You realize the screen will not only not be square, it will also have a specific width to height ratio, depending on the resolution.
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.
Larger or Smaller Touchscreen Device from Apple?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't like the idea. But thats a personal view. I think it's too... tacky... for Apple. It wouldn't be like an ALL NEW, ALL AMAZING product... PDA's have been around since I was a kid (long time ago...). Not many people would buy it because Apple would put some high price on it, like most products....
Actually...
It would, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. I think he's referring to the idea (bear with me) that if you have 40 yards of fencing, then to get the biggest area in your fence you would build a 10yd by 10yd fence, which is in fact a square, and gives you 100 square yards of space.
Actually...
It would, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. I think he's referring to the idea (bear with me) that if you have 40 yards of fencing, then to get the biggest area in your fence you would build a 10yd by 10yd fence, which is in fact a square, and gives you 100 square yards of space.
A 1x100yd fence fence gives you exactly 100 square yards of space too. What are you talking about? There's no "40 yards of fencing" rule here.
I like the current size too.
Smaller just means you have to scroll around and zoom in more often when you're reading.
Now, thinner would be interesting, but only if it would still be as solid-feeling. I like the weight and the feel of the iPhone as it is.
Next week will be fun. I'm more excited for the App Store than for the new phone.
Smaller just means you have to scroll around and zoom in more often when you're reading.
Now, thinner would be interesting, but only if it would still be as solid-feeling. I like the weight and the feel of the iPhone as it is.
Next week will be fun. I'm more excited for the App Store than for the new phone.
Actually...
It would, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. I think he's referring to the idea (bear with me) that if you have 40 yards of fencing, then to get the biggest area in your fence you would build a 10yd by 10yd fence, which is in fact a square, and gives you 100 square yards of space.
No, you'd get 100 sq yards inside for a square. You could get the BIGGEST area if you made a circle: ~127 sq. yards.
Pwnage.
What time do you think people will start lining up outside the Apple stores in anticipation of the new iPhones, iTablets, iTouchs, iMacs, iPods, and/or iWhatevers?
Does anyone think that something new and exciting will actually be on sale and available for purchase immediately following the Keynote on Monday?
There's an
store directly across the street from my office, and if something new (especially the iPhone) gets released, I'm heading over there ASAP!
Does anyone think that something new and exciting will actually be on sale and available for purchase immediately following the Keynote on Monday?
There's an
store directly across the street from my office, and if something new (especially the iPhone) gets released, I'm heading over there ASAP! 
So the entire device would be the screen of an iPod Nano. Who'd complain about bulk then?
I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth on the shrinking screen:
DON'T DO IT
Okay, at least not on the mainstream iPhone line. A lesser-featured "nano iPhone" might be acceptable, but it is exactly the 3.5" web experience that drives many users to the iPhone. I was sick and tired of the WinMobile spate of 2.8" phones - the web experience, even the regular software experience, sucks to say the least. Video is a blessing on that gorgeous 3.5" landscape screen - don't tinker with this form factor success.
DON'T DO IT
Okay, at least not on the mainstream iPhone line. A lesser-featured "nano iPhone" might be acceptable, but it is exactly the 3.5" web experience that drives many users to the iPhone. I was sick and tired of the WinMobile spate of 2.8" phones - the web experience, even the regular software experience, sucks to say the least. Video is a blessing on that gorgeous 3.5" landscape screen - don't tinker with this form factor success.
Actually there is, giving a set diagonal of the screen this requires that the "perimeter" of the screen must in fact be constant.
You can see the proof of my claim here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080423173845AAcK462
So please don't tell me I ditched geometry to get high, I just passed Calc 3 a week ago.
You should know your stuff before telling other people that they don't know theirs
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but a 4 inch touch-screen would be 2x2 inches only!
I'm sorry, this has to be pointed out...a 4" screen only = 2"x2" when the screen has a 1:1 aspect ration. I've never seen an LCD with a 1x1 aspect ratio.
I believe the iPod touch and iPhone have 3:2 screens, so that would mean a 4" multitouch device would have a 2.22"x3.33" screen. Good ol' trigonometry and pythagorean theorem.
He said that a square yields the largest area given the diagonal dimension... that's correct.
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but a 4 inch touch-screen would be 2x2 inches only!
That means square and it means that it won't be able to display the typical home screen of the iPhone, or the soft keyboard, or web pages etc. without some incredibly ugly "shoe-horning."
Time for a quick Pythagoras lesson
Going by your square screen idea, it would not be 2 by 2 taking the original dimension of 4 inches to be a diagonal measurement as the standard as arised (although thats another story all together).
A 2 inch by 2 inch would infact using pythagorus theorem be:
SQRT(2^2 + 2^2) = 2.8 inches diagonal, not 4 as you said
easy mistake though.So to derive a 4 inch diagonal screen and also working with your premesis that it will be square (which is also a bit off lol) you need to work backwards.
SQRT (X^2 + X^2) = 4
This equates X to equal 2.828 inches. Thus the actual square screen size would be 2.828 inches wide by 2.828 inches high.
So this logic can then be applied to the 7 inch diagonal screen and then you would get the square width and height dimensions.
So looking at this in a more iPhone-esk mannor we would have to take into account the orignal iPhones native aspect ratio.
So 7.5cm / 5.2cm gives an aspect ratio of 1.442:1
Applying this to the 4 inch diagonal screen rumored and also speculating that the aspect ratio will stay the same gives the following calculation:
SQRT (1.442xX^2 + X^2) = 4
This equates X to be 2.56 inches wide, then multiplying by 1.442 to get 3.691 inches high. Those would then be the rough dimensions of a 4 inch device at the aspect ratio of 1.442:1
Thus for a 7 inch device at that same aspect ratio we derive:
SQRT (1.442xX^2 + X^2) = 7
Which equates X to be 4.48 inches wide, multiplied by 1.442 to give a height of 6.46 inches.
The proof of this concept can be proven through the dimensions of the original iPhone:
SQRT (1.44231xX^2 + X^2) = 9cm (Going metric this time!!)
This equates X to 5.759 cm wide, then multiplying by 1.442 we get a height of 8.3 cm.
Its not exact, for some reason my calculations are coming out not quite right. Might be rounding but it is pretty darn close!!
Class dismissed
Time for a quick Pythagoras lesson
Going by your square screen idea, it would not be 2 by 2 taking the original dimension of 4 inches to be a diagonal measurement as the standard as arised (although thats another story all together).
A 2 inch by 2 inch would infact using pythagorus theorem be:
SQRT(2^2 + 2^2) = 2.8 inches diagonal, not 4 as you said
So to derive a 4 inch diagonal screen and also working with your premesis that it will be square (which is also a bit off lol) you need to work backwards.
SQRT (X^2 + X^2) = 4
This equates X to equal 2.828 inches. Thus the actual square screen size would be 2.828 inches wide by 2.828 inches high.
So this logic can then be applied to the 7 inch diagonal screen and then you would get the square width and height dimensions.
So looking at this in a more iPhone-esk mannor we would have to take into account the orignal iPhones native aspect ratio.
So 7.5cm / 5.2cm gives an aspect ratio of 1.442:1
Applying this to the 4 inch diagonal screen rumored and also speculating that the aspect ratio will stay the same gives the following calculation:
SQRT (1.442xX^2 + X^2) = 4
This equates X to be 2.56 inches wide, then multiplying by 1.442 to get 3.691 inches high. Those would then be the rough dimensions of a 4 inch device at the aspect ratio of 1.442:1
Thus for a 7 inch device at that same aspect ratio we derive:
SQRT (1.442xX^2 + X^2) = 7
Which equates X to be 4.48 inches wide, multiplied by 1.442 to give a height of 6.46 inches.
The proof of this concept can be proven through the dimensions of the original iPhone:
SQRT (1.44231xX^2 + X^2) = 9cm (Going metric this time!!)
This equates X to 5.759 cm wide, then multiplying by 1.442 we get a height of 8.3 cm.
Its not exact, for some reason my calculations are coming out not quite right. Might be rounding but it is pretty darn close!!
Class dismissed
Nice math but its already been discussed
We are just going in circles now... or should I say... squares? haha
So Apple is rushing 10.5.4 to include a polar coordinate system to support the new circular screens?
Nice math but its already been discussed
We are just going in circles now... or should I say... squares? haha
No. It's circles now. Someone did mention a circle somewhere in this mess. I definitely read that.
Nice math but its already been discussed
We are just going in circles now... or should I say... squares? haha
Realised that after I had posted it lol, took so long to type it all out.
It does address the aspect ratio point a bit more though
*sigh*
Apple's not making a circular screen.
And to another previous poster, I know there's no "fencing rule", but that's the thinking that the poster who had made the original comment had said, I was just defending his logic, had there been a fencing rule.
Nice math but its already been discussed
We are just going in circles now... or should I say... squares? haha
Amen! Can we move on now? Please.
Realised that after I had posted it lol, took so long to type it all out.
It does address the aspect ratio point a bit more though
Yah yours is a better explanation I kinda just rushed mine out. I also used 1.5:1 which probably isn't 100% accurate either
Either way nice job, its nice to see that there are at least few people who can still understand math. And a few pranksters with their circular screens and what not
Right. That's what I thought...
Well, there is a 50-50 chance that I will like what Apple will be introducing on Monday...