that the physical size of an element (i.e. an app icon) could have three different dimensions, while everything Apple has done in the past (iPad mini with iPhone PPI, iPhone 5 which is larger but still has the same PPI) suggest they want to keep a maximum of two different densities. So, my ASSUMPTION, which is not flawed speculation, but merely an assumption, is that Apple does not want to introduce a third density.

Of course, this is speculation to some degree because I cannot know the future, but it is not pure speculation because I have good reasons for this assumption. Do you follow me here? Not saying this is the absolute truth, but it just isn't pure speculation, I have good reasons.

The number of points in width per inch has nothing to do with compatibility.
The number of points in width has.
We are talking about density, not about the number of points...

Ah, now you're finally making a point. And I must admit, a good one. However, I thought about this.

The 'PPI' has everything to do with compatibility, because Apple has strict guidelines for what is considered to be a good physical size for a tappable element depending on the type of usage. If you design an element to be tappable on a hypothetical larger iPhone, it could become too small and too clusmy to tap it on a smaller iPhone. If you use the current PPIs, you should never have this problem because Apple also researched it and came to the conclusion that no problems should occur at 163 PPI.

This is not the only reason though. It has gotten more to do with consistency than compatibility, to be honest. For instance, I made a third implicit assumption, which is that a larger iPhone will display things bigger than on a smaller iPhone, because I suspect that to be the main advantage of a larger iPhone: things simply look bigger and more comfortable to the eyes.

So you call highlighting the many flaws and the pure speculation of the thread you wrote trolling now?

No. When I have good reasons for an assumption, and for some reason you don't think those reasons are good, you immediately dismiss my statement as 'arbitrary'. However, it is not arbitrary at all, you just don't agree with me, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

 

[LostSoul80]

That is not arbitrary, because Apple chose to use the iPhone density for the iPad mini.

It is true that Apple used iPhone's points in width per inch in the iPad Mini. That, however, is not conclusive of anything else, and any other use is arbitrary.
Apple can choose 150 "PPI", and there you have a screen smaller than the size you are claiming it will carry. Nothing binds them to anything.
You have no idea why Apple made that decision, so you can't base on anything.

And don't forget that even the fact that Apple will release a bigger iPhone is speculation, as of now.

Introducing a new density might lead to fragmentation, because that would mean that the physical size of an element (i.e. an app icon) could have three different dimensions, while everything Apple has done in the past (iPad mini with iPhone PPI) suggest they want to keep a maximum of two different densities. So, my ASSUMPTION, which is not flawed speculation, but merely an assumption, is that Apple does not want to introduce a third density.

Density of points in width per inch has nothing to do with fragmentation.

Of course, this is speculation to some degree because I cannot know the future, but it is not pure speculation because I have good reasons for this assumption. Do you follow me here? Not saying this is the absolute truth, but it just isn't pure speculation, I have good reasons.

It is pure speculation.
Otherwise, why should Apple use the iPads' number of points in width per inch in a new iPhone with a bigger screen? Care to elaborate?

Ah, now you're finally making a point. And I must admit, a good one. However, I thought about this.

The 'PPI' has everything to do with compatibility, because Apple has strict guidelines for what is considered to be a good physical size for a tappable element depending on the type of usage. If you design an element to be tappable on a hypothetical larger iPhone, it could become too small and too clusmy to tap it on a smaller iPhone. If you use the current PPIs, you should never have this problem because Apple also researched it and came to the conclusion that no problems should occur at 163 PPI.

That doesn't make any sense at all.
A larger screen would have to have a number of "PPI" smaller than 163.
Everything would be bigger, nothing would be smaller.

No. When I have good reasons for an assumption, and for some reason you don't think those reasons are good, you immediately dismiss my statement as 'arbitrary'. However, it is not arbitrary at all, you just don't agree with me, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

Let me ask you again, why should Apple use the iPads' number of points in width per inch in a new iPhone with a bigger screen? Care to elaborate?

The answer: because they have used the iPhone's "PPI" in the iPad Mini, does not make any sense. There is no correlation, no evidence and no strict motivation reason to do that.

 

[TC03]

Let me ask you again, why should Apple use the iPads' number of points in width per inch in a new iPhone with a bigger screen? Care to elaborate?

The answer: because they have used the iPhone's "PPI" in the iPad Mini, does not make any sense. There is no correlation, no evidence and no strict motivation reason to do that.

To begin with, you clearly don't know what arbitrary means, but I'll leave it at that.

For me that is the answer and to me it makes a lot of sense: Apple does not want to have more than two different densities for consistency reasons. If they've done so for the iPad mini, why not reverse this strategy for a bigger iPhone? That makes a lot of sense imo. There is a correlation: Apple aims to keep the number of different densities at 2, and I suspect they will maintain this thought process.

 

[asleep]

I swear. Iphone users must have the smallest hands in the world

Says Big Jim.

 

[LostSoul80]

To begin with, you clearly don't know what arbitrary means, but I'll leave it at that.

Seems like you don't know when you arbitrarily reference facts in separate contexts yourself.

For me that is the answer and to me it makes a lot of sense: Apple does not want to have more than two different densities for consistency reasons. If they've done so for the iPad mini, why not reverse this strategy for a bigger iPhone? That makes a lot of sense imo. There is a correlation: Apple aims to keep the number of different densities at 2, and I suspect they will maintain this thought process.

There is no reason to keep two points in width per inch densities. You have no advantages, so no point in being consistent there.

For all you know, the iPad Mini ganining the iPhone's number of points in width per inch can have been a mere coincidence.

You can think whatever you want, but unless you back up your statements, you are just speculating.

 

[HankHowdy]

It is true that Apple used iPhone's points in width per inch in the iPad Mini. That, however, is not conclusive of anything else, and any other use is arbitrary.
Apple can choose 150 "PPI", and there you have a screen smaller than the size you are claiming it will carry. Nothing binds them to anything.
You have no idea why Apple made that decision, so you can't base on anything.

And don't forget that even the fact that Apple will release a bigger iPhone is speculation, as of now.



Density of points in width per inch has nothing to do with fragmentation.




It is pure speculation.
Otherwise, why should Apple use the iPads' number of points in width per inch in a new iPhone with a bigger screen? Care to elaborate?



That doesn't make any sense at all.
A larger screen would have to have a number of "PPI" smaller than 163.
Everything would be bigger, nothing would be smaller.



Let me ask you again, why should Apple use the iPads' number of points in width per inch in a new iPhone with a bigger screen? Care to elaborate?

The answer: because they have used the iPhone's "PPI" in the iPad Mini, does not make any sense. There is no correlation, no evidence and no strict motivation reason to do that.

Dude, give it up. You sound like a pissed off twelve year old. Your logic makes no sense.

Just stop it.