It will fit, but not comfortably. Are you implying that you care about my comfort?
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Mockups of a 4.94-Inch 'iPhone Plus' Show Why a Larger iPhone Might Make Sense
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will fit, but not comfortably. Are you implying that you care about my comfort?
Still you can't argue that larger keyboard on mobile device is always more comfortable for typing vs. smaller keyboard, regardless autocorrection.
Still, you can't argue, that for dictation you need reasonably low noise environment, and certain level of privacy. For instance I can't dictate my email while my wife is sleeping next to me, or when I have a bunch of coworkers around. Also, the voice recognition never works well for me partially perhaps because I have some foreign accent, partially when pronouncing names (streets, people, products). Voice recognition does not work well for me on my iPad, it does not work well in my Mercedes voice command based navigation nor when I call some customer service 800 number.
There is no such one "solution that serves all individuals" (unless you live in the communist North Korea). Our society is about choices and individual needs. Apple has failed to deliver those within the iphone product line. But Apple's one size fits all approach is not based on Apple "research", instead it is based on iOS limitations: iOS is not scalable and it is not resolution independent. Apple rushed to the market with the original iPhone without creating a future proof mobile OS.
What's the big deal?
Why not add variety? Have a larger iPhone for the target market that wants that size for whatever reason (I am one of those), the current 5 or smaller (4s and below) for that target market...
Why not add variety? Have a larger iPhone for the target market that wants that size for whatever reason (I am one of those), the current 5 or smaller (4s and below) for that target market...
1. You are going to sit far, far closer to the 28" TV than you are the 50 foot theater screen.
2. People talk about the visual experience of a movie without considering the audio, which - believe it or not - is almost as important.
3. Once you get above the so-called "retina" point, increased resolution is meaningless. It's like making infrared or ultraviolet pixels to go along with red, green and blue.
Fact is, I can offer a far superior experience at home than a theater simply because I've gone to the trouble to position the couch at the optimal distance from the screen based on its size and resolution, and I've set up a properly tuned surround sound system. I posit that that makes it equivalent to the theatrical experience, but now without having to share the experience with several hundred strangers.
A 5" phone will never replace a tablet. If apple doesnt offer a larger phone then they will just goto the opposition for their mobile needs.
To me, a smartphone's size should be dictated by ease of carrying (does it fit well in my pocket?) and a screen size that provides a good viewing experience for media. I don't feel like size should be dictated by what you can do with one hand.
Apple was wrong on the original iPad size and were smart to go mini. They were also wrong on the iPhone 4 size and didn't figure it out with the 5. The "Math" is a good idea, IMHO. Now if they'd only utilize a Wacom-like pressure-sensitive nib stylus like the Note, I'd be happy...
Apple was wrong on the original iPad size and were smart to go mini. They were also wrong on the iPhone 4 size and didn't figure it out with the 5. The "Math" is a good idea, IMHO. Now if they'd only utilize a Wacom-like pressure-sensitive nib stylus like the Note, I'd be happy...
Yes, I'm sure that is how it happened. Customers said "Give us an App Store" and Apple said, "whoa, how the **** did we miss that idea? Why didn't someone here consider that?"
Unless you have some specific knowledge of Apple's roadmap, it is ludicrous to take credit for Apple's strategic decisions. I guess if there ends up being an App Store for the AppleTV everybody will claim it was from listening to customers too. They do what they do when they do because it is the right decision for them, not because a bunch of armchair CEO's cry on their little forums. Just saying...
Samsung just bought 10% of wacom for exclusive rights so im not sure what it would mean for apple patent wise if they wanted to go down that track. (maybe pressure sensitive patents arent broad enough to stop apple but im not sure)
You must not use Safari's Reader feature. I don't know why Apple doesn't promote this feature more. It eliminates all the issues you're complaining about while still providing you with a smartphone that fits in your jeans pocket.
That's pretty much exactly how it happened. Jobs had no plans for allowing any outside apps to run on the iPhone. Yet the hacker scene was so prevalent, and people were clamoring so much for officially supported 3rd party apps, that it eventually paved the way for the app store.
How about an "Internet of Things" where every device in your home will exchange information wirelessly while uploading data to the manufacturers' servers?
Anyway, incremental changes have been part of the electronics industry from the very start. It's the same concept as owning a diamond mine. You never sell all the diamonds at once. Instead you sell them slowly, thus maximizing your investment over time.
Well, if somebody conveniently dismisses an argument I made by simply declaring that the discussion was about something else, he or she should not be surprised when getting an appropriate answer.
I like the idea of the iPhone plus and I'd buy it if they would update the OS to not be so stale and have some modern features. I've owned ever iPhone, iPad, and other Mac product made in the last 20 years but I just had to bail to Android when I saw the Google Nexus and Samsung Galaxy SIII compared to my iPhone 5. I do miss a ton of apps from my iPhone like Action Movie. I also found the Phone more "media friendly". I suppose I could get an iPod touch to fill the void...
Gosh why is this even still a point of discussion? Seriously?
Take three minutes and go read our exchange from the beginning. It started precisely as a result of my comment about the Galaxy and Galaxy Note and your reply to it. The evidence is nothing short of damning against your claims. Really. Just go read and see.
Why are you so determined to be such a hostile, angry guy? When you forget how the conversation evolved, and then choose make a post that is 100% inflammatory instead of trying to have a reasonable discussion, you are not really contributing anything useful to the forum anymore. You are just trolling. Can I politely ask that you either step aside or come up with something on topic?
Why do you keep piece-mealing the product's features? A product's total usability is defined by the user experience which is more than the sum total of its features. I'll bring up one thing that works, then you'll shift gears and go talk about how it doesn't work in a Benz... well, that's an example of poor implementation... IN A BENZ (by the way, the COMAND system is outdated and not remotely close to Siri's capabilities), not an argument why voice recognition is a bad replacement for a keyboard in principle.
Also, you're mentioning examples of voice recognition in other products... that doesn't apply to the conversation about the iPhone. The implementation in the iPhone works, whether you want to believe it or not. I just demonstrated it to you with 100% accuracy.
I think I've made my point and either you're going to concede to the idea that form factor is one of several important pieces in the overall user experience, or you're not. *shrug*
Well, you made a statement that was either just negligent or intended to belittle the size increase of content by throwing a cleary incorrect number into the discussion that a device like the iPhone Plus, with its assumed specs, would provide.
Then I corrected that, slightly mocking or chiding you. But instead of admitting the mistake, you just brushed it aside. From that moment, I had to assume that you don't like discussing this point anymore. And when a grown up person just ducks an issue in a public discussion they should not be surprised if they get called out.
It was your unwillingness to admit a mistake (or an attempt to belittle something) that I found worthy of being highlighted.
This image is exactly the reason Apple can go bigger. The current chunky iPhone design looks awful compared to the other sleek, curved designs of the high-end Android and Windows phones and they could not keep it the same proportions as the mockup.
They wouldn't even have to go much taller, just lose the chunk and as far as I'm concerned, loose the 16:9 aspect ration. It's worthless on a phone:
Personally, I think Apple has painted themselves in a corner they can't get out of. Keeping 16:9 while going 4.9" is a waste of time because it would still be too damn skinny. I doubt one single person ever said "you know, I like the skinny iPhone, but if it was just taller...." This image shows how much better the phone's aspect ration on the left is. The iPhone 5 is nearly the same height, but that extra height is worthless when the screen is so skinny.
I think those wallpapers are a little messed up. Plus... the soft buttons on the Nexus 4 kinda fool your eyes.
Here's an illustration of the Nexus 4 and the iPhone 5 showing their true screen width compared to their height.
Yes... the Nexus 4 is a bit wider... but not as much as you think.
Also... it took Apple 6 years to get to the 16x9 ratio... so they won't be changing it again anytime soon. If Apple makes a bigger phone... it will be 16x9 as well.
But that's not so bad... there are many phones that are 16x9... Galaxy SIII, Droid DNA, and pretty much any phone made within the last few years...
But it comes close to a size that really requires two hands to do something on it (besides just holding it) and I want to be able to operate my phone when I only have one free hand available. Thus, it could not serve as a phone for my purpose, it would a small tablet that I would carry in addition to my phone and if I do that, I might want to have something that has significantly more screen estate than my phone.
We also (generally) don't know the technical issues/reasons that have gone into each of Apple's decisions. I remember people complaining in the early days about the battery not being user changeable. Turns out you can make the phone stronger, tighter and more compact. Fewer screen sizes? Easier for developers. One earlier post said why coddle developers - one of the reason Apple can brag about it's App Store is that developers have flocked to their platform. Closed system? Better security.
Or so I understand the reasons for these 3 issue to be dealt with in the way that they have. I could be wrong. But so could many of the other "advisors" that would dictate how Apple should do things. I guess if their ideas are that great, they should develop them. Get a patent. Sell to Apple. Or apply for a job. San Francisco is a beautiful city.
You are way off sir. Please go read again. Carefully.
I had no intention whatsoever of belittling the rumored iPhone Plus, and most certainly did not do that. I never even mentioned that device, in fact. With that initial post, I was (quite clearly if you would please go read again, like I've suggested a few times now) responding specifically to a point made about why larger screens sell with a counterpoint that cited two existing devices already on the market (which conveniently happened to be referenced by the author of the original article as well). You chose to apply your line of reasoning - that some people would choose the larger screen of the two devices due to vision limitations - in that established context, and never once mentioned any other.
Absolutely crucially, the basis for my argument against you was around those two real-world, real-life devices, and that initial post. I never once attempted to engage in the argument as it may relate to a fictitious device that does not and may never exist. That you somehow thought I did intend that was a mistake on your part, not mine. You clearly read something into my words that simply was never there to begin with.
So, having gotten that I out of the way, what about your point? Would an iPhone Plus with 25% larger pixels be compelling vs. the current iPhone for someone with eyesight considerations? Sure - or I can buy that it might, at least. Once you increase the pixel size beyond some nominal, trivial amount, it could very well begin to make a difference in that regard. But I remain very firm in my belief that Apple has no intention of marketing a device based around that particular line of thinking. It just does not sound remotely like a compelling business case to me, nor do I think it is part of any business case for any significant smart phone on the market today.
And furthermore, as I have pointed out to a number of others in this thread now, adding more pixels to this theoretical larger screen does no harm, at least not by necessity. If you want to run the device at an effective 1136x640 resolution, and it turns out that you've touched on a truly useful feature, then others will surely request the same. And then, Apple (or someone) may take notice and allow you to do just that, even if the screen really has 1920x1080 pixels (for example) underneath. Heck, in that particular case, you could even do 960x540 have have an exactly doubled image on each dimension. Yay! In other words, it can all be handled with the appropriate software. There is no need to cripple the device by targeting a low pixel density and alienating a good portion of the userbase in the process.
Agreed. Adding an extra 0.5 inch height only highlights what kind of real estate an iPhone use DOESN'T have.
Since it hasn't been brought up yet, I will point out that there are two very nice 16:9 resolutions available for larger iPhone screens that keep the same 326 PPI pixel density we have today. I am taking the time to mention this possibility because, to date, the only method Apple has used to increase iPhone screen size is adding more pixels while keeping DPI the same as it was previously. In my opinion, there is a strong case to be made that they'll take the same route next time around.
1280x720, 4.5" diagonal: 3.93" × 2.22"
1440x810, 5.0" diagonal: 4.37" x 2.47"
It is true that Apple chose to come up with their own custom resolution for the iPhone 5, but they did this in order to get to 16:9 without increasing the screen size on the smaller dimension. But once you do decide to increase width, there are standard resolutions to choose from. And at this point I think we can all agree that there is really no chance Apple will grow the screen again only on the large dimension. They are already at 16:9 and it doesn't make sense to go to something even wider (taller).
I will also acknowledge that calling 1440x810 "standard" is a stretch but, it is simply the 16:9 equivalent of the 16:10 resolution of 1440x900 formerly made popular by laptop screens. It is just like there is 1280x720 paired with 1280x800, and 1920x1080 paired with 1920x1200.
The key thing about these screens is that they could, at least in theory, fit within the current iPhone footprint, or something very, very close (the second one needs a little wider enclosure at the very least). If Apple does go bigger soon, and assuming they don't decide to increase pixel density, I think these two are good possibilities.
1280x720, 4.5" diagonal: 3.93" × 2.22"
1440x810, 5.0" diagonal: 4.37" x 2.47"
It is true that Apple chose to come up with their own custom resolution for the iPhone 5, but they did this in order to get to 16:9 without increasing the screen size on the smaller dimension. But once you do decide to increase width, there are standard resolutions to choose from. And at this point I think we can all agree that there is really no chance Apple will grow the screen again only on the large dimension. They are already at 16:9 and it doesn't make sense to go to something even wider (taller).
I will also acknowledge that calling 1440x810 "standard" is a stretch but, it is simply the 16:9 equivalent of the 16:10 resolution of 1440x900 formerly made popular by laptop screens. It is just like there is 1280x720 paired with 1280x800, and 1920x1080 paired with 1920x1200.
The key thing about these screens is that they could, at least in theory, fit within the current iPhone footprint, or something very, very close (the second one needs a little wider enclosure at the very least). If Apple does go bigger soon, and assuming they don't decide to increase pixel density, I think these two are good possibilities.