New info on the iPhone Air?

[cobbyco]

Hi guys,
I've talked to someone who claims to have 'background knowledge' about the new iPhone, dubbed the iPhone Air. They said that:
It will have a 900x1600 resolution display, compared to the 5's resolution of 640x1136.
The home screen renders icons at 160px (with gaps therefore at 52px). This was discovered in the iOS simulator.
The display will be 4.7" (or just under), matching up with rumours we've heard. My maths works that out to be around 390 PPI.
The display is 'effectively' edge-to-edge, with barely noticeable bezels.

I have no idea whether any of this is true, so take it with a rather large grain of salt. The source said they only told me because I have a large presence on the MacRumors forums (erm, what?) so I could spread the information quicker than they could. Very odd...

 

[ET iPhone Home]

This seems to be the speculation out there. I believe your data.

 

[rablat]

They start coming out of the woodwork this time of year.

 

[cobbyco]

I'll say this again: huge stacks of salt. It seems a bit random that I'd get an email like this from someone I've never met supplying information I don't know I can even trust.

 

[jbachandouris]

Pretty sure you can't trust this. First the iPad Pro and now the iPhone Air. Both sound cool, but highly unlikely we'll see either.

 

[cobbyco]

Pretty sure you can't trust this. First the iPad Pro and now the iPhone Air. Both sound cool, but highly unlikely we'll see either.

Put it this way: I wouldn't be surprised if it became true, but I'm still very skeptical.
So, you might be right.

 

[617aircav]

Comedy.

 

[cobbyco]

Comedy.

A lot of the stuff on MacRumors is.

Besides, you have a good reason not to believe it.

 

[lordofthereef]

So here is what you told us:

"Someone that I don't know if I can trust repeated some already existing rumors to me and claimed to have insider knowledge about them."

Did I get that right?

Honestly, what is the true purpose of this thread? For one thing, you didn't really say anything that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum already. Further, you carry on to say you have no idea if you can rust the guy. What sorts of reception did you expect from a thread like this?

 

[jrswizzle]

At least this thread picks one choice from all the rumors for each feature (i.e. a specific screen res, specific screen size).

I could see this being completely plausible. Best part is, if the display is nearly edge to edge, they could likely get to a 4.7" display while only increasing the size of the device a mere 0.15" both vertically and horizontally. That's only 3.81 mm.

And if it turns out to have the same design as the iPad retina mini and iPad air - wooo! Would be slick!

 

[cobbyco]

So here is what you told us:

"Someone that I don't know if I can trust repeated some already existing rumors to me and claimed to have insider knowledge about them."

Did I get that right?

Honestly, what is the true purpose of this thread? For one thing, you didn't really say anything that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum already. Further, you carry on to say you have no idea if you can trust the guy. What sorts of reception did you expect from a thread like this?

The fact is, the resolution and icon sizes are both new pieces of information, and the PPI I worked out is new as of a few hours ago when Sonny Dickson tweeted a near-identical PPI of 389.
Had it been completely unbelievable, or had no new info, then of course I wouldn't have posted anything. But it is new info.

What's more, this is MacRumors; the same site that still posted on the iPhone 'Math' claims while outright stating they were probably false. This 'info' not only matches up with previous claims, but also provides new, feasible information. Despite my doubts, it's still far more believable than that.

----------

At least this thread picks one choice from all the rumors for each feature (i.e. a specific screen res, specific screen size).

I could see this being completely plausible. Best part is, if the display is nearly edge to edge, they could likely get to a 4.7" display while only increasing the size of the device a mere 0.15" both vertically and horizontally. That's only 3.81 mm.

And if it turns out to have the same design as the iPad retina mini and iPad air - wooo! Would be slick!

If it is true, then we could have one of the best iPhone announcements yet!

 

[nikusak]

At least this thread picks one choice from all the rumors for each feature (i.e. a specific screen res, specific screen size).

I could see this being completely plausible. Best part is, if the display is nearly edge to edge, they could likely get to a 4.7" display while only increasing the size of the device a mere 0.15" both vertically and horizontally. That's only 3.81 mm.

And if it turns out to have the same design as the iPad retina mini and iPad air - wooo! Would be slick!

Most likely the resolution will be doubled horizontally and vertically, just like then they moved from non-retina to retina. Another possibility is 1080p, but anything weird like 1600*900 will never happen.

Air like design is quite likely, which means it will be slippery like a bar of soap and totally unusable without a case of some sort.

 

[cobbyco]

Most likely the resolution will be doubled horizontally and vertically, just like then they moved from non-retina to retina. Another possibility is 1080p, but anything weird like 1600*900 will never happen.

Air like design is quite likely, which means it will be slippery like a bar of soap and totally unusable without a case of some sort.

1600x900 is actually a very standard resolution. Much more standard than the current 1136x640...

 

[jrswizzle]

Most likely the resolution will be doubled horizontally and vertically, just like then they moved from non-retina to retina. Another possibility is 1080p, but anything weird like 1600*900 will never happen.

Air like design is quite likely, which means it will be slippery like a bar of soap and totally unusable without a case of some sort.

This actually ISN'T likely AT ALL.

A doubling of the current iPhone resolution in a 4.7" display would yield a PPI (move than 500) that doesn't currently exist in any mass-produced display available.

So unless Apple has quietly contracted a company who secretly came up with display tech that can pack this type of pixel density into a mass-produced 4.7" display, this might be the first year Apple causes some fragmentation and puts the onus on developers.

Though I fully expect that whatever the resolution, Apple will make it work for devs so they don't have to completely change their apps.

 

[nikusak]

1600x900 is actually a very standard resolution. Much more standard than the current 1136x640...

In laptops perhaps, in mobile displays virtually unheard of.

 

[luckydcxx]

well whatever the resolution is, i would love to have a bezel free 4.7" iPhone.

 

[cobbyco]

In laptops perhaps, in mobile displays virtually unheard of.

Many things were unheard of in a phone before the iPhone came out.

 

[nikusak]

This actually ISN'T likely AT ALL.

A doubling of the current iPhone resolution in a 4.7" display would yield a PPI (move than 500) that doesn't currently exist in any mass-produced display available.

So unless Apple has quietly contracted a company who secretly came up with display tech that can pack this type of pixel density into a mass-produced 4.7" display, this might be the first year Apple causes some fragmentation and puts the onus on developers.

Well, we will see in few months...I very much doubt that Apple would release two bigger iPhones both with different resolutions. You are right when it comes to the crazy high PPI on 4.7" if they double (or quadruple the actual pixel count) the resolution.

However, over 500 PPI 5.x" displays are out there already...

 

[cobbyco]

Well, we will see in few months...I very much doubt that Apple would release two bigger iPhones both with different resolutions. You are right when it comes to the crazy high PPI on 4.7" if they double (or quadruple the actual pixel count) the resolution.

However, over 500 PPI 5.x" displays are out there already...

Agreed. One new phone and possibly one 'new' phone.

Personally, I don't doubt Apple could do it. I just question why they would. They have no reason to, as most people can't even see the pixels on the current 326 PPI screen. Also, an increased PPI means a larger resolution, which requires much more processor power.

 

[nikusak]

Agreed. One new phone and possibly one 'new' phone.

Personally, I don't doubt Apple could do it. I just question why they would. They have no reason to, as most people can't even see the pixels on the current 326 PPI screen. Also, an increased PPI means a larger resolution, which requires much more processor power.

I didn't see much point in going over ~330 PPI, but playing a bit with Galaxy S4 changed my mind. It does look incredible and on a five inch or so display it does makes sense...barely.

But over 500 PPI...I can't see the benefit anymore. As you say, more GPU/CPU needed for pushing pixels that people don't literally see anymore.

 

[chleuasme]

The fact is, the resolution and icon sizes are both new pieces of information, and the PPI I worked out is new as of a few hours ago when Sonny Dickson tweeted a near-identical PPI of 389.
Had it been completely unbelievable, or had no new info, then of course I wouldn't have posted anything. But it is new info.

Nope

If they change pixel density, and as some discussed in this other thread, I'd rather bet on a 1536x960 resolution in retina 3x, for better compatibility with existing apps (3*320 in width).
At 386 ppi, it gives a 4.7" display with almost 2 times more pixels.

 

[cobbyco]

Nope

If they change pixel density, and as some discussed in this other thread, I'd rather bet on a 1536x960 resolution in retina 3x, for better compatibility with existing apps (3*320 in width).
At 386 ppi, it gives a 4.7" display with almost 2 times more pixels.

Fair enough: some information has been 'leaked' before. I usually read all the articles on MacRumors before posting to make sure it hasn't already been covered. So my apologies there.

But the icon sizes provided from the 'iOS Simulator' are still a mystery. I would also think that the info I received would only further back up the supply chain evidence, making both more likely to believe.

Also, that resolution doesn't make sense to me as it isn't 16:9, but I get the point being made about '3x Retina'.

 

[jimbo1mcm]

Hi guys,
I've talked to someone who claims to have 'background knowledge' about the new iPhone, dubbed the iPhone Air. They said that:
It will have a 900x1600 resolution display, compared to the 5's resolution of 640x1136.
The home screen renders icons at 160px (with gaps therefore at 52px). This was discovered in the iOS simulator.
The display will be 4.7" (or just under), matching up with rumours we've heard. My maths works that out to be around 390 PPI.
The display is 'effectively' edge-to-edge, with barely noticeable bezels.

I have no idea whether any of this is true, so take it with a rather large grain of salt. The source said they only told me because I have a large presence on the MacRumors forums (erm, what?) so I could spread the information quicker than they could. Very odd...

Thanks for the update. Hope it's true. Sounds perfect.

 

[chleuasme]

Also, that resolution doesn't make sense to me as it isn't 16:9, but I get the point being made about '3x Retina'.

That's a 8:5 resolution.
16:9 "makes sense" when you want more screen surface without gaining width coming from a small 3:2 screen. Once you grow in size, 16:9 screens grow in height very fast; it could make sense to go more square when you go large. And apps are currently able to adapt to vertical variation in resolution, so anything between 3:2 and 16:9 could do it, and better than a random larger 16:9 resolution: if the pixel density change, you have no other choice than support a new retina factor, and you want easy app support.

 

[cobbyco]

That's a 8:5 resolution.
16:9 "makes sense" when you want more screen surface without gaining width coming from a small 3:2 screen. Once you grow in size, 16:9 screens grow in height very fast; it could make sense to go more square when you go large. And apps are currently able to adapt to vertical variation in resolution, so anything between 3:2 and 16:9 could do it, and better than a random larger 16:9 resolution: if the pixel density change, you have no other choice than support a new retina factor, and you want easy app support.

No argument to be had here: these are some pretty valid points.


Though if I were to go with my ever-so-reliable source, I would have to disagree.