[Robo]

For those on the west coast, at least, it's still the iPod's eighth birthday. I've been thinking a lot lately about the future of the iPhone, which also means thinking about the future of the iPod, because they're increasingly closely linked.

I think Apple will get rid of the iPod classic next year. The iPod max capacity has gone down from 160GB to 120GB before, so going from 160GB to 128GB is no big deal (the 128GB iPod will probably be $150 more than the outgoing iPod classic, but hey). This will be good, because the iPod line is more complex than ever before (the "which iPod are you?" page on apple.com now has an astonishing six columns).

But I think the iPod classic is the only column that will be removed (okay, maybe the stainless steel shuffle will go too). Right now there's essentially two different iPod touch models, one for $199 and one for $299+, and I think that will continue. Only the $299+ models have the faster "S" performance or the remote and mic. I think that will change, next year - the $199 iPod touch will get all that too, and Apple will stop selling iPods and iPhones with the old non-S processors entirely - but the $299+ iPod touches (so awkward to pluralize!) will get something else, like maybe a camera.

I don't think the adding video to the iPod nano was something Apple did just for fun, or as an afterthought: they know that the "Flip" market is huge. Right now, the 3G S and nano shoot video at VGA, but it's pretty obvious where Apple's going: iMovie now supports a new "format" called iFrame, which is essentially just H.264 at 540p (Q1080p). There's a couple of Flip-style Sanyo cameras that support iFrame but it's pretty obvious that's where Apple is going to head with the next iPhone and iPods. It might be a nice balance between high quality and small file sizes.

I think eventually we'll see a video camera on all iPods, but that might not be next year. They might leave that off the low end iPod touch, and essentially build a 16GB version of today's 32GB touch. And hopefully, with the iPod classic no longer around, they'll drop the "touch" from the name, and just call the iPod touch what it really is: the new iPod, proper.

I think, eventually - maybe not next year, but probably in 2011 - we'll see larger-screen iPhones and iPods with a new UI. These will be major upgrades - the biggest change to the touch platform yet - and Apple will make a huge deal out of them, calling them "the new iPhone" (hey, it's not like they'll be able to call it the iPhone 5G) and "the new iPod," respectively. They'll keep the current UIs (and app ecosystems) around on miniaturized 3.5" models called iPhone mini and iPod mini (what better time to bring back the breakout iPod than for the brand's tenth birthday?). This is where "splitting" the iPod touch line, like they have done this year (and renaming it, like they hopefully will next year!) will come in handy - only the $299+ iPods will get the big screen and new goodies, while the $199 iPod will essentially become a smaller version of the previous generation model, as the iPod mini.

Thus, the line will look like this: iPod shuffle (with, uh, no controls ), iPod nano (clickwheel), iPod mini (current multi-touch UI), iPod (future "tablety" UI). There will be one iPod (and just one iPod) with each UI - it's about as simple as it could get, really.

I could be incredibly wrong, of course. I've had horrible ideas before (please don't search for them). But I've been right a few times, too. I remember, back in the iBook/PowerBook days, suggesting that Apple should add something between the two lines with an ultra-portable (then I called it StarBook, from *Book - admittedly a dumb name) with a fresh, angular, wedge-shaped design that came to a point in the front. The idea was not, I think, met with a positive reaction.

What do you think the iPod will be like, on its ninth and tenth birthdays?

[joveblue]

I disagree about splitting the iPod touch according to size. I think they'll continue the current strategy of using the previous year's model as the more affordable option.

I think the iPhone/iPod touch is about the perfect size now (slimming it down and even reducing the bezels would be a big plus though). Any bigger and it would be less comfortable in the pocket and hand. Plus, changing the screen size would create problems in terms of the apps already developed, which could be solved, but I think leaving well enough alone is a better option here.

Splitting the App Store development into 3.5" and 5" screens doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. If Apple do indeed release a tablet next year, it will probably use the App Store, but I think the iPhone (current size) will still get most of the development attention.

Will an iFrame capable camera that's slim enough for the (current) iPod nano be available next year?

I agree that the classic will probably die next year though

[Is it 1981?]

Originally Posted by joveblue Splitting the App Store development into 3.5" and 5" screens doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. If Apple do indeed release a tablet next year, it will probably use the App Store, but I think the iPhone (current size) will still get most of the development attention.

If future iPhones did have larger displays, would it really not be possible to use today's apps with the larger display? I'm thinking of games on the Mac that tell you they need to run at a minimum of 800x600, 256 colours (or whatever) but are able to scale up to fullscreen – I just assumed the iPhone UI and third-party apps would be able to scale up as well, removing any need for App Stores designed for a specific display size/ resolution?

[joveblue]

Games probably could, but are other apps resolution-independent? I'm not really sure but I didn't think they were...

[chucker]

No, a regular iPhone app cannot currently scale at all.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue I disagree about splitting the iPod touch according to size. I think they'll continue the current strategy of using the previous year's model as the more affordable option.

Really? That doesn't seem very Apple-like to me at all, long-term. I think they're only doing it now because all the iPod touches have the same screen.

Originally Posted by joveblue I think the iPhone/iPod touch is about the perfect size now (slimming it down and even reducing the bezels would be a big plus though). Any bigger and it would be less comfortable in the pocket and hand.

A 5" 16:9 screen with a small bezel would fit pretty much perfectly on top of the current iPhone/iPod touch - the device would only have to grow a millimeter or two (or, alternatively, it could be a 4.8" screen, whatever), so it's not like we're talking about some massive (or even perceptible) increase in size. I didn't pick that number out of thin air.

People (like you) who were happy with the current 3.5" screen and just wanted to see those massive bezels reduced could hop to an iPhone/iPod mini, which could easily be a full inch shorter, slightly narrower, and a good bit thinner, as well.

Originally Posted by joveblue Plus, changing the screen size would create problems in terms of the apps already developed, which could be solved, but I think leaving well enough alone is a better option here.

"Leaving well enough alone" probably isn't a winning strategy in a high-stakes, ultra-competitive market.

I really don't think I'm asking for too much - I'm even giving them one more year of sorta lackluster updates (though hopefully not as lackluster as the "new" iPod touch) before expecting anything groundbreaking.

I'm just looking at the iPod (classic). I'm comparing the 2001 iPod to the 2005 iPod with video. In just four years, the iPod gained the clickwheel, the dock connector, a larger, sharper, color screen, and the ability to play video, in addition to a host of other features, all while seeing an order-of-magnitude increase in capacity and a reduction in size. Is the 2011 iPhone going to be just as big a leap over the 2007 iPhone?

So far, the iPhone updates have been really just fixing the original iPhone. That's been okay, up until now, because the price of an 8GB iPhone has also dropped $500 (!!!) in the same time, but that obviously can't continue (unless Apple starts paying people to buy iPhones ). The original iPhone should have had a 3G radio - it was kind of ridiculous that a $600 smartphone introduced in 2007 (and sold well into 2008) didn't. The iPhone 3G fixed that. The first iPhones were underpowered, they really were; the iPhone 3G S fixed that. I don't know what Apple's going to put into the 2010 iPhone but I'm not sure if "under-the-hood" upgrades and things like a compass and voice control alone will cut it for another year. I think the big news is that the iPhone will continue going multi-carrier throughout 2010, and that will increase sales more than whatever refinements Apple gives to the 2010 iPhone. Apple's never been one to decrease its profit margins unnecessarily, and that's why I'm not expecting any big upgrades in screens or UIs until 2011.

Originally Posted by joveblue Splitting the App Store development into 3.5" and 5" screens doesn't sound like a good idea to me either.

How is that any different than splitting the App Store into 3.5" and 7-10" screens? If anything, it's preferable, because both screen sizes would be on extremely popular devices - I don't think even Paul would say that The Tablet is likely to outsell the iPhone. Also, a number of apps could easily run on both screens - the entire 3.5" market could be a subset of the larger 5" market. 3.5-inch "iPhone mini" apps would be available for the higher-end iPhones as well.

Originally Posted by joveblue If Apple do indeed release a tablet next year, it will probably use the App Store, but I think the iPhone (current size) will still get most of the development attention.

Sounds a bit like a niche product to me...but that's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by joveblue Will an iFrame capable camera that's slim enough for the (current) iPod nano be available next year?

I wouldn't be surprised (though I was mainly thinking of the next touch and "3G SS"). It'd need to, to stay competitive - most of those Flip-style cameras are actually HD now, although it's debatable how much the quality of the video has actually increased. At least iFrame video would sync with iMovie, not...iPhoto.

Originally Posted by joveblue I agree that the classic will probably die next year though

Well at least we agree on something.

Seriously, though. Apple's shipped, what, half a dozen different iPod lines, with nearly as many UIs - scroll wheels, click wheels, "control circles," headphone remotes...I really can't imagine that Apple intends for the iPhone to always just be "the iPhone" with the same 3.5" HVGA display and the same no-widget, no-multitasking UI, forever and ever.

But then again they're apparently hell-bent on making everybody want a UMPC. So who knows?

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Roboman Really? That doesn't seem very Apple-like to me at all, long-term. I think they're only doing it now because all the iPod touches have the same screen.

Which, so far at least, has worked very well for them because it means a single development platform.

A 5" 16:9 screen with a small bezel would fit pretty much perfectly on top of the current iPhone/iPod touch - the device would only have to grow a millimeter or two (or, alternatively, it could be a 4.8" screen, whatever), so it's not like we're talking about some massive (or even perceptible) increase in size. I didn't pick that number out of thin air.

I think that's mainly just wishful thinking, really. As much as we love suggesting Apple do away with bezels on this forum, they've never actually done it. I'm sure the bezel's on the iPhone are there for a good reason. I think the iPhone would actually grow a fair bit, if the screen was to be bigger enough to be worthwhile having a separate platform. I'd say even for a 4.8" screen this device is going to be 5.5" tall, and maybe approaching 3" wide, which is really getting into awkward-sized territory. I could be wrong and they come up with a revolutionary device where one surface is covered entirely by screen, but I don't think they will, if only because it will be less practical to actually use (you need somewhere to put your thumbs while you're using it, a phone speaker that's directed at your ear and a home button that's easy to use. At most, they could trim a cm off each end and still have these be useable, but I think that's really pushing it. Beyond that they'd have to be built into the ends somehow, which presents a whole new set of problems. It's not impossible but I'm not sure that it's necessarily desirable.

"Leaving well enough alone" probably isn't a winning strategy in a high-stakes, ultra-competitive market.

It doesn't seem to me as though the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. In a high-stakes, ultra-competitive market they don't want to throw one of their key competitive advantages out the window by throwing most of the previous iPhone development out the window (I think missed that the "iPhone mini" is going to have the exact same screen size as the current one?) and splitting development efforts between two platforms which largely serve the same market, i.e. the phone and pocketable media player market.

So far, the iPhone updates have been really just fixing the original iPhone. That's been okay, up until now, because the price of an 8GB iPhone has also dropped $500 (!!!) in the same time, but that obviously can't continue (unless Apple starts paying people to buy iPhones ). The original iPhone should have had a 3G radio - it was kind of ridiculous that a $600 smartphone introduced in 2007 (and sold well into 2008) didn't. The iPhone 3G fixed that. The first iPhones were underpowered, they really were; the iPhone 3G S fixed that. I don't know what Apple's going to put into the 2010 iPhone but I'm not sure if "under-the-hood" upgrades and things like a compass and voice control alone will cut it for another year.

If they want to continue the pattern of 'fixing' the original iPhone, 2010 could be the year that they double battery life *fingers crossed*. Oh man I hope... There's plenty more they can do, too. The camera is decent but behind the competition and lacks flash. It could be a lot slimmer. The processor, RAM, and graphics could always use a bump, too, which is going to have to be done before we see multi-tasking background processes.

How is that any different than splitting the App Store into 3.5" and 7-10" screens?

Because there'll still be one primary development platform and the 7-10" can go the way of the iPod HiFi Also, they'd actually be targeting different markets. I dunno, I'm still a tablet-skeptic.

If anything, it's preferable, because both screen sizes would be on extremely popular devices - I don't think even Paul would say that The Tablet is likely to outsell the iPhone. Also, a number of apps could easily run on both screens - the entire 3.5" market could be a subset of the larger 5" market. 3.5-inch "iPhone mini" apps would be available for the higher-end iPhones as well.

Seriously, though. Apple's shipped, what, half a dozen different iPod lines, with nearly as many UIs - scroll wheels, click wheels, "control circles," headphone remotes...I really can't imagine that Apple intends for the iPhone to always just be "the iPhone" with the same 3.5" HVGA display and the same no-widget, no-multitasking UI, forever and ever.

From the first iPod through the the current iPod classic/nano, the menu system has remained more or less the same, other than the addition of a few new options (photos, movies, etc.) and an album cover preview to fill in space.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue I think that's mainly just wishful thinking, really. As much as we love suggesting Apple do away with bezels on this forum, they've never actually done it. I'm sure the bezel's on the iPhone are there for a good reason. I think the iPhone would actually grow a fair bit, if the screen was to be bigger enough to be worthwhile having a separate platform. I'd say even for a 4.8" screen this device is going to be 5.5" tall, and maybe approaching 3" wide, which is really getting into awkward-sized territory.

I just now did the maths for how big a QHD (360x640) 16:9 display would be with the exact same pixels-per-inch count (163) as the current iPhone, to ensure that elements designed for the current iPhone would remain the same size on the new screen. Wouldn't you know it, it's exactly one full inch larger - 4.5". Allowing for a third of an inch or so above and below the display, such a device would be exactly the same size as the current iPhone.

I really don't see how you figure that making the screen 1.3" larger diagonally would require an extra inch of height and an extra half inch of width. Surely there's some space in the massive bezels above and below the display we could use?

Originally Posted by joveblue I could be wrong and they come up with a revolutionary device where one surface is covered entirely by screen, but I don't think they will, if only because it will be less practical to actually use (you need somewhere to put your thumbs while you're using it, a phone speaker that's directed at your ear and a home button that's easy to use. At most, they could trim a cm off each end and still have these be useable, but I think that's really pushing it. Beyond that they'd have to be built into the ends somehow, which presents a whole new set of problems. It's not impossible but I'm not sure that it's necessarily desirable.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that Apple would make an iPhone that somehow had no bezel whatsoever, just a smaller one.

Originally Posted by joveblue It doesn't seem to me as though the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. In a high-stakes, ultra-competitive market they don't want to throw one of their key competitive advantages out the window by throwing most of the previous iPhone development out the window (I think missed that the "iPhone mini" is going to have the exact same screen size as the current one?) and splitting development efforts between two platforms which largely serve the same market, i.e. the phone and pocketable media player market.

By that logic, there would only have ever been one Macintosh, and it would run all the Macintosh programs ever written, because Apple wouldn't want to "split development efforts" by making new apps that wouldn't run on older Macs.

Sorry, but someday even the "S" iPhone/iPod touch will become legacy, and you know how Apple feels about that. They'll move on.

Tying such a "compatibility break" to a screen size increase and an interface overhaul makes sense, I think, because it's something that would be readily apparent to even a layperson. It's not like they'd re-launch the platform with something like the 32GB and 64GB iPod touch, which look exactly like the 8GB model, except with vaguely "faster performance." They'd make a big deal out of it, call it "the new iPhone." And for people who wanted to keep the ultra-simple "At Ease" interface, there could be be a (3.5"x2.2"?) "iPhone mini," for $99 or whatever. All current iPhone apps and iPhone mini apps would still be able to run on "the new iPhone," it's just that the reverse wouldn't always be true.

Keep in mind that all this is still a couple of years out. I'd love to see it in 2010 but I really doubt we'll see anything that soon. But who knows - Apple's been on a roll lately, and they are facing stiff competition from Google (and, to a lesser extent, Palm).

Originally Posted by joveblue If they want to continue the pattern of 'fixing' the original iPhone, 2010 could be the year that they double battery life *fingers crossed*. Oh man I hope... There's plenty more they can do, too. The camera is decent but behind the competition and lacks flash. It could be a lot slimmer. The processor, RAM, and graphics could always use a bump, too, which is going to have to be done before we see multi-tasking background processes.

I don't know if we'd see another under-the-hood, "the processor is faster, for real this time" for a second year in a row, and I'm not sure if we need to (save that for the New iPhone, in 2011 ). In 2008, the big improvements were price, data speed, and being available on more carriers (worldwide). They can't well drop the price $200 again, but they might be able to boost data speed (21Mbps HSPA+ worldwide, 4G LTE in select markets?) and launch it on even more carriers. They're moving away from exclusivity contracts in most countries, such as in UK and Canada, but they're still exclusive to AT&T in the US. But that might change on the iPhone's third birthday...I think, now that they've more or less "fixed" the original iPhone, making it more available would be the easiest way to increase sales.

There could and should be some more tweaks, of course. I agree on the camera. I've been a champion for a better camera in the iPhone for a while...they upgraded it to 3MP, which let's be honest, they pretty much had to do. They matched the Pre and MyTouch, because 5MP cameras weren't quite commonplace in the US market...then. Virtually all the major US smartphone releases, this holiday season - the DROID, the CLIQ, and even the Behold 2 - have 5 MP cameras. They're no longer the stuff of special "camera-focused phones," they're on just regular consumer smartphones, and Apple should really match them (though I'm sure they still won't offer a flash). More importantly, though, I'm expecting them to support Apple's widescreen "iFrame" video standard - Apple didn't make that standard for Sanyo.

Originally Posted by joveblue Because there'll still be one primary development platform and the 7-10" can go the way of the iPod HiFi Also, they'd actually be targeting different markets. I dunno, I'm still a tablet-skeptic.

Yeah, the iPhone(s) would be targeting everyone, and the tablet would target...people who want a UMPC? At least we're in agreement on something.

Originally Posted by joveblue From the first iPod through the the current iPod classic/nano, the menu system has remained more or less the same, other than the addition of a few new options (photos, movies, etc.) and an album cover preview to fill in space.

Ahh, but you conveniently left off the iPod shuffle and (more importantly) the iPod touch.

Expect Apple to spin that mythical 2011 "new iPod" as the biggest upgrade to the iPod ever, even bigger than the iPod touch. They'll have that "more sophisticated, tablet-style UI" I describe reduced to one pithy word, like multi-touch (Multi-task?), which will become the buzzword for the new iPods (see "unibody"). Maybe they'll pull an OS X, and call it iPod OS V, I don't know. The point is, they'll make it a Big Deal. The iPod will complete its transition from media player to general-purpose pocket computer. No, it's not there yet - right now, it's in its awkward teenage years, or something.

[hmurchison]

I think we move to a larger screen.

People think Apple's work on Resolution Independence was because of large high rez desktop display but I believe the raison d'être
of RI is on smaller mobile devices where the UI needs to tailor itself for multiple screen sizes. Android 2.0 is doing this and Apple
isn't too far behind.

How they are going to accomplish the larger screen is easy to see. They can't do anything about the bezel because that's where the LCD
screen is getting its support. The area that they will modify to reap more space is removing the sole button on the face.

If you've seen the Magic Mouse in person you'll know that Apple is becoming fond of the "click" action that is on the Magic Mouse and the Glass Trackpad
where one side of the device can be depressed to "click".

I believe the next major iPod hardware refresh will cram in a larger LCD by simply making the edge of the iPod a clickable button. That gives u back a half inch
of LCD space. They may modify the top as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole face of the next major refresh to be nothing but screen. Imagine it the
"physical" manifestation of the Quicktime X interface with no buttons.

Now you have a 4" screen and begin to open up the ability to do more multitouch gestures.

[chucker]

(What's with the line breaks?)

Originally Posted by hmurchison Android 2.0 is doing this and Apple isn't too far behind.

Honestly, right now, iPhone OS is in fact very far behind on this compared to Android. Maybe 4.0 will radically change this, but I don't see it.

I believe the next major iPod hardware refresh will cram in a larger LCD by simply making the edge of the iPod a clickable button. That gives u back a half inch of LCD space. They may modify the top as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole face of the next major refresh to be nothing but screen. Imagine it the "physical" manifestation of the Quicktime X interface with no buttons.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see some higher density like the Droid has.

Now you have a 4" screen and begin to open up the ability to do more multitouch gestures.

How so?

[hmurchison]

Yeah the multitouch gestures would still be hard because we're not talking about widening the display area all that much.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Roboman I really don't see how you figure that making the screen 1.3" larger diagonally would require an extra inch of height and an extra half inch of width. Surely there's some space in the massive bezels above and below the display we could use?

Crude estimations holding a ruler up to my iPhone mainly. I've done some slightly more accurate estimations and it seems to be about 5" x 2.75", at least. I suppose that's amicable, but getting close to the border of "too big" IMO. My concern is that the gain in screen real estate is actually large enough to make it worthwhile ditching "legacy" equipment. The phone market is a very competitive place right now with a lot of players vying to establish their new platforms and I think Apple would rather hang on to market share than anything else over the next few years (look where Mac market share is!).

For now, the App Store is Apple's competitive advantage and they afford to upset that. Having "iPhone mini" apps appear on a larger screen surrounded by black pixels sounds distinctly un-Apple-like, and even worse would be if this encouraged developers to only make an "iPhone mini" app, and not bother with the iPhone XL (I'll use that name for sake of differentiation) app—which, let's face it, is exactly what would probably happen in this scenario. I'm guessing that the iPhone Mini would be the much more popular of the two by quite a way, just as the mini/nano has been the most popular iPod by far.

[Robo]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the dimensions. I would think that a one-inch increase in screen size, along with a new aspect ratio, would be significant enough "to make it worthwhile ditching 'legacy' equipment," which Apple is going to have to do anyway:

Originally Posted by joveblue For now, the App Store is Apple's competitive advantage and they afford to upset that.

They're going to have to upset the App(le) cart, eventually. Will the 2007 iPhone run 2012 iPhone apps? What about 2017 apps?

You're acting like keeping it so all iPhone apps ever will run on all iPhones ever is an option. It just isn't, long-term. I think it would be better to have a clean break, tied to an interface overhaul and screen change, than to leave it to individual developers to decide what levels of hardware performance are acceptable for which apps. Nobody is going to want to deal with system requirements on their phone.

Originally Posted by joveblue Having "iPhone mini" apps appear on a larger screen surrounded by black pixels sounds distinctly un-Apple-like,

I'm picturing more "centered atop a faded 'desktop,' with room for a nice ~20 pixel shadow all around it, a la Dashboard" here, though that obviously depends on the new interface having a "desktop."

Originally Posted by joveblue and even worse would be if this encouraged developers to only make an "iPhone mini" app, and not bother with the iPhone XL (I'll use that name for sake of differentiation) app—which, let's face it, is exactly what would probably happen in this scenario.

We could debate the pros and cons of keeping "the old platform" around, but let's face it: The "old platform" is going to be around, no matter what Apple does, because there will still be a lot of people using older iPhones who haven't upgraded yet, and developers will keep making apps for those users. The "iPhone mini" is really no different than what Apple did when they kept the iPhone 3G around at $99 or the older non-"S" iPod touch around at $199; it's just a question of degree (the 3G S wasn't as big of a change as "the new iPhone" would be). The "iPhone mini" would just be "last year's model" restyled, perhaps to demonstrate Apple's commitment to those users who want nothing more complicated than the current "At Ease" interface.

Originally Posted by joveblue I'm guessing that the iPhone Mini would be the much more popular of the two by quite a way, just as the mini/nano has been the most popular iPod by far.

Really? With the iPod nano/iPod classic, the iPod classic really doesn't have much over the iPod nano - just capacity - whereas the iPod nano has a smaller size going for it, and bright colors, "good enough" capacity, a lower price, &c. But I think the relationship between the iPhone mini and the iPhone would be totally different, and I think the phone/handheld computer market is totally different than the media player one.

I think they'd go after very different audiences, which is not the case for the iPod nano and iPod classic. But again, we could debate the pros and cons of a second iPhone model.

What confuses me is that you apparently don't seem to think that the iPhone will (or should) change at all...? All of your points are about how changing the screen size would be hard, or about how Apple should leave well enough alone, &c. But that's really not an option, I mean really. Do you think, 10 years from now, we'll still be using iPhones with 3.5" HVGA screens? What about in 20 years? Of course things will change - keeping the iPhone the same just because that's easier isn't at all an option (just ask Motorola). I guess I just see the change as inevitable, and think about how Apple would manage those transitions, rather than ask "will the iPhone interface ever change?" Because the answer to that one is, I would think, obvious.

[joveblue]

Change doesn't have to mean starting afresh. Change can mean evolution. New apps will take advantage of new hardware features, gradually leaving old phones behind. Much progress will be made. I'm not saying that it won't change at all. I'm just envisioning that the change will be different from the way you're envisioning it.

They put a lot of work into making the iPhone into what it is today and I think that the choices they made along the way were the right ones (with the long-term in mind) and I think they agree and are planning to evolve it gradually. I also think a unified development platform is the way to go for the foreseeable future. They seem to be working with that so far—the iPhone has been complimented by the iPod touch to further drive adoption of the one, unified platform, and personally I don't see the argument to split it in the next few years as compelling. And look where it's taken them: the iPhone is the de facto development platform in the mobile arena. If a company wants to make some sort of app, they make it for the iPhone and they focus on making it great. But it's not entrenched yet. It's going to take a couple of years for this market to settle down a little—most of the platforms are still finding their feet.

But then there's all these crazy tablet rumours which seem to be getting stronger by the day so maybe you're right and I'm wrong.

I think we'll agree to disagree .

[joveblue]

P.S. Try this: Hold your iPhone in one hand, with your thumb placed in the middle of the screen. Comfortable? Now, using the end of your thumb, tap all four corners of the screen. Depending how you're holding it and how big your hands are, you should be able to easily be able to tap all four corners, but not really beyond them. I think this is the result of very careful decision-making, not co-incidence.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by joveblue P.S. Try this: Hold your iPhone in one hand, with your thumb placed in the middle of the screen. Comfortable? Now, using the end of your thumb, tap all four corners of the screen. Depending how you're holding it and how big your hands are, you should be able to easily be able to tap all four corners, but not really beyond them. I think this is the result of very careful decision-making, not co-incidence.

Wow! I've never realized that. Even if all that bezel on top and bottom were screen, I really wouldn't be able to get to it without using 2 hands. Damn!

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue P.S. Try this: Hold your iPhone in one hand, with your thumb placed in the middle of the screen. Comfortable? Now, using the end of your thumb, tap all four corners of the screen. Depending how you're holding it and how big your hands are, you should be able to easily be able to tap all four corners, but not really beyond them. I think this is the result of very careful decision-making, not co-incidence.

Originally Posted by Maciej Wow! I've never realized that. Even if all that bezel on top and bottom were screen, I really wouldn't be able to get to it without using 2 hands. Damn!

But all that top and bottom bezel wouldn't be screen. The screen would simply extend one sixth of its current height in each direction, and grow slightly (40px) wider. I don't think that would destroy usability. There'd still be places to hold it, &c.

I don't know. I'll just say this: For being "the best iPod ever," the current iPhone screen really isn't that well-suited to media playback. I'd rather watch video on a Zune HD, to be honest. And there's so much room for it to grow, I really can't imagine Apple keeping it a 3.5" 3:2 HVGA display forever. They made the iMacs 16:9, they increased the screen size of the iPod nano, but they're going to keep the iPhone 3.5" forever, even as competitors eclipse it? I just don't buy that.

Considering, uh, every Apple product ever (save the iPod shuffle ) has increased in screen size, I think it's sort of silly to think that the iPhone and iPod will be somehow immune from that. But we can agree to disagree.

[Maciej]

Bigger is better. I have no problem with that - as long as it doesn't affect usability. I think I'm more on the side of growth, but don't have much opinion about how apple tackles the growing pains.