I suspect because they're trying to align to some type of grid.
(Even spacing between icons would require 39px of separation, and the odd numbering probably throws something off.)
(Even spacing between icons would require 39px of separation, and the odd numbering probably throws something off.)
(640-(4*114))/5 = 36.8 pixels.
I wonder why they didn't choose this instead:
38+36+36+36+38
That would be most evenly spaced, symmetrical, and compatible with non-retina displays.
I guess, this would be pointless:
36+38+36+38+36 (18+19+18+19+18)
since the 2nd and 3rd icon wouldn't get the benefit of the extra spacing.
So the reasonable option would be: 34+38+40+38+34 (17+19+20+19+17)
What am I missing for this to be more complicated?