iPhone SE (2016) the iPhone I'd like to see Apple release (based on the SE and the X)

[bwApple! fwApple!]

—reduced bezels. The iPhone X does not have them. Not really.
The ratio of the screen-width to body-width is 0.88 in the iPhone X. So 88% of the width of the body is covered with screen.
The numbers for the other iPhones:
-SE: 0.85 (85%)
-non-plus: 0.86 (86%)
-plus: 0.87 (87%)
Reduce those bezels, Apple! For real. So that 93% to 95% of the body is covered with screen.

—reduce the roundness of those rounded corners. The body and the screen can have rounded corners without them being quite that rounded. Very rounded corners make a larger part of the screen less useful.

—start from the body of the iPhone SE, and make it slightly wider. Make it as wide as the iPhones before the iPhone 4: 61-62 mm. Along with those reduced bezels, this slightly greater width (around 5%) allows for the 4.7 inch 16:9 non-plus iPhone screen to fit; the 4.7 inch screen is 38% bigger than the 4 inch screen, and has the same proportions. The iPhone SE is tall enough for the taller 4.7 inch screen to fit, and then some. (In fact, proportionally, the iPhone SE is the tallest iPhone Apple ever did: a length-width ratio of 2.11:1) The slight width increase would also bring this 'SE' to the same length-width proportions as the iPhone X and Plus iPhones: 2.03:1.)
(Alternatively, a 16:9 1080p screen could be fit on a slightly wider iPhone SE body if it has the same "Super Retina HD" resolution of 458 ppi of the iPhone X. With those reduced bezels, the width of this iPhone would need to be 63-64 mm. To keep the 2.03:1 proportions of the length and the width of the iPhone X, a width of 64 mm would correspond with a slightly greater length of... 130 mm. (The iPhone SE is 123,8 mm tall).
That's about as much as I'd tolerate seeing this small iPhone get bigger in order to have a much bigger and better screen.

 

[flat five]

this is mostly on topic but doesn't address many of your points/ideas..

regarding the corner roundness and the radius chart image..
Apple doesn't use radiuses anymore.. they use curvature continuous nurbs..

these are smoother curves/surfaces/blends than G1 tangency..

how any of that relates to what you're saying about reducing the roundness can (hopefully) be seen in this image:




• the yellow curve is a circle/radius.. like the things in your chart..
• the red curve is not a radius.. it starts the blend very relaxed then tightens up near midpoint then loosens again.

so they're effectively doing what you're wishing for just in a different, and arguably much more elegant manner.. both the arc and G2 blend are intersecting the top&sides at the same point.. they're affecting the same pie(?) of the corner.. but the shape Apple uses there does actually lessen the amount of infringement upon useable space.. or again, effectively, it's doing the same thing as using a smaller radius would do except it looks better..

granted, this is a super fine detail (that's much harder to manufacture than arcs, fwiw).. not many people will recognize what's going on there.. but i do think when people have it in front of them, in various lighting etc, they're going to appreciate the look even if they don't know exactly why.. it will be details like this which is (part of) the reason.

the look, and the reflections, is the main reason they do this.. secondary bonuses are that it doesn't eat up as much pixels/space where at first glance, it may seem like it does.

also, a little difficult to judge in this image but it appears the corner of the screen isn't a direct offset/mimicry of the outer curve.. i think it might be pinched up in there a little more than the white crosshair demonstrates with the outer curve.


[doublepost=1508299704][/doublepost][edit]
for comparison.. here's a 3GS corner.. those corners were radiuses

(couldn't find a high res shot of that thing.. didn't look too hard but... )

 

[Gathomblipoob]

Apple doesn't use radiuses anymore.. they use curvature continuous nurbs..

Who you calling a nurb?


Disclaimer: This reply is intended as a humorous reply. Thank you.

 

[flat five]

Who you calling a nurb?

lol.. is that really a name used for name-calling?
if it's not, i guess it should be because it sounds like a good one..
if it already is then, yeah, makes sense


-------------------------

(fwiw)

 

[Gathomblipoob]

lol.. is that really a name used for name-calling?

See my disclaimer.

 

[flat five]

but i do think when people have it in front of them, in various lighting etc, they're going to appreciate the look even if they don't know exactly why.. it will be details like this which is (part of) the reason.

another one of those details from a slide at the keynote.. without getting into another technical breakdown of this view.. i'll just more simply say.... that's industrial design porn right there..
moreso than the previous example.

(but i will add this.. those two prominent horizontal reflections we see.. those are being shaped like that because of the curvature details described of the top view earlier.. (well, the 'front' view i guess most people would think) )

 

[bwApple! fwApple!]

so they're effectively doing what you're wishing for just in a different, and arguably much more elegant manner.. both the arc and G2 blend are intersecting the top&sides at the same point.. they're affecting the same pie(?) of the corner.. but the shape Apple uses there does actually lessen the amount of infringement upon useable space.. or again, effectively, it's doing the same thing as using a smaller radius would do except it looks better..

granted, this is a super fine detail (that's much harder to manufacture than arcs, fwiw).. not many people will recognize what's going on there.. but i do think when people have it in front of them, in various lighting etc, they're going to appreciate the look even if they don't know exactly why.. it will be details like this which is (part of) the reason.

the look, and the reflections, is the main reason they do this.. secondary bonuses are that it doesn't eat up as much pixels/space where at first glance, it may seem like it does.

Thanks! Very informative!

 

[bwApple! fwApple!]

That's about as much as I'd tolerate seeing this small iPhone get bigger in order to have a much bigger and better screen.

...because I really hope Apple will give us a third, smaller option, instead of just the X and the X+
iPhone 6 and 6+ were "Big and Bigger" according to Apple.
The X, more the successor to the non-Plus iPhones than the Plus iPhones, is even wider than those non-Plus iPhones.
So we'll likely have the options of a 71 mm wide X and an 80(+) mm wide X+; or "Biggerer and even Biggerer".
Hopefully, there will be a third, smaller (63(-) mm?) option.

 

[bwApple! fwApple!]

(...) To keep the 2.03:1 proportions of the length and the width of the iPhone X, a width of 64 mm would correspond with a slightly greater length of... 130 mm. (The iPhone SE is 123,8 mm tall).
That's about as much as I'd tolerate seeing this small iPhone get bigger in order to have a much bigger and better screen.

It seems Sony sells a smartphone with these dimensions: 130 mm tall, 64 mm wide, 4.6 inch screen. (Xperia Compact)
Hello, Apple? The 'SE+', please?

'iPhone SE Plus' Concept Imagines Bezel-Free Compact Device With 4.7-Inch Display

 

[inscrewtable]

—reduced bezels. The iPhone X does not have them. Not really.
The ratio of the screen-width to body-width is 0.88 in the iPhone X. So 88% of the width of the body is covered with screen.
The numbers for the other iPhones:
-SE: 0.85 (85%)
-non-plus: 0.86 (86%)
-plus: 0.87 (87%)
Reduce those bezels, Apple! For real. So that 93% to 95% of the body is covered with screen.

—reduce the roundness of those rounded corners. The body and the screen can have rounded corners without them being quite that rounded. Very rounded corners make a larger part of the screen less useful.

—start from the body of the iPhone SE, and make it slightly wider. Make it as wide as the iPhones before the iPhone 4: 61-62 mm. Along with those reduced bezels, this slightly greater width (around 5%) allows for the 4.7 inch 16:9 non-plus iPhone screen to fit; the 4.7 inch screen is 38% bigger than the 4 inch screen, and has the same proportions. The iPhone SE is tall enough for the taller 4.7 inch screen to fit, and then some. (In fact, proportionally, the iPhone SE is the tallest iPhone Apple ever did: a length-width ratio of 2.11:1) The slight width increase would also bring this 'SE' to the same length-width proportions as the iPhone X and Plus iPhones: 2.03:1.)
(Alternatively, a 16:9 1080p screen could be fit on a slightly wider iPhone SE body if it has the same "Super Retina HD" resolution of 458 ppi of the iPhone X. With those reduced bezels, the width of this iPhone would need to be 63-64 mm. To keep the 2.03:1 proportions of the length and the width of the iPhone X, a width of 64 mm would correspond with a slightly greater length of... 130 mm. (The iPhone SE is 123,8 mm tall).
That's about as much as I'd tolerate seeing this small iPhone get bigger in order to have a much bigger and better screen.

I love how people like you think they can just tell Apple how their design should be, and think that anyone cares. Mate I like Apple's designs and your suggestions on the precise curvature they choose which I'm certain they have obsessed about to degrees that you could never comprehend, are pointless. FFIW I look at their choice of curvature on buttons and my rMBP and iPod every day and I'm happy. Even the way they build the little cutout on the front of the rMBP to create a lip so you can lift the lid easier, I admire. I like the way that the curves meet the edge and create a point. I like all these details. You giving them suggestions that have no connection to the whole design is just... just stop.

 

[bwApple! fwApple!]

just... just stop.

Thanks. But I won't.