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

Larger screen does not mean larger phone
By name99 on 5/17/2012 6:03:25 PM , Rating: -1
"Steve Jobs was firm opponent to larger smartphones "

You do understand that
(a) a larger screen does not necessarily mean a larger phone?
(b) quoting Steve Jobs on the undesirability of a smaller iPad has nothing to do with iPhone screen size?




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.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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