Larger iPhones – making sense of the pixels

By now there's been countless amount of rumors for larger screened iPhones. For example here's what iPhone 6 is supposed to be coming with. Most rumor postings only focus on the physical size of the device, which sure is important, but pay very little attention to the amount of pixels the screen would have.

The reason why the pixels matter is that Apple has been very conscious to avoid fragmentation in a device family, as much as it can be avoided. So when going to high-density "retina" displays, the pixels were scaled exactly 2x on both iPhones and iPads, so that old apps would run as-is without getting screwed by the aspect ratio (stayed the same) or pixel scaling (2x is as nice as it can get).

So when it comes to screen sizes and pixels on those screens, the real question is, how can you make the new "large" screens behave well in the non-retina + retina family?

The answer from the pixel side of things is relatively simple: have a scaling factor that is preferably whole integer (no decimals). Now, considering that iPad Mini (7.8" screen) sets a spiritual upper limit to the screen size, we are talking about screens with physical size of 4-7 inches diagonal. Within that range, doubling the pixels of retina screen (640px width => 1280px width) gets us into extreme dpi range, up to 600+ dpi. Those kinds of screens are fairly pointless to human eye (retina, i.e. ~326dpi is the sweet spot for a phone) – as well as very hard and costly to manufacture. On the other hand, Apple is probably not interested in going below retina resolutions, so 326dpi is the lower limit.

So 2 times the retina pixels is overkill. But there are no other integer-based scaling factors, right? Well, there is one: 1,5 times the retina. Because it is 3x the non-retina screen. The iPhone development environment continues to calculate sizes and positions in the non-retina scale, so introducing a "3x" scale as a sibling to "2x" scale is fairly trivial change. Of course the scaling of the pixels isn't perfect for old apps, but then again, retina (2x) has already very high pixel density, so with a even higher-dpi screen, the blurriness could be fairly small effect.

With 3x scaling, and iPhone 5/5S aspect ratio, we get 960px by 1704px pixels screen. At 326dpi (same as iPhone 5), that would translate to 6,0 inch screen, which could be a bit too large for Apple's tastes.

The iPhone 6 article linked above, speaks about 4,7" and 5,5" screens. Let's look at those sizes then.

The 4,7" would be the highest density display at 420dpi (again, 960px*1704px). While it's a high dpi, it still sounds doable. From user experience point of view, it would be merely 16% physically wider screen than the iPhone 5S, and would feel a lot like iPhone 5S, albeit with much more (non-discernible) pixels under the hood.

The 5,5" would have 355dpi screen, which is not much different dpi from the iPhone 5S. The device would feel much bigger though, nearly 40% physically wider and taller than iPhone 5S.

With the 4,7" and 5,5" phones, the existing apps would run just fine. Thanks to the extreme 420dpi resolution on the 4,7", the blurring from scaling the pixels of the old apps would be barely visible. On the 5,5" screen it would probably have small, but noticeable-if-you-look-for-it, effect.

...

All the discussion above, assumes that Apple is interested in keeping the contents on the screen exactly the same across the devices in the family (i.e. all the iPhones in this case). With larger screens it's of course possible to start re-layouting the content, for example putting more icons to the home screen and so forth.

However, at launch, iPad mini introduced a new physical screen size to the iPad family, and yet Apple kept layout the same as in original iPad. I foresee Apple continuing to use this pattern in iPhone-family too.

iPad Pro

So there's now iPad Air. Apple said it's a product that they have been wanting to do for a long time – a big tablet screen with the power of a laptop and weight + bezel of an iPad Mini. The device is just the screen – more than ever before.

But there's another omen in the name – Will there be an iPad Pro?


Of course, for Apple, the reason the make a significantly larger screen than the 9.7" iPad Air, is definitely not just because we can. A larger screen would not be mobile in the sense the current iPads are. It would be luggable, like the larger 15" and 17" Macbook Pro laptops are. Not convenient, but possible when the nature of work demands it. So definitely more work oriented device for professionals, just like the Macbook Pros are.

Who would use such a device and why? While the PC isn't going away anyway soon, Apple in full steam with Post-PC and any device that helps significantly to accelerate that trend, is an area of interest. Among all the Macbook Pro users, there are lot of creatives and art-oriented people who currently use Wacom pen surfaces, Wacom pens with auxillary screens and other assistive tools for design work and for digital art. When working on desktop, they might use external 24" or even 30" screen. That's a lot of expensive devices that are much less luggable than a large iPad with, maybe, a wirelessly connected pen.

Other potential groups of people are music makers, recording studios, DJs, VJs, planners and architects, movie makers, animation creators, modellers and so on. The available apps and the performance capabilities of the device are the only limiting factors and those are just a matter of time.

So how big would the Pro be then? The most likely thing to happen, is to do the non-retina to retina transition all over again. So double the amount of pixels and the size of the screen, for both iPad Mini and iPad Air. This would result in screen sizes of 15.8" and 19.4" diagonal (4096px by 3072px). These kind of screens would be used more like desktop computers, albeit not on flat table or in fully upright position. It would be placed mostly in landscape orientation in a slight angle – on top of a wedge or tilt stand – the way illustrators and architects work nowadays.

What IS iPad?

Remember the original iPhone launch? The outrage that it wasn't possible to create 3rd party apps for it? Why was it such a big deal? Especially considering that Apple just had released their first phone, with some music playing capabilities...

Or did Apple actually release a phone?

When looking at the big picture, I think what Apple did... was a general purpose device, with touchscreen optimized user interface. Yes, it happens to be able to make phone calls, but it can also do many other things.

The reason people carry a mobile phone around, is the ability to be connected to other people and other people being able to connect to you, when needed. Since people are not so comfortable with carrying big bunch of devices (requires more space, weight, ...), they quite often like the fact that they can use the phone also for other purposes than making calls.

Many owners actually use their iPhones for many things that are not about calling or texting, hence the wild popularity and download rates for thousands of apps in the App Store. Personally I'd probably be quite comfortable with an iPod Touch (a non-phone), if it weren't for the fact that internet has to be accessible from everywhere (cellular data), and that it's nice that people are able to connect to me via conventional ways, even if it's not that often.

Since iPod Touch carries the stamp of "iPhone without the phone", are the users of the iPhone and the iPod Touch using their devices for mostly the same purposes (except calling)? Probably not. Games have been hugely popular in App Store, and I'd be willing to bet that pretty many of those games are being played on iPod Touches..., because that's what the "younger kids" are having. It's a secondary device, mostly a portable game console, which they can carry around. No need for expensive phone plans, just keep the cheap phone, with maybe pre-paid contract. As a bonus, in home, school and other networked places, it becomes nice portable web and social device.

It's just a hunch, but women seem very interested in small portable music players to carry around. All those almost jewelry -like iPod Nano's and iPod Shuffles. It's humming along in gym, as well as on the way to work and back. For that, iPod Touch is a bit too big... unless it can provide enough appeal beyond having nice metal mirror on the backside. For some it may have that desirability, but then the lack of ubiquitous connectivity (for all the social apps) points towards an iPhone...

iPod Touches and iPhones are being used in homes, but there they need to compete with full-blown personal computers, as well as with wall mounted big TVs. And there, the small screen, no matter how high the resolution is, starts to lose it's shine. And currently the apps enabling Create and Modify activities are only starting to appear in the App Store.

For casual organizing of life, like noting down upcoming events, making shopping lists, sending reminders to friends... The small, instant-on touchscreen devices still can easily overtake TV or computers. But for big time entertainment, or for "getting things done", it falls a bit short.

...

In some ways, iPad is more of the same. It's still the same idea as iPhone already was, a very general purpose device. So it's not so much of a question what all kinds of things are possible (pretty much anything), but who is using it, in what context.

The only major difference to iPhones and iPod touches is the physical size of the display, which then ends up affecting the size of the device, the weight and consequently the ways to hold it and the portability of it.

Being more luggable and instant-on than a laptop, some internet-oriented road-warriors have found iPad being able to replace, at least partially, the use cases for laptop. It is more relaxed, almost leisurely device to use, compared to a full-blown laptop. And showcasing things to a client, on-the-go, is quite likely more attractive and immersive on a iPad, compared to a laptop screen (just give the iPad to the clients waiting hands). All in all, it will still take quite some time before iPad is a valid competitor to laptop for road-warriors though.

Compared to the iPhones and even iPod Touches, I think the iPad will spend much less time on the move. For an average person, it's probably a "device at home", "device at work" (e.g. medical field), or some other static context like that, with only occasionally taking it along, for example to show latest family photos and -videos to grandparents.

As a "home device" it probably is more entertainment oriented, whether it's news, books, web, social or games. It's the device when you want to "quiet down" on your own, to do your own stuff, rather than sit, agree on and watch the same TV programming with rest of the household. So you might sit on a sofa, or lie down on bed while toying with iPad.

Two groups of people who will actively use iPads are kids (especially younger than teens) and the elderly. The extent of it might still surprise some, in a year or two from now, as those groups are not traditionally typical for using the latest tech.

For kids the almost irresistible draw on iPad is it's intuitiveness. Just Google for iPhones and 1-2 year olds and you will get the idea. There are already, and there will be even more iPad apps specifically for kids. Parents have the power to choose what apps get on the device (by buying them) and kids have the freedom to explore the iPad without the need of parent to watch or guide over the shoulder. It's a win-win situation. Plus there's no need for separate game console, or DVD player. Some of the best selling children's books become animated and interactive, becoming even more attractive, and self-learnable.

Maybe un-surprisingly, the elders get attracted to iPad for the same reason the kids are. It's their "first computer" that they can actually use, without being intimidated or having fear of getting lost. There's the trusty, single, big, physical, black "panic button" that always gets you to where you started from.

And this is just the beginning of the journey.

...

Update: Mr. Bray points to tablet's advantage for (physical) shareability. Good point.

Computer trends and how to communicate them

Took a small deep dive with Business Week to see what they have to offer. I was surprised about their quality of web presence. And I can actually see their articles (no registration pains, no subscription requirements)!

It's sometimes good to see the business side of computer industry and innovation, and Business Week does have quality articles with that perspective. The many retrospectives are also interesting.

The Special Report on Next Generation Computing was pretty nice summary on the current understanding of the near term innovation in computer tech. I truly like some of the trends, such as the "designing to blend with the rooms in home". One example of this was the forming of computer parts as look-alikes of a bookshelf and its contents. There are the obvious dangers of overdoing the ideas, of course.

Another pleasant surprise was the "slideshow" style of reporting. The concept of putting the picture in the forefront and text secondary to that is quite appealing. This also takes away the need to create overlyelongated articles from material that really doesn't need it. Also, it is excellent form of communication when the journalist goal is that of a summary.