On the tall and skinny (or widescreen) iPhone 5
Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber seems quite convinced about the latest iPhone rumours, which claim the device will move to a 16:9 display, which in portrait will be 9:16. On Gizmodo, Jesus Diaz wrote a rebuttal to this rumour, making salient arguments: no-one’s been screaming for this; the iPhone still outsells other smarphones; fragmentation would be introduced; universal apps would be tough, because 16:9 is further from the iPad’s 4:3 display than the current iPhone’s 3:2.
Of course, some people have been clamouring for a larger iPhone screen, but as far as I can tell, these are the reasons:
- Video would be in full widescreen, without black bars (if not necessarily 720p).
- Bigger screens are better, just because.
- Everyone else is doing it, and, more specifically, it’s what those Android guys do.
These don’t seem particularly compelling arguments to me, and if Gruber’s right in the next iPhone sporting a screen that effectively adds 176 or so pixels to the top of the display (making it 1136 × 640 rather than 960 × 640), you get black bars around all non-optimised apps, and those that are optimised will require more work for developers. Fixed-width apps (i.e. many games, most interactive books, lots of music-creation apps, and so on) will require another bespoke layout. Games that are more flexible (3D racers, say, or 2D action puzzlers like Angry birds that have scrolling levels) will require clever gameplay balancing and plenty of testing regarding any on-screen controls. Even ‘flexible’ apps will require a ton of usability testing and optimisation. In many cases, the ‘extra’ space would be largely empty, because filling it with something important would risk alienating every single current iPhone and iPod touch user.
For more flexible apps, there could be minor benefits—an extra tweet, an extra couple of lines of text—but 16:9/9:16 is sub-optimal for books, magazines, photos and other content types, and so it strikes me as a strange decision. Gruber argues:
I suspect the answer is, why not? The design tension in post-iPhone mobile phones is between screen size (where bigger is better) and device size (where smaller is better). You want a physical device that is small enough to fit easily in your pockets and is comfortable and easy to use while holding it in one hand.
But I still simply say: why?
I hope these are just rumours. The current size is perfect for one hand use and anything bigger will be a stress. In my opinion this is the right decision. Making a bigger screen just because some users demand means compromising on functionality. We still have several scenarios where we can use the phone only one handed for instance while standing on train.
What’s next? Buying trousers to fit these gigantic phones?
>But I still simply say: why?
To me, the iPhone 4 is starting to look strangely outdated next to devices like the recent Nokia phones. A bit like looking at a 4:3 CRT TV in a world of flatscreen TVs. The screen itself looks out of proportion to the device, with a lot of dead space around the screen edges.
Also, I don’t think it’s true that a taller screen is suboptimal for books. It just adds a few lines of text. I think it’s a plus.
I have no idea what Apple plans to do, but I’d welcome an iPhone with a slightly taller screen.
Optimising games would probably end up with what happened in the arcades and on home machines in the early 80s – massive borders and score panels to give the illusion of using all the space.
As Craig says, why change what is working for Apple to match something that others offer? Bigger is not necessarily better.
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Gruber’s “quite convinced” by this rumour.
The headline of his post is “How Apple Could Play the Bigger-Display iPhone Thing at WWDC, Which I Swear, I’m Still Not Convinced Is for Real But We’re Getting to the Point Where There’s an Awful Lot of Smoke for There Not to Be a Fire So Let’s Run With It“. And the very first sentence begins “For the sake of argument let’s take it as a given that the next iPhone will sport an 1136 × 640 display…”. All emphases mine there.
I didn’t understand him to be saying “Apple are going to do this thing, and here’s my argument why.” He was saying “If Apple do this thing, here’s how I expect they would do it, and here’s what their thinking might be.”
@Colman: I’m not suggesting Gruber’s confirmed anything, but this isn’t the first post along these lines, and he seems to be placing some credence in the rumour.
@Craig: Hmm. Can’t blame you for reading between the lines, I suppose. Daring Fireball has had its share of “coded messages” the past week or so.
I still think the most important unanswered question about The New iPhone is will the home button still work at the end of a 2 year contract. My launch day 4’s home button is buggered.
I’m inclined to agree with Craig though – though 16:9 is fine for movies, I don’t watch movies of any real length on my phone. It seems odd to respond to a “need” which isn’t there (i.e. responding to spec sheets bragging about “widescreen”) by perhaps adding cost to manufacture etc to solve a non-existent problem.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it happened though. I just think it seems unnecessary.