![[ r@dyo ]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGWaZCEWonqZ0DuH2jYWifMz9jvPLwZ2D5ce7fUwziEkWul84IOQwAm8bAmdW_X9iD0vYkBGL0UC3_uHDO7ZA18HwWqMiecFGdOfa5b7wEp0tSxUUIOgRZm8ZeQuADer_BHDb5UU1LBPEN/s1600/RADYO+19950419%252C+Paintbrush+3.jpg)
| Model | Resolution | Aspect Ratio | Diagonal Size | Pixel Density |
| iPhone 3GS and earlier | _480x_320 |
_3:2
|
3.5"
|
163 ppi
|
| iPhone 4/4S | _960x_640 |
_3:2
|
3.5"
|
326 ppi
|
| iPhone 5/5s/5c* | 1136x_640 |
16:9
|
4.0"
|
326 ppi
|
| iPad mini | 1024x_768 |
_4:3
|
7.9"
|
163 ppi
|
| iPad mini with Retina* | 2048x1536 |
_4:3
|
7.9"
|
326 ppi
|
| iPad 2 and earlier | 1024x_768 |
_4:3
|
9.7"
|
132 ppi
|
| iPad 3 and later (with Retina)* | 2048x1536 |
_4:3
|
9.7"
|
264 ppi
|
If there's a few things you will notice, it's that:
What the last point affords is that most iPhone apps could run just fine on iPads. This is also important. In fact, old apps made for iPhone 3GS and earlier or iPhone 4 and 4S (i.e. 3.5" iPhones) can still run on current iPhones (4" size) and iPads, barring any functionalities removed by Apple in later versions of iOS.
Additionally, the iPad mini's 7.9" size was chosen because the icons on the 9.7" iPad would become the same size (i.e. not smaller which would be more difficult as a touch target) than on the iPhone.
Consider also that since iOS 6 and now in iOS 7, Apple has introduced dynamic text and some kind of auto-resizing mechanism, as well as a swipe from the left screen edge to go back -- allowing for different screen resolutions that would not be a bane to developers and their market.
So what now are the possibilities?
Firstly, let me say that (I'm wishing, or guessing but really more wishing that) Apple will surprise the world. We're expecting a larger iPhone and a larger iPad, and maybe an iWatch? I'm guessing, they'll go small on both iPhone and iPad. But sure, they'll have a larger iPhone but not phablet-big. Instead, they will have an even smaller iPad, maybe call it iPad nano, just because they won't ever have a phablet and risk seeing people put a 6" phone on their face while talking to someone. And they'll have a smaller iPhone -- but no, they're not going to call it iWatch. Additionally, I see the iPhone 5s and 5c, and maybe even the iPhone 4S still being sold together with at least the larger iPhone.
Anyways, these are now the possibilities:
* This is what I'm most confident in.
** This is second most probable -- see explanations below.
*** NO.
Can't really say much about the iPhone nanos -- it's just a guess. The downside to these, especially the 7th-gen-iPod-lookalike, is that the pixel density is lower than the current iPhones, and yet you probably hold it just as close to your face as you do your phones. The other question is how to fit a battery in there that's enough to power a cellular antenna. Maybe it'll only be 3G? And instead of more than a day's battery life, it'll just be 10 hours? It would be great if it will have that wireless charging thing (i.e. from a few feet away from the charging source). They definitely can't go thicker than the equivalent iPod models. My guess is the 6th-gen-iPod-lookalike is more likely which is why they pulled it out of the iPod lineup. Or, it is the 7th-gen-lookalike, and maybe they could just delete the whole iPod line all together? (More likely no.) Anyways, think about this too for a minute: M7 (co-)processor.
For the 3 iPhone guess sizes, the 3rd one (c) is probably the most feasible, albeit it will introduce certain challenges as the others. The 1st one (a) keeps the same current iPhone resolution but makes the screen larger by 1" -- and sacrifices on pixel density, which might be fine except that it will now have lower pixel density than the iPad mini! The 2nd one (b) uses an HD resolution (and yet allows for un-updated iPhone apps to display in full resolution, scaled or with black borders), provides a very large screen size close to 6" (and therefore you would now have a regular iPhone 4", this ~6" device, then the 8" iPad mini, and the 10" full iPad), and yet you have lower pixel density than the iPad mini still. Maybe not a very good option. The best option (c) would have benefits of both (a) and (b), and additionally only 0.5" larger than the current iPhone and maintains the maximum pixel density as the 4" iPhone and the iPad mini. This also results in only a 0.25" increase in total width for the iPhone. Meanwhile, the display of the icons will still sport a 5x4 grid on top of the 4 dock icons as started in the iPhone 5, albeit more sparsely spaced. Did you notice how the icons seem to have been closer together starting in iOS 7? If I were Apple, I'd keep the same width of the keyboard (640px wide) as it is now -- only because I'm very comfortable with it, but provide the option of a full-width (720px wide) keyboard for those with larger thumbs. This is great because you have a larger iPhone with HD display that can run old iPhone apps with no problems, and yet it's not yet exactly phablet territory. It will become the standard iPhone size moving forward, but as before, Apple will still keep the iPhone 5/5s form factor (4" size, 1136x640 resolution) until 2015.
What about the phablet? I think the 5.6" iPhone 6 (b) option is not an option anymore mainly because of the low pixel density, although they can stick with it and go double density in the future -- which is just insane and unlikely. But the iPhone 6 (a) is more likely although it's only 5". If they will go 5", it's a toss up then between this and the iPad nano (a) option. Profit-margins-wise, it seems the iPad nano (a) option is the better option, but it presents UI problems (much smaller touch targets) which could be a deal breaker. In this sense, but as I said, the iPhone 6 (a) option's (as well as the iPad nano (a)'s) low pixel density versus the smaller 4" iPhones and the larger 8" iPad mini doesn't make sense. This is actually the problem with the iPad nano (b) option. But the (b) option is exactly 6" (5.94" to be more exact), exactly between 4" and 7.9", which I think is attractive. But it is an iPad and not an iPhone -- it's not a phablet, it's a small tablet -- but Apple will sell a new wireless audio accessory so that you can use your iPad nano for phone calls. Or it could be that square iPhone nano? UI-wise for whichever iPad nano option, Apple would need to require devs to adopt this new screen resolution, and icons would be more tightly-spaced than it is now on an iPad mini. It's a totally different "category." But it's not a phone. It's not a phablet. It's a small tablet! It may be cheaper than the iPad mini with retina ($349? vs. $399) for the wifi-only 8Gb option. With the $99 Apple-cool-looking wireless audio accessory and LTE radio, it will all cost maybe $548 -- about the same price as the iPhone 5s when this "small tablet" comes out. But yeah, the margins will be lower than the iPhone counterpart.
Now let's talk big iPads. I don't really know how it will go. But it could just be bigger/wider versions of the iPad 2. And then they will introduce a Retina in the second revision. Price point? Maybe $499, the same as the current retina iPad. When the Retina comes out, that will be $599 and this non-retina one will be phased out. Or, going beyond the borders of logic, you could have as big as a 15.7" iPad -- same resolution as the current Retina iPads but with a pixel density as the original iPad mini. They could adopt a new pixel density altogether, and have something not insanely 15.7" big, which could be anything. (Or maybe a 220 or 201 ppi? With 11.65" or 12.75" sizes?) A new pixel density might cost more for Apple's bottomline -- not going to be very profitable, at least initially. It will be justifiable if it will sell in large numbers, but it does not seem that a large screen iPad will do as well as the current iPad sizes.
- There is no iPhone with HD display (at least 1280x720 resolution) yet.
- The largest iPhone size is 4" diagonal (16:9 aspect ratio) and there are rumors that there will be a larger screen iPhone.
- This 4" iPhone size is only a 0.5" increase from the previous size of 3.5".
- They keep certain resolutions for at least two generations (two years) of new models; although that resolution stays in the market for about 4 years (e.g. iPhone 4 / 2010 resolution stayed until iPhone 4S / 2011; iPhone 4S is still on sale until "iPhone 6" unveiling in September? 2014).
- Apple only keeps two families of pixel densities: 163 and 326 ppi, and 132 and 264 ppi. That is, base densities of 163 and 132 ppi, and their high-density equivalent which is twice the density or four times the number of pixels (twice the number of pixels in each direction).
- They have not changed the (short) widths of both the iPhone and iPad screens; they have only doubled the pixels, except for the case of the iPad mini, which can be viewed as a separate category from the regular iPad.
- Current generations of iPhones have resolutions that are smaller than the current iPads.
What the last point affords is that most iPhone apps could run just fine on iPads. This is also important. In fact, old apps made for iPhone 3GS and earlier or iPhone 4 and 4S (i.e. 3.5" iPhones) can still run on current iPhones (4" size) and iPads, barring any functionalities removed by Apple in later versions of iOS.
Additionally, the iPad mini's 7.9" size was chosen because the icons on the 9.7" iPad would become the same size (i.e. not smaller which would be more difficult as a touch target) than on the iPhone.
Consider also that since iOS 6 and now in iOS 7, Apple has introduced dynamic text and some kind of auto-resizing mechanism, as well as a swipe from the left screen edge to go back -- allowing for different screen resolutions that would not be a bane to developers and their market.
So what now are the possibilities?
Firstly, let me say that (I'm wishing, or guessing but really more wishing that) Apple will surprise the world. We're expecting a larger iPhone and a larger iPad, and maybe an iWatch? I'm guessing, they'll go small on both iPhone and iPad. But sure, they'll have a larger iPhone but not phablet-big. Instead, they will have an even smaller iPad, maybe call it iPad nano, just because they won't ever have a phablet and risk seeing people put a 6" phone on their face while talking to someone. And they'll have a smaller iPhone -- but no, they're not going to call it iWatch. Additionally, I see the iPhone 5s and 5c, and maybe even the iPhone 4S still being sold together with at least the larger iPhone.
Anyways, these are now the possibilities:
| Model | Resolution | Aspect Ratio | Diagonal Size | Pixel Density |
| iPhone nano ("iWatch," iPod nano 6th gen.+) | _240x_240 |
_1:1
|
1.6"
|
220 ppi
|
| iPhone nano (iPod nano 7th gen.+) | _432x_240 |
16:9
|
2.5"
|
202 ppi
|
| iPhone 6 (a) | 1136x_640 |
16:9
|
5.0"
|
264 ppi
|
| iPhone 6 (b) | 1280x_720 |
16:9
|
5.6"
|
264 ppi
|
| iPhone 6 (c)* | 1280x_720 |
16:9
|
4.5"
|
326 ppi
|
| iPad nano (a) | 1024x_768 |
_4:3
|
4.9"
|
264 ppi
|
| iPad nano (b)** | 1365x_768 |
16:9
|
6.0"
|
264 ppi
|
| iPad 2 HD (a) | 1280x_768 |
_5:3
|
11.3"
|
132 ppi
|
| iPad 2 HD (b) | 1365x_768 |
16:9
|
11.9"
|
132 ppi
|
| iPad Pro*** | 2048x1536 |
_4:3
|
15.7"
|
163 ppi
|
** This is second most probable -- see explanations below.
*** NO.
Can't really say much about the iPhone nanos -- it's just a guess. The downside to these, especially the 7th-gen-iPod-lookalike, is that the pixel density is lower than the current iPhones, and yet you probably hold it just as close to your face as you do your phones. The other question is how to fit a battery in there that's enough to power a cellular antenna. Maybe it'll only be 3G? And instead of more than a day's battery life, it'll just be 10 hours? It would be great if it will have that wireless charging thing (i.e. from a few feet away from the charging source). They definitely can't go thicker than the equivalent iPod models. My guess is the 6th-gen-iPod-lookalike is more likely which is why they pulled it out of the iPod lineup. Or, it is the 7th-gen-lookalike, and maybe they could just delete the whole iPod line all together? (More likely no.) Anyways, think about this too for a minute: M7 (co-)processor.
For the 3 iPhone guess sizes, the 3rd one (c) is probably the most feasible, albeit it will introduce certain challenges as the others. The 1st one (a) keeps the same current iPhone resolution but makes the screen larger by 1" -- and sacrifices on pixel density, which might be fine except that it will now have lower pixel density than the iPad mini! The 2nd one (b) uses an HD resolution (and yet allows for un-updated iPhone apps to display in full resolution, scaled or with black borders), provides a very large screen size close to 6" (and therefore you would now have a regular iPhone 4", this ~6" device, then the 8" iPad mini, and the 10" full iPad), and yet you have lower pixel density than the iPad mini still. Maybe not a very good option. The best option (c) would have benefits of both (a) and (b), and additionally only 0.5" larger than the current iPhone and maintains the maximum pixel density as the 4" iPhone and the iPad mini. This also results in only a 0.25" increase in total width for the iPhone. Meanwhile, the display of the icons will still sport a 5x4 grid on top of the 4 dock icons as started in the iPhone 5, albeit more sparsely spaced. Did you notice how the icons seem to have been closer together starting in iOS 7? If I were Apple, I'd keep the same width of the keyboard (640px wide) as it is now -- only because I'm very comfortable with it, but provide the option of a full-width (720px wide) keyboard for those with larger thumbs. This is great because you have a larger iPhone with HD display that can run old iPhone apps with no problems, and yet it's not yet exactly phablet territory. It will become the standard iPhone size moving forward, but as before, Apple will still keep the iPhone 5/5s form factor (4" size, 1136x640 resolution) until 2015.
What about the phablet? I think the 5.6" iPhone 6 (b) option is not an option anymore mainly because of the low pixel density, although they can stick with it and go double density in the future -- which is just insane and unlikely. But the iPhone 6 (a) is more likely although it's only 5". If they will go 5", it's a toss up then between this and the iPad nano (a) option. Profit-margins-wise, it seems the iPad nano (a) option is the better option, but it presents UI problems (much smaller touch targets) which could be a deal breaker. In this sense, but as I said, the iPhone 6 (a) option's (as well as the iPad nano (a)'s) low pixel density versus the smaller 4" iPhones and the larger 8" iPad mini doesn't make sense. This is actually the problem with the iPad nano (b) option. But the (b) option is exactly 6" (5.94" to be more exact), exactly between 4" and 7.9", which I think is attractive. But it is an iPad and not an iPhone -- it's not a phablet, it's a small tablet -- but Apple will sell a new wireless audio accessory so that you can use your iPad nano for phone calls. Or it could be that square iPhone nano? UI-wise for whichever iPad nano option, Apple would need to require devs to adopt this new screen resolution, and icons would be more tightly-spaced than it is now on an iPad mini. It's a totally different "category." But it's not a phone. It's not a phablet. It's a small tablet! It may be cheaper than the iPad mini with retina ($349? vs. $399) for the wifi-only 8Gb option. With the $99 Apple-cool-looking wireless audio accessory and LTE radio, it will all cost maybe $548 -- about the same price as the iPhone 5s when this "small tablet" comes out. But yeah, the margins will be lower than the iPhone counterpart.
Now let's talk big iPads. I don't really know how it will go. But it could just be bigger/wider versions of the iPad 2. And then they will introduce a Retina in the second revision. Price point? Maybe $499, the same as the current retina iPad. When the Retina comes out, that will be $599 and this non-retina one will be phased out. Or, going beyond the borders of logic, you could have as big as a 15.7" iPad -- same resolution as the current Retina iPads but with a pixel density as the original iPad mini. They could adopt a new pixel density altogether, and have something not insanely 15.7" big, which could be anything. (Or maybe a 220 or 201 ppi? With 11.65" or 12.75" sizes?) A new pixel density might cost more for Apple's bottomline -- not going to be very profitable, at least initially. It will be justifiable if it will sell in large numbers, but it does not seem that a large screen iPad will do as well as the current iPad sizes.
