Source Claims Hands-On Experience with iPhone 5 Prototype

[neko girl]

And any developer who design Apps that way to begin with was doing it incorrectly to begin with. That is just piss poor designing that relays on pixel perfect interface.

Rodimus, maybe you'll point us to a more successful development strategy in the market today. Android's fragments and panels haven't led to us a successful tablet out in the market yet. If anything, it appears consumers aren't buying that you can just "scale up" phone apps for a tablet, or between phone screen sizes.

Pixel perfect alignment is required for a big category of apps we all use: games. Pixel perfect alignment is also required for many apps that use customer UIs.

And speaking of "any developer", have you written any apps yourself? Could you point us to the names and platforms?

 

[KnightWRX]

Pixel perfect alignment is required for a big category of apps we all use: games.

If anything, games are where pixel perfect alignment isn't required. Most PC games written in the last 20 years can run at many different resolutions. All games written to 3D APIs are resolution agnostic.

 

[heisetax]

Already this nonsense has begun? The 4S is still sold out in most stores and we have to begin the endless stream of wild guesses about the iPhone 5?

After all this is a rumor site. Where would it be without a new rumor. I can't update my phone until sometime next July. That means that an iPhone 4s addition at that time would be very late in its cycle. For that reason I am waiting for the iPhone 5 or whatever they call it then.

----------

Source?

That must not be true because I want a larger screen & I want an iPhone. As with most things Apple if I want it Apple will not build it. It is also so against their small is better way of doing business now.

 

[SandynJosh]

Either the resolution would be the same, resulting in larger controls and lower pixel density, or developers would need to redo their apps to optimize them for the new resolution in order to maintain a pixel perfect interface.

You know, the North America especially, as well as much of the Northern continent's population, is aging. An iPhone with the same pixel count spread over a larger screen with larger controls would be a very smart move by Apple. The pixel density would hardly change while the utility for older users would be greatly enhanced. That, and the addition of Siri, makes the iPhone perfect for a broader range of users.

"Siri, where are my glasses?"

"According to the facetime camera, they are on your forehead."

"Thank you, Siri."

 

[ItTakesFaith]

I fully expect all of the carriers to grant IMMEDIATE eligiability to all 4S owners when iPhone 5 comes out. There should never, ever, ever be a detriment to owning the latest and greatest. Gotta have EVERY iteration.

(sadly, I'm completely serious)

What has prevented me from getting the 4S (I have the 4), is the fact that it would effectively prevent me from getting a subsidized iPhone 5 if it is introduced anytime during the 2012 calendar year. While we don't have a clear, hard number cost of the production of the iPhone (iSuppli claims in a "tear down" report that the figure for a last-generation iPhone 4 had a parts list cost of $187.51, not including other business, marketing costs and supplier profit.), it is clear that the $199 subsidized consumer cost of the 16GB doesn't come close to it's actual cost (the profits, as we all know, come from the monthly service charges and peripherals, etc.).

Therefore, (with unknown but significant charges/fees going from the carriers back to Apple) how can you suggest that the carriers would EVER consider taking an even deeper cut into their potential profits to somehow "go easy" on us end-line consumers? Granted, I would be first in line if they were to do such a thing, but I just can't see it happening... I'm exhibit "A" (waiting to get the new form function iPhone 5 instead of the 4S... as much as I want it now!) in why Apple's current policy isn't ultimately in it's best interest, because those of us early customers ("early adopters") are the VERY BEST marketing element of Apple (we used to be referred to as "evangelists"), and it's in their best interest to ensure that we get the absolute latest and greatest of their innovations.

Trust me, "jamesryanbell" I'd welcome you, or anybody else, who can articulate a business model that would allow unlimited subsidized iPhones for us early adopters... So get busy...!

 

[SandynJosh]

If anything, games are where pixel perfect alignment isn't required. Most PC games written in the last 20 years can run at many different resolutions. All games written to 3D APIs are resolution agnostic.

I don't think PC game-writing APIs apply well to portable devices with finite time between charges. Just sayin'.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't think PC game-writing APIs apply well to portable devices with finite time between charges. Just sayin'.

You're right, OpenGL ES 2.0 is not something you wan.. oh wait.

Just sayin'.

 

[SandynJosh]

What has prevented me from getting the 4S (I have the 4), is the fact that it would effectively prevent me from getting a subsidized iPhone 5 if it is introduced anytime during the 2012 calendar year.

I'm in the same situation; waiting for my late 2010 Verizon contract to get closer to ending. Except I have a crapdroid Incredible to deal with in the meantime.

 

[divinox]

Not trying to imply causation. Simply countering the assertion that "3.5 screens aren't popular". Which is clearly untrue.

...which you cannot counter by that logic. The iPhone is popular. The iPhone has a 3.5" screen. We do not know whether 3.5" are popular. Correlation does not imply causation; people may very well buy iPhones in spite of it having a 3.5".

 

[neko girl]

If anything, games are where pixel perfect alignment isn't required. Most PC games written in the last 20 years can run at many different resolutions. All games written to 3D APIs are resolution agnostic.

I get it, you have a good point. But again, please point me to a successful developer ecosystem strategy in mobile (touch based devices) that has implemented resolution independence. If anything, the first presumed-successful tablet in Android (an OS that is the major proponent of resolution-free development) is a reportedly curated device (the Kindle Fire).

This "developers do whatever" works well in PC. It doesn't work well here. There's plenty of contributing factors (like the size of a fingertip vs. a size of a cursor, the lack of screen real estate, etc.). If you don't believe me check out questions for Rubin in his last interview.

Edit: I'll also comment that iOS apps generally tend to look a lot better than their Android counterparts. This isn't some weird or happenstance coincidence. Maybe consumers care about that too. Maybe Apple's stubborn reliance on specific resolutions contribute to that.

----------

My car's headlights are controlled by the key - key off, lights off. Key on, lights on.

I hope your car lets you leave the headlights on without the key in.. you know, in cases where you might have to bury a body out in the Nevada desert..

 

[bpaluzzi]

...which you cannot counter by that logic. The iPhone is popular. The iPhone has a 3.5" screen. We do not know whether 3.5" are popular. Correlation does not imply causation; people may very well buy iPhones in spite of it having a 3.5".

Never said that the 3.5" screen is the reason it's being purchased.

Just said that it's popular. Which it is.

 

[subsonix]

Edit: I'll also comment that iOS apps generally tend to look a lot better than their Android counterparts. This isn't some weird or happenstance coincidence. Maybe consumers care about that too. Maybe Apple's stubborn reliance on specific resolutions contribute to that.

The idea is perhaps to not think about pixels but dpi, and just make sure to provide gfx elements that is of high enough resolution.

 

[KnightWRX]

I get it, you have a good point. But again, please point me to a successful developer ecosystem strategy in mobile (touch based devices) that has implemented resolution independence. If anything, the first presumed-successful tablet in Android (an OS that is the major proponent of resolution-free development) is a reportedly curated device (the Kindle Fire).

Why limit it to tablets ? Android Smartphones come various shapes and sizes with varying resolutions and the Android Market has over 200,000 applications. It's baked into the framework. Even Rovio (makers of those pissed off canaries or something) said the only obstacle was not screen resolution, it was the power of the devices (some of the early Android phones had very poor SoCs).

Games written to OpenGL ES 2.0 are resolution agnostic. Speaking of only games (since this is what you mentionned and I commented on), fragmentation of screen resolution is a complete non-issue. You're manipulating objects within a viewport you defined. The coordinate system is the same no matter at what resolution you're running.

Apple can't stick to the same resolutions forever, they will have to solve this dilema in their SDK at one point. Of course, it's already too late since it should have been designed as resolution agnostic since the beginning. This is something they should have foreseen.

----------

Never said that the 3.5" screen is the reason it's being purchased.

Just said that it's popular. Which it is.

His point is that the iPhone is popular, not the 3.5" screen. The iPhone would be popular with a 3.7" or 4" screen too. The iPhone being popular does not make the 3.5" screen popular.

 

[bpaluzzi]

His point is that the iPhone is popular, not the 3.5" screen. The iPhone would be popular with a 3.7" or 4" screen too. The iPhone being popular does not make the 3.5" screen popular.

Perhaps it would be popular. That's straight up conjecture. The proven fact, however, is that the two most popular phones in the world have 3.5" screens. The 3.5" as a screensize IS popular. Saying anything else is guessing.

 

[divinox]

Rodimus, maybe you'll point us to a more successful development strategy in the market today. Android's fragments and panels haven't led to us a successful tablet out in the market yet. If anything, it appears consumers aren't buying that you can just "scale up" phone apps for a tablet, or between phone screen sizes.

Pixel perfect alignment is required for a big category of apps we all use: games. Pixel perfect alignment is also required for many apps that use customer UIs.

And speaking of "any developer", have you written any apps yourself? Could you point us to the names and platforms?

Correlation does not imply causation. We can not logically infer that Android tablets relative failure to gain traction is due to app-scaling. And, without a doubt, i would prefer that solution to Apples non-solution, in which apps are simply islands in a sea of black. Personally, i would prefer a mix of the two - scaling where tablet versions are not present. In ways i understand Apple though. However, there are plenty of apps for which scaling certainly works - assuming Apple would do their part, and make the overall UI elements align with the change in resolution.

 

[subsonix]

Apple can't stick to the same resolutions forever, they will have to solve this dilema in their SDK at one point. Of course, it's already too late since it should have been designed as resolution agnostic since the beginning. This is something they should have foreseen.

As been mentioned before here, you deal with coordinates and points, Quartz is already abstracted from the concept of pixels.

 

[bergmef]

I

[/COLOR]
I hope your car lets you leave the headlights on without the key in.. you know, in cases where you might have to bury a body out in the Nevada desert..

Not mine, I have the xenon headlights on my Audi. Then again, I have a flashlight in case of the quick burial! ;-)

 

[divinox]

Perhaps it would be popular. That's straight up conjecture. The proven fact, however, is that the two most popular phones in the world have 3.5" screens. The 3.5" as a screensize IS popular. Saying anything else is guessing.

No. A phone with a 3.5" screen is popular. Whether or that is due to the screen-size is an unknown. What we do know is that it is not impopular enough to throw off the overall value proposition, but that in itself says very little.

To illustrate, the most popular phone is quite crappy when it comes to making calls. Is crappy calling then popular? No, certainly not. When asked, anyone not a complete retard will prefer "good calling" over "bad calling". Yet, people obviously buy the device. In short, the "bad calling" is not bad (or impopular) enough to throw off the overall value proposition (i.e. to make one not buy the device).

TL;DR: it is the phone that is popular, not necessarily its screen.

----------

His point is that the iPhone is popular, not the 3.5" screen. The iPhone would be popular with a 3.7" or 4" screen too. The iPhone being popular does not make the 3.5" screen popular.

Correct.

 

[KnightWRX]

Perhaps it would be popular. That's straight up conjecture. The proven fact, however, is that the two most popular phones in the world have 3.5" screens. The 3.5" as a screensize IS popular. Saying anything else is guessing.

Ok, let's try this another way. Do you know who Lance Fabian Kemp is ? By your logic, he's hugely popular.

----------

As been mentioned before here, you deal with coordinates and points, Quartz is already abstracted from the concept of pixels.

Ok, so why are all the non-programmers worried ? No, frankly, after having played around with the SDK, it's really not so easy. Interface builder, while providing the same scaling facilities that it does for OS X in iOS applications does not promote it at all. People still rely on "pixel perfect" design rather than "pixel agnostic" design for applications (aside games as I mentioned earlier).

Anyway, this is moot, you can do it in iOS already. Stuff will scale like it does in OS X like you point out, usually with your main content pane resizing to fit the new pixel resolution while your controls just align themselves to the new edges/frame and stay the same pixel size. It seems the non-programmers on the forum don't like this at all though and say this isn't "perfect like Apple!" even though it's the way it just works.

 

[jasomill]

I don't know man. The iPhone is Apples flagship now. It doesn't get old tech, it debuts tech. I would expect the iPhone to have this before any other products.

G4 Cube had a capacitative button first, followed by an iPod.

An iPhone with exclusively capacitative controls, an inductive charging "wireless dock" and wireless headphones — so no ports — and unibody glass construction, held together with no screws, would be new, though.

As for the tactile feedback, wasn't there a patent recently about that very thing?

Yes, for a flat keyboard.

 

[subsonix]

Ok, so why are all the non-programmers worried ?

Well, who knows?

No, frankly, after having played around with the SDK, it's really not so easy. Interface builder, while providing the same scaling facilities that it does for OS X in iOS applications does not promote it at all. People still rely on "pixel perfect" design rather than "pixel agnostic" design for applications (aside games).

http://developer.apple.com/library/...PIConcepts/HiDPIConcepts.html#//apple_ref/doc

 

[bpaluzzi]

No. A phone with a 3.5" screen is popular. Whether or that is due to the screen-size is an unknown. What we do know is that it is not impopular enough to throw off the overall value proposition, but that in itself says very little.

To illustrate, the most popular phone is quite crappy when it comes to making calls. Is crappy calling then popular? No, certainly not. When asked, anyone not a complete retard will prefer "good calling" over "bad calling". Yet, people obviously buy the device. In short, the "bad calling" is not bad (or impopular) enough to throw off the overall value proposition (i.e. to make one not buy the device).

TL;DR: it is the phone that is popular, not necessarily its screen.

----------



Correct.

Look guys, this isn't that tough.

You're confusing "desirable" and "popular". Popular is a measure of units sold. The (in your words) "crappy calling phone" IS popular. That's not saying that "crappy calling" is in any way desirable. But it IS popular.

Just the same with the 3.5" screen. It IS popular. Whether or not it's desirable is up for debate. But it is popular.

This isn't a case where correlation / causation is applicable. It's a bit of an instance of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

 

[divinox]

Look guys, this isn't that tough.

You're confusing "desirable" and "popular". Popular is a measure of units sold. The (in your words) "crappy calling phone" IS popular. That's not saying that "crappy calling" is in any way desirable. But it IS popular.

Just the same with the 3.5" screen. It IS popular. Whether or not it's desirable is up for debate. But it is popular.

This isn't a case where correlation / causation is applicable. It's a bit of an instance of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

popular |ˈpäpyələr|
adjective
1 liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group : she was one of the most popular girls in the school | these cheeses are very popular in Europe.
2 [ attrib. ] (of cultural activities or products) intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals : the popular press.
• (of a belief or attitude) held by the majority of the general public : many adult cats, contrary to popular opinion, dislike milk.
3 [ attrib. ] (of political activity) of or carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties : a popular revolt against colonial rule.

popular
adjective
1 the most popular restaurant in town: well-liked, favored, sought-after, in demand, desired, wanted; commercial, marketable, fashionable, trendy, in vogue, all the rage, hot; informal in, cool, big.

[...]

And yes, the "crappy calling phone" is popular, so is the "3.5" screen phone" - but not necessarily because it makes for "crappy calls", or because it has a "3.5" screen".

p.s.

a) if you wish to imply that your use of the word popular was only to address the fact that the screen is indeed in wide-spread use, then your whole statement becomes tautologic.

b) are ****** remotes and incomprehensible product manuals popular too, in your view? if not, what is the difference?

Addendum:

And, of course the screen size is in fact popular. It is not necessarily, however, the most popular one, just because the top 2 selling devices sports one though. That is what have been argued by me, and others. When asked about their prefence, it could very well be that the _popular response_ would be something bigger, or smaller for that matter.

 

[KnightWRX]

http://developer.apple.com/library/...PIConcepts/HiDPIConcepts.html#//apple_ref/doc

Yes, the OS X documentation. Are you arguing against me or supporting my current argument here ?

We seem to be saying the same thing now are we. Don't forget, I'm in the camp that knows this crap was solved decades ago.

----------

Look guys, this isn't that tough.

You're confusing "desirable" and "popular". Popular is a measure of units sold.

Only if those units were sold on the merit of what is being dubbed "popular". Again, do you know who Lance Fabian Kemp is ? Hugely popular guy according to your "measure of units sold".

No cheating now! No using Google.

 

[subsonix]

Yes, the OS X documentation. Are you arguing against me or supporting my current argument here ?

CoreGraphics is identical in respect to drawing on both platforms, which is why a lot of the documentation for Quartz is shared. I don't know what it is you are arguing about, apart from saying that the problem is in the API's provided by Apple, which it isn't.

Of course one may still support the idea that it makes sense to adapt the UI to a screen that is fundamentally larger, such as on iPad. I don't think that a "hypothetic" bump from 3.5" to 4" would however. But, this is really just a side note to this discussion that I felt like commenting on, nevermind.