That's because those apps weren't "meant" to be run primarily on an iPad. The functionality was built as a case to allow apps that are not yet updated for the iPad to be run on the iPad, but obviously not everything works right or as the developer intends it to.
Ever tried to type on the iPhone keyboard on the iPad? It's not pleasant, is it?
It's more of a case of the iPad being able to run iPhone apps rather than that iPhone apps "should" be run on the iPad.
What people prefer is generally not what Apple considers to be "correct". And I'm sure you will find that Apple has scarcely ever listened to criticisms about the way they design their devices. That's why they have kept going strong all these years.
For all we know, they may not even change the form factor of the device or the design at all.
Ever tried to type on the iPhone keyboard on the iPad? It's not pleasant, is it?
It's more of a case of the iPad being able to run iPhone apps rather than that iPhone apps "should" be run on the iPad.
What people prefer is generally not what Apple considers to be "correct". And I'm sure you will find that Apple has scarcely ever listened to criticisms about the way they design their devices. That's why they have kept going strong all these years.
For all we know, they may not even change the form factor of the device or the design at all.
You clearly haven't tried the keyboard on many Android phones.
But that aside, I think it's just up to the user, mostly. I am perfectly comfortable with the iPhone's keyboard, and I can type almost at 60WPM on that keyboard, much like I can do the same on the iPad's virtual keyboard.
If you have problems typing on the iPhone currently, I don't think that a slightly bigger keyboard (marginally) would make much of a difference if at all.
But all of this is just to say... I don't think Apple would increase the size of the display, or if they did, it would be done in a way that wouldn't cause huge changes to the device overall. That's not their style. Unless they are going to split the iPhone into two different devices, that is.
Also you gotta consider the iPod Touch, which is pretty much guaranteed to also be using whatever new screen the iPhone is going to use.
In that case, a bigger screen would just make the iPod Touch bigger, heavier, and unwieldy.
But that aside, I think it's just up to the user, mostly. I am perfectly comfortable with the iPhone's keyboard, and I can type almost at 60WPM on that keyboard, much like I can do the same on the iPad's virtual keyboard.
If you have problems typing on the iPhone currently, I don't think that a slightly bigger keyboard (marginally) would make much of a difference if at all.
But all of this is just to say... I don't think Apple would increase the size of the display, or if they did, it would be done in a way that wouldn't cause huge changes to the device overall. That's not their style. Unless they are going to split the iPhone into two different devices, that is.
Also you gotta consider the iPod Touch, which is pretty much guaranteed to also be using whatever new screen the iPhone is going to use.
In that case, a bigger screen would just make the iPod Touch bigger, heavier, and unwieldy.
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
The bigger keys make a big difference. I type much better on the iPhone in landscape mode than I do in portrait mode. The keys in portrait mode are simply too small.
P.S. Just because Android phone keyboards may suck doesn't mean Apple keyboards can't get better. Very strange logic you guys have.
P.S. Just because Android phone keyboards may suck doesn't mean Apple keyboards can't get better. Very strange logic you guys have.
You don't know Apple very well if you think that. Apple has a habit of of sticking with one form factor... until they decide they want something completely different. They have done this over and over and over again with their products.
Last edited:
And here is a picture to prove my previous point:
There is no bezel space left for that 3.83" screen. It's eating into the steel band. Even if Apple can magically work that bezel out somehow, the bigger screen will still either obscure the front camera and speaker grille, or it eats into the space for the home button. It just... can't be done without physically increasing the size of the device.
And you can type better in landscape because the keys are they are almost 100% wider. Do you think it would be any easier for you to type on the portrait keyboard if the keys were almost half as short as the landscape keyboard? I didn't think so.
There is no bezel space left for that 3.83" screen. It's eating into the steel band. Even if Apple can magically work that bezel out somehow, the bigger screen will still either obscure the front camera and speaker grille, or it eats into the space for the home button. It just... can't be done without physically increasing the size of the device.
And you can type better in landscape because the keys are they are almost 100% wider. Do you think it would be any easier for you to type on the portrait keyboard if the keys were almost half as short as the landscape keyboard? I didn't think so.
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
Of course, I already said you'd have to increase the phone size by 2 mm vertically, and 2 mm horizontally. You can also shift the screen down 1.5 to 2 mm.And here is a picture to prove my previous point:
There is no bezel space left for that 3.83" screen. It's eating into the steel band. Even if Apple can magically work that bezel out somehow, the bigger screen will still either obscure the front camera and speaker grille, or it eats into the space for the home button. It just... can't be done without physically increasing the size of the device.
At 301 ppi, a 3.83" screen needs to be 960/301= 3.19" tall. This is easily done on an iPhone that is 2 mm taller than it currently is, esp. if you shift the screen down slightly, while keeping the physical home button intact.
BTW, you seem to have forgotten the sizes of previous iPhones:
iPhone 4S: 115.2 x 58.66 mm
iPhone 4: 115.2 x 58.66 mm
iPhone 3GS: 115.5 x 62.1 mm
iPhone 3G: 115.5 x 62.1 mm
iPhone: 115 x 61 mm
My hypothetical iPhone 5 would be about 117-118 mm tall, by about 61 mm wide. That makes it narrower than the iPhone 3G. I own the iPhone 3G by the way (along with my iPhone 4), and it doesn't feel too wide in my small hands. Even if Apple had to increase the iPhone 5's width to 62 mm, that'd be acceptable, at the same width as the iPhone 3G.
So, in other words, you're saying having bigger keys aids typing. That sounds awfully familiar.
Having a bigger iPhone 5 would make typing in portrait mode on the iPhone 5 easier than typing in portrait mode on the iPhone 4/4S.
Last edited:
No, I'm saying that significantly bigger keys help with typing, but marginally bigger keys don't necessarily do so.
As an aside, I have a Galaxy Nexus with a 4.63" screen vs iPhone 4's 3.5" screen. It's an extreme example, but sincerely, I don't feel like the bigger screen helps that much with portrait. The keys as I perceive it are less than 50% bigger. More like 25%. Both devices are much easier to type in landscape, and the iPhone 4 is much easier to type in landscape than the Galaxy Nexus.
Also it wouldn't be just a "2mm increase". Like I said, the bezels on the iPhone 4 are about as small as Apple could make them. And I'm quite certain at least one of those bezels is already over 2mm in width. It's about 10mm from the screen to the speaker grille, and the 3.83" screen is already obscuring the grille completely so I don't think it'll be a 2mm shift down. They'll have to shift that screen down by at least 5mm - 6mm for that to happen, and that's assuming they could somehow shrink the front-facing camera and the actual speaker inside too. So realistically, you are looking at a device that's legitimately huge.
But all of this screen stuff is seriously getting more wishful in my opinions. There is still no concrete reason as to why Apple should increase the physical screen size to 3.83" other than that you want them to.
As an aside, I have a Galaxy Nexus with a 4.63" screen vs iPhone 4's 3.5" screen. It's an extreme example, but sincerely, I don't feel like the bigger screen helps that much with portrait. The keys as I perceive it are less than 50% bigger. More like 25%. Both devices are much easier to type in landscape, and the iPhone 4 is much easier to type in landscape than the Galaxy Nexus.
Also it wouldn't be just a "2mm increase". Like I said, the bezels on the iPhone 4 are about as small as Apple could make them. And I'm quite certain at least one of those bezels is already over 2mm in width. It's about 10mm from the screen to the speaker grille, and the 3.83" screen is already obscuring the grille completely so I don't think it'll be a 2mm shift down. They'll have to shift that screen down by at least 5mm - 6mm for that to happen, and that's assuming they could somehow shrink the front-facing camera and the actual speaker inside too. So realistically, you are looking at a device that's legitimately huge.
But all of this screen stuff is seriously getting more wishful in my opinions. There is still no concrete reason as to why Apple should increase the physical screen size to 3.83" other than that you want them to.
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
Nah, your 4" 1152x640 with no home button is really the wishful thinking. Misguided wishful thinking. You're asking Apple to create a 3rd aspect ratio and 3rd resolution with a totally different input method, for a really marginal screen resolution increase, and one that would have to accomodate new virtual buttons.
Quite frankly there is no real justification for it, and it would be a step in the wrong direction too. They'll just keep the resolution the same. If it's 960x640 at 3.5", then so be it. I'm just pointing out that with an increase in size of the phone to 118x61 mm, they could put in a 3.83" screen at the same rez, and it would be nicer to look at, without making it unwieldy like some of the Android phones are now. Furthermore, that size increase would bring it to the range of pre-existing iPhones. However, if they don't and just leave it at 3.5", no worries.
Hell, a 3.5" screen with a home button is still more useful than a 4" screen with no home button. But a 3.8" (my preference) to 4" screen with a home button is potentially even better.
P.S. Since you commented on it, yes I have taken apart an iPhone before. I did so with the 3G. No, you couldn't put a 3.8" screen in the 3G with the 3G design, but that's the whole point of updating the design of course.
BTW, your arguments sound a lot like those from people who claimed Apple wouldn't release an 11" MacBook Pro because one couldn't do it without compromising specific features such as keyboard size, etc. Then, Apple released one, except they called it the Air, complete with a full-sized keyboard.
Last edited:
I'm not asking Apple to create a 3rd aspect ratio or a 3rd resolution.
You may may have already realized it, but I'll break it down for you just in case:
1) Slice the 640 x 960 display into 5 rows. That means each row is about 640 x 192.
2) Now add an additional row into those 5 rows, so that means 6 rows at 640 x 192 each.
3) What do we get? 640 x 1152. Physical dimension considering 5 rows is 3.5" diagonal: 3.99" diagonal.
Why the analogy? Because the current iPhone's screen is exactly like that. The home screen has 5 rows of icon. With a 640 x 1152 display, it'll be exactly 6 rows. That's perfect scaling. You may also have noticed it, but the app switcher also takes up about 640 x 192.
It won't be a change in aspect ratio or resolution. I'd think Apple can still allow developers to develop for only 5 rows of that display (meaning the same 3:2 960x640 space with the same physical dimensions) and use the 6th row to display other information instead, like that virtual home button, or the app switcher, or Siri, or any other thing they please.
That's the justification for it. It's not a wish. It's a logical step up from the 3.5" screen because:
1) The aspect ratio would be closer to 16:9, so there will be less black bars, and more of a movie content can be shown on the screen.
2) It allows Apple to move away from double clicking the home button, or anything to do with the home button, even. Provided they want to do so, that is.
3) Since the scaling is linear, no change to any app currently would be necessary. All apps would work just fine, even those that depend on correct physical dimensioning. If any developer would like to use the extra screen space, I'm sure they may request to do so as well, and Apple will put something in to make sure the app won't break anything.
4) It's legitimately a bigger screen.
5) It allows more room to see things while you type in portrait.
While I'd agree that a 3.8" screen device would be better than a 3.5" screen, I don't think it'll happen because, again, it breaks many apps, that and it'll increase the dimensions of the device, potentially make the whole device heavier. That's counterintuitive to what Apple has been trying to do for years, and at least it'll make the iPod Touch heavier the way it is.
Other than that, the reason why I say that's wishful is because you are now asking Apple to physically change the dimensions of the device simply because you think that's what people want. For the record, again, that's what I want, too, but that's not a logical step-up because as I said, it would break one too many apps, and it confuses developers.
And I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the MacBook Air 11" was impossible. Apple has already created a PowerBook 12" before... so it's no surprise that they can make another one.
But it's not even the same argument. What I'm saying is basically that it's silly to think Apple would increase the MacBook Air 11.6" screen to, say... 12.1" because they have to physically make the MacBook Air larger, and that goes against their principles.
But as a matter of fact, the 12.1" MacBook Air idea is more feasible...
You may may have already realized it, but I'll break it down for you just in case:
1) Slice the 640 x 960 display into 5 rows. That means each row is about 640 x 192.
2) Now add an additional row into those 5 rows, so that means 6 rows at 640 x 192 each.
3) What do we get? 640 x 1152. Physical dimension considering 5 rows is 3.5" diagonal: 3.99" diagonal.
Why the analogy? Because the current iPhone's screen is exactly like that. The home screen has 5 rows of icon. With a 640 x 1152 display, it'll be exactly 6 rows. That's perfect scaling. You may also have noticed it, but the app switcher also takes up about 640 x 192.
It won't be a change in aspect ratio or resolution. I'd think Apple can still allow developers to develop for only 5 rows of that display (meaning the same 3:2 960x640 space with the same physical dimensions) and use the 6th row to display other information instead, like that virtual home button, or the app switcher, or Siri, or any other thing they please.
That's the justification for it. It's not a wish. It's a logical step up from the 3.5" screen because:
1) The aspect ratio would be closer to 16:9, so there will be less black bars, and more of a movie content can be shown on the screen.
2) It allows Apple to move away from double clicking the home button, or anything to do with the home button, even. Provided they want to do so, that is.
3) Since the scaling is linear, no change to any app currently would be necessary. All apps would work just fine, even those that depend on correct physical dimensioning. If any developer would like to use the extra screen space, I'm sure they may request to do so as well, and Apple will put something in to make sure the app won't break anything.
4) It's legitimately a bigger screen.
5) It allows more room to see things while you type in portrait.
While I'd agree that a 3.8" screen device would be better than a 3.5" screen, I don't think it'll happen because, again, it breaks many apps, that and it'll increase the dimensions of the device, potentially make the whole device heavier. That's counterintuitive to what Apple has been trying to do for years, and at least it'll make the iPod Touch heavier the way it is.
Other than that, the reason why I say that's wishful is because you are now asking Apple to physically change the dimensions of the device simply because you think that's what people want. For the record, again, that's what I want, too, but that's not a logical step-up because as I said, it would break one too many apps, and it confuses developers.
And I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the MacBook Air 11" was impossible. Apple has already created a PowerBook 12" before... so it's no surprise that they can make another one.
But it's not even the same argument. What I'm saying is basically that it's silly to think Apple would increase the MacBook Air 11.6" screen to, say... 12.1" because they have to physically make the MacBook Air larger, and that goes against their principles.
But as a matter of fact, the 12.1" MacBook Air idea is more feasible...
Last edited:
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
To summarize the salient points in your above post:
1) You claim you're not asking Apple to create a 3rd aspect ratio or a 3rd resolution. Then you go on to explain that your hypothetical iPhone will have a resolution of 1152x640.
2) You admit that you want a bigger iPhone.
1) You claim you're not asking Apple to create a 3rd aspect ratio or a 3rd resolution. Then you go on to explain that your hypothetical iPhone will have a resolution of 1152x640.
2) You admit that you want a bigger iPhone.
Well, just a minor correction. It's not "my" hypothetical iPhone. The original idea was from here:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/04/10/iphone-aspect-ratio
And I'm not "Colin".
But yes, I would want a bigger iPhone. Or to be more precise, I want a bigger screen on the iPhone, and I'm fine with a miniscule increase in size. But I don't see any logical justification for it.
Now, if they would increase the resolution as well, I can see how it could happen. And it's not for the whole 329 PPI crap, of course. It's more about keeping physical dimensions the same.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/04/10/iphone-aspect-ratio
And I'm not "Colin".
But yes, I would want a bigger iPhone. Or to be more precise, I want a bigger screen on the iPhone, and I'm fine with a miniscule increase in size. But I don't see any logical justification for it.
Now, if they would increase the resolution as well, I can see how it could happen. And it's not for the whole 329 PPI crap, of course. It's more about keeping physical dimensions the same.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
True, this idea you've adopted isn't new. However, "Colin" is just rehashing stuff that other people (including myself) had talked about years ago. Perhaps he independently came up with the same idea again though, I dunno, and he is a bit more specific about resolutions than others in general have been when talking about this widescreen resolution and removal of the home button.
---
I find the 326 ppi pixel density one of the drawbacks of the current iPhone 4/4S design, at least in the context of iOS 5.1. The pixel density is too high IMHO. The benefit of a 3.83" iPhone is that it would reduce the pixel density to 301 ppi. That would still be within Jobs' arbitrary 300 ppi cutoff for a "retina" display, but would be a significant improvement in text readability. In fact I suspect they could go as large as a 4" iPhone and still maintain an effective "retina" display, even though it'd be below 300 ppi. Over 4" though the phone dimensions start to become problematic, and lowering of pixel density may also start to become a concern, if the 960x640 resolution is maintained.
---
I find the 326 ppi pixel density one of the drawbacks of the current iPhone 4/4S design, at least in the context of iOS 5.1. The pixel density is too high IMHO. The benefit of a 3.83" iPhone is that it would reduce the pixel density to 301 ppi. That would still be within Jobs' arbitrary 300 ppi cutoff for a "retina" display, but would be a significant improvement in text readability. In fact I suspect they could go as large as a 4" iPhone and still maintain an effective "retina" display, even though it'd be below 300 ppi. Over 4" though the phone dimensions start to become problematic, and lowering of pixel density may also start to become a concern, if the 960x640 resolution is maintained.
Last edited:
I am not sure about you, but 329 PPI is not high at all. I have a Galaxy Nexus with 316 PPI, and I can definitely see pixels on that screen even from a good distance (8-10" away from my face).
If PPI was any lower than that, I don't doubt I'd be able to see pixels clearly.
If PPI was any lower than that, I don't doubt I'd be able to see pixels clearly.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
Well, Steve considered the "magic number" to be approximately 300 ppi at reasonable viewing distances. Perhaps you are looking at your phones from much closer. I sometimes do look at it from up close, but I try not to, because it gives me a headache.
The 326 ppi iPhone 4 should be "retina" at distances of 10" or greater from the face.
BTW, the iPad is 264 ppi, although that's too low for a phone, since phones are typically held closer. For approximately the same 57 arcseconds threshold, an iPad should be held > 13" away from the eye (or 13.5" from the retina).
For my hypothetical 3.83" 301 ppi iPhone 5, that distance would be 11" (instead of 10").
For a hypothetical 4.2" 275 ppi iPhone, that distance would be 12".
http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm
The 326 ppi iPhone 4 should be "retina" at distances of 10" or greater from the face.
BTW, the iPad is 264 ppi, although that's too low for a phone, since phones are typically held closer. For approximately the same 57 arcseconds threshold, an iPad should be held > 13" away from the eye (or 13.5" from the retina).
For my hypothetical 3.83" 301 ppi iPhone 5, that distance would be 11" (instead of 10").
For a hypothetical 4.2" 275 ppi iPhone, that distance would be 12".
http://bhtooefr.org/displaycalc.htm
Man, watching the both of you going back and forth is tiring.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is Apple will keep the resolution at 960x640.
I do like Eug argument of Apple going to 3.8" to keep that that so-called retina display intact if thats so important to Apple.
To me, the argument of Apple not going to 4" or bigger because the ppi would drop below 300 is asinine.
The same analogy would be saying that people would prefer a 32" 1080p TV vs a 42" 1080p TV because the 32" has higher PPI and the picture looks better.
Well, the picture do look better on the smaller TV because the pixel density is higher but people are always gonna want the bigger TV.
So lets say if Apple present the consumer with 3 choices.
- Same 3.5" screen with 326ppi.
- 3.8" screen with 300ppi and retain the so-called retina display.
- 4" screen but now its only 286ppi.
I can tell you without hesitation that people would overwhelmingly pick the one with the biggest screen.
The average consumer out there couldn't give a rats ass what the PPI is on that phone.
A 4" iPhone would be an instant grandslam.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is Apple will keep the resolution at 960x640.
I do like Eug argument of Apple going to 3.8" to keep that that so-called retina display intact if thats so important to Apple.
To me, the argument of Apple not going to 4" or bigger because the ppi would drop below 300 is asinine.
The same analogy would be saying that people would prefer a 32" 1080p TV vs a 42" 1080p TV because the 32" has higher PPI and the picture looks better.
Well, the picture do look better on the smaller TV because the pixel density is higher but people are always gonna want the bigger TV.
So lets say if Apple present the consumer with 3 choices.
- Same 3.5" screen with 326ppi.
- 3.8" screen with 300ppi and retain the so-called retina display.
- 4" screen but now its only 286ppi.
I can tell you without hesitation that people would overwhelmingly pick the one with the biggest screen.
The average consumer out there couldn't give a rats ass what the PPI is on that phone.
A 4" iPhone would be an instant grandslam.
boomhower
Diamond Member
- Sep 13, 2007
- 7,228
- 19
- 81
I don't think Apple will be able to bate me into an early upgrade this year. I am overly happy with my 4S. I just can't see getting myself to pay full price for larger screen, if it even has one. It's my biggest complaint as I would highly prefer a 4" screen but I have been pleasantly surprised I am happy with the 3.5 coming from a 4.3 Android. I will likely rock the 4S until I get LTE in my area, which I am not expecting until 2013 at the earliest.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
Yeah, in my case, we've had LTE in Toronto since 2011, and I'm on the single-core (aka slow) iPhone 4.
I didn't think the 4S was enough of an upgrade over the 4 though. The only issue for me is I won't be able to get the subsidized price if I get the 5. I won't be eligible for a subsidy until the 6, so the 5 will really have to wow me to get me to upgrade. The 4S didn't (as compared to the 4).
I didn't think the 4S was enough of an upgrade over the 4 though. The only issue for me is I won't be able to get the subsidized price if I get the 5. I won't be eligible for a subsidy until the 6, so the 5 will really have to wow me to get me to upgrade. The 4S didn't (as compared to the 4).
Dulanic
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2000
- 9,968
- 592
- 136
Correction, the keyboard is the one you are used to and comfortable with. That is really what it comes down to for any phone keyboard. I have tried a iPhone keyboard and hated it becuase the keys are too small for me. But again, I am used to a 4.65" screen with larger keys. I am sure if I was used to a iPhone it wouldn't bother me quite as much.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
How are you going to correct my own personal reference when I have used all of those phones as my daily extensively ??
To me the iPhone keyboard is still the best.
I went from:
-iPhone 4
-Galaxy S- because of the single core, typing was a PITA. I hated Android during this period.
I switched back and forth between those 2 phones.
- Then I gave my wife the iPhone 4 and got the G2x. Because of dual-core, Android was definately more enjoyable now.
- Then I got a Galaxy II and it improved my Android experience.(Although I hate the bigger size).
- Then my wife decided she wanted my GII and I gave it to her and took back the iPhone 4 which I'm using now.
- I'll be getting a new Andorid soon. Probably the One S or whatever Tmobile has in their pipeline.
By far, I still love the iPhone keyboard the best.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,158
- 1,806
- 126
Well, if you get the 5, you get all the benefits of the 4S and the 5, when coming from the 4.
I'm not the type of guy that updates every year, for cost reasons. I will upgrade every 2 - 2.5 years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter