Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

a0me

macrumors 65816
Oct 5, 2006
1,074
166
Tokyo, Japan
Or not. I've used every OEM's phone of this size range and don't have any trouble carrying them around. Either do other people.
Maybe if you have giant pockets, because if you don't:

ham9.JPG

attachment.php


I couldn't find any pics with suit trousers, for some reason.

Once again. False. When I use the 4" iPhone to read pdf's for schematics that I have to do, it's more painful to use than the Note 3 that I'm currently using. So much easier to read and use (and write on for that matter) than the iPhone 5S I have.
Nice for you but again, this is just your opinion. I have tried the same thing (not with schematics though) and frankly the difference is just not that significant.

----------

It has not made sense because you refuse to understand! A 5.5" iPhone will have a screen almost 100% bigger not 1.5".

Thats like saying I don't know why someone would buy a 16" pizza for 14$ when an 8" pizza are 10$ for two. They are so dumb and I can't see why they are paying 4$ more for no reason.

The answer is simple grade school geometry, for $4 more you get twice the amount of pizza.

For an extra 1.5" you get an 88% bigger screen!
I've tried a lot of different phablets and a screen that's 88% bigger than a small screen is still small. Movies still look like crap, spreadsheets are still mostly unusable.
 

recklesslife85

Cancelled
Sep 17, 2012
462
170
So its that much bigger and Apple can only fit a 1800+ battery in it? Must have really bad indesign or its a fake and all the information so called leaked so far is fake.. Or Ive has lost it.
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!

400ppi is interesting, but the article seems to imply this is just another opinion and not hard facts.

----------

It's for color checking. What's it gotta do with resolution? You're always this confused?

Surely not everyone carry iPad with them all the time? You shouldn't talk about things you have no idea about.

For resolution, I have talked about the basic of it here already. I won't recap it here. Just click the link to read. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/19506081/

That's Apple vs Orange. That's normal res vs retina res. What we're talking here is retina res. vs beyond retina res.

That read to me as though you are trying to ignore my questions, and your also telling me that for professional use you use an iPhone over an iPad? Ok.
You can try twist it back, but let me know when you have actually used a higher res mobile phone screen, then come back and comment.
 

mrarick

macrumors newbie
Aug 25, 2014
8
9
Developers won't like it

From a developer perspective, these numbers don't add up. I can see how pixel densities affect manufacturing, but all the discussions about screen size that revolve around home screen icons are ridiculous. What developers care about is how their app will scale. That's why 1704x960 (3x) makes the most sense. There's a good article on 9to5Mac explaining this.

BTW, when did we start listing displays a HxW? Screen dimensions, image dimensions, etc. have always been listed as WxH (i.e. 960x1704).
 

heisenberg123

macrumors 603
Oct 31, 2010
6,496
9
Hamilton, Ontario
From a developer perspective, these numbers don't add up. I can see how pixel densities affect manufacturing, but all the discussions about screen size that revolve around home screen icons are ridiculous. What developers care about is how their app will scale. That's why 1704x960 (3x) makes the most sense. There's a good article on 9to5Mac explaining this.

BTW, when did we start listing displays a HxW? Screen dimensions, image dimensions, etc. have always been listed as WxH (i.e. 960x1704).


not sure about that, on my S3 in the camera settings if I go to resolution they are all listed HxW

ie (3264x2448, 1280x720, 640x480)
 

TechZeke

macrumors 68020
Jul 29, 2012
2,455
2,289
Dallas, TX
Yet the only people complaining about Android fragmentation are Apple-fanboys.

Yet the only people who see Android fragmentation not being a problem are fandroids.

It's no secret that iOS has better support and better designed apps. I've seen this point brought up numerous time. You can't expect an OS with completely different versions for every Android phone out there doesn't have a consequence on development.
 

zipa

macrumors 65816
Feb 19, 2010
1,442
1

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,109
57
Well they can spin it anyway they want, that 4.6" really needs a better then 1080P screen otherwise I'll just laugh to myself how my Nexus 5 has a much better screen, for half the cost.

I'm not sure about "a much better screen", the iPhone 5 already has a display measured to be better than the Nexus 5's in almost every way except the resolution: significantly brighter, more accurate colors, higher contrast, etc. (Anandtech link) So if the iPhone 6's display is better then 5's, the Nexus 5's screen will look even worse. Then again there'll probably be a next Nexus with a better display.
 

blackhand1001

macrumors 68030
Jan 6, 2009
2,599
33
Mmmm... I just like that the 4.7 has nice small bezels, if the bezels are nice and small like that, I will be pretty satisfied.

Most of these comments are still making more worried/annoyed that Apple would make two iPhone 6's, but one wouldn't be the flagship, like considerably lower specs, etc... I still can't understand why they would make 2 iPhones that are titled "iPhone 6" but one really isn't the "flagship" iPhone 6. What the heck? I guess I just don't want to get what would essentially be "the next iPhone 5C" like someone said... I really... REALLY... Do not want a freaking 5.5 inch screen. Please don't make me regret getting the 4.7, Apple. Please don't.

Lol at people actually calling those bezels small. The moto x has small bezels. The mocked up iPhone 6. Not so much.
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
I'm not sure about "a much better screen", the iPhone 5 already has a display measured to be better than the Nexus 5's in almost every way except the resolution: significantly brighter, more accurate colors, higher contrast, etc. (Anandtech link) So if the iPhone 6's display is better then 5's, the Nexus 5's screen will look even worse. Then again there'll probably be a next Nexus with a better display.

WOW! What a brilliant glowing review of the Nexus 5 screen you've posted! Did you even read it? Or did you only look at all the graphs?
I like the last sentence :)

The end result is easy to sum up, however – Nexus 5 has the best calibrated display I’ve seen so far in any Android handset. It’s also leaps and bounds more accurate and controlled than its predecessor display in the Nexus 4.

Pretty good for a device half the cost of an iPhone.
But I have been talking about resolution, so find me the same in depth review on the G2's screen.
 

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,109
57
WOW! What a brilliant glowing review of the Nexus 5 screen you've posted! Did you even read it? Or did you only look at all the graphs?

Yes I read it and even took a look at the graphs in addition to get the context.

I like the last sentence :)

The end result is easy to sum up, however – Nexus 5 has the best calibrated display I’ve seen so far in any Android handset. It’s also leaps and bounds more accurate and controlled than its predecessor display in the Nexus 4.

I thought you were gloating about the superiority of the Nexus 5 over the iPhone? Now you think it's great that the Nexus 5 is better than the Nexus 4 and other Androids instead? What's your claim exactly?
 

MyopicPaideia

macrumors 68020
Mar 19, 2011
2,155
980
Sweden
You're wrong too ;) x% == x/100 (percent: per cent)
You can say 18% larger or 1.18 times as large. Gruber saying '1.18 times larger' had it wrong, but well that's nothing really important in the debate, and he edited his original post silently.

Percentages are normally used in the English language to express incremental changes in size or quantity or magnitude unless otherwise explicitly noted. x/100-1 is the expression used to describe incremental change in terms of percentage, which is exactly what Gruber means to describe here.

In this example, something 1.38 times larger is expressed as being 38% larger, with an incremental connotation being implicit. It would be very awkward and be misread very often if he instead wrote it was 138% larger. Similarly, you express something that is twice (2 times) as large as being 100% larger, incrementally, than the comparative thing.

It is language thing, less so math, and it may very well be different in other languages. While something twice as big as something else is 200% the size of it in absolute mathematical terms, it is only 100% larger incrementally.
 

MythicFrost

macrumors 68040
Mar 11, 2009
3,940
38
Australia
I believe the resolutions will be: 1336x752 for 4.7" and 1468x828 for the 5.5". This is my 'proof':

Firstly the 'rules' (ie. key assumptions) are:
1-If you are using 2x mode, the dpi must be >300, otherwise the display becomes non-retina and you can see the pixels.
2-If you are using 2x mode, the dpi must be <= 326, otherwise the physical size of the GUI elements shrinks.
3-If you are using 3x mode, the dpi must be <= 489, for the same reason above.
4-If you are using 3x mode, then the pixel count (for width and height) must have increased by at least 50%, otherwise the display will show less content.
5-Given the option, apple will chose the lowest DPI that meets 1 to 4 to reduce cost, the one exception being to favor 326dpi as a standard if possible.

For the 4.7" display:
Based on rule 4, the minimum DPI is 300 in 2x mode, or 416 in 3x mode. In 3x mode 416DPI would be needed just to display the same content as the 5s currently does, and probably 500dpi or more to display a decent amount of extra content - which pretty much rules 3x mode out. Given rule 5 - we can assume apple will attempt to go as close to 300 as possible - probably sticking to 326dpi, thus making the display 1336x752.

Now onto the 5.5" display:
The 5.5" can run in either 2x or 3x mode, and fits the DPI requirements of both. To meet rules 1 and 5 the resolution must be between 1436x810 and 1562x880. It just so happens that the icode leak of 734x414 points meets this definition in 2x mode. Therefore the most likly resolution is 1468x828, with a DPI of 306.

Q.E.D. Flame shield attached.

The only exception I can think of is for the 5.5" in that 306DPI could be not acceptable because it will be 'lower' density than past phones and therefore get mocking by Andriods/Samsung. So if you assume the 5.5" has to be 3x mode, then its minimum resolution becomes 50% bigger the 4.7" (so it can at least show the same content). So the 5.5" in 3x mode has a range of: 2004x1128 to 2343x1320. If the 734x414 leak is to be believed, then the resolution is 2202x1242. Personally I don't think 3x is likly because of the $$$ wasted and apples general mantra that they don't do things for specs alone (I doubt the average iConsumer can tell the difference between 300 and 326dpi and not at all for >326dpi).
When you talk about "2x" and "3x" mode, are you referring to the way an iPhone app scales up on the iPad? Because that isn't relevant here at all. (Unless I've misunderstood something...?)

The base iPhone app size is 480x320 points, the 5S size 568x320 points. The aforementioned 1472x828 resolution is actually 734x414, and as you can see none of these iPhone resolutions fit into it twice at all.

Until they're updated, you'll have the app surrounded by black borders equal to the difference between the app's supported size (480x320, 568x320, etc.) and the size of the screen.

There's really only two ways I think they can go personally:

With 736x414 on both devices which is easier for developers as there's only one new "workspace", but the 5.5 drops down to ~306 PPI.

Or with 736x414 (or similar like you mentioned) on the 4.7 inch, and a somewhat higher resolution for the 5.5 inch to keep it around ~360 PPI, but it's at the cost of having to support two different workspaces.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention 2208x1242, but then PPI hits 450 and you're looking at a 25% reduction in physical object size compared to the 4.7 inch, which shouldn't be too bad, however you've got the added issue of battery life with such a high pixel density display (needlessly high.)
 
Last edited:

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
Yes I read it and even took a look at the graphs in addition to get the context.

I thought you were gloating about the superiority of the Nexus 5 over the iPhone? Now you think it's great that the Nexus 5 is better than the Nexus 4 and other Androids instead? What's your claim exactly?

Well as that link you posted doesn't mention the iPhone ONCE then I should be asking you what your claim is?
But more resolution means higher PPI which means better detail as far as I'm concerned.
 

myforwik

macrumors member
Jun 30, 2014
92
4
When you talk about "2x" and "3x" mode, are you referring to the way an iPhone app scales up on the iPad? Because that isn't relevant here at all. (Unless I've misunderstood something...?)

The base iPhone app size is 480x320 points, the 5S size 568x320 points. The aforementioned 1472x828 resolution is actually 734x414, and as you can see none of these iPhone resolutions fit into it twice at all.

It has nothing to do with being able to zoom. It has to do with physical size. Basically a 'point' should be the same physical size on all devices. This is very important for a touch based operating system. Doesn't matter what the display resolution is - you want to know that a button is always going to be 0.5" wide. If you ask for a 50pt wide button - you will get the same sized object on all iphones/ipods/ipadminis. However on the retina displays you will need to provide an image with twice the resolution - hence the name 2x. So apple use a point system that i meant for physical size - and then you must provide a image of either 1x resolution or 2x resolution.

It seems unlikely that they will add anything except 3x or 4x. For example I can't see them making a 2.38x mode. That basically means separate images will be needed for iphone6 than all other devices and the images will be only slightly bigger resolution. Most people are assuming 3x is the minimum jump, some say only 4x makes sense.

Until they're updated, you'll have the app surrounded by black borders equal to the difference between the app's supported size (480x320, 568x320, etc.) and the size of the screen.

If the DPI is higher than 326, then you can't really do the black border trick. For example if the DPI of the iphone 6 is 440, then old apps will be 25% smaller - all the buttons will be 25% smaller in width and be harder to press. Apple could probably scale up the apps - but they would look terrible.

There's really only two ways I think they can go personally:

With 736x414 on both devices which is easier for developers as there's only one new "workspace", but the 5.5 drops down to ~306 PPI.

If the 4.7" had 736x414 in 2x mode, it would be 360dpi. This means buttons etc. would be 10% smaller physically than on an iphone 5s. It seems backwards to make a bigger display - only to make objects smaller. The bigger display should be to display more content and possible make objects bigger.

Or with 736x414 (or similar like you mentioned) on the 4.7 inch, and a somewhat higher resolution for the 5.5 inch to keep it around ~360 PPI, but it's at the cost of having to support two different workspaces.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention 2208x1242, but then PPI hits 450 and you're looking at a 25% reduction in physical object size compared to the 4.7 inch, which shouldn't be too bad, however you've got the added issue of battery life with such a high pixel density display (needlessly high.)

If you ignore the leaks (which probably aren't credible) - then there is no reason to suggest anything other than 326dpi for both 4.7" and 5.5". This makes everything so simple. All phones have the same size for objects. Both new iphone 6's will display old apps at their exact original size and resolution. Devs will only have 2x to worry about, and simply have two new canvas sizes.

For the 4.7" I would say 326dpi is almost a dead certainty. Apple gain nothing with a higher DPI display except lost profits.

As an engineer, if I sat down and was told to make a 4.7ish screen and 5.5ish screen, I would keep 326dpi, and then to make it easiest for developers - I would make the canvas jump in linear intervals from 5s to 4.7" to 5.5". So whatever the resolution increase is from 5s to 4.7", increase it again by the same count for the 5.5". Since the 4.7" is 0.7" bigger than the 5s, i would make the larger one 0.7" bigger than the 5s. Not 0.8" bigger. The result would be 5.4" with 1728x864.

Very simple elegant solution that is happy for everyone. Devs have two new resolutions, but at least the canvas jumps are linear - and therefore dynamic scaling is far easier to do. 2x mode is kept for everything. All dpi's are the same and physical sizes remain the same. Old apps will display exactly as they do on 5s/4s. Its wins at everything *except* being 5.5". Remember that the iphone 4 was not 3.5", it was 3.58". Likewise the iphone 5s is not exactly 4" - its a metric display that is neither 4" nor 326dpi, its just very close to those numbers.
 
Last edited:

XTheLancerX

macrumors 68000
Aug 20, 2014
1,911
782
NY, USA
Lol at people actually calling those bezels small. The moto x has small bezels. The mocked up iPhone 6. Not so much.

I know the bezels still aren't especially small, but it definitely is an improvement over the other 4.7 mockups we have seen >_> Also, I was referring to the side bezels. Not the bezels at the top and bottom. The iPhone definitely has a lot of chin and forehead so to speak, but that kind of is necessary for the whole home button thing, and it corresponds with Apples past designs. I don't reałly see Apple making the top bezel significantly smaller than the lower bezel, that design works fine for other devices I suppose, but it just would make for a weird looking iPhone. The 5.5 inch iPhone still has horribly ugly side and top/bottom bezels for a phone of that size.
 

ValO

macrumors 68000
Sep 16, 2012
1,747
687
It has nothing to do with being able to zoom. It has to do with physical size. Basically a 'point' should be the same physical size on all devices. This is very important for a touch based operating system. Doesn't matter what the display resolution is - you want to know that a button is always going to be 0.5" wide. If you ask for a 50pt wide button - you will get the same sized object on all iphones/ipods/ipadminis. However on the retina displays you will need to provide an image with twice the resolution - hence the name 2x. So apple use a point system that i meant for physical size - and then you must provide a image of either 1x resolution or 2x resolution.

It seems unlikely that they will add anything except 3x or 4x. For example I can't see them making a 2.38x mode. That basically means separate images will be needed for iphone6 than all other devices and the images will be only slightly bigger resolution. Most people are assuming 3x is the minimum jump, some say only 4x makes sense.



If the DPI is higher than 326, then you can't really do the black border trick. For example if the DPI of the iphone 6 is 440, then old apps will be 25% smaller - all the buttons will be 25% smaller in width and be harder to press. Apple could probably scale up the apps - but they would look terrible.



If the 4.7" had 736x414 in 2x mode, it would be 360dpi. This means buttons etc. would be 10% smaller physically than on an iphone 5s. It seems backwards to make a bigger display - only to make objects smaller. The bigger display should be to display more content and possible make objects bigger.



If you ignore the leaks (which probably aren't credible) - then there is no reason to suggest anything other than 326dpi for both 4.7" and 5.5". This makes everything so simple. All phones have the same size for objects. Both new iphone 6's will display old apps at their exact original size and resolution. Devs will only have 2x to worry about, and simply have two new canvas sizes.

For the 4.7" I would say 326dpi is almost a dead certainty. Apple gain nothing with a higher DPI display except lost profits.

As an engineer, if I sat down and was told to make a 4.7ish screen and 5.5ish screen, I would keep 326dpi, and then to make it easiest for developers - I would make the canvas jump in linear intervals from 5s to 4.7" to 5.5". So whatever the resolution increase is from 5s to 4.7", increase it again by the same count for the 5.5". Since the 4.7" is 0.7" bigger than the 5s, i would make the larger one 0.7" bigger than the 5s. Not 0.8" bigger. The result would be 5.4" with 1728x864.

Very simple elegant solution that is happy for everyone. Devs have two new resolutions, but at least the canvas jumps are linear - and therefore dynamic scaling is far easier to do. 2x mode is kept for everything. All dpi's are the same and physical sizes remain the same. Old apps will display exactly as they do on 5s/4s. Its wins at everything *except* being 5.5". Remember that the iphone 4 was not 3.5", it was 3.58". Likewise the iphone 5s is not exactly 4" - its a metric display that is neither 4" nor 326dpi, its just very close to those numbers.

There is something that doesn' t add up in your suggested res for a 5.4 iphone.

If the aspect ratio stays the same, it should be:1728x974, or something like 1704x960. But if you want too keep the same ppi for 5.4 inch, it should be: 1536x865.

So your calculations are way off.
 

ValO

macrumors 68000
Sep 16, 2012
1,747
687
When you talk about "2x" and "3x" mode, are you referring to the way an iPhone app scales up on the iPad? Because that isn't relevant here at all. (Unless I've misunderstood something...?)

The base iPhone app size is 480x320 points, the 5S size 568x320 points. The aforementioned 1472x828 resolution is actually 734x414, and as you can see none of these iPhone resolutions fit into it twice at all.

Until they're updated, you'll have the app surrounded by black borders equal to the difference between the app's supported size (480x320, 568x320, etc.) and the size of the screen.

There's really only two ways I think they can go personally:

With 736x414 on both devices which is easier for developers as there's only one new "workspace", but the 5.5 drops down to ~306 PPI.

Or with 736x414 (or similar like you mentioned) on the 4.7 inch, and a somewhat higher resolution for the 5.5 inch to keep it around ~360 PPI, but it's at the cost of having to support two different workspaces.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention 2208x1242, but then PPI hits 450 and you're looking at a 25% reduction in physical object size compared to the 4.7 inch, which shouldn't be too bad, however you've got the added issue of battery life with such a high pixel density display (needlessly high.)

Why should you get a 25% reduction in physical object size if they use the same dev res.
The 4.7 is at @2 retina, but the 5.5 will be at @3 retina.
Because of the higher dpi the pixels will indeed be smaller by 25%. But the objects will be bigger on the 5,5 inch because everything is shown @3 instead of @2. So on the 5,5 inch an object will consist of more pixels(50% more) than on the 4.7.

If i do the math, objects would be about 12,5% bigger on the 5.5 inch over the 4.7 inch .
And the 5.5 inch screen will be 17% wider and 17% taller than the 4.7 inch screen.

But the 4.7 would be in trouble at this new dev res. The objects would be 10% smaller on the 4.7 than on the 4 inch iphone 5( both @2 res).

My guess is that the 4,7 will be at the existing dev res of 568*320 @3= 1704x960 and the 5.5 at this new dev res of 736x414@3=2208x1242.

I could be all wrong of course.
 
Last edited:

jcaramanica

macrumors newbie
Aug 3, 2012
17
0
How long can someone seriously argue about PPI? If you're not satisfied with the resolution when the next iPhone comes out, then here is an idea: don't buy it. Simple as that. It's crazy to look at the comments on here and see people acting as if they are actually going to be FORCED at gun-point to buy the newest iPhone. Same thing every single year.
 

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,109
57
Well as that link you posted doesn't mention the iPhone ONCE then I should be asking you what your claim is?
But more resolution means higher PPI which means better detail as far as I'm concerned.

The link I posted mentions iPhone numerous times in the chart. Not sure what your point is there. In case you don't recall what you wrote, here's your earlier comment:

"Well they can spin it anyway they want, that 4.6" really needs a better then 1080P screen otherwise I'll just laugh to myself how my Nexus 5 has a much better screen, for half the cost."

Clearly you were expressing the superiority of the Nexus 5 display over the iPhone 6's rumored display. Then I simply referred to the fact, according to the Anandtech review, the iPhone displays are already better than the Nexus 5 display in almost every aspect except the resolution. So I was asking if the resolution is really the only thing that matters in a display. Which way would you want to spin it? The resolution is the single thing that matters?
 

chleuasme

macrumors 6502
Apr 17, 2012
485
75
It is language thing
The '%' symbol is simple syntactic sugar, it's to be read as the fraction "/100" just as '‰' is for "/1000". When you write 38%, you write 38/100 or 0.38 and nothing else.
Gruber corrected his error (as visible in the first post you quoted in this thread *) and now makes sense. Yes, it was language problem, and he corrected to express what he wanted [* but it looks like he reverted back to the original version of his post now, as corrections aren't visible anymore, eh].

138 / 100 = 1.38 and is therefore 1.38 times larger than 100, or 38% larger than 100. You can't actually say that something is 0.38 times larger
Yes, 138 is equal to 1.38 times 100, but something 138% larger than the reference is 238% as large. And so 138 is 38% larger than 100, not 1.38 times larger.
But then your second sentence doesn't make sense because you just wrote it the sentence before.
Yes as you say, it’s a language problem.
something 1.38 times larger is expressed as being 38% larger
Again, something "1.38 times larger" is not what you want to mean: you mean "1.38 times as large".
Similarly, you express something that is twice (2 times) as large as being 100% larger, incrementally, than the comparative thing.
Yes, "1 time larger" means the same as "2 times as large".
 
Last edited:

DCJ001

macrumors 6502a
Dec 12, 2007
521
253
When John Gruber said:

"1.18 times larger" it should read "0.18 times (or 18%) larger."

"1.5 times sharper" it should read "0.50 times (or 50% larger."

"1.38 times more points" it should read "0.38 times (or 38%) larger.

"1.17 times larger" it should read "0.17 times (or 17%) larger."

This is a simple concept. As someone to whom people refer as an expert, he should be knowledgeable of this simple math. I hope that he is not too stubborn to admit his mistakes.

I can also tell that he has put some time into arriving at his conclusions, and creating the page. I would hope that he is someone who would want every detail to be correct and not misleading.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the common nomenclature. Something twice as large as another thing is 100% larger when expressed as a percentage.

138 / 100 = 1.38 and is therefore 1.38 times larger than 100, or 38% larger than 100. You can't actually say that something is 0.38 times larger because 0.38 is actually smaller, not larger. 38 / 100 = 0.38 and is therefore approximately 2.64 times smaller than 100, or 62% smaller than 100.

You are not bursting my bubble. You are mathematically illiterate.
 
Last edited:

MythicFrost

macrumors 68040
Mar 11, 2009
3,940
38
Australia
It has nothing to do with being able to zoom. It has to do with physical size. Basically a 'point' should be the same physical size on all devices. This is very important for a touch based operating system. Doesn't matter what the display resolution is - you want to know that a button is always going to be 0.5" wide. If you ask for a 50pt wide button - you will get the same sized object on all iphones/ipods/ipadminis. However on the retina displays you will need to provide an image with twice the resolution - hence the name 2x. So apple use a point system that i meant for physical size - and then you must provide a image of either 1x resolution or 2x resolution.

It seems unlikely that they will add anything except 3x or 4x. For example I can't see them making a 2.38x mode. That basically means separate images will be needed for iphone6 than all other devices and the images will be only slightly bigger resolution. Most people are assuming 3x is the minimum jump, some say only 4x makes sense.
Ah okay. I didn't realise you were referring to the @2x and @3x images. Gotcha now.
If the DPI is higher than 326, then you can't really do the black border trick. For example if the DPI of the iphone 6 is 440, then old apps will be 25% smaller - all the buttons will be 25% smaller in width and be harder to press. Apple could probably scale up the apps - but they would look terrible.
You're correct. They would appear 25% smaller. So a 40x40 button would effectively be the size of a 30x30 button on a 330 PPI device. Upscaling is definitely not an option.
If the 4.7" had 736x414 in 2x mode, it would be 360dpi. This means buttons etc. would be 10% smaller physically than on an iphone 5s. It seems backwards to make a bigger display - only to make objects smaller. The bigger display should be to display more content and possible make objects bigger.
I don't see that as an issue. I think the point of a bigger display is to allow more content, not necessarily make it bigger.

I think the reason Apple would go for 360 PPI over the smaller resolution you mentioned, is that if they tweak the screen size (by 0.1-0.2 inches) in future revisions, it won't let the PPI drop below 330. So they have room to adjust screen size without requiring a new resolution or sacrificing a slightly lower PPI.
If you ignore the leaks (which probably aren't credible) - then there is no reason to suggest anything other than 326dpi for both 4.7" and 5.5". This makes everything so simple. All phones have the same size for objects. Both new iphone 6's will display old apps at their exact original size and resolution. Devs will only have 2x to worry about, and simply have two new canvas sizes.

For the 4.7" I would say 326dpi is almost a dead certainty. Apple gain nothing with a higher DPI display except lost profits.

As an engineer, if I sat down and was told to make a 4.7ish screen and 5.5ish screen, I would keep 326dpi, and then to make it easiest for developers - I would make the canvas jump in linear intervals from 5s to 4.7" to 5.5". So whatever the resolution increase is from 5s to 4.7", increase it again by the same count for the 5.5". Since the 4.7" is 0.7" bigger than the 5s, i would make the larger one 0.7" bigger than the 5s. Not 0.8" bigger. The result would be 5.4" with 1728x864.

Very simple elegant solution that is happy for everyone. Devs have two new resolutions, but at least the canvas jumps are linear - and therefore dynamic scaling is far easier to do. 2x mode is kept for everything. All dpi's are the same and physical sizes remain the same. Old apps will display exactly as they do on 5s/4s. Its wins at everything *except* being 5.5". Remember that the iphone 4 was not 3.5", it was 3.58". Likewise the iphone 5s is not exactly 4" - its a metric display that is neither 4" nor 326dpi, its just very close to those numbers.
I don't disagree with you. It's definitely easier if they PPI is the same (in terms of making a control the appropriate size.) Two new workspaces is a bit more work, but as long as they don't add more next year or the year after it's not bad.

Like I said with the 4.7, the reason for a slightly higher PPI than 326 is if they tweak screen size in the future by a small amount, the PPI will still be higher than 330ish.
Why should you get a 25% reduction in physical object size if they use the same dev res.
The 4.7 is at @2 retina, but the 5.5 will be at @3 retina.
Because of the higher dpi the pixels will indeed be smaller by 25%. But the objects will be bigger on the 5,5 inch because everything is shown @3 instead of @2. So on the 5,5 inch an object will consist of more pixels(50% more) than on the 4.7.

If i do the math, objects would be about 12,5% bigger on the 5.5 inch over the 4.7 inch .
And the 5.5 inch screen will be 17% wider and 17% taller than the 4.7 inch screen.

But the 4.7 would be in trouble at this new dev res. The objects would be 10% smaller on the 4.7 than on the 4 inch iphone 5( both @2 res).

My guess is that the 4,7 will be at the existing dev res of 568*320 @3= 1704x960 and the 5.5 at this new dev res of 736x414@3=2208x1242.

I could be all wrong of course.
It's difficult to think about. Even trying to explain I'm having trouble. Essentially, if we were talking about a 7 inch iPhone (736x414@3) which would have 360 PPI, then the physical size of objects would be the same as on the 4.7 (736x414@2)... but since the pixel density is higher everything is smaller overall. Make sense?

If the 4.7 inch did go with 568x320@3 then it's essentially a 5S with a bigger screen and higher PPI, and the 5.5 inch would have a smaller PPI but have a larger workspace... more room for content in other words... Man my head's starting to ache thinking about all this haha...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.