4 ms·

I really do think Gruber's going to have to eat his own chowder on this one. There's just no precedent for Apple doing this. They've never played the resolutio

I really do think Gruber's going to have to eat his own chowder on this one. There's just no precedent for Apple doing this. They've never played the resolution game. Remember 15" laptops a few years ago? While Sony and other higher-end makers started cramming more pixels in each year, Apple slowly went from 1280x854 to 1440x900 and stopped there. Only in 2010 have they started to offer (and only as a BTO option!) the 1680x1050 res that you've been able to get on Vaios for years. Apple just prefers to concentrate on their antialiasing algorithms than to pump pixels. I think a much more likely resolution bump would be 1.5x each dimension for 720x480. It'll be a little short of HTC and Motorola's 852x480, but if Apple doesn't cut the color resolution with a Bayer pattern, their display will still look better. And most importantly, it'll use less memory and run faster than a full 960x480.

tvon 17y ago
Your reasoning is solid, but Gruber has repeated the 960x480 resolution a few times in reporting on the future of the iPhone, and typically when he gets that specific about something it's because he knows.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Your reasoning, however, isn't very solid. "It's right because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't right"; it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, and doesn't respond to the issue addressed. The parent post is not questioning whether Gruber believes his sources, but arguing that the information seems implausible. Your reply is that Gruber believes his sources are correct - yes he might state it because he believes it, but it could be wrong.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, It might be an appeal to authority, but there isn't any circularity. If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least get it right...
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. It isn't circular, is it? I'm mixing G's belief in his correctness and this poster's belief in G's correctness.
      - foldr 17y ago
        >Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. Erm, that's a very odd way of putting it. I think the OP was just saying "Gruber's specific claims have been reliable in the past, and hence are quite likely to be correct now." That is perfectly reasonable and it's not circular. (It is, of course, an inductive form of appeal to authority, but there is nothing wrong with that.)
        jodrellblank 17y ago
        As I first read it, I thought "he's right because he's specific and he's specific because he's right", which would be circular; but while the he's all refer to Gruber, the rights are distinct. He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he is right. That's what I was trying to say in my awkward earlier post. That does seem appealing to authority - thinking Gruber is right because of what he says and how he says it, rather than considering why he says it. Actually, what riled me more was the interpretation "He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he thinks he is right." Which conveys absolutely no information and adds nothing to the discussion, just repeating that G thinks he is right, which is a given, and was still getting upvotes; so I tried to attack the post to feel better, banking on pedanticism being good for a few karma points around here anyway. :/
  - tvon 17y ago
    What are you, a lawyer?
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      What are you, insinuating?
snom370 17y ago
Apple _is_ playing the resolution game, but they're not in a hurry. That's why there was no resolution bump on the 3G or the 3GS, even though better displays were available at the time. By doubling the resolution, they avoid a whole lot of problems by allowing old apps to run at their current resolution without any visible quality loss, something which a 1.5 bump would not achieve. From the prototype, you'll notice that the battery is much bigger. You can expect that Apple will put a faster chip (similar to the iPad) in the new phone, and that memory and CPU speed will not be an issue.
- Terretta 17y ago
  Speaking of doubling the resolution cheaply, see Apple's "iFrame" format notes: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3905 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3905 Apple likes 960 width x 540 height (see AppleTV), because it's easy to get to 1/4 1080p by dropping every other line and every other pixel, or to line double back up to 1080p from iFrame.
DenisM 17y ago
There's just no precedent for Apple doing this. They've never played the resolution game. They have also never made a music player. Right until the moment when they made one.
modeless 17y ago
A 1.5x scale factor would make existing apps look terrible. They will look fine scaled 2x. If they increase the resolution (and they will; the recently leaked prototype is irrefutable proof) they must increase it 2x for this reason alone.
- algorias 17y ago
  Exactly. Doubling each dimension of an image is a cheap operation. Multiplying by 1.5 is not, due to the antialiasing that would be required. Even with aa, the scaled image would look worse than the original.
  - WildUtah 17y ago
    1.5x is a nightmare on Android requiring me to get artwork done twice for every single asset. 2x would be a typical Apple brilliancy--make things easier by using quality hardware. On the other hand, I can see them telling devs to update or get left behind.
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  1.5x would indeed look bad for "legacy" apps, but I think even this fits in to Apple's current developer strategy: Update or get left behind. I mean, remember, Apple was willing just recently here to risk the incredible backlash of 3.3.1 for the sake of platform direction. I think they'll gladly risk developers complaining about redrawing UI bitmaps.
  - mattparcher 17y ago
    I think 3.3.1 is primarily a developer issue, whereas resolution is very much a user-facing issue as well. With the iPad, Apple didn't force developers to recode their iPhone apps, instead it allowed the older apps to run at native or double resolution. Granted, the double resolution doesn't look pretty, and Apple is strongly encouraging developers to produce iPad native apps, but they definitely seem to be taking advantage of their 185,000 app head start, and 1.5x would presumably look even worse on an iPad than 2x.
  - 17y ago
lukifer 17y ago
I'd say the reason that Apple hasn't gone for more pixels per inch on their computers has to do with the lack of resolution independence in their operating system (though it's been on the horizon for several years now). Making everything denser makes for harder-to-read menus and controls, unless the software (including third-party software!) is smart enough to compensate for it. With the iPhone, they're presumably addressing the software aspects of the resolution change in addition to just bumping the pixel count.

tvon 17y ago

Your reasoning is solid, but Gruber has repeated the 960x480 resolution a few times in reporting on the future of the iPhone, and typically when he gets that specific about something it's because he knows.

jodrellblank 17y ago
Your reasoning, however, isn't very solid. "It's right because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't right"; it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, and doesn't respond to the issue addressed. The parent post is not questioning whether Gruber believes his sources, but arguing that the information seems implausible. Your reply is that Gruber believes his sources are correct - yes he might state it because he believes it, but it could be wrong.
- foldr 17y ago
  >it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, It might be an appeal to authority, but there isn't any circularity. If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least get it right...
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. It isn't circular, is it? I'm mixing G's belief in his correctness and this poster's belief in G's correctness.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. Erm, that's a very odd way of putting it. I think the OP was just saying "Gruber's specific claims have been reliable in the past, and hence are quite likely to be correct now." That is perfectly reasonable and it's not circular. (It is, of course, an inductive form of appeal to authority, but there is nothing wrong with that.)
      - jodrellblank 17y ago
        As I first read it, I thought "he's right because he's specific and he's specific because he's right", which would be circular; but while the he's all refer to Gruber, the rights are distinct. He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he is right. That's what I was trying to say in my awkward earlier post. That does seem appealing to authority - thinking Gruber is right because of what he says and how he says it, rather than considering why he says it. Actually, what riled me more was the interpretation "He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he thinks he is right." Which conveys absolutely no information and adds nothing to the discussion, just repeating that G thinks he is right, which is a given, and was still getting upvotes; so I tried to attack the post to feel better, banking on pedanticism being good for a few karma points around here anyway. :/
- tvon 17y ago
  What are you, a lawyer?
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    What are you, insinuating?

snom370 17y ago

Apple _is_ playing the resolution game, but they're not in a hurry. That's why there was no resolution bump on the 3G or the 3GS, even though better displays were available at the time. By doubling the resolution, they avoid a whole lot of problems by allowing old apps to run at their current resolution without any visible quality loss, something which a 1.5 bump would not achieve. From the prototype, you'll notice that the battery is much bigger. You can expect that Apple will put a faster chip (similar to the iPad) in the new phone, and that memory and CPU speed will not be an issue.

Terretta 17y ago
Speaking of doubling the resolution cheaply, see Apple's "iFrame" format notes: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3905 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3905 Apple likes 960 width x 540 height (see AppleTV), because it's easy to get to 1/4 1080p by dropping every other line and every other pixel, or to line double back up to 1080p from iFrame.

DenisM 17y ago

There's just no precedent for Apple doing this. They've never played the resolution game. They have also never made a music player. Right until the moment when they made one.

modeless 17y ago

A 1.5x scale factor would make existing apps look terrible. They will look fine scaled 2x. If they increase the resolution (and they will; the recently leaked prototype is irrefutable proof) they must increase it 2x for this reason alone.

algorias 17y ago
Exactly. Doubling each dimension of an image is a cheap operation. Multiplying by 1.5 is not, due to the antialiasing that would be required. Even with aa, the scaled image would look worse than the original.
- WildUtah 17y ago
  1.5x is a nightmare on Android requiring me to get artwork done twice for every single asset. 2x would be a typical Apple brilliancy--make things easier by using quality hardware. On the other hand, I can see them telling devs to update or get left behind.
mortenjorck 17y ago
1.5x would indeed look bad for "legacy" apps, but I think even this fits in to Apple's current developer strategy: Update or get left behind. I mean, remember, Apple was willing just recently here to risk the incredible backlash of 3.3.1 for the sake of platform direction. I think they'll gladly risk developers complaining about redrawing UI bitmaps.
- mattparcher 17y ago
  I think 3.3.1 is primarily a developer issue, whereas resolution is very much a user-facing issue as well. With the iPad, Apple didn't force developers to recode their iPhone apps, instead it allowed the older apps to run at native or double resolution. Granted, the double resolution doesn't look pretty, and Apple is strongly encouraging developers to produce iPad native apps, but they definitely seem to be taking advantage of their 185,000 app head start, and 1.5x would presumably look even worse on an iPad than 2x.
- 17y ago

lukifer 17y ago

I'd say the reason that Apple hasn't gone for more pixels per inch on their computers has to do with the lack of resolution independence in their operating system (though it's been on the horizon for several years now). Making everything denser makes for harder-to-read menus and controls, unless the software (including third-party software!) is smart enough to compensate for it. With the iPhone, they're presumably addressing the software aspects of the resolution change in addition to just bumping the pixel count.