Next iPhone Screen Resolution Confirmed at 960x640

[firewood]

480x960 requires 4 times the frame buffer memory of 320x480. Assuming a double-buffered frame buffer system, that's 2 or 4 megabytes (* depending on color depth) of memory, either hidden inside the A4, or taken away from apps. Possibly a lot more if all the CG graphics contexts inside every view object are also quad density (in terms of total pixel memory) for maximum resolution text rendering.

So apps may end up with less maximum available memory on the new device.

* With quad density, one option is to only use 6-bits of color per pixel, and dither in groups of 4 to emulate 8 bits-per-pixel color. At 300+ dpi, no human eye would notice the difference without magnification.

 

[Marcusjlang]

1) Wait a few weeks. I'm not sure why Apple didn't allow this for so long, but they're adding it this summer.

2 & 3) True. This is lame on Apple's part.

4 & 5) It's not that big of a deal, but I agree with you here too. I wish Apple made these icons update, like how calendar shows the date.

6) Free/cheap other apps will do this. Apple won't because the weaker camera of the 2G/3G won't record above 15FPS, and Apple would rather leave a feature out than implement it poorly. I totally see their logic here.

7) This is a matter of philosophical difference between Android and iPhone. The iPhone is app-centered, and the icon grid is meant to be seen only when jumping between apps. IMO, some of the widgets are nice, but for news widgets or anything that displays more 5 words, I find jumping into a full app is easier.

8) Again, it's a matter of simplicity. The android toolbar gets filled with notification icons very quickly because it collects everything. It's good for keeping track of past notifications whereas the iPhone isn't, but it's also distracting.

What is most important to me? Apps. A smartphone is a small computer, and to do computer-y things on it you use apps. Android apps, on the whole, are not as good as iPhone apps, and this is a deal-breaker. Except for apps by Google, if there is an iPhone and Android version of the same app, the iPhone version will be MUCH better. Compare, for example, Yelp, Ebay, Dropbox, Twitter, Seesmic, Meebo, PS mobile, and the list goes on.

This isn't just me regurgitating what I've read online. I switched from a 3GS to a Nexus One for about three months. I switched back recently, because ultimately I prefer iPhone.

There are 10,000's of Android apps. Some iPhone apps are better than Android apps, and some Android apps are better than iPhone apps. But in reality, Android and iPhone OS clearly have the best app markets out of the smart phones. The fact that iPhone OS basically isn't customizable is a HUGE deal. And the fact that the most basic things I've been mentioned Apple doesn't even understand (and we won't even see in 4.0) is just plain unacceptable. I said it before and I'll say it again some of this stuff... it's like making a brick breaker game but forgetting the pause button. How do you mess up something so obvious/essential?

 

[mdriftmeyer]

It's not that simple. Both dpi and ppi are applicable to displays. The question is the definition of "dot" (often used by camera viewfinder/LCD display screens to inflate the resolution specified--a "dot" is each of the 3 subpixels in a pixel), but dpi is used both for actual dot count as well as for pixel count, depending on the source. A measure in ppi is unambiguous: it's the number of pixels per inch, but it can still be manipulated. A few manufacturers specify ppi in the diagonal direction, which is an inflated measure over the traditional horizontal measure.

For printed images, the measure is just dpi, since there are no pixels, but printed dpi and screen dpi are not directly comparable (it takes four printed dots [CMYK] to equal one three-dot pixel [RGB] on most consumer printing methods, so you need about 33% higher dpi than screen ppi to achieve the same look--and optical blending effects of reflective vs. transmissive media [light bloom vs. ink blending] mean that paper printed at screen resolution is far less acceptable).

It depends what layer they're examining under the microscope. The individual subpixel elements behind the rectangular strip are more "dot" like (square, diamond, round), embedded in lens-like rectangular forms for easier assembly and less screen door effect in the finished display.

I'm still not convinced this is realistic for a production iPhone, let alone something six times the size. The cost of this display will be staggering compared to other iPhone requirements and way out of the budget for the iPad if it is to stay at $499, barring some major breakthrough in production methods that has not yet been disclosed to the industry.

Nothing that isn't already in shipping products. 960x640 is still less than the iPad. The GPU doesn't care about the display size, just the pixel count.

The iPad is 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi).

At 320ppi the iPad pixel resolution would be:

2483-by-1862.

Sorry, but pixel density matters.

 

[SevenInchScrew]

But it should be able to shoot HD video in 720p MPEG-4 at the minimum. So technically it would qualify as an HD device just for its video encoding resolution.

Proving my initial point, almost exactly. The Zune HD was called that because it had HD Radio and could output HD video to a TV. But because its screen resolution wasn't technically "HD", everyone on here just ripped it to shreds. OH, but now Apple might do the same? Well, that's different. LOL!!!

- Microsoft device with HD in the name? Laughed at, mocked and ridiculed.

- Apple device with HD possibly in the name? Best thing ever, redefining what HD means.

QFT!

Thanks man [/highfive]

 

[sammich]

Your field of View is infinite in pixel depth [Human Eye].

Well the human eye has 'pixels' or cones or the cells that pick up light and give us vision. Each of those cones are one point of data, thus cannot be infinite.

There is a limit how small we can differentiate between one small element and another. If you has a grid of alternating black and white squares and continually shrunk it, it will get to a point where all we see is just grey.

 

[EdwardGreene]

There are 10,000's of Android apps. Some iPhone apps are better than Android apps, and some Android apps are better than iPhone apps. But in reality, Android and iPhone OS clearly have the best app markets out of the smart phones. The fact that iPhone OS basically isn't customizable is a HUGE deal. And the fact that the most basic things I've been mentioned Apple doesn't even understand (and we won't even see in 4.0) is just plain unacceptable. I said it before and I'll say it again some of this stuff... it's like making a brick breaker game but forgetting the pause button. How do you mess up something so obvious/essential?

Meh, based on what you said it seems like a better analogy is that they made BrickBreaker and did not add the Double Bar Size power up. Do I need a live clock app when the time is always in the status bar? Not really. Do I need a different springboard background? Tried it on my JB phone and after five minutes switched it off because everyone I tried was distracting.

I think what I'm getting at and other people are too is that you can make the argument you are if you want, and parts are valid, but the relevant examples you give just don't cut it (i.e. opinion-based examples like Push).

 

[SirHaakon]

iPhone HD it is then.
You heard it from me first.

The smallest HD resolution is 1280x720. This new screen, despite amazingly high ppi, still can't be considered "HD." That doesn't mean they won't market it this way, but it's still a misleading (and inaccurate) moniker.

Also, the people saying things like "high res on a smaller screen is a waste of money because you can't see the difference" and "images don't look any more blurry in non-native resolution" seriously need to get their eyes checked. How sad it must be to have such poor perception.

 

[matticus008]

To all the people that are complaining saying that that resolution isn't technically HD..... Do you realize that with a resolution like that, with the small iPhone screen, that is going to look equal to or better than a 50inch 720p television? People are ignorant.

I get what you're saying, but the thing is that HDTV standards aren't about how a picture looks. "HD" in that context doesn't specify quality, just some basic technical parameters.

That's why you can compress a signal so far that it looks worse than a DVD and still call it "HDTV", and why you can just scale and crop or stretch old NTSC content and send it out on an HD channel. It's also why displays at odd resolutions (like 1366x768 and 1920x1200) are "HD" even with odd scaling settings--as long as there are at least 720 true lines on short side of the display in a physical 16:9 box (with rectangular pixels, that can be less than 1280 pixels), it can be considered HD under that definition.

 

[muskratboy]

The weather app doesn't even tell you the weather because it's not a dynamic icon, it always says 73 degrees.

I agree with this one.

if the number isn't ACCURATE, why use a number in the icon? it doesn't make any sense from a design or UI standpoint.

why have the number on there in the first place?

DUMB.

 

[matticus008]

The iPad is 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi).

At 320ppi the iPad pixel resolution would be:

2483-by-1862.

Sorry, but pixel density matters.

You misunderstand. The GPU doesn't care about pixel density.

960x640 is 960x640 to the GPU, whether it's on a 3.6" display (320ppi) or on a 10" display (109 ppi) or on a 36" display (32ppi).

A hypothetical iPad at 2483x1862 (incidentally, the exact reason why it's not going to happen under existing methods) would be 2483x1862. The pixel density would not matter one bit to the GPU, because it's driving a certain number of pixels (about 4.6 million of them). How big those pixels are in the physical display doesn't at all affect the memory or processing power required to drive them in the graphics hardware.

So no, pixel density does not matter to the GPU. Only resolution does.

 

[MacMartyr]

Once higher-res apps are made, how will it look on older iPhones and iPods?

 

[Marcusjlang]

Meh, based on what you said it seems like a better analogy is that they made BrickBreaker and did not add the Double Bar Size power up. Do I need a live clock app when the time is always in the status bar? Not really. Do I need a different springboard background? Tried it on my JB phone and after five minutes switched it off because everyone I tried was distracting.

I think what I'm getting at and other people are too is that you can make the argument you are if you want, and parts are valid, but the relevant examples you give just don't cut it (i.e. opinion-based examples like Push).

Lol, I have to admit that was pretty funny, the double bar size power up (which frankly is a big deal, haha). But seriously... The fact that millions of people want to be able to change their wallpapers, but Apple still doesn't let us do it is mind boggling. The weather app is a big deal, the fact that I have to actually open up an app just to find out the weather... the fact that there's not even a music alarm on an iPod. I mean these are very basic things, that millions of people want, that no one would oppose. It's like they are stupid. How can the OS be 3+ years old and still not have these very basic things. This this is just the surface of the problems with iPhone OS. There's other stuff too... like... You can't delete one call entry at a time in your recent call log

I really really want to hear why as of now iPhone OS (3.1) is better than iPhone OS (2.2)? Because I'm not really hearing anything other than... "iPhone OS has better apps, so it's better." Which not only is debatable but it has nothing to do with the OS. Apple isn't making these applications.

 

[matticus008]

Once higher-res apps are made, how will it look on older iPhones and iPods?

Exactly the same as current apps do.

 

[SirHaakon]

HD is relative to screen size.

No, it is not. It's a specification, just like "VGA." 1080p on a 90 foot jumbo tron with 1-inch pixels is still HD - at any viewing distance - even if the resolution isn't optimized or appropriate for the screen size.

 

[iSamurai]

myth confirmed... hahaha

The smallest HD resolution is 1280x720. This new screen, despite amazingly high ppi, still can't be considered "HD." That doesn't mean they won't market it this way, but it's still a misleading (and inaccurate) moniker.

Also, the people saying things like "high res on a smaller screen is a waste of money because you can't see the difference" and "images don't look any more blurry in non-native resolution" seriously need to get their eyes checked. How sad it must be to have such poor perception.

true, but have you heard of those marketing ads that even call sound HD? i mean is there actually a standardised sound quality for "high definition"? let alone "HD" displays for gimmicky gadgets that output less than 720p... i mean there's even cars with HD naming for some reason.

 

[DCJ001]

I can't wait until June 7th!

You've got no choice...

... unless you use Time Machine.

 

[skyehill]

Wow, the stupid things fanboys will get excited over. The only place you're going to notice a difference, and it will be slight at best, is in text. They're adding something stupid just to keep the price jacked up. Its a frivolous addition at best. And LOL at the people that think this is going to make the iPhone look clearer in bright sunlight. It won't. It's still going to be a washed out mess like the current phone. And unless Apple fixes iBooks and allows users to change the color of the text and background, making the text sharper isn't going to be easier on anyone's eyes.

 

[EdwardGreene]

Lol, I have to admit that was pretty funny, the double bar size power up (which frankly is a big deal, haha). But seriously... The fact that millions of people want to be able to change their wallpapers, but Apple still doesn't (trim)

A: This is a thread about the screen, not about what an OS that will be replaced in about nine days can and cannot do. They exist elsewhere is these very forums.
B: Again, your points are so, I guess in my opinion, minor to the rest of the things the phone is and will be able to do that you kinda come across as a little kid who no longer likes his Power Ranger toys anymore because he has the blue one and his friend has a red one and the first boy can't make his red.

Each phone has strengths and weaknesses, with OS updates coming soon for both to make them even better. There are other problems with the iPhone that are more practical than some of the stuff you have mentioned (when you turn on 3G and there is no signal, it doesn't revert back to EDGE without changing something (at least for me)), and there is even bigger things than that that others, even those who love their phone, can and will mention.

In another thread.

 

[E.Lizardo]

Is anyone disappointed it doesn't use an OLED display?

No.
To expensive still.
Shorter lifespan.

If they do end up calling this new phone the "iPhone HD" I'm going to really laugh when everyone around here, predictably, thinks nothing of it, and calls it the best thing ever. Yet, when the "Zune HD" comes out, everyone here laughs at its screen and notes that it isn't HD.

Reality check, 960x640 is very high-res, but it certainly isn't HD. Not even close. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. The term "HD" is so overused these days, it almost has no true meaning or value as a descriptor. Just tack it on to any item these days, and call it awesome.

Well to be fair,the word"high"has no numerical definition(pun intended).

 

[SirHaakon]

true, but have you heard of those marketing ads that even call sound HD? i mean is there actually a standardised sound quality for "high definition"? let alone "HD" displays for gimmicky gadgets that output less than 720p...

Oh, absolutely. People misuse and abuse the term all the time. But just because that happens all around us doesn't mean we should accept it or assimilate to the inaccuracy. "Let's be a part of the lowest common denominator!"

 

[E.Lizardo]

Agree:

- It's good to see rumors over the weekend

- double resolution is handy from several perspectives

- I would have preferred also to have the physical size increased 20-50%.

- iPad compatibility is the expectation

Note:

Lacking the yellow pixels and the Mr. Sulu endorsement.

50%!!!!!!!
That would be a deal breaker for me.It's the right size now.

 

[SirHaakon]

Wow, the stupid things fanboys will get excited over. The only place you're going to notice a difference, and it will be slight at best, is in text. They're adding something stupid just to keep the price jacked up. Its a frivolous addition at best.

Actually, it's an extremely welcome change... Apple has been notoriously behind the resolution game for years. It took them to their most recent refresh to get the 15" MacBook Pros to acceptable spec (and even then, it's a BTO option). The difference will absolutely be noticeable, and whether you personally feel that's important or not, it is an important technological push to keep everyone improving the quality of their devices as we continue to move forward.

No.
Shorter lifespan.

With a new model being released every year, how long do you personally keep your iPhone?

Far as I can tell, it doesn't need a lifespan of longer than two years (at the most) for a lot of users...

 

[E.Lizardo]

I'm reading all of it, I just disagree.

You're basically proving my point exactly. The term "HD" is basically pointless. Especially when everyone on here seems to want to bend its definition to fit their needs. Apparently now, we don't quantify HD by its resolution. Now, when Apple comes out with a very high-res small screen, the term HD is a measure of dpi, not sheer resolution.

It certainly is very high-res, and I'm sure the screen will look fantastic. I won't argue that. It just doesn't qualify as HD in my book. But as I said in my initial post, and was proven quite handily by the users in this thread, that doesn't stop anyone from claiming it to be the greatest thing ever. Like I said, the old Zune HD was mocked and ridiculed by users here for having "HD" in the name, but not having a screen that shows HD resolution. But now, when Apple comes out with a device with very high-res screen, and will possibly use the HD moniker in the name, everyone here quickly adjusts the qualification of something being classified as "HD" so that it can be praised.

Kind of sad really, but as I said, fully predictable. So, carry on the fluffing. It really is quite hilarious.

Somehow I get the impression you're not laughing.

 

[raybo]

Do Not Feed The Trolls

lol we're not using our brains? You're judging something without ever seeing it with no evidence other than your thoughts. While our evidence for believing it will look a certain way is science.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

 

[E.Lizardo]

I love when people bash android 2.x but praise iPhone OS 3.x

iPhone OS is much more limited.
You can't change your background wallpaper

You can't pick a song from your library to be your alarm tone,

You can't set different vibration tones for texts/emails/tweets.

The weather app doesn't even tell you the weather because it's not a dynamic icon, it always says 73 degrees.

The clock icon doesn't even tell you the time.

Not to mention if you have an iPhone 2G you can't even record video.

You also can't have any news/widgets on the lockscreen.

The notification system is terrible.

I mean seriously... What do you have to say about all these things I'm saying?

I would love to hear why iPhone OS is much better than Android, because last time I checked, the things I just listed are very important.

That they are (to me)laughably insignificant.I haven't looked into Android myself,but if those are the most important faults of the iPhone,I really don't need to.