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

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.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














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