> So the question is, if a 4-inch 16:9 display is better than a 3.5-inch 3:2 display, why hasn’t the iPhone been using 4-inch 16:9 displays from the start? How

> So the question is, if a 4-inch 16:9 display is better than a 3.5-inch 3:2 display, why hasn’t the iPhone been using 4-inch 16:9 displays from the start? How about: Apple got this wrong? To be fair to Apple, if they came out with a 4" or 4.5" back in 2007 it would have strangely large compared to everything else on the market (not to mention having the properties Gruber also mentions). The 3.5" screen made perfect sense then. However, what Apple didn't do was foresee that most consumers would prefer larger screens, and this doesn't fit with the Apple ideal of One True Resolution. (Yes, now there are two resolutions for iPhones, but only the vertical resolution has changed.)