Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The iPhone 5 resolution will change

G

Gurtz

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 11, 2009
69
0
Columbus, Ohio
[This is assuming the 4" screen rumors are correct]

Most rumors say that if the screen gets bigger the resolution will not change. If the resolution changes, the developers will have to change their apps and it could be one big mess. Ergo it makes the most sense to increase the size but maintain the pixels, right?

No. I'll give you an example of why this makes no sense:

Let's just say a new business is looking in a mall for a place to open shop. They contact the mall and are quoted an x square meter space. It's just what they were looking for so they go ahead and pick out all the furniture and products that they're going to sell. A few weeks later the mall calls back and says they made a mistake - the space is actually 30% larger than what they originally said. The business has two options:

1) Upscale everything - the tables, the cash register, the products - by 30%
2) Keep everything the same size but actually take advantage of the space by adding 30% more things

They obviously chose the second option.

The whole point of a larger screen is more screen real estate. If Apple chooses to maintain the resolution, all the icons, the words, the buttons would just be xx% larger and this would not take advantage of the extra space in any way. A larger display with the same resolution is pointless. It would show the same amount of content, but in a larger space, and people would still complain about how small the screen is because there would be no real advantage.
 
Gurtz said:
[This is assuming the 4" screen rumors are correct]

Most rumors say that if the screen gets bigger the resolution will not change. If the resolution changes, the developers will have to change their apps and it could be one big mess. Ergo it makes the most sense to increase the size but maintain the pixels, right?

No. I'll give you an example of why this makes no sense:

Let's just say a new business is looking in a mall for a place to open shop. They contact the mall and are quoted an x square meter space. It's just what they were looking for so they go ahead and pick out all the furniture and products that they're going to sell. A few weeks later the mall calls back and says they made a mistake - the space is actually 30% larger than what they originally said. The business has two options:

1) Upscale everything - the tables, the cash register, the products - by 30%
2) Keep everything the same size but actually take advantage of the space by adding 30% more things

They obviously chose the second option.

The whole point of a larger screen is more screen real estate. If Apple chooses to maintain the resolution, all the icons, the words, the buttons would just be xx% larger and this would not take advantage of the extra space in any way. A larger display with the same resolution is pointless. It would show the same amount of content, but in a larger space, and people would still complain about how small the screen is because there would be no real advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree but I don't think we will see a 4 inch screen this year. IF the screen gets any bigger, I would think 3.7 or 3.8 which will still qualify for the "retina" display at 960X640 at 10-12 inches from the face.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

You're entitled to to your opinion but I still think your logic is completely wrong. Your analogy is based on a single piece of floorspace but the whole issue is that the developer has to figure out a layout that looks nice in various sized spaces, which eventually becomes a headache.

Sure you can make optimal use of the new size, but you also have to offer a 3.5" layout or alienate a large number of potential customers.

Also, if nobody wants a larger screen at the same resolution, why doesnt everyone have a 19" HDTV? At the end of the day sometimes a larger screen is just nicer because it makes things bigger, not because it fills the screen with more stuff.

Who knows, apple may well increase the number of pixels, but it will be in spite of the hassles to developers, not because the hassles don't exist.
 
applefanDrew said:
I agree but I don't think we will see a 4 inch screen this year. IF the screen gets any bigger, I would think 3.7 or 3.8 which will still qualify for the "retina" display at 960X640 at 10-12 inches from the face.
Click to expand...

This is correct. If the screen is bigger than 3.8" then it won't be what Apple considers 'retina'.

I doubt we'll see a 4-inch screen (or even a larger screen in general) one revision after they decided to change the resolution. I'm putting all of my bets on a 3.5 inch screen.
 
What you said would make sense for a desktop OS, but the elements of iOS are not resolution dependent. For example, if a button on the 3.5" display is 50px tall, they can just make it 40px tall on a slightly larger screen, thereby making the button the same physical size and taking advantage of the bigger screen. When they went from 480x320 to 960x640, they didn't change the physical size of any elements; they just created versions of them that were twice as many pixels in height and width. So they could definitely make the screen bigger with the same resolution and still take advantage of the extra space. What I can't figure out is what would become of the apps; I don't see how you can do this without forcing devs to create a new version of their apps for the bigger screen.
 
stevemiller said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

You're entitled to to your opinion but I still think your logic is completely wrong. Your analogy is based on a single piece of floorspace but the whole issue is that the developer has to figure out a layout that looks nice in various sized spaces, which eventually becomes a headache.

Sure you can make optimal use of the new size, but you also have to offer a 3.5" layout or alienate a large number of potential customers.

Also, if nobody wants a larger screen at the same resolution, why doesnt everyone have a 19" HDTV? At the end of the day sometimes a larger screen is just nicer because it makes things bigger, not because it fills the screen with more stuff.

Who knows, apple may well increase the number of pixels, but it will be in spite of the hassles to developers, not because the hassles don't exist.
Click to expand...

Very good point with the tv. I would argue though that programming doesn't have a UI. In that regard tv is more about the size than the resolution. And from the distance most people watch tv anyway is pretty much going to be "retina" no matter what.

And really at the end of the day is a developer going to be frustrated supporting 4 types of devices (iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPhone 5)? Developers support literally hundreds of Android devices all with different screen sizes, resolutions, aspect ratios, and even operating system versions with very little complaining most of the time.

jamald said:
What you said would make sense for a desktop OS, but the elements of iOS are not resolution dependent. For example, if a button on the 3.5" display is 50px tall, they can just make it 40px tall on a slightly larger screen, thereby making the button the same physical size and taking advantage of the bigger screen. When they went from 480x320 to 960x640, they didn't change the physical size of any elements; they just created versions of them that were twice as many pixels in height and width. So they could definitely make the screen bigger with the same resolution and still take advantage of the extra space. What I can't figure out is what would become of the apps; I don't see how you can do this without forcing devs to create a new version of their apps for the bigger screen.
Click to expand...

This is the beauty of increasing the resolution in conjunction with the size. Instead of chopping off 10 pixels, the 50 pixel button does not need to be altered for a higher res 4" screen. So in a sense increasing the resolution would actually be easier for developers than not increasing it.
 
McGiord said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question

You asked a question and posted your own answer.

What would be your "idea" for the 4" Display resolution then?
Click to expand...

We know what the definition of a question is :rolleyes: and In his post he was suggesting the kind of misconception some people would make and explaining why the misconception is wrong while trying to prove a rumor true about the screen resolution of the iPhone 5
 
I'm sorry, but the resolution is not going to change. 960x640 will scale to 4 inches just fine. In fact, Apple could create a new display with more ppi if they truly wanted to maintain the 'retina' moniker. It's just not something they're going to do, there will be two screen resolutions for the iPhone, and two for the iPad, if the 'retina' iPad ever comes to be.
 
Last edited:
Could they use the extra pixels for something else, like something persistent about the OS? Like a stock ticker type area where anything could go, or "more dedicated" game controls? And maybe more real estate if the app decided to take advantage of it?

Seems like fragmentation city though..
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

So I'm no expert at this stuff but why does it matter what size the screen is as long as they maintain the same aspect ratio? I understand the desire to maintain a "retina display" but I don't get what the issue is with people saying apps will have to be completely redesigned if the screen size increases - do movies need to be re-filmed to play on a larger screen with the same aspect ratio?
 
The Californian said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

So I'm no expert at this stuff but why does it matter what size the screen is as long as they maintain the same aspect ratio? I understand the desire to maintain a "retina display" but I don't get what the issue is with people saying apps will have to be completely redesigned if the screen size increases - do movies need to be re-filmed to play on a larger screen with the same aspect ratio?
Click to expand...

If the screen size increases physically while maintaining the same resolution, apps will look perfectly fine. The only problem is some people will complain that its not 'retina' quality.
 
troop231 said:
If the screen size increases physically while maintaining the same resolution, apps will look perfectly fine. The only problem is some people will complain that its not 'retina' quality.
Click to expand...

No, there's another key issue that the original poster was trying to express that has nothing to do with "Retina".

If Apple uses the 960x640 resolution on a 4" screen, the pixels will be stretched across a larger area, resulting in "larger" interface elements. In order to keep everything the same size, the resolution would have to be increased again.
 
na1577 said:
No, there's another key issue that the original poster was trying to express that has nothing to do with "Retina".

If Apple uses the 960x640 resolution on a 4" screen, the pixels will be stretched across a larger area, resulting in "larger" interface elements. In order to keep everything the same size, the resolution would have to be increased again.
Click to expand...

Thank you
If anyone took away what I was trying to explain it was you.
 
The challenge Apple faces as a result of their tendency to exaggerate or over hype their creations is the unrealistic expectations it tends to set for many customers.

It's no wonder some of the easily influenced, buy into Apple's claims so readily. Apple tells them exactly what the worshippers want to hear, then they own it as though it's gospel.

Having chosen a typical catchy & clever name like Retina, and making the claims they did, Apple has backed itself into a corner. Therefore going forward the faithful expect all displays to be Retina. Nothing else could possibly be acceptable, since Apple has set their reality for them.

That said, and an example of the power of Steve Jobs, is many years ago when Apple computers were powered by Motorola CPU's. They bashed PC's as "Wintel" boxes. Referring to Windows & Intel as arch enemies.

Then the day arrived where Apple had no choice but to convert all computers to Intel chips. The average company would have had a revolt on their hands, but not Apple. Daddy Steve told the flock why, and they bought into it with no pushback. Fascinating. The guys brilliant, Apple is going to eventually feel his loss.
 
McGiord said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question

You asked a question and posted your own answer.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a rhetorical question to me. Like at the start of a discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Harvey Specter said:
We know what the definition of a question is :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the forum lately is full of internet tough guys spoiling for a fight.

But back to the topic. It is an interesting premise that I hadn't heard discussed before. I'm on the fence as to whether a change in resolution is required. Folks complain the screen is "too small" and enlarging the screen and increasing the resolution will give more real estate, but the objects will the the same size and possibly still perceived as small. It is easy to imagine that bumping the screen size with the same resolution it will all be "bigger" and appease the critics. Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.
 
na1577 said:
No, there's another key issue that the original poster was trying to express that has nothing to do with "Retina".

If Apple uses the 960x640 resolution on a 4" screen, the pixels will be stretched across a larger area, resulting in "larger" interface elements. In order to keep everything the same size, the resolution would have to be increased again.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting situation Apple has found themselves in. Although upscaling all the icons and such would make them bigger and therefore easier to press, the OS will still have the same cramped perception some people are complaining about while it's on a 3.5" display. I hope the screen on the iPhone 5 still looks very crisp and clear because that's one of the features I love about the iPhone 4.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one still okay with the 3.5" display :(
 
Why does it need to be considered 'Retina'?

Do you really think that Apple is going to use the same marketing term again to sell a new generation of phone?

You have to change the resolution? Why? I personally don't really care about a larger screen, but it's like saying that all HD TVs might as well be 30 inches, since they're all at 1080p anyway.

Larger screen, same resolution, just hold the thing further away. Presto, Retina Display! :cool:
 
Do you really think Apple would go through all that trouble to come up w/ the Retina display and marketing to dump it after one model? Don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back