When to Expect the iPhone Air 2 and 20th Anniversary iPhone With Camera Under Screen

[Sarafay]

iPhone Air needs an USP. I suggest an E-ink option. TCL offers something like that. Nano display. Something good for your eyes.

 

[Ctrlos]

Have you heard the speakers of a 17 Pro Max? Perfectly fine to have a hands free conversation out on a street or listening to podcasts. Even the regular 17 does the job. Some years ago that sounded like crap even in a quiet environment, now it just works. Going by what I've heard about the Air, not so much with the single speaker.

Comparitively phone speakers are night and day to what they were 10 years ago, but they're hardly Hi-Fi worthy due to the simple limits of physics. I'm not some sort of music snob or anything but listening to anything but spoken word just hurts my ears even on a Pro Max.

 

[SmugMaverick]

iPhone Pro owners this year are really weird and creepy.

It's like they're upset a SLIGHTLY cheaper model might just be better then their bricks.

This is what happens when you link your social status to an iPhone model in America.

 

[ChrisMac47]

A 5 min google search would tell you none of that is true. Your iphone 13 is 174grams while the Air is 165grams. While having a 6.1 screen vs 6.5 inch screen. Huge difference. I can see knocking lack of features but its form factor? Cmon now. Why exaggerate to prove a point when its false?

The original Air laptop sacrificed quite alot. But became the standard a Decade later for design and has trickled down into the rest of the line up. The Air isnt going anywhere. Once they add the two camera and speakers with good battery life it will be their number one seller.

There is a technical issue regarding the device thickness and resolution of the cameras. Optics 101 tells us that high angular resolution optics should be large, in particular the entrance pupil diameter must be large (think about telescopes). Since even the best optical design struggles to make the f/number (ratio of focal length to diameter) smaller than around 1.5, this implies that the only physical way to improve camera resolution is the make the camera thicker. So you can make the body of the phone thinner, but the same or larger camera bump is still there.

Of course AI can improve "resolution" ... as long as you don't mind hallucination and other artefacts.

 

[doach]

Yea, a negligible difference of less than 6%.

The MacBook Air is over 20% lighter than a MacBook Pro, a real difference and worthy of the 'Air' moniker. That is the standard which the iPhone Air does not meet.



Huge? That's less than 7% larger. Pull out a ruler and look at how big half an inch is not. The difference is less than that, which is not practical.



I believe you are the one exaggerating, unless you feel that less than 7% is a large increase, I think most people would think 7% is not notable.

-R

Your math is all wrong here bud. The screen size difference is noticeable.

Assuming each screen essentially fills that width × height rectangle (neglecting rounded corners/bezels for simplicity):

• Area of iPhone 13 ≈ 2.82 in × 5.78 in ≈ 16.31 in²
• Area of iPhone Air ≈ 2.94 in × 6.15 in ≈ 18.09 in²

Percentage difference in screen area​

18.09−16.3116.31×100≈10.9%\frac{18.09 - 16.31}{16.31} \times 100 \approx 10.9\%16.3118.09−16.31×100≈10.9%

The iPhone Air offers about ~11% more screen area compared to the iPhone 13. Not 6 percent.

The weight difference while holding both is very noticeable. I know. I owned the base 17 before I had the Air. You are totally wrong here. You are basing your assumptions on what you think not on what you know. And what you think is wrong on the math part.

You maybe the only person on the planet who cannot tell a difference.

 

[doach]

There is a technical issue regarding the device thickness and resolution of the cameras. Optics 101 tells us that high angular resolution optics should be large, in particular the entrance pupil diameter must be large (think about telescopes). Since even the best optical design struggles to make the f/number (ratio of focal length to diameter) smaller than around 1.5, this implies that the only physical way to improve camera resolution is the make the camera thicker. So you can make the body of the phone thinner, but the same or larger camera bump is still there.

Of course AI can improve "resolution" ... as long as you don't mind hallucination and other artefacts.

Were you supposed to be replying to me? I didn't mention anything about a camera.

 

[ChrisMac47]

Were you supposed to be replying to me? I didn't mention anything about a camera.

No, I wasn't. I just wanted to make the point that if you want to have high resolution, accurate, images, you need large optics (hence the reference to astronomical telescopes) and therefore (relatively) large camera modules. If you are willing to forego "accurate", then AI can enhance images but typically the detail it adds is not accurate, i.e. it's hallucination.

So when people keep talking about thinner and thinner phones, that only applies to the body of the phone, not the camera-bump. Making the camera-bump less high results in lower resolution images ... Physics 101.