iphone 5 speculation thread 413

[Steelbom]

And like I tried to explain a good while back, 1136 x 640 makes sense:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/22/3035958/next-gen-iphone-higher-resolution-new-dock-connector-rumor

Also in tow is a new dock connector.

I really doubt Apple will do that -- breaking perfect compatibility with over 600,000 apps just for a slightly larger display seems like a pretty bad idea.

If they increase the resolution to 1440x960 then there's no compatibility problems whatsoever, if not that then they should just keep the current resolution and leave it with 288 PPI.

Need I mention that these "new" iPhone apps won't be able to run at x2 on the iPad either.

That pisses me off. Hopefully there is some kind of simple adapter that will be developed. The prior format has been a staple of connectivity for almost a decade.

I expect them to include an adaptor with each iDevice.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Nope. It won't break compatibility with anything. The screen is just physically longer, so they can make all current apps not updated run in the same 960 x 640 as before, and have the extra 192 x 640 space for virtual buttons or something else.

1440 x 960 would break compatibility more because it's an arbitrary scaling factor to 1.5x over the current 2x, so it's more like 3x over original iPhone resolution.

No matter how you look at it, 1136 x 640 is the only way Apple can make the screen physically larger without much change in software.

 

[Eug]

That pisses me off. Hopefully there is some kind of simple adapter that will be developed. The prior format has been a staple of connectivity for almost a decade.

Bring it on. The current dock connector is far too big.

 

[Steelbom]

Nope. It won't break compatibility with anything. The screen is just physically longer, so they can make all current apps not updated run in the same 960 x 640 as before, and have the extra 192 x 640 space for virtual buttons or something else.

I said it would break perfect compatibility, which it does. Apps that haven't been updated would run with black borders.

1440 x 960 would break compatibility more because it's an arbitrary scaling factor to 1.5x over the current 2x, so it's more like 3x over original iPhone resolution.

It would only require higher resolution assets, and I believe everyone is grossly exaggerating the effects of upscaling images by a non-integer factor on a higher PPI display. I'd much rather have slightly blurry graphics in apps that haven't been updated yet rather than black borders though.

No matter how you look at it, 1136 x 640 is the only way Apple can make the screen physically larger without much change in software.

It would require more effort from developers, but 1440x960 wouldn't. They just change the scaling factor to 3, and then have developers re-submit their apps with @3x graphics and that's that. They've done it before, it was seamless.

>>>>>

What if they want to change the resolution again in a few years? Are they going to go through that process again? Not to mention the 1136x640 resolution would prevent apps from running pixel double on the iPad.

It's a lot simpler to provide higher resolution assets than it is to alter the layout of your app.

 

[Eug]

What if they want to change the resolution again in a few years? Are they going to go through that process again? Not to mention the 1136x640 resolution would prevent apps from running pixel double on the iPad.

While I don't buy the rumour yet...

If someone is creating a new app to support the 1136x640 iPhone rez, they can create an iPad version as well, at full native resolution.

For an older app that's left as is, 960x640 would work on both the iPhone and iPad.

And if they change the resolution again in a few years, developers will adapt.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I said it would break perfect compatibility, which it does. Apps that haven't been updated would run with black borders.

They may not run with black borders, but perhaps with a linen texture or something else like a bigger status bar. There are multiple ways to use the extra pixels for something else. Even virtual buttons as mentioned are not completely out.

It's still perfect compatibility in the sense that nothing needs to be changed.

It would only require higher resolution assets, and I believe everyone is grossly exaggerating the effects of upscaling images by a non-integer factor on a higher PPI display. I'd much rather have slightly blurry graphics in apps that haven't been updated yet rather than black borders though.

They're not exaggerating it. GPUs and CPUs deal better with scaling factors that are power of base 2, so it has to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc... Anything in between would degrade performance pretty drastically due to the need of using floating point math. That's why you don't see an AAx3 or AAx5 or AAx7... because those would introduce some insane performance hit.

It would require more effort from developers, but 1440x960 wouldn't. They just change the scaling factor to 3, and then have developers re-submit their apps with @3x graphics and that's that. They've done it before, it was seamless.

Apps with @2x assets would have to scale those assets to an arbitrary 1.5x scaling factor, and as I said above, that scaling factor would degrade performance.

What if they want to change the resolution again in a few years? Are they going to go through that process again? Not to mention the 1136x640 resolution would prevent apps from running pixel double on the iPad.

It's a lot simpler to provide higher resolution assets than it is to alter the layout of your app.

I don't think apps running pixel doubled on the iPad is an issue now that the iPad is already... in existence. The only reason why they needed the iPhone compatibility layer on the iPad was so that it wouldn't look so barren when it was introduced, but now that the iPad is already a product on the market, they can completely separate iPhone and iPad apps just fine.

I'm sure many developers are willing to write for both iPhone and iPad now anyway.

While it's a lot simpler to provide higher resolution assets, it's not simple to scale current assets, and that's the issue Apple would have to face if they were to choose an arbitrary scaling factor but decides to keep compatibility.

Edit: just as a side note, I'm sure you have noticed that John Gruber of Daring Fireball also agrees that 1136 x 640, or just stretching the length of the display, is the only way to do it. If you really need to know more why it is, I'm sure you can find more information from his website.

 

[Mopetar]

I said it would break perfect compatibility, which it does. Apps that haven't been updated would run with black borders.

So? They get a black border until they update and do something else with the space. You can even put all of the border at the top if you want so it doesn't make a lick of difference for practical use considerations.

It would only require higher resolution assets, and I believe everyone is grossly exaggerating the effects of upscaling images by a non-integer factor on a higher PPI display. I'd much rather have slightly blurry graphics in apps that haven't been updated yet rather than black borders though.

No, non-integer scaling is a PITA and doesn't look good.

It would require more effort from developers, but 1440x960 wouldn't. They just change the scaling factor to 3, and then have developers re-submit their apps with @3x graphics and that's that. They've done it before, it was
seamless.

1440 x 960 would require a load of effort. Unless Apple has found a magical way to get get ~430 dpi screens manufactured in massive quantities, they'd need to continue using the existing ~330 dpi production capacity available to them now. That means the iPhone would have a 5.25" screen. Not going to happen. Also, for such a larger screen, you would really need to redesign the UI rather than just scaling things up.

Not to mention the 1136x640 resolution would prevent apps from running pixel double on the iPad.

Blown up iPhone apps look like crap on the iPad because it just scales up UI elements. The two devices are vastly different so you really need to design specifically for each of them rather than relying and merely letting users pixel double them. Go read some of the threads about Android tablet apps and count the number of people who complain about a lot of the Android tablet apps being crummy because they're just blown-up phone apps rather than apps designed for a tablet.

 

[dagamer34]

Retina iPhone-only apps look fine on the new iPad, even when you blow them up. Perfect example is the SpeedTest app from Ookla. However, a non-retina iPhone-only app looks like crap even on the iPad 2 because we've been spoiled by Retina screens on the iPhone 4/4S.

 

[Steelbom]

While I don't buy the rumour yet...

If someone is creating a new app to support the 1136x640 iPhone rez, they can create an iPad version as well, at full native resolution.

For an older app that's left as is, 960x640 would work on both the iPhone and iPad.

And if they change the resolution again in a few years, developers will adapt.

They could but even some modern iPhone apps today don't have iPad versions, I use a couple of them at 2x.

They may not run with black borders, but perhaps with a linen texture or something else like a bigger status bar. There are multiple ways to use the extra pixels for something else. Even virtual buttons as mentioned are not completely out.

It's still perfect compatibility in the sense that nothing needs to be changed.

Any extra area of space that isn't a part of the app shouldn't be there as far as I'm concerned, unless it's virtual buttons.

That's not what I mean by perfect compatibility. These apps do need to be changed to take advantage of the display, and if they don't get updated it's going to be very noticeable.

They're not exaggerating it. GPUs and CPUs deal better with scaling factors that are power of base 2, so it has to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc... Anything in between would degrade performance pretty drastically due to the need of using floating point math. That's why you don't see an AAx3 or AAx5 or AAx7... because those would introduce some insane performance hit.

Apps with @2x assets would have to scale those assets to an arbitrary 1.5x scaling factor, and as I said above, that scaling factor would degrade performance.

I doubt performance will be an issue here. And if it's such a problem then they should go to 1920x1280.

I don't think apps running pixel doubled on the iPad is an issue now that the iPad is already... in existence. The only reason why they needed the iPhone compatibility layer on the iPad was so that it wouldn't look so barren when it was introduced, but now that the iPad is already a product on the market, they can completely separate iPhone and iPad apps just fine.

I'm sure many developers are willing to write for both iPhone and iPad now anyway.

While it's a lot simpler to provide higher resolution assets, it's not simple to scale current assets, and that's the issue Apple would have to face if they were to choose an arbitrary scaling factor but decides to keep compatibility.

I still run some modern apps which don't have an iPad version, and I use them pixel doubled. They look good too because on the iPad 3 they take advantage of the retina graphics.

Like I said, I think everyone is greatly exaggerating on the effects of upscaling images by a non-integer factor. 720x480 stretched to 960x640 looks better than 480x320 at its native resolution.

Edit: just as a side note, I'm sure you have noticed that John Gruber of Daring Fireball also agrees that 1136 x 640, or just stretching the length of the display, is the only way to do it. If you really need to know more why it is, I'm sure you can find more information from his website.

I strongly disagree with him.

So? They get a black border until they update and do something else with the space. You can even put all of the border at the top if you want so it doesn't make a lick of difference for practical use considerations.

I don't want black borders on my apps, that's something that can't be ignored.

No, non-integer scaling is a PITA and doesn't look good.

Like I said, I think everyone is greatly exaggerating it. I output a 480x320 image to my 3GS and compared it against a 720x480 image stretched to 960x640 on my iPhone 4 and it looked better than the image on the 3GS even though it was being upscaled by a non-integer factor.

1440 x 960 would require a load of effort. Unless Apple has found a magical way to get get ~430 dpi screens manufactured in massive quantities, they'd need to continue using the existing ~330 dpi production capacity available to them now. That means the iPhone would have a 5.25" screen. Not going to happen. Also, for such a larger screen, you would really need to redesign the UI rather than just scaling things up.

You're right, that isn't going to happen. We won't see a 5 inch iPhone, but there's no reason why they couldn't make those 430 PPI displays -- they did it with 326 PPI a couple of years ago, they could do it again if they wanted.

Blown up iPhone apps look like crap on the iPad because it just scales up UI elements. The two devices are vastly different so you really need to design specifically for each of them rather than relying and merely letting users pixel double them. Go read some of the threads about Android tablet apps and count the number of people who complain about a lot of the Android tablet apps being crummy because they're just blown-up phone apps rather than apps designed for a tablet.

I know the problems with Android, but the iPhone apps on the iPad 3 look fine because they're being rendered at 960x640 and using the retina graphics.