But - isn't it funny how so many MR posters insist that Apple would never change their size from 3.5" because STEVE (and crew) had done so much research (5 years ago folks) and determined 3.5 was optimal.
Can't wait to see all the backpeddling
For sure. 3.5 was optimal because apple wanted to reissue basically the same iphone 4 for a second generation in a row (well, one with an antennae that did work anyway) and make even more money out of economies of scale. Hence 8% market cut and 70% profit cut for the iphone.
Only apple can issue pretty much the same phone format and interface with very minor modifications for 5 years in a row, have one phone model, and 70% of the profits of the industry. The marketing of this company is insane. Only apple can get people clapping in an auditorium for offering the ability to re-arrange icons on the iphone screen via itunes after, what was it, 3 years?
Personally, when I was first looking to get a smartphone, I hated that they were all so much larger than a "regular" phone, and held off for months due to the iPhone nano rumours. Since having one for the past year, I would say that I wouldn't mind one a little taller and wider, mostly because when texting, the height isn't tall enough to show my large message and the keyboard and the message I'm responding to. For width, I always need to view non-mobile websites in landscape mode and it would be nice to have more "height" there as well. So, my perception of desirability has changed over time.
That said, I completely agree with Apple delaying any change in dimensions, for as long as possible. As a software developer, small mobile screens are much harder to develop for than desktop/notebooks where you can assume >= 1024x768. Every variant of resolution more than 100-200 pixels changes each page noticeably. And it's nice that there are only a few iOS resolutions to deal with. So I agree with the feet dragging and then leaping approach, to reduce variants, that Apple does, instead of the competitors who release with every interim resolution and screen size that's available.
It's all about finding sweat spots for features, instead of many iterations of slightly better yet incompatible changes. With a larger screen size, comes:
- Greater CPU/GPU processing requirements and greater electricity usage, while providing more room for a battery, but all having more weight. Each of those then cost more as well, which is the greatest constraint.
- Different pixel density, for mapping between pixels and physical sizes that constrain what users can actually interact with.
- Different screen resolutions require different UI layout and artwork and often times different means of getting user input.
It seems that Apple is coordinating the steps in improvements between iPhone and iPad devices, to simplify app development, so that developers could focus on the iPhone retina changes at a different time than the iPad retina changes, and now whatever possible next change in iPhone resolution.
So when people say that 3.5" is no longer optimal, and that Apple and the fanboys will have to do a 180 and pull their feet out of their mouths if the screen resolution changes, I think it's just that with
all of the variables as they were, 3.5" made sense for maybe longer than people realise who only look at
some of the variables. But once enough of them line up, it will be a no brainer. It's just not obvious, since CPU and GPU speeds / power requirements, and display brightness / resolution / power requirements all trend at different rates. Let alone all the other variables controlling when to use a larger battery, like flash / ram / LTE / 3G / WiFi / Bluetooth chipset and protocol power usage.
