backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on May 21 at 11:28 AM

Steve Jobs was firm opponent to larger smartphones or smaller tablets, said Android was making a mistake

Late Apple, Inc. (AAPL) CEO Steven P. Jobs once infamously launched into a rant about why Apple only offered two size screens in its mobile lineup -- a 3.5-inch smartphone and a 10-inch tablet.

He commented, "The reason we wouldn't make a 7-inch tablet isn't because we don't want to hit a price point, it's because we don't think you can make a great tablet with a 7-inch screen.  The 7-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.  [Increasing screen resolution on small devices is] meaningless, unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of the present size."

"There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touch screen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them.  This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps."

But with Mr. Jobs' passing, it appears Apple is finally on the verge of following in Android's footsteps and giving many of its customers what they want -- a larger screen.

Reuters has offered confirmation from unnamed sources that the Wall Street Journal's report regarding a 4+ inch iPhone was accurate.  The sources confirm that Apple placed a large order on displays that "will measure 4 inches from corner to corner."

The Reuters report suggests that orders were placed with both South Korean and Japanese display providers, suggesting Apple is looking for a quick turnaround -- all signs pointing to hardware for a soon-to-launch product.

A 4-inch display would give the iPhone 30 percent more space and would help Apple keep up with Android and offer options for users with larger, less pixiesque fingers.

Of course these are just rumors, but it sounds like pretty much everyone is sure that Apple will be bumping its screen size after long admonishing Android for its diverse lineup of larger screen smartphones and mini-tablets.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Deja Vu. We must be in the Matrix
By tayb on 5/17/2012 6:44:43 PM , Rating: 1
It seems like this article appeared just a few days ago...

But... I take it from the lack of Steve Jobs iPhone quotes that he never did actually say that he thought 4" phones were too big and that Android was making a mistake making 4" phones. Thinking a 7" tablet is stupid is not an uncommon opinion. I completely agree with that.

I think Steve Jobs did realize that phones CAN be too big without a UI or hardware redesign. A 4" screen isn't a big issue but if the hardware makes the top of the 4" screen so far away from the bottom that I have to re-position my hand to swipe down for notifications it IS an issue. I still don't understand why no one has copied Microsoft's bottom URL approach or why you can't swipe UP to see the notification bar.




RE: Deja Vu. We must be in the Matrix
By Mr_Armageddon on 5/18/2012 11:39:39 AM , Rating: 6
Actually, Jobs was pretty adamant that 4in and larger phones were a mistake, and that "no one’s going to buy" these "Hummer" phones.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-go...

Looks like with Steve out of the way, Apple is seeing that people want larger screens, as they are much easier to use, especially for people that have large hands and fingers like I do. The GSIII is a great example of a large screen with a relatively small bezel / profile.


RE: Deja Vu. We must be in the Matrix
By Solandri on 5/18/2012 5:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Like most visionaries, Jobs was pretty egotistical and narcissistic. He figured a 3.5" screen on a phone was perfect for himself, therefore it must be perfect for everyone else.

The real solution here is that you need 2.5" screens, 3.5" screens, 4" screens, and 4.5" screens, if not more. Each person has their own individual preference. The way the market works is that the buyers dictate to the sellers what they want, and the seller works to accommodate them. A business model based on the seller dictating to the buyer what they must buy is never going to capture most of the market.


RE: Deja Vu. We must be in the Matrix
By PrinceGaz on 5/19/2012 4:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Each person might have their own individual preference for screen sizes etc, but that does not mean that they know which size is actually best for them.

The optimal size for a smartphone screen until recently was 3.5" but with changing usage models is now 4" which is why Apple is responding to this change with a new iPhone perfectly matching everyone's ideal requirements.


By augiem on 5/20/2012 3:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
Changing usage models, lol. Come on, you're gonna tell me surfing the web on a 3.5 inch phone was EVER optimal? Is that why everyone had to make an app our of their websites so people wouldn't be frustrated using them on iPhones. And is that why apple included automatic text upscaling in Safari that web designers have to manually disable through a special css command? When the phone came out they claimed it you could surf the REAL web and not some special mobile version, but ultimately everyone had to tailor their sites to the puny screen anyway adding yet another layer of crud web desginers have to keep up with.

The day jobs died I KNEW Apple would IMMEDIATELY begin their breakdown and have to start giving customers the one thing they denied them for so long -- choices. 7" ipad and 4" smartphone are just the first things on the list.


By GotThumbs on 5/21/2012 11:28:54 AM , Rating: 3
Visionary? You mean Cult leader. That more of an accurate title for Jobs IMO. He thought He knew what was best for everyone. "Your holding it wrong!" Clearly he felt many of his consumers were idiots and have to have their hands held through life. Why else would Apple have such a controlling ecosystem. You buy their HW and are forced to use their software and buy from their market. Zero chance for personal choice.

Its not nice to say, but I'm honestly glad He's no longer with us.


By retrospooty on 5/18/2012 5:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, 9 million pre-orders for the Galaxy S3 is a whole lot of 4.8 inch phones.

http://www.techspot.com/news/48646-samsung-galaxy-...

And that doesnt even count US's largest carrier, Verizon.


Design infringement
By chmilz on 5/17/2012 5:55:58 PM , Rating: 5
Copying 4+" screens is infringement. Ban all Apple products everywhere forever. I mean, it's only fair.




RE: Design infringement
By bupkus on 5/18/2012 12:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
What? No comments about this post?


RE: Design infringement
By DrChemist on 5/18/2012 12:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. They can claim design patents on android devices clearly point to a larger than 4+" screen and should ban them relentlessy for copying their design of thin bezel large 4+" screens. LOL

Actually Samsung could say something if the bezel is very small as it's new SIII applies this. Yay for the patent system of crap. This war will never end.


RE: Design infringement
By Rukkian on 5/18/2012 5:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
I actually see it going this way - Apple comes out with a 4" i*hone and then patents the number 4 on a cell phone and trys to ban all android phones that have a 4 in the their specs.


Apple fans need to soak in that headline...
By jnemesh on 5/18/2012 11:03:25 AM , Rating: 1
"Apple aims to follow Android..." Get used to it guys! Apple is no longer leading in ANY meaningful way. They will be "following Android" from here on out!




RE: Apple fans need to soak in that headline...
By Tony Swash on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
By jnemesh on 5/18/2012 12:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's for now. Without NEW, TRULY INNOVATIVE products shipping, their market share will continue to slide.

Here's another great stat for you. Samsung's Galaxy S III has 9 MILLION pre-orders so far, excluding ANY US pre-orders, and there is still 2 weeks left before launch!

Again, unless the ghost of Jobs comes back to get things going, I dont see Apple going anywhere but down from here.


By DrChemist on 5/18/2012 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apple pays ~$200-250 per iPhone. They charge well over $700+. In the US the carrier subsidizes most of it. That's a huge profit margin. That is why they are a bubble company in my opinion. Ride the train for a while and make some money. But when the bubble bursts the shares will slide. Saturation and loss will happen in the next 5 years.

Other manufacturers will sell them with a smaller profit margin to sell more as they don't get as much subsidies from the carriers and have to work with them on price more. Not to mention they don't have an undying farm of iSheep buying every turd that comes out of Jobs dead behind.

Why do you think AT&T has come out and said that subsidies for the iPhone are killing them for making a profit. In fact they are pushing the Nokia Lumia 900 so much because of it since the phone is inexpensive and still a fast phone.


Caution
By Dorkyman on 5/18/2012 10:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
I used to work for Apple. I am very familiar with zealotry.

This JobsWorship means when Apple crashes one day (and it most certainly will) it will crash hard.




Relax
By flyingpants1 on 5/18/2012 9:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
4 / 3.5 = ~1.14

A 4" screen is just over 14% larger diagonally than a 3.5" screen. That's 12.7mm.

The aspect ratio of the iPhone screens seems to be 1.5:1.

12.7mm^2 = 10.57^2 + 7.04mm^2
161.29mm = 111.7249mm + 49.5616mm

If my retard math is correct, the width of the screen will increase by about 7mm, and the height by about 10.57mm.

Which means Apple only has to add 7mm in width to the iPhone to account for a 4" screen. Or even less than that, if they make the bezel a little thinner.

So you can all relax.




Seriously
By EnzoFX on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/17/2012 6:43:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I agree with the other comments. I think you have to be reaching to get on their case about not making different screen sizes before.
Not getting on their case, just acknowledging Jobs' well known preference for having only two screen sizes.

I'm not alone in acknowledging that:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/17/iphone_5_4...
quote:
Steve Jobs, who died late last year after battling cancer, was reluctant to have a range of different screen sizes because it could make apps and web pages render badly, and the temperamental CEO was famously keen on whittling down product lines.
http://www.cultofmac.com/141641/more-chatter-that-...
quote:
Which brings me to the question of ‘What Would Steve Do?’ Jobs detested tiny tablet screens, saying consumers would have to sand down their fingertips in order to move objects. The opposite would likely be true for larger smartphone screens. The 3.5-inch display is perfect for the average human hand — anything larger and using the screen literally becomes a reach.

So, will the next iPhone have a larger screen? Probably. But we’re unlikely to see an iPhone with a 4-inch screen. Which is how Apple has always kept ahead of its opponents, by zigging when everyone else is zagging.
http://gizmodo.com/5859076/did-steve-jobs-kill-the...
quote:
But what is interesting is their buried claim that the iPhone 5 was spiked because Jobs thought a new, differing screen size would ruin the iPhone line. It'd fragment it. It'd Android-ize it—and anything resembling Android would be anathema to Jobs.


But by all means, don't let me stop the complain train... continue on.


RE: Seriously
By EnzoFX on 5/17/2012 7:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say you were getting on their case. It was in anticipation of all the typical useless comments on here, such as "I thought 3.5" was forever perfect" or to that effect, etc.


RE: Seriously
By EnzoFX on 5/17/2012 7:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
and there's nothing wrong with that preference if you think about the big picture. Smartphones are relatively young, they chose a focused effort, and it's paid off. Maybe now they can branch out. Until then, evolution makes sense. If Jobs were around, I'm sure the iPhone would see an evolution sooner or later under his direction no less.


RE: Seriously
By Tony Swash on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By name99 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By macdevdude on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By insurgent on 5/17/2012 7:01:14 PM , Rating: 1
Your messiah is dead, and Apple will be going the way of the dodo as it should, or at least go back to a niche market.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By Commodus on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
By TakinYourPoints on 5/18/2012 6:08:33 AM , Rating: 1
Free but half-ass isn't what I'd call ideal. Commodus was spot-on with his post, you need both companies to keep each other honest.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By Tony Swash on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
By Pirks on 5/17/2012 8:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
Being doomed is in Apple's DNA, don't you guys foget about that.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 9:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
Tony, isn't Microsoft the reason that Apple is still alive now?

Define "largest tech company."
It seems to me that is not something that is measurable by one metric alone.

also, i don't see apple getting much larger while losing market share in their smartphone and tablet market. You have to consider saturation, and all.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By Tony Swash on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 12:31:27 PM , Rating: 5
No..

uh, try again, tony. Apple was about to fold when microsoft gave them 150,000,000 $ as "an investment."

So basically, what you're saying is growth + RONA = size of a company.

Are you high?

IBM and Oracle are far larger companies, even if not as profitable. Same goes for LG, Samsung, and Motorola.

Things you're not taking into consideration:
#of sites, site size, # of employee's on payroll, etc.

Oooh, apple is the most profitable company ever!! That's nice. Do you think they got that way from giving you a deal, or by robbing you, and everyone else they can, blind?

Astronomical markup on product and selling someone "being a part of something" and "the experience" is utter crap.

Step away from the keyboard, Tony, you've posted yourself retarded. Take that clown macdevdude with you.


By TakinYourPoints on 5/18/2012 8:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
uh, try again, tony. Apple was about to fold when microsoft gave them 150,000,000 $ as "an investment."


Apple had $1.5 billion in cash and a $3 billion market cap at the time of the deal. The $150 million in stock were limited non-voting shares that were created by diluting existing shares.

In other words, the "investment" was funny money created out of thin air and was barely a blip compared to the actual cash on hand that Apple had.

The actual important parts of the deal had nothing to do with the "investment". First is that Microsoft dedicated to continue developing Office and IE for the Mac. It helped put confidence back on a platform that was in real trouble (this was 1000x more important than imaginary cash). The second thing is that lawsuits against Microsoft were dropped by Apple, also very important given that MS was in serious trouble with the DOJ.

The significance of the "investment" was one of marketing, it was a way for both companies to save face. It was something that the every day common person with no real knowledge could latch onto, and 15 years later it still seems to be working.

As for being "ripped off", not really, an iPhone costs about the same to the consumer as a high end phone running Android. Where Apple gets profit is being far more efficient than everyone else. Apple produces fewer hardware models in much higher volume than the competition. This drives their wholesale and component prices very low, how else can they sell tablets for about the same price as everyone else with much better SoCs and displays while still getting more profit? Same with something like an MBA compared to a comparable ultrabook. Even an iMac with its 27" IPS display is a better deal than competing all-in-ones. Before it was discontinued, the Dell XPS One was more expensive with slower internals and an inferior display.

Their profitability ties in huge with their efficiency, limited product lines, and buying up components in massive quantities years in advance.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By DrChemist on 5/18/2012 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Tony, isn't Microsoft the reason that Apple is still alive now? Tony: No


Ohhh Tony. Tisk, Tisk. Yet again words and no proof. Here you go. Microsoft saves Apple with quote and link below. Yet another explosion of crap from Tony's virtual keyboard on his on a 3.5" white turd.

"Just 13 years ago, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy.
But then – worried that it would be viewed as a monopoly without competition from Apple – Microsoft came to Apple's rescue with a $150 million investment.
Had that not happened the world may never have seen iPods, iPads, iPhones or iMacs."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-comeback-stor...


By TakinYourPoints on 5/19/2012 3:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Alyson Shontell doesn't know her history


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By retrospooty on 5/18/2012 1:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Most profitable
Highest market valuation
Highest revenue
Largest cash horde
Fastest rate of growth "


All this relates to profit, not size. Apple makes toys and if they were to stop all production, the world would go on without missing a beat. If MS were to suddenly shut down, the entire worlds ecomomy would crash. Even Apple wouldnt be able to make anything, becasue all of the plants that make all of the ipod/pad/phone and Macs ALL run 100% of their business on PC's. Apple isnt 1/100th the "size" of Microsoft. They are currently more profitable though. Good for them, and good for the industry, but dont mitake thier profit for importance or size.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By Tony Swash on 5/18/2012 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All this relates to profit, not size. Apple makes toys and if they were to stop all production, the world would go on without missing a beat. If MS were to suddenly shut down, the entire worlds ecomomy would crash. Even Apple wouldnt be able to make anything, becasue all of the plants that make all of the ipod/pad/phone and Macs ALL run 100% of their business on PC's. Apple isnt 1/100th the "size" of Microsoft. They are currently more profitable though. Good for them, and good for the industry, but dont mitake thier profit for importance or size.


You keep posting this stuff, it must be very reassuring. Living in a world where Apple is so much bigger than Microsoft must be quite disorientating for you. I understand. Now that Apple's iPhone business is bigger than Microsoft's entire business the world must seem an odd place to you. I bet Steve Ballmer wished he hadn't laughed at the iPhone in public. He's such a clown.

Not really sure what your point is? Are you arguing that Microsoft is bigger than Apple using some sort of invisible and unmeasurable metric, some special and nebulous 'bigness' factor that MS will forever have and Apple never will? A sort of special pixie dust that MS has more of than Apple? Feel free to believe such things if it makes you happy.

quote:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
  - Philip K. Dick


By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 2:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Tony, just because you say it, doesn't mean it's accurate, or truth. Also, Apple's iphone business is bigger than microsoft as a whole? are you high? Have you ever heard of an Xbox 360? The Kinect project alone probably has more engineers on it than Apple did on the iphone.

Enjoy your delusions of grandeur.

You are so far from reality, it's disturbing.


By retrospooty on 5/18/2012 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
"I understand. Now that Apple's iPhone business is bigger than Microsoft's entire business the world must seem an odd place to you."

LOL, you are so one sided that you cant even comprehend someone that is not. My point is that Apple isnt "big" at all. Apple is highly profitable, but a relatively small company. You WAY overplay their importance, but then again, You are TS. What else would you do with your day if not overhyping Apple and defending their every move.

"I bet Steve Ballmer wished he hadn't laughed at the iPhone in public. He's such a clown."

True dat. LOL.

"Are you arguing that Microsoft is bigger than Apple using some sort of invisible and unmeasurable metric, some special and nebulous 'bigness' factor that MS will forever have and Apple never will"

??? unmeasurable ??? The entire world runs off MS's software inclusing every Apple maufacturing facility from the parts procurement, to logistics to accounting to shop floor, CRM, it goes on an on. MS does that all and supports it on an open platform with support staff on call to help businesses keep running. There isnt a comparison, MS far bigger , yes. If not for MS, there wouldnt be an Apple.

As far as Apple, like I have said, I am glad for their existence and success. It's hard for you to understand someone that isnt totally biased like you but I do think they have GREATLY improved the smartphone market. If not for the iPhone, Android and Winmobile wouldnt be so great. If not for Mac OSX Win 7 wouldnt be so great. They push better products to market and force everyone else to raise the bar. The latest great thing is high res screens. Now, because of Apple's product decisions we will all be getting better higher res screens on all of our products. But lets not make it like the world depends on Apple, because in the end they just make toys. MS makes business flow and keeps food in your belly and mine.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 10:37:57 AM , Rating: 1
Apple went with a smaller screen because smaller screen = less battery drain at the hands of the display and they're cheaper to manufacture. The drain hasn't really changed though both android and ios have come a long way as far as OS optimization, along with (and i use the term loosely) "smarter" hardware. because of this, going to a larger screen isn't nearly as much of a hindrance as it was. This seems to be in line with creating more real-estate to drop a 4G radio in(way to go, apple, you're only 2 years behind everyone else) and a larger battery to offset the draw.

also, macdevdude. Do me a favor, find someone with an amoled display and walk outside with them. in clear daylight, you tell me which screen is 1000x easier to read.

plenty of manufacturers have been "doing a larger display right". as far as lcd non pentile displays, the HTC holds that title with the highest PPI of any phone on the market. as far as amoled screens go, i'm not certain who has the highest ppi currently.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By zephyrprime on 5/18/2012 2:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they do have LED backlight so that let's then get away with a bigger screen versus the first gen iphone which I presume had a ccfl backlight?


By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 8:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
granted, led backlights use less energy, but it's still scales with display size. Sorry, that's what i was trying to get at.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By sprockkets on 5/17/2012 8:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
(a) That is true, they could reduce the bezel. But any increase in size on the screen would mean an increase in resolution to make sure they keep up with the marketing crap of "retina".

(b) There are rumors of a 7" ipad. Just rumors. Just sayin.


RE: Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By testerguy on 5/18/2012 1:57:29 AM , Rating: 1
'Retina' has a real scientific meaning - that being the level of pixels required such that the human eye can't distinguish the pixels at normal viewing distance.

It's therefore not 'crap', to call it so is just ignorant.

I don't see how any increase in resolution would contradict anything said in the post you replied to or the article, you would assume they would bump up the resolution if they were using larger screens.

Rumours are rumours.


By Bubbacub on 5/18/2012 2:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
is not going to work.
if they go to a larger screen without increasing the resolution they can't claim to have a 'retina' display.

if they increase the resolution by anything other than a factor of two then a whole load of iphone 4 apps will stop working due to resolution scaling problems.

maybe they will get a 1920 x 1280 4 inch phone screen. if they do then it will definitely be overkill in a screen that small.


By GuinnessKMF on 5/18/2012 7:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
'Retina' does not have real scientific meaning, the human eye can see DPI well beyond what Apple is claiming as a 'Retina' display, and different individuals do perceive it differently.

I get annoyed by the whole 'Retina' marketting because it acts like there's no point in going further, personally I do not want them to stop there (so yeah, I'm being selfish about it).


By Solandri on 5/18/2012 6:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'Retina' has a real scientific meaning - that being the level of pixels required such that the human eye can't distinguish the pixels at normal viewing distance.

I've underlined why your definition is not scientific. Put a number on "normal" viewing distance and it can be scientific. But then your definition is invalid if the phone is held at any closer distance. That's why a "retina" display is just a marketing gimmick. For something to be a true "retina" display, it has to have angular resolution higher than the eye's at all viewing distances.

Also, there's a lot more going on with vision than just angular resolution. Off the top of my head: color perception has different resolution, there's binocular vision to enhance resolution, edge enhancement to trick your brain into thinking there's more resolution (the "sharpness" setting on TVs does this). e.g. NTSC and JPEG take advantage of your lower color resolution to pack a picture into fewer bits without (perceptibly) degrading image quality.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki