iphone 5 speculation thread 413

[runawayprisoner]

They have already had the mechanisms in to remove the home button. There's an option in Accessibilities under General in Settings that allows you to simulate a virtual home button.

Personally, I think it only makes sense that the home button should be removed because it serves no purpose other than closing apps and waking the phone, which can definitely be done with just the touchscreen.

Not to mention the home button eventually craps out, and Apple has to swap an entire phone just to replace that one button.

If Apple is keeping the 3:2 aspect ratio, then they are more likely going to keep it at the same 3.5" size as well, because scaling up the size would make some things look unnecessarily huge.

No matter how you look at it, I just don't think a screen larger than 3.5" at the same aspect ratio would make any sense.

 

[Mopetar]

They have already had the mechanisms in to remove the home button. There's an option in Accessibilities under General in Settings that allows you to simulate a virtual home button.

Personally, I think it only makes sense that the home button should be removed because it serves no purpose other than closing apps and waking the phone, which can definitely be done with just the touchscreen.

Not to mention the home button eventually craps out, and Apple has to swap an entire phone just to replace that one button.

I like having the single physical button (at least on my iPad. I haven't used an iPhone so it might be different). It has many of the same benefits as a physical keyboard. I can easily find it, even if I"m not looking at the device. There's feedback so I know how many times I've pressed it without having to look at the device.

Really, they should extend the functionality of the home button by making it touch sensitive. For example, swiping across the button could change tabs in the web browser. Swiping up/down could pull up notifications. Depending on what you wanted to do, a few gestures could control OS features and the rest could be app specific.

Also, if build quality is an issue, just buy better parts. It's not as if Apple can't afford to get better components.

 

[bearxor]

I would like to keep my physical home button.

 

[cheezy321]

I would like to keep mine too. I like the suggestions of adding additional functionality behind it like swipes and such.

I would like the screen to bump up to 3.8 - 4". I want the size to stay the same or get smaller. I don't want a big phone. I want a small phone. I think LTE is to be expected at this point. They will keep battery life up, as this is the hallmark of iOS.

I think a redesign can be a more intriguing move. Just look at all the SGS 3 rumors. I think apple will do a redesign of the casing, but would also not be surprised if they kept the exact same form factor.

Either way, cant wait to see what they release! Also pretty excited to see the SGS3 case design

 

[Eug]

They have already had the mechanisms in to remove the home button. There's an option in Accessibilities under General in Settings that allows you to simulate a virtual home button.

Personally, I think it only makes sense that the home button should be removed because it serves no purpose other than closing apps and waking the phone, which can definitely be done with just the touchscreen.

The two worst iPod designs in Apple's history IMO are the no-button shuffle that Apple scrapped, and the current no-button nano.

The no-physical-button white iPod with touch-sensitive controls wasn't very good either, as there was no tactile feedback.

If Apple is keeping the 3:2 aspect ratio, then they are more likely going to keep it at the same 3.5" size as well, because scaling up the size would make some things look unnecessarily huge.

No matter how you look at it, I just don't think a screen larger than 3.5" at the same aspect ratio would make any sense.

A 3.8" iPhone would make perfect sense in my opinion, and it'd look great.

 

[Midwayman]

I think it would be a big mistake for apple not to try and match the resolutions and screen sizes android flagship phones are shipping with. I'd like to see 4.3" and 720p resolution like many new android phones. It would be interesting if they went with two models- one with a traditional 3.5" screen and second larger screen. Not that I think it likely. LTE is a given. It's on the ipad 3. It'll be there for the iphone5.

I'd like to see a major revision to iOS as well. Something that moves it forward from the whole pages and pages of apps buttons. Its getting a little stale compared to its competition.

 

[zerocool84]

I think it would be a big mistake for apple not to try and match the resolutions and screen sizes android flagship phones are shipping with. I'd like to see 4.3" and 720p resolution like many new android phones. It would be interesting if they went with two models- one with a traditional 3.5" screen and second larger screen. Not that I think it likely. LTE is a given. It's on the ipad 3. It'll be there for the iphone5.

I'd like to see a major revision to iOS as well. Something that moves it forward from the whole pages and pages of apps buttons. Its getting a little stale compared to its competition.

None of that is happening. No 4.3" screen because they'll have to make the device larger and no 720p screen because it's a different aspect ratio and everything would look weird. Also iOS is not going to change anytime soon. Once Apple comes out with something, they rarely ever change things that drastically.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I like having the single physical button (at least on my iPad. I haven't used an iPhone so it might be different). It has many of the same benefits as a physical keyboard. I can easily find it, even if I"m not looking at the device. There's feedback so I know how many times I've pressed it without having to look at the device.

There really is no case where you would press the home button without looking at the screen. Except for Siri. But... consider this: if your headset doesn't have a remote + mic, then you'll end up having to pull the phone out of your pocket so that you can dictate to Siri. if your headset has a remote + mic then you are better off using the remote + mic without having to touch your phone at all, in which case... why do you even need to click the home button?

So again, I don't think here is ever a case where you would tap the home button without seeing the screen. Given that, it's the same thing if Apple would implement a virtual home button. In fact, with the virtual home button being there, Apple could also eliminate a lot of unneeded gestures since that whole bar now is a touch-sensitive screen area that can display anything.

The two worst iPod designs in Apple's history IMO are the no-button shuffle that Apple scrapped, and the current no-button nano.

The no-physical-button white iPod with touch-sensitive controls wasn't very good either, as there was no tactile feedback.

But it's just the home button that is going away. The power button, vibration switch, and the volume buttons likely will stay.

See the iPod Nano? It has no home button, but it works just fine.

 

[Eug]

See the iPod Nano? It has no home button, but it works just fine.

I have the iPod nano. It quite annoying to use.

 

[MrX8503]

I dont think a 4.3" screen is gonna happen. That's too drastic for apple and if they were gonna go with a bigger screen, it'll probably be 4".

As for the home button, I think it'll stick around because it has certain functions tied to it, including Siri

 

[Oyeve]

I hope they have better non white headphones.

 

[smartpatrol]

I really hope they keep the home button. It's so nice to have a physical button. With capacitative buttons it's so easy to hit them when you don't intend to. This was a pain in the ass on my HD7 and it's not much better on my Galaxy Nexus.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I have the iPod nano. It quite annoying to use.

But Apple did make a device like that, wouldn't you agree?

And you know what else is cumbersome? Brightness control on the iPhone. Also app switcher. Also locking orientation of the screen.

There are many things that are annoying in terms of control, but to have transparency and ease of use over not having to worry about physical wear, I think Apple will settle down with not having a home button. It's silly trying to stick a button that large into a device with a bigger screen. It'll just make the overall package larger and unnecessarily heavier.

I dont think a 4.3" screen is gonna happen. That's too drastic for apple and if they were gonna go with a bigger screen, it'll probably be 4".

As for the home button, I think it'll stick around because it has certain functions tied to it, including Siri

They can make it so that if you hold down the virtual home button, it'll invoke Siri. Or they can have a dedicated button right next to the virtual home button for that task. In fact, many of the operations that are tied to the home button now can be done with just the touchscreen alone.

I think after iOS 5 introduced that feature with the virtual home button, the question stopped being "should Apple remove the home button" and it turned into "when will Apple remove the home button". If a redesign of the iPhone is in order, then they might as well jack things up even further. Otherwise, they should just stick with the iPhone 4S and swap the radio (GSM/CDMA to LTE) instead, since no major change would ensue.

 

[Mopetar]

But Apple did make a device like that, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, and it sells like crap so I have a feeling that they won't make the same mistakes twice. Obviously lack of a physical home button isn't the only thing that makes people shy away from the Nano, but it's part of the issue.

And you know what else is cumbersome? Brightness control on the iPhone. Also app switcher. Also locking orientation of the screen.

They're not really all the cumbersome. App switcher is a double button press, which really you almost want or need a physical button to do. Brightness is just a swipe away from the app switcher. Locking orientation is why I use my mute toggle for, but then again I'm using an iPad so it may be different for phone users.

Honestly, once you know how to get to those things they're quite accessible. Having a touch sensitive physical home button might even make them more accessible. For example, double press and swiping to the right of the button could immediately take you to the brightness controls, saving a little bit of time.

There are many things that are annoying in terms of control, but to have transparency and ease of use over not having to worry about physical wear, I think Apple will settle down with not having a home button. It's silly trying to stick a button that large into a device with a bigger screen. It'll just make the overall package larger and unnecessarily heavier.

They can make it so that if you hold down the virtual home button, it'll invoke Siri. Or they can have a dedicated button right next to the virtual home button for that task. In fact, many of the operations that are tied to the home button now can be done with just the touchscreen alone.

I can probably locate and hold a physical button without actively looking at the device. With the virtual button, no such luck. In fact, simply having a physical button makes it easy to determine the orientation of the device without looking at it. It really makes it easy to turn the device on in the dark without too much fumbling around.

Also, the fact that adding touch capabilities to a physical button makes it so much more flexible and useful than a purely virtual button is more than enough reason to keep it around. Maybe you just like virtual buttons, but I really can't think of a good reason to completely eliminate physical buttons.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Yes, and it sells like crap so I have a feeling that they won't make the same mistakes twice. Obviously lack of a physical home button isn't the only thing that makes people shy away from the Nano, but it's part of the issue.

I sincerely doubt it sells like crap since Apple does plan to have an upgrade for it.

They're not really all the cumbersome. App switcher is a double button press, which really you almost want or need a physical button to do. Brightness is just a swipe away from the app switcher. Locking orientation is why I use my mute toggle for, but then again I'm using an iPad so it may be different for phone users.

There is no brightness control on the iPhone. You have to go into Settings app to change it.

There is also no way to change the mute switch to an orientation lock.

There are a lot of fundamental usage differences between the iPhone and iPad so I sincerely doubt you can apply the same logic for both. For one, the firmwares are completely different even though the version may be the same.

I can probably locate and hold a physical button without actively looking at the device. With the virtual button, no such luck. In fact, simply having a physical button makes it easy to determine the orientation of the device without looking at it. It really makes it easy to turn the device on in the dark without too much fumbling around.

Touch the screen to turn the device on. Nokia N9 does that. There is no reason why you absolutely need a home button to turn the screen on.

And again, this is the iPhone we are talking about, not the iPad. There is no fumbling about needed. There is also no need to know which "orientation" the phone is in since the default orientation of the iPhone is always locked to portrait on the home screen and lock screen.

Again, you can't apply iPad logic to iPhone. They are fundamentally different devices.

Also in the dark, it is much easier to see the virtual button on the screen vs having a physical button that does not light up. That's part of why you have to "fumble around" with the iPad. The large bezel side and confusing orientation makes it harder to locate the button.

Also, the fact that adding touch capabilities to a physical button makes it so much more flexible and useful than a purely virtual button is more than enough reason to keep it around. Maybe you just like virtual buttons, but I really can't think of a good reason to completely eliminate physical buttons.

The problem with adding touch capabilities to a physical button is that... you may accidentally activate a gesture you don't mean to.

I personally don't specifically like virtual buttons. But it's only natural for Apple to remove the home button if they were to include that 1152 x 640 @ 4" screen. Because that's the only way Apple can keep the overall dimension of the phone the same without making the device unexpectedly longer.

 

[AkumaX]

Here's my not-so-ridiculous spec list:

- 4" screen (I'm going with the 9:5 aspect ratio rumor)
- 1152 x 640 screen resolution
- Dual-core Apple A6 (competitive with Cortex A15-based designs) -OR- modified version of Apple A5X (not the same speed/GPU as new iPad A5X)
- Qualcomm MDM9615 (Global LTE, HSPA+ 42, WCDMA and legacy TD-SCDMA, WCDMA, GSM/HSPA, EVDO/1x network support)
- Support for HSPA+ 42 AWS bands for T-Mobile USA
- Broadcom WLAN chipset with Dual-band N (and possibly draft 802.11ac support for next gen Airport Extreme/2013 Apple TV?)
- 8MP camera sensor (similar to current iPhone 4S)
- NFC support
- New I/O interface (compatible with legacy 20-pin dock but adds support for interfaces like HDMI 1.4a ThunderBolt and/or eSATA)
- 128GB MLC NAND storage option in addition to standard 32GB/64GB options
- 8mm thin LiquidMetal alloy chassis
- Availability in late Q4 (late October/early November) due to chip shortages.

So what's the killer new feature? I'm hoping that Apple includes some sort of ability to replicate the Apple TV interface and use a Siri-enabled Apple Remote when the new iPhone is docked to a TV (either through HDMI or AirPlay). This would be great for business travelers who want to enjoy iTunes/iCloud video content while traveling. Imagine an Apple Remote with a Siri-enabled microphone that you can use 10 feet away to speak-to-type, run media commands, etc. Even more exciting would be something similar to Motorola's full-screen desktop dock experience for full-screen web browsing etc. using the Siri Remote.

Quite agressive, but i like it

 

[Eug]

I do not like the idea of adding gestures to the home button, unless the default is off.

But Apple did make a device like that, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, they did make that no-button shuffle mistake.

Fortunately that didn't last long.

Here is the shuffle before the no-button shuffle:

Here is the iPod shuffle after the no-button shuffle:

Look familiar?

I personally don't specifically like virtual buttons. But it's only natural for Apple to remove the home button if they were to include that 1152 x 640 @ 4" screen. Because that's the only way Apple can keep the overall dimension of the phone the same without making the device unexpectedly longer.

Yes and no. I actually went through this process about 2 years ago, trying to figure out how to increase the size the iPhone screen without increasing the physical dimensions much. Yes, removing the physical button would help, but what would also help is reducing the bezel size. There is a lot of bezel esp. at the top that could be eliminated. That would go a long way to adding more pixel real estate. You'd still have to increase the phone length, but by nowhere near as much as one might guess.

That said, my final conclusion is that they'd simply increase the area without increasing the vertical resolution, because I thought it'd be foolish to remove the physical button.

To put it another way... This topic isn't a new one. We were discussing it a couple of years ago, and you can bet that Apple thought of it years before we did.

 

[Mopetar]

I sincerely doubt it sells like crap since Apple does plan to have an upgrade for it.

My own evidence is largely anecdotal, but I have a friend who works in the electronics department of the campus bookstore at the college in our town. He says that they haven't sold a single iPod Nano. People either go for the Shuffle or the Touch, but so far not one person has purchased a Nano.

A limited sample size to be sure, but I can't imagine them making up a sizable amount of purchases. Also, could you please link to any Apple plans that might indicate an upgrade. They haven't even touched most of their iPod product line for a while now (September 2010 were the last updates) and that they were replacing older generation nano's with the newest ones not terribly long ago might indicate extra stock laying around.

There is no brightness control on the iPhone. You have to go into Settings app to change it.

Really? Like I said, I only have an iPad, but that just seems like a terrible design decision given how easy it is to get at with the iPad.

There is also no way to change the mute switch to an orientation lock.

Once again, it is with the iPad and I just assumed it was that way with the iPhone. Honestly, I can't understand why they just wouldn't give users the choice.

Touch the screen to turn the device on. Nokia N9 does that. There is no reason why you absolutely need a home button to turn the screen on.

Wouldn't that just lead to turning the screen on a lot by accident? I'd rather have a physical button that's difficult to accidentally push.

And again, this is the iPhone we are talking about, not the iPad. There is no fumbling about needed. There is also no need to know which "orientation" the phone is in since the default orientation of the iPhone is always locked to portrait on the home screen and lock screen.

It's not necessarily about the screen orientation. It's about picking the device up and knowing if I'm holding it right-side up or up-side down. Not some earth-shatteringly big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's something I'd find nice. Conceivably one could use other physical buttons to do this.

Also in the dark, it is much easier to see the virtual button on the screen vs having a physical button that does not light up. That's part of why you have to "fumble around" with the iPad. The large bezel side and confusing orientation makes it harder to locate the button.

If my iPad had glow in the dark buttons I would have taped over them already. Few things annoy me more than unwanted light sources when I'm trying to get to sleep.

The problem with adding touch capabilities to a physical button is that... you may accidentally activate a gesture you don't mean to.

Seems like if there were a company that could solve that kind of problem it would be Apple. Also, isn't that an argument against virtual buttons in general?

I personally don't specifically like virtual buttons. But it's only natural for Apple to remove the home button if they were to include that 1152 x 640 @ 4" screen. Because that's the only way Apple can keep the overall dimension of the phone the same without making the device unexpectedly longer.

Some of the mock-ups for such a device have the shape of the home button changed from a circle to an oval. (Quick GIS example here) In some ways that would make side-to-side swipes more easy to distinguish from accidental ones.

Also, we don't even know if they're going to change the screen and if they go so far as to change the screen, what's to stop them from also changing the physical size of the device?

 

[Eug]

I have the Magic Mouse. Apple definitely hasn't solved the problem of gestures in a mouse yet.

I like my Microsoft RF wireless mice much more.

I like the scrolling control with the Magic Mouse when I do want to scroll, but the problem is that it will also scroll when I don't want to scroll. This is especially true with Google Maps. Furthermore, after years with this mouse, I still haven't completely mastered right clicking on this mouse.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but nothing beats having a real right button for right clicking. Actually it was even better with Apple's previous mice which only "left" clicked, unless you held down CTRL on the keyboard during clicking, which gave a right click. That always worked.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Also, could you please link to any Apple plans that might indicate an upgrade.

Here you go:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/01/supposed-next-gen-ipod-nano-with-camera-leaks-again-clip-back-i/

Once again, it is with the iPad and I just assumed it was that way with the iPhone. Honestly, I can't understand why they just wouldn't give users the choice.

Developers moaned about the mute/ori-lock choice for approximately 3 weeks in the developers' forums before Apple allowed the option. And no developer is complaining now, so chances are we'll never see it outside of jailbreaking.

Wouldn't that just lead to turning the screen on a lot by accident? I'd rather have a physical button that's difficult to accidentally push.

Nope. Just require a double tap and problem solved. I haven't heard any N9 user complain about the screen turning on a lot.

It's not necessarily about the screen orientation. It's about picking the device up and knowing if I'm holding it right-side up or up-side down. Not some earth-shatteringly big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's something I'd find nice. Conceivably one could use other physical buttons to do this.

Well, like I said, the iPhone is locked to portrait. Specifically the right side up portrait. So no matter how you unlock the device, you'll only see it in one orientation. It's not like the iPad where the lock screen and the home screen rotates with the accelerometer. The iPhone's home screen and lock screen are fixed.

If my iPad had glow in the dark buttons I would have taped over them already. Few things annoy me more than unwanted light sources when I'm trying to get to sleep.

The key doesn't have to light up when the device is not in use.

Seems like if there were a company that could solve that kind of problem it would be Apple. Also, isn't that an argument against virtual buttons in general?

Do you accidentally tap the wrong buttons in apps with your iPad?

If you answer no, then that's the reason why it's not an issue for virtual buttons. That's not necessarily the case with a touch-sensitive button because there are always cases where you would slide your finger over the button. Either accidentally or intentionally. There are only so many ways to hold an iPhone in landscape, you see.

Some of the mock-ups for such a device have the shape of the home button changed from a circle to an oval. (Quick GIS example here) In some ways that would make side-to-side swipes more easy to distinguish from accidental ones.

Yeah, but the problem now is that... there is no room even for that kind of button. A 4" 1152 x 640 screen would take up almost the entire device's length. Apple also has to leave room for the front facing camera and the phone speaker grille, so what they are left with is literally just... mm worth of space, which is barely enough for a bezel, let alone a button.

Also, we don't even know if they're going to change the screen and if they go so far as to change the screen, what's to stop them from also changing the physical size of the device?

There is no reason they wouldn't change the physical size of the device. But it's unsightly. Think about it. It'll be longer than the current iPhone or iPod Touch.

Also the 4" 1152 x 640 screen doesn't change the width. That's the key. If they went through the trouble of making the width of the screen the same, then I think their main intention is to make the phone the same size or smaller.

Also it's a simple fact that a smaller device is lighter. One of the main complaints about the iPhone 4 and 4S currently is that they are too heavy, and if you drop them, it's pretty much a done deal that the glass would shatter.

 

[Eug]

Also the 4" 1152 x 640 screen doesn't change the width. That's the key. If they went through the trouble of making the width of the screen the same, then I think their main intention is to make the phone the same size or smaller.

My 3.83" iPhone with 960x640 screen would be only 2 mm wider and 2 mm taller (made possible by reduction of bezel sizing), and would have a physical home button.

The 3.8" iPhone would have significantly larger text, which would be a noticeable benefit over today's 3.5" iPhone.

 

[runawayprisoner]

My 3.83" iPhone with 960x640 screen would be only 2 mm wider and 2 mm taller (made possible by reduction of bezel sizing), and would have a physical home button.

Yeah, but the current bezel is not really that thick. Apple is about at their wit's end with it in reality. It's hard to explain, but if you open up the device, you'll see that with the current bezel, Apple barely has any space to keep the display to the steel frame. A 1mm increase, maybe. 2mm is really pushing it.

That aside, if you scale up the display, it'll increase physical size of some elements on screen, which is undesirable. You may not believe it, but some apps (especially ruler apps) do take into account the physical size of the display rather than just the resolution of it. That's why I said that a bigger screen with arbitrary scaling multiplier wouldn't work. That's also why Apple has stuck with the same screen size (physically) for 5 generations now. I don't think they want to jeopardize that.

 

[Eug]

The ruler apps I've tried are already inaccurate. Maybe a change in screen size will force them to fix them.

Seriously though it's pretty damn easy to fix something like that.

For most other stuff, having bigger screen elements would actually be a big plus, since a 3.83" screen size is still 301 ppi, so it's not as if you're getting into visible pixel territory.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, it's not really that easy to fix those apps. All graphics assets will have to be regenerated and new codes will have to be rewritten to accommodate any change to animations, calculations, and so on. It's quite a nightmare. Plus people will file complaints en masse so that'll be a nightmare for many developers.

Also it'll create some insane confusion for developers who want to make sure their apps have the same physical button size all across.

So no, I don't think it's a viable idea at all. It's okay from a consumer's standpoint, where you think everything is already there for you, but for a developer, and I think, specifically for Apple, it's not an easy thing to do.

If it was as easy as making the screen bigger, I don't think Apple would have waited until the 6th generation of the device to make the change.

 

[Eug]

What are you talking about?

For most apps, there would be no change at all. Have you ever run iPhone sized apps on the iPad? They work just fine. And guess what? They're physically bigger on the iPad than they are on the iPhone.

iPad on the left, iPhone on the right. BTW, the iPhone-sized apps running on an iPad would be the equivalent of running it on a 4.4" screen. While the apps run fine, the physical size of a 4.4" 3:2 iPhone would be too big.