‽
|
Quote:
But I'm sure that Apple picked these unusual ratios very consciously — at least with the iPad's 4:3. While video playback would be more practical, that's simply not a very central function. Steve showing a movie (some Pirates of the Caribbean part, I think?) was one of the most confusing parts to me about the otherwise incredible iPhone intro — far more useful once you add the then-not-existing YouTube app, or the not-existing-for-another-two-and-a-half-years built-in video recording, but the reason widescreen got pitched to us two-ish decades ago is immersive experience, and you just don't get that on such a compact mobile device, be it three inches, four, or five. On the iPhone's 3:2 aspect ratio, I'm less sure they're as happy with the choice, but I still suspect they're happy enough not to want to change it unless there's a really good reason. Quote:
Really? I can barely reach up there. I already use the other hand to flick down iOS 5's notification bar, which I suppose is fine. But with even more vertical stretch, they'd practically introduce even more "dead, no-thumb area". Which, in fact, would make for a good "they should place miscellany there" argument: make the status bar taller and more powerful, such as by showing you how many unread items of whatever you have, by letting you setup the brightness there, etc. (The way you get extra pages on the multitasking bar for settings that have nothing to do with multitasking is just… a bizarre hack.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Those iOS apps are hand-tweaked for the current (two) size(s). That's part of what makes them pop so amazingly; feel so real, so personal. A third size can be added, but it increases the temptation of developers to just have the app auto-adjust. After all, if Apple adds a third size, who's to say they won't eventually add a fourth? iPhone mini, anyone? Or a fifth? Apple TV, folks? So, they won't do it until they have a very good reason to. Which they'll also tell their third-party developers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't. I just act it. |
||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
|
You know what is really funny about all the talk of Apple picking the current size/aspect ratio for one handed operation? In most of their promo videos and even Steve using the device on stage during the unveiling - it is being used with two hands. There are shots of one-handed operation in some of the videos and ads as well, but I don't know that that is the majority.
Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents! |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I suppose it depends on what you're doing with it. When I'm using it as a phone, or to text, email, quickly surf, check weather, check Twitter, take a pic, scroll through a forum, check news, using Maps or getting directions, etc., it's always in portrait orientation and one-handed (doing everything with my thumb). In other words, when I'm vertical, so is the phone...
The only time I turn it sideways, and use two hands, are when I'm playing a game or maybe doing some longer reading and turning it sideways while lying in bed so I can get the text larger. I use my iPhone vertically/portrait way more than landscape/two-handed. I'm always liked that about it...a second hand is never needed for 80-90% of the things I do, or use it for, every day. |
Less than Stellar Member
|
As a developer, I really don't want to see another resolution of the iPhone. The iPhone and iPhone with retina display is easy enough to deal with because it's just a matter of having double resolution images with no change to the actual interface. The same goes with the iPad and iPad with retina. It's only a minor hassle because there's no change in UX or UI. But if there were another resolution with dimensions that require a change in either of those, it would be a monumental pain in the ass. Sure, I could just stretch or upscale the graphics but that's not what I'd end up doing. I'd have to use the space more efficiently than that.
If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong. |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
The 3.99/4.0" thing is a non-issue. They could probably even do a 4.1" 1152x640 display without a significant change in PPI.
They might end up with 3.99", but not to keep PPI exactly the same. If they made it exactly 4.0" the difference would be so small, no one would notice. |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
I wasn't going to say anything, but I did on numerous occasions point out that I thought that Apple wouldn't just blow up the iPhone screen, but instead expand it into the blank space above and below the screen, giving it a taller (wider in landscape) aspect ratio while keeping the size of the iPhone relatively unchanged.
So for pscates to go from "quit yer yammerin', Robo, no one wants a pop tart phone!" to "hey, what if Apple expanded the screen into the blank space above and below the screen? That'd make everyone happy! Why didn't I think of this before?" has been amusing. It would be depressing, but thankfully, I was never under the impression impression that anyone actually read my posts anyway, hahaha! *sobs* |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Quote:
|
|
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Apple's shown a willingness to letterbox apps to maintain backwards compatibility before. Hell, even if for some reason that doesn't "count" ("...but those were iPhone apps!"), Apple has in the past letterboxed new apps. The fifth iPod nano featured a taller screen, but the video camera -- that iPod's major new feature! -- ran letterboxed. So it's not like letterboxing is somehow below Apple, especially if it was just to maintain backwards compatibility with old apps. Hell, there are black bars on the top and bottom of the iPhone screen now. It's just that they're made out of opaque glass. A taller 4" iPhone screen would run existing apps at exactly the same size and in exactly the same position and with the same black bars as before -- it's just that part of those black bars would be transparent glass, allowing the screen to expand vertically on apps that supported it. Which, if the transition to the retina display is any indication, will be pretty much all worthwhile apps, going forward. Of all the arguments against an expanded screen, that existing apps would run letterboxed and that is somehow anathema to Apple's principles is one of the weakest, IMO. In fact, I'd say the opposite is more likely to be true -- if Apple decides that a larger screen would improve the iPhone, would they really hold it back so that legacy content looks ever-so-slightly better? That is what would strike me as "not very Apple." Apple might decide not to go through with a larger display for some other reason, but "past apps would have to run letterboxed!" won't be it. I'm really surprised that you're suggesting that changing the area above and below the screen from black glass to black pixels would "break all apps." Especially considering that, if the blacks on the larger display are dark enough, the letterboxing could be very nearly invisible. It'd look pretty much like a current iPhone. |
|
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
It's possibly that an even larger screen would have just been too expensive for Apple's already crazy futuristic pocket computer. I think Apple is more attached to the iPhone's width than its height -- it it has to fit comfortly in the hand, and significantly wider phones don't. Remember when the iPhone came out, and it actually seemed kind of big for a phone? I'm sure Apple did consider the iPhone's screen very carefully. But I think they considered the shape and size of the iPhone just as carefully, and they did put a 3:2 screen on a 16:9 rectangle. Quote:
That's not really a mass-market product, which is why it's puzzling that Samsung seems to be marketing the Note as their main new phone, with Super Bowl ads and fancy placement (illuminated signs!) in Best Buy. All of the problems with the Note aren't with it being a bad idea, but with it being a niche idea executed poorly and pushed as the next big thing. It shouldn't try to replace people's phones, because it would suck as a phone. It shouldn't run Android widgets that are designed for smaller screens so they're weirdly off-center on the Note screen. It needs better apps. But the core of the idea isn't a bad one, I don't think. It's sort of like the core of the Courier, distilled into a more technically feasible and marketable form. It should just stop trying to be alll things to all people. Anyway, I'm puzzled by the "just because other, *less popular* phones have one" thing. Are you suggesting that the reason the iPhone is successful is because it has a smaller screen? and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
||
‽
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine introducing the iPod nano. "Oh, it's just as thick and heavy, has a third less maximum capacity and no more accessory port, but just look at this cool glossy black and white, and the color screen you don't really have much of a use for right now. We're killing the mini. Enjoy the nano!" Breaking compatibility for the sake of one minor spec change? That's not Apple either. Quote:
|
||||||
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Well then what was the point of the "because… uh… other, far, far less popular phones do it?" comment? It just felt like you were trying to suggest something without coming out and saying it, so I asked about it.
Individual Android phones are less popular than the iPhone because there's hundreds of Android phones, not because nobody wants larger-than-3.5" screens, so pointing out that individual Android phones with larger screens move fewer units than the iPhone seems pretty irrelevant. They're less popular due to the way the Android and iPhone markets are structured, not anything related to the discussion at hand, and I'm pretty sure you know that, which is why it was surprising to find that aside in your post. and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
‽
|
Quote:
It does not follow from that, however, that the iPhone not having made this choice makes it more successful. That would be a logical fallacy. Quote:
But it really isn't, because "device X did something differently, and it's clearly much more of a success; therefore, Apple should ape it!" would be a solid argument, and it cannot be made, because it isn't the case. |
||
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Idunno. More Android phones are sold than iPhones, and virtually all of those Android phones feature larger-than-3.5" screens. I think you could say that introducing larger screens has been a successful move for Android hardware partners — even that the market seems to prefer larger screens, all else being equal. But you're saying that because there's no single Android phone that outsells the iPhone, that success doesn't count, or whatever.
I think that's bullshit. We shouldn't compare one 3.5" phone with one 4"+ phone and see which sells better, because there isn't just one 4"+ phone. There's one 3.5" phone and dozens and dozens of (largely undifferentiated) 4"+ phones, so the lack of any one individual model outselling the iPhone doesn't mean that there aren't more people who prefer 4"+ screens. It's just that the people who do have literally hundreds of choices, and the sales for each individual model are reduced accordingly. I'm not saying Apple should introduce a larger-than-3.5" screen just because they seem to be more popular, just that the reverse — that they don't count as being more popular just because there's no individual 4"+ phone that outsells the iPhone — is bullshit. But whatevs. and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
‽
|
When the iPhone was introduced, and for another year or so, it was easily outsold by crappy phones running Symbian, Windows Mobile, or Blackberry (or Palm OS, etc. — you get the idea). Most of them had a physical hardware keyboard. And there were plenty of people arguing that the iPhone will never succeed because its keyboard is virtual, and/or that they'll never buy an iPhone because its keyboard is virtual. In fact, the first Android phone, too, came with a physical keyboard. Should the iPhone have adopted that?
I guess your argument is that the bigger screens came long after the iPhone, and that they are in part the reason for Android's success. I doubt it. And I'd personally hate to see it get larger. |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
••• I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on Apple expanding the iPhone screen. Apple might very well have decided that 3.5" is the perfect size and they might have no intentions to change that. All I've said is that the arguments against it — starting with the assumption that Apple must have decided that 3.5" was the perfect size and have no intentions to ever change it — don't make sense to me. A surprising number of them boil down to "change is bad," or slippery slope arguments, or arguments that other people will make slippery slope arguments ("what's to stop developers from thinking that Apple will introduce a new aspect ratio EVERY year!"). The best argument against a taller iPhone screen, to me, is the addition of the swipe-from-the-top gesture for Notification Center. People need to be able to reach that, so if a 4" screen makes that significantly more difficult to access it is probably right out (unless Apple introduces a new way to get to your notifications). But would it? I can reach the top of my phone's 4.3" screen just fine — it's a bit of a stretch, but I can reach it. And that screen is larger, has a taller aspect ratio, and likely has a larger lower bezel than the theoretical 4" iPhone would. Reaching the top of that iPhone's screen might really only be like reaching the upper middle of my phone's screen, and I can do that easily. I'm a guy, but I don't have unusually large hands. I think a 4" screen might very well be fine. I used to think that Apple would introduce a large-screened (larger than 4.0") iPhone alongside an iPhone mini with the same 3.5" screen, so as to make people who like the current small iPhone happy, but I don't any more. I don't think they'll need to. I think that if they do upsize the iPhone screen, they'll aim for the 4" mark, which should keep the iPhone about the same size. And I doubt the extra half an inch would make the iPhone intolerable to use, even for people with smaller hands. People can reach their home buttons now, can't they? and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
|
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
||
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Man, I've turned the iPot in a major way. That was not my goal... The next iPhone, no matter what screen size it comes with, is going to be just awesome. It'll have everything the iPhone 4s does, and then whatever new hardware (processor, graphics, camera, etc.) and software (iOS 6 and all it entails) Apple has been working on all this time. It certainly isn't going to suck (I don't think that's even possible at this point, honestly), and no amount of screen growth, or lack thereof, will cause it to. The end. Off-topic (click to toggle):
|
|
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I agree; I almost can't imagine Apple releasing a phone that isn't the best phone in the world (since the previous crown-holder will almost certainly still be the 4S, and the new iPhone will be better than that). It's almost scary how high people's standards are for Apple, no? Like, the iPhone 4S was hands-down the best phone out there, and some people were somehow still disappointed with it, probably just because it looked the same and didn't have a higher number. I wouldn't mind if the new iPhone looked the same as the old one. I don't want anyone to think that I do. In fact, as I've mentioned before, it would be nice for the new iPhone to be able to still use two years' worth of accessories custom-designed to fit the iPhone 4 and 4S — that's a competitive advantage no other phone can match. In fact, I'd go further and say that if they do change the shape of the new iPhone, I hope it's only because they're changing the face of the product in some major way — if it's just some minor nip/tuck that doesn't do anything but break compatibility with the Glif and the Popa and that Lego case and that Penguin case &c. &c., I'd be upset. If they're going to change up the design, they'll hopefully have a better reason than just curving the edges a little. Basically, I'm already going to buy one, whatever it's like, so it's not like a not-larger-screen would be a deal-breaker for me, or anything. I never said it would be. But it'd be nice. and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
|
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 3 of 10 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next Last |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFL Football 2011-2012 | Eugene | AppleOutsider | 3 | 2011-09-13 02:09 |
AutoCAD LT 2012 Now in Mac App Store | Brave Ulysses | Apple Products | 5 | 2011-08-16 15:12 |
Aapl, 2012 & I | cosus | Apple Products | 6 | 2009-11-04 18:31 |
CDMA iPhone before 2012? | macuser256 | Speculation and Rumors | 9 | 2008-02-14 11:15 |