Outlining the Case for 1334 x 750 and 2208 x 1242 iPhone 6 Retina Displays

[apolloa]

It is being hyped up on 80" TVs, not 5" phones Those kind of resolutions, including much smaller 2K (for ex. on G3, and note 4) are just that... hype;pure marketing. 1080p (on Android devices not using pentile) is more than enough (unless we're talking about tablets). Personally, iPhone's 326 ppi is good enough for most people, including me (and no I'm not 60 years old). It will be even better on a bigger screen (4,7"). If they were to increase resolution to 1080p, it would also be fine (if developers are fast enough with app updates). Anything more (on a 4,7" iPhone) is just stupid and wasteful.

And what makes you think that ppi will go down in the first place??

No, firstly 4K is being hyped up on computers including the Mac Pro and computer monitors, did you not watch the Mac Pro keynote? It is also being hyped up on Netflix and 4K TV's are from 50" not 80".

Like this:

4K performance that’s nothing short of spectacular.
Work pixel-for-pixel in 4K without slowing down, thanks to dual AMD FirePro workstation-class GPUs and the latest Xeon E5 processors in Mac Pro — a merger that delivers the breathtaking capability to run eight picture-in-picture streams of 4K video at once in Final Cut Pro X (or many more streams of HD video). Combine that with the power to drive up to three 4K displays and process multiple layers of complex effects in real time, and you have a video editing powerhouse.

From here:

http://www.apple.com/uk/mac-pro/performance/

I also never once said 4K on phones was being hyped up, I stated what is the point in 4K if people on here don't want higher resolutions? And as I stated it's because it gives much much much finer detail and that's the same with a phone.

I like your generalisation as a fact, even though it is your OPINION, that the iPhone is 'good enough' for most people. Well that's clearly wrong as 'most people' in this world do not own iPhones do they, most people would basically mean the majority of the market.
You clearly have not used a big screen high res phone, if you had then you would realise just how much difference it makes. But if you would be happy spending $700 on a phone with sub 1080P screen in 2014 then be my guest.

And 326PPI would be worst on a bigger screen not better. It would be more pixelated. Also the PPI going down is because of all these 'opinions and rumours' of it doing so.

 

[DCJ001]

Math Errors

When John Gruber said:

"1.18 times larger" it should read "0.18 times (or 18%) larger."

"1.5 times sharper" it should read "0.50 times (or 50% larger."

"1.38 times more points" it should read "0.38 times (or 38%) larger.

"1.17 times larger" it should read "0.17 times (or 17%) larger."

This is a simple concept. As someone to whom people refer as an expert, he should be knowledgeable of this simple math. I hope that he is not too stubborn to admit his mistakes.

I can also tell that he has put some time into arriving at his conclusions, and creating the page. I would hope that he is someone who would want every detail to be correct and not misleading.

 

[matrix07]

Erm? Yes? It is, along with it's quality, the Nexus 5 screen has been reviewed as very very very good, for the price of the phone it's astounding, yes it's full 1080P but it's also colourful etc.

I'm working in the video field. Let me tell you something. When the post house want you to check out the color of your work, they'll make sure you have an iPhone. If you have one, they send the file to you to see. If you have other brands, they won't bother.
Why? Because while some other phones are colorful, this is not a good thing if it's not color correct. I haven't check out other brands for sometimes so I have no knowledge of current situation. All I know is most of post houses here still didn't send the file to you if you're using other brands.

And whilst on the point of resolution, why do you think resolutions keep on increasing? Why do you think 4K is being Soooooooo hyped up? Because you get much much much more detail, and it's the same with a phone screen.
.....

..No, firstly 4K is being hyped up on computers including the Mac Pro and computer monitors, did you not watch the Mac Pro keynote?

4K is hyped up because 1080p has run its course. The majority of people, who's not poor, are having one so manufacturers need something new to sell you. On the normal living room dimension, few people will benefit from it, unless you have screen bigger than 80-90", which most people don't.
Apple hyped 4K ability on Mac Pro because Mac Pro aims for professional market, not consumers.

If you think resolution doesn't matter, you're under the Apple marketing spell.

If you think more resolution is automatically better without taking other things into consideration then you just fell for marketing bull__ like camera pixel war a decade ago.

It is also being hyped up on Netflix and 4K TV's are from 50" not 80".

Ironically, from your posts that accused people of falling for Apple marketing gimmick, you're the one who fell for marketing bull__, like this one.

 

[dwsolberg]

I wounder how Apple will handle this huge software fragmentation iPhone 6 will cause with it many different display sizes?

it must be a nightmare for the software developers to make apps for so many models and sizes!!

Apple's been building out their developer tools to handle different screen sizes for the last two years or so. It's a technology called AutoLayout (which makes it seem simpler than it is). It's true that developers will have a lot of work, especially converting older apps to the new sizes, but that's job security, too.

In my company, we have already converted one of our internal business apps to automatically adjust to screen sizes, but we'll probably have a little more tweaking to do once we actually figure out the sizes. Come late September, there will probably be a lot of developer work fixing apps to fit the new phone.

 

[MythicFrost]

Gruber may be wrong on this one.

Here's what I think we'll see:

iPhone 5s: 1136 x 640 (326 ppi)
iPhone 6 4.7": 1472 x 828 (360 ppi)
iPhone 6 5.5": 1472 x 828 (307 ppi)

Having to support not only a different resolution, but a wildly different ppi on the 5.5" model (which, lets face it, is going to be a relatively niche product compared to other iPhone models) would be a huge palaver for developers. The result for users would be a lot of apps that are glitchy or don't support the 5.5" correctly.

Apple have already shown that having devices with the same resolution but different ppi is not a problem. e.g.: the iPad Air vs iPad mini.

It's either as you say, both will have 1472x828, or the 5.5 inch model will go with 2208x1242 -- the only difference is that physically the content on-screen will be about 25% smaller which isn't too much of an issue. And while I think of it, there is a third option -- 1712x963 (more or less) which will give about the same PPI, but we'll end up with even more physical space than the 4.7 inch model, so I think that would be least likely.

 

[slayerz96]

And 326PPI would be worst on a bigger screen not better. It would be more pixelated. Also the PPI going down is because of all these 'opinions and rumours' of it doing so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ppi supposed to measure pixel density? That means, even on different screen sizes the density is the same and the words will look "just as good"?

I'll admit I'm not very tech-smart, but when I compare the iPhone 5 screen with the iPad mini retina, the words appear as sharp on each display (ignoring all the colour gamut stuff i've heard about). Both displays have 326ppi.

 

[MikeyMike01]

So hold on, if I got a 4.7 inch iPhone then everything on the screen would stay the same size? So I would still have to zoom in for some content? That pretty mud defeats the point in having a larger screen.

They did that with the 5, where I everything was the same size and all we got was a few additional lines of text. The whole point in going towards a larger screen size is so that zooming in to see/read content is no longer required.

It's just the opposite. Having a larger screen that displays the same amount of content, but larger, is completely useless.

 

[TommyA6]

No, firstly 4K is being hyped up on computers including the Mac Pro and computer monitors, did you not watch the Mac Pro keynote? It is also being hyped up on Netflix and 4K TV's are from 50" not 80".

Like this:

4K performance that’s nothing short of spectacular.
Work pixel-for-pixel in 4K without slowing down, thanks to dual AMD FirePro workstation-class GPUs and the latest Xeon E5 processors in Mac Pro — a merger that delivers the breathtaking capability to run eight picture-in-picture streams of 4K video at once in Final Cut Pro X (or many more streams of HD video). Combine that with the power to drive up to three 4K displays and process multiple layers of complex effects in real time, and you have a video editing powerhouse.

From here:

http://www.apple.com/uk/mac-pro/performance/

I also never once said 4K on phones was being hyped up, I stated what is the point in 4K if people on here don't want higher resolutions? And as I stated it's because it gives much much much finer detail and that's the same with a phone.

I like your generalisation as a fact, even though it is your OPINION, that the iPhone is 'good enough' for most people. Well that's clearly wrong as 'most people' in this world do not own iPhones do they, most people would basically mean the majority of the market.
You clearly have not used a big screen high res phone, if you had then you would realise just how much difference it makes. But if you would be happy spending $700 on a phone with sub 1080P screen in 2014 then be my guest.

And 326PPI would be worst on a bigger screen not better. It would be more pixelated. Also the PPI going down is because of all these 'opinions and rumours' of it doing so.

I was exaggerating with the 80" TVs to prove a point. Either way, 20+" screens are incomparably bigger than even the biggest phablets.
On that bold part... You are clueless, and it isn't even funny. You keep moaning about a possible low resolution display in the iPhone 6, yet you lack even the basic understanding of important terms involved in screen tech. Pure gold

----------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ppi supposed to measure pixel density? That means, even on different screen sizes the density is the same and the words will look "just as good"?

I'll admit I'm not very tech-smart, but when I compare the iPhone 5 screen with the iPad mini retina, the words appear as sharp on each display (ignoring all the colour gamut stuff i've heard about). Both displays have 326ppi.

You are completely right. Some just have no idea what they're talking about (which would be perfectly fine if they didn't complain about those things too much).

 

[FloatingBones]

"Journalist" connotes a certain level of non-bias. Perhaps "blogger", "writer" or "advocate" would be better descriptors.

If you don't think that traditional journalists are lacking in significant bias, you just haven't been reading their work. Bias is part of the game; an educated reader is aware of the inherent bias in any reporting.

Nevertheless, feel free to file your suggestion with Richard Padilla. I'll see if he updates his story.

 

[lincolntran]

Just please no protruding camera lens! I'm willing to return to the iPhone from Android if Apple plays their cards right.

All the high end androids phones have protruding camera. Why are you still using them?

 

[myforwik]

Grubber is saying the obvious for the 4.7" - that it will retain the same DPI, same scaling, and just be physically bigger to show more content. However it won't be 750 - since the display width will be metric and a factor of 16/. It will much more likely be 752.

The 5.5 is more interesting. There is no way they will do a 5.5" that only scales up by 1.06. People want not just the display bigger - they want the controls bigger. A 6% increase is not suitable. Also I have my doubts over a 3x mode. It makes all graphical elements an odd number of pixels in length and width.

My money is on:
4.7" 1328x752 2X
5.5" 1520x880 2X

 

[cmaier]

The 5.5 is more interesting. There is no way they will do a 5.5" that only scales up by 1.06. People want not just the display bigger - they want the controls bigger.

Who wants the controls bigger? Did people suddenly get fatter fingers?

If the 5.5" has the same number of dots as 4.7", fail. People aren't looking for a bigger phone just to see a scaled up image of what's on the smaller phone, same reason people don't buy a 27" monitor to see the same number of dots as a 21" monitor.

 

[Moto G]

Who wants the controls bigger? Did people suddenly get fatter fingers?

If the 5.5" has the same number of dots as 4.7", fail. People aren't looking for a bigger phone just to see a scaled up image of what's on the smaller phone, same reason people don't buy a 27" monitor to see the same number of dots as a 21" monitor.

Who says "fail"? That's SOOO 2009

 

[myforwik]

Who wants the controls bigger? Did people suddenly get fatter fingers?

If the 5.5" has the same number of dots as 4.7", fail. People aren't looking for a bigger phone just to see a scaled up image of what's on the smaller phone, same reason people don't buy a 27" monitor to see the same number of dots as a 21" monitor.

I agree. What I meant was if apple were going to target the people who like ipad size controls - they wouldn't bother with a tiny 6% increase that Grubber is claiming.

I agree with you in that both should simply display more content.

 

[cmaier]

I agree. What I meant was if apple were going to target the people who like ipad size controls - they wouldn't bother with a tiny 6% increase that Grubber is claiming.

I agree with you in that both should simply display more content.

I didn't read Gruber as saying that. I read it as "you get more stuff on the screen at the same time, and at this particular pip it's comparatively easy to code for and by the way you also get 6% increase, which is certainly better than a decrease."

 

[Misaki]

Why would they introduce more fragmentation into their iPhone line?

This is a not-news article, but anyway:

Fragmentation is less about the screen size and more about the aspect ratio@ppi. If the phone is the same aspect ratio, then a 1x, 2x, 3x configuration doesn't make or break any existing software. Think about when you play a iPhone game on an ipad. You tap the 2X and it blows it up to the maximum width of the screen, but there is still a letterbox or windowbox around the software, depending how the software determines the orientation. Most "iphone" style games are portrait mode and don't change when you rotate. Meanwhile most iPad games are landscape mode.

It makes the most logical sense when making the screen larger to either retain the same resolution, or increase the resolution but maintain the PPI and aspect ratio so that existing software scales up directly. However software that scales up tends to look really gross and ugly if it doesn't have assets to cover that size. So old software without the assets will still work, but look uglier on new devices with more pixels.

On the flip side of that argument, adding 1X 2X and 3X assets increases the software's size.

This is where I make the absurd argument that Apple should let developers upload the device binary and separate 1X,2X,3X patchable asset binaries so that the best version of the assets are downloaded for the device instead of the software needing to have all versions on the device. Alternatively (You can do this with Unity IIRC) you can put only the software binary on the App store, and have the software download the appropriate asset binary on first launch. But this adds time.

 

[spaceballl]

Camera
PPI
128 GB option
Sapphire
clocked higher cpu (perhaps because of the larger screen)


Just off the top of my head, Rogifan

+1 ~ If we get those, I'll be stoked. 128GB is my #1 hope.

 

[JGowan]

Again with the "Apple Journalist"?

He gets invitations direct from Apple to closed events only for certain tech journalists. So... what's YOUR deal?

 

[MyopicPaideia]

What you are saying is there should't be any 3-pixel strokes in any @2x assets, or any odd numbered assets in @2x? Everything should start with @1x and be multiples of that. It would certainly make designing easier.

How can there even be a 3 pixel stroke in an @2x asset??? Wouldn't it by definition have to be an even number? Isn't the whole point with the @2x asset that it can be rendered at the @1x size for backward compatibility? Ypu can't render 1.5 pixels at @1x so how could you render 3 @2x?? So an original 3 pixel stroke would actually be 6 pixels @2x and 9 pixels @3x. Doesn't everything have to start with the @1x asset in the first place? I don't think you can start with the @2x asset, it breaks the whole "point" of using the system.

I may be wrong, but I think Gruber's made a logical error there.

----------

But that's exactly what Apple already did with the iPad mini.

We're only talking a slight increase in pixel density here. Much less, in fact, than the difference between the iPad and iPad mini.

Besides, legacy apps will presumably just be scaled up anyway - so their touch targets will be bigger than on the 5s.

Modern apps can use autolayout, dynamic type, etc to present the appropriate sizes of text and controls for each display.

Yes, but the resulting icon and text size on the actual home screen would be smaller than Apple's self-imposed UI guidelines for the touch interface. It has much less to do with the actual apps than the standard iOS interface. With the iPad mini, and the precise screen size they chose, the home screen elements were still within the guidelines. They would not be with your proposed resolution. That's all.

 

[Reason077]

It's just the opposite. Having a larger screen that displays the same amount of content, but larger, is completely useless.

So everyone who buys an iPad Air is wasting their money, right? Completely useless upgrade over the mini.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

When John Gruber said:

"1.18 times larger" it should read "0.18 times (or 18%) larger."

"1.5 times sharper" it should read "0.50 times (or 50% larger."

"1.38 times more points" it should read "0.38 times (or 38%) larger.

"1.17 times larger" it should read "0.17 times (or 17%) larger."

This is a simple concept. As someone to whom people refer as an expert, he should be knowledgeable of this simple math. I hope that he is not too stubborn to admit his mistakes.

I can also tell that he has put some time into arriving at his conclusions, and creating the page. I would hope that he is someone who would want every detail to be correct and not misleading.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the common nomenclature. Something twice as large as another thing is 100% larger when expressed as a percentage.

138 / 100 = 1.38 and is therefore 1.38 times larger than 100, or 38% larger than 100. You can't actually say that something is 0.38 times larger because 0.38 is actually smaller, not larger. 38 / 100 = 0.38 and is therefore approximately 2.64 times smaller than 100, or 62% smaller than 100.

 

[HishamAkhtar]

iPhone started with 320x480, as did many Android phones actually in 2008-2009.

Apple followed a very specific path which really minimized any fragmentation between display resolutions.

iPhone: 320x480
iPhone 3G: 320x480
iPhone 3GS: 320x480
iPhone 4: 640x960 (treated as 320x480 points rendered @2x for retina)
iPhone 4S: 640x960
iPhone 5: 640x1136 (treated as 320x568 points rendered @2x)
iPhone 5s: 640x1136

See the pattern? They've never moved from the original in terms of points on the screen and the physical size of touch targets and UI elements. Gruber makes excellent points related to this.

They're not going to just go start using 1280x720 or 1920x1080 because they're "standard". What are they even standard for? TVs playing video 100% of the time. These are mobile computers doing much more than playing video. They'll focus on the UI, touch targets and physical point size to determine the resolutions they need to use.

It's what makes this year very interesting. It'll be the first time since the original iPhone where the points layout changes significantly (from 320x480 & 320x568). Very likely a nice increase in point layout while maintaining or slightly increasing physical touch targets we will get more screen real estate on the iPhone (not just keep everything the same layout and blow it up to 4.7/5.5).

Sure, take the standards question out of it but they still need to come up with a way to make the OS resolution independent if they want to make further additions in the future.

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[MyopicPaideia]

On the flip side of that argument, adding 1X 2X and 3X assets increases the software's size.

This is where I make the absurd argument that Apple should let developers upload the device binary and separate 1X,2X,3X patchable asset binaries so that the best version of the assets are downloaded for the device instead of the software needing to have all versions on the device. Alternatively (You can do this with Unity IIRC) you can put only the software binary on the App store, and have the software download the appropriate asset binary on first launch. But this adds time.

This is where I really enjoy your absurd argument. Super easy to implement, and it fetches only the correct and necessary assets upon first launch whenever it is installed. Bloat problem fixed.

 

[class77]

4.7 = the new 5c

If Apple does that, they will have missed the boat. Surely sales of the 5C show them people want the upper end components. I'm willing to bet, given the same components, the 4.7" would outsell the 5.5" by a large margin.

 

[daveathall]

I have both the Air and the Retina Mini, and I find that I use the mini far more frequently. So in my mind, the retina mini is now indeed the flagship.

Can you tell the difference in the displays? Honest question, just curious.