Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
It's early yet, but I wanted a place to discuss what the iPhone 4S means for future iPhones, and also a place to respond to some of Gruber's "Thoughts and Observations," without taking the iPhone 4S thread off-topic.
There's different ways to view Apple's "re-use" of the iPhone 4 design. One is that Apple is settling into a cycle of using each iPhone design for two generations. This is Gruber's conclusion: Quote:
There's another Apple product pattern. It's been around longer, and it's longer-term. That pattern is this: Apple (and by "Apple" I mean "after-Jobs-came-back Apple") enters a new market, or makes an-after-Jobs-came-back model of an existing product for the first time, and we start counting there. The first few product generations tend to be more experimental, and very different from each other, but eventually Apple finds what works and they stick with it, and the design changes become much more subtle refinements. The iBook and PowerBook G3 hit this point comparatively early — they both had curvy initial models, but with the PowerBook G4 and iBook they found what worked, and they spend the next decade refining their squared-off metal and plastic notebooks. Nowhere was the "early experimentation" phase more evident than with the iMac. The iMac G3 and G4 and G5 were wildly different from each other, but by the time we got to the G5 that phase has ended and the "where did the computer go" iMac stuck around for the next seven years and counting, getting nips and tucks more than ground-up rethinkings. The iPod (classic) took four generations. Apple went from a mechanical scroll wheel to a touch-sensitive scroll wheel to a model with the buttons all in a row under the screen, but by the time they got to the click wheel they had it. They added a color screen and video playback and a metal front, but the iPod classic is still largely the same concept seven years later (again, and counting). It's, well, classic. I think, with the fifth model, the iPhone has (coincidentally, or not?) ended its G3-G4-G5 phase. The potential shapes of the iPhone are more limited than that of the iMac, so the experimentation phase wasn't as crazy as the iMac's, but I'd still consider the weirdly plastic 3G/3GS the oddball iMac G4 of the range. I think the iPhone 4's antennae design was a watershed moment, analogous to the PowerBook G4 Titanium, and I think Apple will stick with it, and refining it. They'll make it a tad thinner, or narrower. But I think the multi-piece, squared-off, antennas-on-the-outside design is here to stay for the foreseeable future. They're not going to suddenly switch to a two-piece, curved-at-the-edges, iPod/iPad-style design — except maybe as a new low-end, prepaid-targeting model that would take over for the (two-piece, curved-at-the-edges) iPhone 3GS. But that raises the question: if Apple's not planning on giving the iPhone design anything more than minor tweaks, why "demote" the minor-tweaked iPhone 4S by calling it the 4S? "For Steve" is cute, but that doesn't seem likely. The answer is I don't know. It's not terribly important, but if Apple is getting to the point where they're not going to majorly rethink the iPhone's form factor, they shouldn't train people to expect that from each "true" iPhone n+1. Maybe the iPhone 5 will keep the iPhone 4's squared-off design, but drastically change the face of the product in other ways. (Segue!) The rest of this post is responding to Gruber's points about screen size, so if that bores you, move along. Quote:
The argument that they will or should can basically be summed up as "one size doesn't fit all." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And Apple's other input devices have never seemed to have had ergonomics as their highest priority. Quote:
Gruber is better than this. Quote:
I guess moving from having one screen size to having two would, technically, make the iPhone slightly more like Android. (Not nearly as much as iOS 5's notification center does, but I digress.) It's a question of finding a happy balance. Would having two screen sizes lead to Android-style rampant fragmentation? I don't think so. Maybe that's what Gruber thinks, but he's not actually arguing that. He's just saying "it'd be more like Android!" and leaving it at that. Like I said, there's good arguments to be made against having two screen sizes — I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on the idea — but Gruber isn't actually making them. He's not doing the work. 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
|
Quote:
Of course, this is assuming Apple continues to use previous iPhone models as their lower-end models, which isn't a bulletproof assumption. and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
|
‽
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Of course it is! My bad.
Quote:
|
|
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I just still don't see any good reason to believe that the iPhone will not ever change in this way, and I think a lot of the reasons Gruber used to dismiss it out of hand were bullshit. Like I said, there is an argument to be made against it; I just wish Gruber had done a better job of making it. If I'm obsessed with anything, it's calling out bullshit when I see it. It's why I post here so much |
|
‽
|
Quote:
Quote:
It does seem like changing the iPhone's screen size is near and dear to your heart, though… |
||
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
I should note that I'm not disagreeing with Gruber's central thesis. He's essentially looking at the disappointed reactions to the 4S and asking, "What more did you people want?" He's asking why the hell people are disappointed, besides the not-5 name.
I'm not disappointed with the iPhone 4S. I think it's the best phone in the world, hands down, and I'd buy one if my network carried it. I'm not saying it will flop because it has a 3.5" screen. But instead of arguing why the 4S kept the same screen size, Gruber seems to be arguing that all iPhones will, which strikes me as a really good way to be wrong. (He also misrepresents the other argument, which strikes me as disingenuous and not up to his usual standard.) Quote:
Idunno. I'd sort of like to be involved in the creation of iPhone games, someday, and I guess I'd like to have a wider canvas upon which to paint. I mean, a 4.5" screen...that's PlayStation Vita territory. I think a wider window could make the experience more immersive. The holy grail is a console-quality experience, not just in specs and performance but also in immersion and production values, and I think a wider window to the game world could help complete that experience. You're free to disagree, of course. And I understand why people value compactness, too. That's why I view it as an expansion of the line-up. I'm not saying Apple will make 4.5" the One True Screen Size, just that I don't think 3.5" will always be the same. |
|
‽
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really see myself watching movies long enough for aspect ratio to matter on that small a screen. Short YouTube clips, sure, but anything more meaningful wouldn't feel immersive enough to me. I've tried. |
|||
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Adding a second screen size would be the most radical change to the product line yet. It would literally change the face of the product, in a way that would be immediately obvious even to people who had only seen pictures of the iPhone before. If the larger screen had a different aspect ratio or pixel count, it would require developers to choose to support it, and whether to only support it. There would be two iPhones. It would split the app base in an unprecedented way. The argument against it, the one Gruber doesn't quite make, is that Apple should never do this, that the gains don't outweigh the cost in added complexity. And it's entirely possible Apple views things that way — there's a convincing argument to be made, there. But the counter-argument is that the phone market is massive, certainly large enough to support two substantially different Apple products that target different segments. After all, the phone market is far larger than the notebook market or audio player market ever was, and Apple makes multiple MacBooks and non-iOS iPods to target different segments. So, idunno. Apple's pretty smart, and if they decide to stick with 3.5" forever, I'm sure they'll have reasons. But I know what what I'd like them to do, and I think there's a case to be made for it. But anyway. I want to talk about something else now There's really not anything missing from the current iPhone, or even the 3GS, which is why Apple will have to continue "inventing" new key features, like FaceTime and Siri. This might not be as exciting as those two, but I think an area that is ripe for some Apple magic is NFC. Everybody still views this as just being about mobile payments, which to me is about as shortsighted as thinking the cloud is just a hard disk in the sky. Tap-to-pair for accessories seems like it has the "just works" qualities Apple values, but I'm also thinking tap-to-share for files. If you think about it, it's still surprisingly difficult to just give a file to someone — most people use email, even if they're standing right there. That seems like crossing a river by going the other way around the world, to me. There's got to be a better way. and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
|
Veteran Member
|
I view this issue from a slightly different perspective.
The crutch here isn't dogmatic refusal to use larger screens. It's more rooted in legacy. Keeping the same design for a couple of years allows your accessories market to recoup their production investment. The next is the tether. While we remain tethered to physical interfaces like sync cables and dock adapters we will be funneled into static hardware designs. The move is already underway to rectify this and once it's complete the size of the iOS device matters not. With iOS 5 we've eradicated the need for sync cables via Wifi Sync/iCloud backup With Airplay we've eradicated the need for physical audio cables. What's needed now is the replication of all dock functionality other than power over a wireless technology replete with control and metadata. The future looks like this: I come home...I place my my iPhone or iPad tablet into any of the power receptacle to charge it. These devices report to the home network and broadcast their services. In my bedroom my iHome clock sends/receives music data as well as my alarms to the devices. My Apple TV sends/receives much more data because it subscribes to many more services. Everything is tied to gather by Bluetooth, Wifi and other technologies. Once this happens I've eliminated all need for the dock to be anything more than a power receptacle and I've neatly sidestepped the need to provide a specific form factor for my devices. HM omgwtfbbq |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
|
I disagree. The dock connector doesn't really do anything much to dictate the shape of a device. And Apple have done plenty of shit that makes the previous year's accessories incompatible because something's moved a couple of millimetres etc. They really just don't care about legacy support at all. Their accessories manufacturers are probably happy that they get to sell us new shit every year because not everything is forwards compatible.
|
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I wonder if it's something as simply/silly as trying to keep the iPhone and iPod touch development (pretty much the same, I suppose) neat and tidy?
When the iPad was introduced, that created a new, larger 1024x767 9.7" screen that required developers to re-purpose their marquee apps if they wanted on that gravy train (face it...nobody wants to do the 2x thing (it's fuzzy) and it's silly to run an iPhone-sized app in the middle of an iPad screen. The iPad coming out was the first bit of new, extra work many developers had to do in a while (if they wanted a native, built-for-iPad app to offer). That was the first deviation from the 3.5" iPhone/iPod touch sizes, and it's taken some companies forever to come around (some still haven't...Facebook, which I find odd). Anyway, I'm just thinking of it from a control/approval/neatness standpoint, how it's easy for people to create apps to run on two, same-sized devices and cover a lot of ground. I know there's a difference between the original iPhone/iPod touch displays and the current Retina Display-equipped ones. Things ran okay, but replacing some graphics here and there certainly helped. But if things go to 4", 4.3" or whatever (possibly with different aspect ratios to boot), then you're branching out again, and you're just going to have a borderline c.f. in the store. I know it's not impossible, but you can't tell me that it wouldn't introduce a layer of complexity (or outright confusion) to some. Maybe that's just something Apple isn't prepared to get into? Because it'll ultimately fall back on them as well, in many ways. And a bit of additional, tedious work for developers and designers who may not be able to sell these again, so there's no big payoff on the backend? |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
If they change screen sizes, I think there's only one way to do it: keep the width the 640 pixels it currently is, and add to the length's 960 pixels.
This means that even apps designed explicitly for the 3:2 ratio would work fine, they'd just be pillar boxed. Most current games would end up like this. However, I'd think apps like Safari, Mail, etc, which have controls at the top or bottom, would work with little trouble--the viewport would just be expanded, and the controls would still stay locked to the top and bottom. You can't do 16:9 evenly with 640 pixels in height. 1.85:1 would work out obviously, and is close enough to 16:9 that most people wouldn't notice. |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
Re: screen sizes
A 6'0" friend of mine is saying that 4.5" screen phones aren't comfortable in her hand in an ongoing Facebook wall post, so to each his/her own. Basically she was an iPhone basher, but is now leaning toward the 4S because her priorities are 1) call quality, 2) camera quality, 3) processor power and 4) "something that won't have problems functioning 3 months after I buy it." About half the people in the conversation are telling her to get a Nexus Prime instead. -- Personally, I find the current size/form of the iPhone perfect for my needs. I keep my keys, wallet and phone in my front pants pockets unless I'm wearing a sports coat or jacket. I don't want to walk around with a 5" tall phone in one pocket and the wallet in the other, both producing noticeable outlines around my pockets. |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home
|
Though about you guys when I saw the article. http://m.gizmodo.com/5847981/this-is...s-be-35-inches
I like the thumb graph... It's pretty self-explanatory Dave Mustaine :"God created whammy bars for people who don't know how to solo." |
‽
|
So, I wrote entirely too much on this and still feel like I haven't covered every angle, but if anyone cares about my thoughts…
(Some elements on the page may require Safari 5.1, iOS 5 or Chrome.) |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
Not satisfied with Curtis's total disregard for scale, I made my own.
4.5" iPhone vs 4.96" Galaxy S II. I retained the relatively centered thumb positioning even though NOBODY holds their phone with their thumb gyrating around the middle of the vertical axis. The half-circle on the Galaxy S II might look bigger, but that is an optical illusion...they are identical. Last edited by Eugene : 2011-10-09 at 11:48. |
‽
|
Quote:
The default position for me is to grip the back comfortably with the four fingers, then have the thumb hover roughly an inch over its display. This lets me reach its home button, as well as the entire screen. I can't do multi-touch gestures (duh), but pretty much anything else. |
|
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
The default one-handed position for me is with the bottom corner of the phone cradled in by the palm area below the thumb. The thumb itself is shifted to the bottom quarter of the screen since that is where the most important UI elements are...on-screen keyboard, home button, unlock slider, etc. I can't imagine trying to spin my thumb to the home button with if I held the phone the way the images suggest.
|
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
Or do you hold it like this so it pivots from the center? This feels terribly awkward and uncomfortable to me. That said, Gizmodo's half-circle "coverage" images are obviously total rubbish. Nobody holds the device and has their thumb craned in a way that would actually permit reaching those whole areas. The joints simply don't bend comfortably that far. The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting. |
|
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 4 5 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 |