Apple Officially Reveals The iPhone 5 | Hacker News Reader

Apple Officially Reveals The iPhone 5

techcrunch.com

107 pointssalimmadjd187 comments

Pretty excellent design choices this time around.

Substantially improved body, performance, performance, performance, as world-mode as world-mode gets, significant camera upgrades, total carrier coverage, total content market coverage, a best-of-breed cloud story, deep integration with currently happening social networks, a total revamp of all I/O (save for the undoubtedly still-shitty speakerphone), an expansion of valuable flagship features into new markets, and (sigh) body with half the chance of shattering.

This will be targeted at mopping up any straggling iPhone 3x users in the wealthiest markets, re-upping the tens of millions of 4-adoptees, and offering a $200 ("free") phone in unsubsidized markets that finally has the same design language as the $800 flagship while running most of the same software features.

It still looks, walks, and talks like the best for the most. Enjoy your new shipment of money hats, Apple.

"[A 3.5 inch screen instead of a 4 inch screen]is an example of one of those design decisions that you don’t usually notice until you see someone doing it wrong. It’s one of the things that makes Apple products Apple products."

http://dcurt.is/3-point-5-inches

Spot on. "For the first time ever we've increased the size of the display. By making the screen taller, but not wider, you can still comfortably use it with one hand." - Jony Ive

(quote from engadget's liveblog at http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/12/apple-iphone-5-liveblog/)

I'd argue that the reason the iPhone succeeded as wildly as it did is because the one-handed-thumb-operation use case pales in comparison to everything else a big (for its time) touchscreen lets you do. My old T9 Symbian was fantastic for using one-handed with my thumb. I didn't have to look at the screen to type since the keypad had tactile feedback, and navigating up and down with the direction buttons to, say, delete a row from my grocery list while walking through the store was a breeze. I can type faster on a touch screen (especially when using two thumbs), but I can't do it blind nearly as well.

Nowdays I hold my phone in one hand, and use the other hand's index finger to manipulate the screen. It's vastly better than a physical thumb keypad for watching media, browsing the web, or viewing any other kind of information (all of which benefits from a larger screen, which is why—epecially as a guy with large-enough hands to do one-handed operation in a pinch even on a bigger screen—I prefer 4.3" screens over the 3.5" of the iPhone). It's also vastly better than a physical keypad for most other forms of interaction. But one-handed thumb usage has always been my mode of last resort for a touch-screen phone. So I like trading against the usability of that mode in exchange for more visible surface area.

"I'd argue that the reason the iPhone succeeded as wildly as it did is because the one-handed-thumb-operation use case pales in comparison to everything else a big (for its time) touchscreen lets you do."

I agree with this statement.

A larger display delivers a much better experience when reading text, watching videos, playing games or touching controls in apps.

I agree that the "I can reach the corner with my thumb" feature is an advantage. But that advantage pales compared to the fact that a large display (4.3+) significantly improves almost every action that people use on smartphones today.

IMHO the only reason Apple sticks with the sizes they use is because they built an operating system that is not designed for multiple screen sizes.

[edit: strange comment fail: I actually wote that I disagree with a statement that I actually agree with ;). fixed this now I guess]

You both seem to be in agreement.

I agree

The new screen is the same width as the old; just taller. If you look at the images in that blog post, it's pretty clear that a taller screen would be fine. It's the wider screen that really suffers. So I think his points hold.

...because nobody uses their phone horizontally.

It's uncommon to use a phone horizontally with one hand.

While the iPhone 4 screen's aspect ratio is 1.5:1, but the iPhone itself is 115.2 mm x 58.66 mm (approx 1:2). So, the same reasoning should apply to two finger use horizontally.

But many people use their phone horizontally with both hands.

See: text messagers, IRC users, ssh session runnners, angry birds players

And I doubt that you'll have any trouble using the iPhone 5 with two hands.

Hey look! It's a PS Vita without the backside touch interface or media card reader! ;-)

Depends on the phone.

Pretty much, yeah. Unless they're watching a movie or playing a game, it is pretty rare for somebody to be holding their phone horizontally.

With one hand? No.

No it doesn't. iPhone's new screen is 16:9, same as every Android phone. So a 4" iPhone screen would be exactly the same dimension as a 4" Android phone's screen.

Also check this out. The Droid RAZR M is just slightly taller than iPhone 4S, and I guess on par with the new iPhone - even though it has a 4.3" screen!

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6242/DSC_8062_575px.jpg

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ipho...

It's the absolute distance that your thumb has to travel that is important, not the aspect ratio. The question is whether your thumb can reach the opposing corner of the screen. Of course you could always say that the parts that aren't reachable will only be used for display, not controls. But I doubt that iOS 6 moves the navigation buttons to the bottom.

No doubt all the Apple fanboys will now be rushing to flip-flop and explain why a 4" screen was the right decision all along.

No more than Apple's detractors are quick to say things like "No doubt all the Apple fanboys will now be..." :)

No doubt all the Apple fanboys will now say things like "No more than Apple's detractors are quick to say things like \"No doubt all the Apple fanboys will now be...\" :)" :)

Not really. The width remains the same, so it's still usable with one hand. What's there to flip flop about?

Width, which seems optimal, hasn't changed. On the last image one can see that the green semicircle extends beyond the touchable part of the screen to the edges of the phone, implying the potential for a greater tactile surface.

Those circles aren't the same size, favoring the iPhone. It's not an honest comparison.

The Samsung circle reflects the fact that more of your hand is taken up in holding the increased witdth of the phone. If you actually try it you can see how it works easily.

I've got an HTC Sensation (the same size as the S II), an iPod Touch, and a Nexus One, and my "thumb range" is pretty wildly different from Dustin's diagrams.

I said it when he first posted it, and I'll say it now - the larger screen isn't a problem unless you have midget-thumbs, and the diagram is not true to the actual range of motion for the devices.

I don't have midget thumbs or the largest fingers but my range of motion pretty much matches his diagrams. I have an iphone but don't operate it one handed enough [1] for this to be remotely a dealbreaker.

[1] If anything I prefer to use the phone two handed and in landscape.

Agreed. I dropped a loaner SII on the concrete because I only had one hand to try and reach something. I'm not an iPhone user but having used the SII I won't ever get a phone with a screen so large it compromises actually using it.

To be fair, Dustin Curtis was mostly complaining about the width of the screen, which is unchanged in the iPhone 5.

Which is why he made the iPhone's circle both wider and taller than the S II's, I suppose?

The author used a smaller radius for the Samsung phone... Is it a mistake or is the the picture on the right at a smaller scale?

Neither! Using Apple products makes your appendages larger, including your thumbs, obviously! :)

Using the ruler tool in photoshop and comparing the ratios, it looks like they're pretty close to the same scale, and, even though it doesn't effect the message of the picture much, the second area is definitely smaller...

It's likely because your hand has to traverse the entire back of it. Put a phone in your hand and see how far your thumb swipes. Now turn the phone 90 degrees (or use a 2nd larger phone) and see that you really do make a smaller circle.

The size of your hand is fixed. With a wider object in your hand you cannot fold your thumb over as far.

Eagerly waiting for a new post from him saying how actually 4" is the perfect size.

Which is why Apple had to sue Samsung so people are no longer allowed to buy that phone. They love users so much they didn't want to see them using a phone where you can't reach the other corner with your thumb.

He must have very tiny thumbs

Screen resolution of 1136x640

Why on earth would they go 144x80 pixels shy of 720p, 1280x720?

Hasn't the world suffered enough from transcoding? So the eye sees your perfect DPI, but the pixels are going to be imperfect because it's a random down-sample size that doesn't divide anything standard.

I don't get it.

1136 means adding 88 screen pixels, which is 44 x 2.

44 is a magic number in iOS development. All navigation bars are 44px tall. All tap targets are recommended to be at least this size. It's very easy for developers to conceptualize 88 more vertical pixels and what to do with them; much easier to work with.

And let's face it, iOS is about the apps over watching videos. I'm sure 16:9 videos will look great.

Devs would have a completely new resolution. This maintains compatibility without having a ton of black bars around the screen. And yes, I realize it letterboxes with older apps. But I don't want vertical black bars too.

"Older apps" = "everything made up until about 45 minutes ago"?

Well, yes. Basically. It's just like the Retina display release.

They could have scaled it in one direction and keep the black bars only on one side. It is really silly not to use 1280x720.

> They could have scaled it in one direction

Yes, I'm sure "blurry as fuck" is what people look for in a backward compatibility feature. With 2:1 already dodgy, 9:8 scaling would have flown really well

So you want them to do the very thing you are complaining about with not having 720p? I don't know about you, but I use my phone for apps more than watching 720p video and I'd rather not have my email be blurry...

This is to preserve backwards compatibility with existing apps. It is unlikely anyone could see the difference between 1280x720 and 1136x640 on a 4 inch screen. Also that "small difference" is 27% more pixels.

I would be shocked if the difference between 720p native and slightly-downsampled 720p is really noticable on a screen that physically small.

Edit to clarify: for video. Videos and photos scale oh-so-much-nicer than pages of static text.

It's the same width as the older iPhones.

Since it's keeping the same width and that most apps are used in portrait mode, they just need to make sure they adapt to the longer screen.

For a lot of apps, it could mean doing nothing at all, since the typical app has a navigation bar at the top, which won't change, a list view which will just stretch longer and show more cells, and a tab navigation at the bottom, which won't change either.

Of course, this won't work for all apps, but at least it will work for many, whereas going for 720p, will make pretty much nothing work out of the box.

This is the biggest WTF for me too.

I don't get it. If I buy an old IPhone, or anything with a Micro-usb, I can just take my phone knowing I can charge it just about anywhere. But they put a new connector on it. Why not just put a micro-usb without adaptor on it? It seems that it would make a lot of sense for those of us who don't want pockets/bags full of cords and adaptors. Or just do both.

For one, Apple's new connector ("Lightning", but I'm not sold on the name) is reversible so is easier to insert correctly.

That is fantastic. Seriously, USB is annoying that way. But now when I take a trip for a couple days, which my work has me doing regularly, and if I have an Iphone 5, I have to be sure to bring my adaptor kit, or pay a $30 adaptor tax. With micro usb, I pay a $1 forgetfulness tax, if that, because almost everywhere has a spare usb charger or cable lying around.

I don't want to pay that much to not have to turn the cable over once.

In nearly every single situation, the right orientation for a USB cable is with the USB symbol on top.

There are exceptions, but this one rule let me get it right for all but 1 device I own.

Yes, but it's still the connector most people put in correctly on the third try. ;-)

I noticed that micro USB is better in this respect.

Unfortunately (and speaking as one who has never knowingly given Apple any money) not all USB devices get this right: I've got a card reader (made by Kingston) with the USB logo on the wrong side of the plug. It's really anoying.

Doesn't help in the dark, which happens to me every night as I put it onto charge.

My symbols have long faded away. I had to scratch one side.

The tech spec page says "Lightning to USB Cable".

Doesn't say if it's USB 2 or 3, and doesn't say if it could be Thunderbolt (unlikely)

Likely for size reasons. "Micro" USB is still pretty thick on the iPhone thickness scale.

I'm just speculating, but it seems more reasonable than the "because they can charge you for it!!!" hand-waving going on in my sibling comments.

This phone http://img.pics.livedoor.com/012/d/3/d3c8a2642464e6c8bfd0-LL... is 6.65mm thick

Also, the new connector is reversible. I'll gladly take that over standard, although I know other people have different preferences.

Which is really the only major benefit over both the standard USB and the current Apple 30-pin.

To be honest, I'm not sure if that alone is really worth the extra annoyance of a new connector.

TBH, there's almost zero extra annoyance for me. On the day my iPhone 5 arrives, I'll pack up the old connectors in the family misc cables box and never use them again. I'll probably buy two extra connectors, one for the car and one for the office. Overall effort spent: less than twenty minutes and twenty dollars. Definitely worth it by my accounting.

I'd assume it's because controlling the adapter means controlling the device ecosystem and therefore both less testing they have to perform and less support issues from the random stuff people try to connect up to the device.

Because selling the new cords and accessories and licensing the new connector to other companies will make Apple a lot of money, and the costs are not visible to the consumer (i.e., a cable costing $10 instead of $2, with $8 going into Apple's pockets - the $8 Apple surcharge is not easily visible to the consumer).

If Apple had decided to make the same amount of money overall by raising the price of the iPhone 5 and using standard connectors, it would be more visible to you. This way is akin to the "cheap printer and expensive ink" paradigm, or the "cheap airfare but you have to pay all the taxes and fees separately" paradigm. Most consumers will not look ahead to calculate the lifetime cost of ownership of the device, they'll only look at the initial price.

A reasonable estimation is that apple is going to NET about 32 billion dollars in sales of iPhone 5s in its first sales year. Take that $8 surcharge, add an extra adapter at $10 a pop for every one of those customers, and you're talking about an extra 0.5% of net revenue.

It's meaningless to them. It really is. Regardless of what reason they ended 30-pin, it cannot be seen as a primarily financial one.

In the past I would agree, but with all the stories of cost cutting lately, I am skeptical that it is meaningless.

Some ill-sourced dirty laundry about Apple Retail does not apply here. If I may engage in some hyperbole: this is the highest-profile product in all of consumer electronics that is at the forefront of almost any discussion regarding the biggest change in how seven billion humans spend their days in a long, long time. And disrupting a decade-old ecosystem of a billion 'things' is not engaged in for cost saving measures.

Factoring in supplier changes and development costs, I would wager that the .5% revenue would result in an overall wash on the accounting sheets.

I really don't think it was to sell connectors. Those kinds of things are too low margin for Apple to really care that much.

I used round numbers for illustration. A microUSB-USB cable costs $2 (delivered!) from dx.com. A cable to do the same thing from Apple will cost $19:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/05/apple_adapters_for...

plus taxes, plus shipping if you want it shipped. This part is costing Apple less than $1 to produce and distribute. I see an estimate of 23 million iPhone 5's will be sold in the first quarter of availability. I couldn't say how many extra cables will be sold but if we go with your one-per-phone estimate, we're talking about an extra $400 million, in profit, in the first quarter of sales alone. Just from cables, not counting docks and speakers and whatever else people plug into their iPhones. Counting those other things, maybe a wild-ass guess would be on the order of an extra $5 billion in profit over the next year?

I have zero doubt in my mind that Apple's decision to forego both the old dock connector and microUSB was primarily profit-driven. Let's summarize the situation:

-- changing connectors has an extremely clear negative impact on users (all your cables and accessories are obsolete)

-- changing connectors has an extremely clear and truly enormous profit benefit for Apple (also a negative impact on users)

-- Apple has stated that the new connector connects in two orientations, providing a tremendous benefit to users

Is that a fair summation of the arguments on both sides?

Point #2 is arguing with your conclusion, so let's set that aside.

You're on the right track but you have to look wider. And now that prices are out, we can play with better guesstimates.

Anyone purchasing an iPhone will have a USB wallbrick and a USB-Lightning cable in the box. They can charge their phone from that setup, any computer, and any USB wallbrick Apple or any third-party vendor ever sold. So the "upsell" here, if there is one:

- Purchasing extra USB-Lightning cables for convenience ("one for the work PC too...") $19 - Purchasing Lightning-30 adapters for old 30-pin dock speakers and car adapters still in use $29

I'm guessing attachments will be about 10% for the extra cable and 10% for the dock over the life of the product. But let's say 50% for all iphone 5 purchasers.

With an estimated global sale of 80M per year, assuming 50% attachment for both, assuming 100% profit margin, that's $50 over 80M units / 2 = 2B dollars in an extremely optimistic interpretation.

Apple booked 109B in revenue in 2011, of which 2B would count for 1.83%. They will do a great, great deal more than that by the time 2012 is over.

$2B in potentially increased accessory profit is a fart in the wind for this company. And keep in mind they're probably losing a substantial number of 30-pin licensees in this changeover, who already pay real money to get -their- access to Apple's vast platform of 90% margin accessories. We're just trading one proprietary connector for another.

Also, considering the obvious and real customer ire breaking compatibility causes, considering the obvious and real costs of redesigning and changing a part they've been ordering by the hundred millions for a decade, and considering the possibility that they might not even re-license any of their 30-pin accessory profiles, it can't simply be for money's sake.

The benefit for them moving to a dramatically smaller I/O port with a dramatically smaller set of supporting onboard electronics is in meeting extraordinary engineering pressure for reduced volume and mass in an era where many of their mobile products are nearly the same size as a 30-pin dock connector.

It's a new era. Consumer computers are now measured in milligrams and micrometers, and 2002's best effort doesn't cut it anymore.

Apple should just hire Will Ferrell and/or Danny McBride to do the keynotes. "We didn't just make a new dock connector, we went the extra mile and gave it a rad name. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Lightning. It's made with bits of real cheetah, so you know it's fast."

In Steve's latest bio it seemed to suggest the next iPhone would have a revolutionary design. It seems to be pretty iterative to me.

Let's face it, in this consumer world, where our needs and wants are defined by enormous marketing budgets, every new model simply has to be revolutionary. Even if they just put a new color on something, it has to be marketed as such to convince people they not only want it, but actually need it.

When that new Ford F-150 comes out with 34% more power, it always amazes me that nobody says "what the hell were you doing last year that was so crap?".

I'm thinking they had problems (or it simply didn't make the cut) with the new design, and opted for a second-place, more conservative design. I have no proof to back this claim up, just my gut feeling on it.

may be less than people expected, but still very impressive list of improvements:

- 20% lighter than the previous model

- a little larger display

- A6 processor

- camera with a better low-light performance

- 802.11a/b/g/n 2.4GHz, dual channel 5GHz, just like in the Kindle Fire HD

- 4G LTE networks support (around the world)

- HSPA+ and DC-HSDPA (improvements to the existing 3G technology)

and, looks like more news to come...

Some good improvements, but it's definitely a resounding "meh" from me. I'm not sure why. The first iPhone was, obviously, mindblowing. Retina on the iPhone 4 was similarly amazing.

But I can't think of a single thing we're seeing today that we haven't seen already.

You haven't seen a unibody phone anywhere. This thing will be a tank.

The processors look nice and beefy as well.

As andrewmunsell said, the Nokia phones are unibody, including the new 940. Though I don't expect to get one, a Nokia WP8 actually does seem quite innovative. WP8's UI, camera features, unibody design, offline maps... well, it's interesting at least.

Don't forget the actual Nokia N9, after which the Lumias were made. Same unibody, solid Linux/MeeGo experience. The amazing is that I can impress anyone with it, while an iPhone is such a common view that is becoming the next "xerox" or "velcro".

Well, technically there are unibody phones... ie. Nokia Lumia 800

and with much better specs particularly in camera department.

My HTC One S is a unibody.

I have one too. That clippable top part totally ruins anything else they did to the body for me. It falls off if I even drop the phone lightly on the desk.

I picked up an HTC One S yesterday, since my previous droid was stolen. This phone is a tank. Compared to my previous, Galaxy S 4G, it's solid as a rock.

This has been the resounding response to almost every iPhone revision. And every iPod announcement. They've been losing their magic touch in forums everywhere since their stock was under $50.

What would you have liked to see?

I don't know. I realise that sounds like a total cop-out answer, but I had no idea I wanted the features of the first iPhone until I saw it. I never realised I wanted a retina display until it was demoed.

One specific piece of tech I can think of- I do wish Apple had done something with NFC. I agree that it's a joke right now, but that's the point- they could have made something earth-shatteringly brilliant that people would actually use.

Well, NFC is not a joke. It's just not been widely adopted...yet. I use it everyday to initiate pairing between my nokia phone and nokia play 360 speakers without any problem.

Airdrop support.

iterative, my friend. apple has lost its touch on innovation, imho.

You have to be pretty innovative with chip design to make processors that double the performance over the previous model.

You have to be pretty innovative with hardware design to reduce the weight of a phone that's already compact by 20%.

I don't think they lost their touch at all.

Do you really believe Android manufacturers use fundamentally different chips? Most of Apple chips are designed and manufactured by other companies, including the CPU.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Apple's Ax processors are manufactured by other companies (mostly Samsung) but they're designed by Apple, in-house. They started doing so after the acquisition of PWRficient.

They are indeed different from the CPUs used by other smartphone manufacturers.

Of course, Apple "designs" the exact same Cortex-A9 and PowerVR cores as everyone else. (I'll give them some credit if they are first with A15.) Qualcomm is arguably more innovative given that Krait, Adreno, and the baseband are all in-house.

Remember that it's another ARM based SOC; as a percentage of gates it would surprise me if Apple's input was more than a percent.

I also suspect that most of the speed and power gains come from process improvements.

I'm sorry you are so brainwashed by Apple marketing. Apple's Ax line is using reference ARM designs, with negligible modifications.

Manufactured? Yes. Designed? No. Of course, their processors are ARM based, but that doesn't mean that they just stick a reference design in there and hope for the best. A lot of work goes into the design and Apple bought P.A. Semi and Intrinsity and acquired a 9.5% stake in Imagination Technologies, the folks behind PowerVR for that very purpose. Blithely declaring that Apple don't design their chips is somewhat wide of the mark.

I don't know how these acquisitions are relevant at all given that all dissections of A-series chips revealed reference ARM Cortex designs underneath. At best Apple design packaging of these chips, but that's 1% of work.

Your just outright wrong. All of the companies that design SoC's put a heck of a lot of work into the design of the chip. Saying that it's mere packaging is simple mindedness at it's best.

lol

I think we need to wait for some real benchmarks and not just Apple's sales department's numbers to find out the real performance of the new processor.

Yes, one of the hallmark traits of Apple and one of the reasons why I still sometimes can love them. A company that is willing to perfect their products, that doesn't go for new for the sake of new, that's really rare.

I hate many of their decisions, many of their views, but I think they always had and still have the right mix of iteration and innovation.

Yes, because every iPod they released was a revolution with tons of innovations compared to the previous year's, right?. Just like every Mac?

Iteration is how Apple plays it, and they play it well.

Although I agree with your broader point, the iPod actually seems like a terrible example to me. They did innovate a ton- the mini, the nano, thin nano, fat nano, square nano, chewing gum shuffle, square shuffle...

True, true. My thoughts were along the line of the Classic - from year to year they didn't innovate much along that one line, but you're 100% correct they innovated to fill more niches with new lines.

Iteration and innovation each have their places.

Innovation works best when the existing alternatives are awful. I'm not sure why one would "innovate" against their successful formula.

Individual features might be innovative, however. For example, the re-arrangement of photo processing tasks to produce better low-light photos.

http://live.arstechnica.com/apple-september-2012-event-its-a...

The innovation/iteration process of Apple is often misinterpreted. Apple has had a clear line in this for a long time:

- The main innovation is done to create new products: iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad. Such products are a result of years of research and development. When Apple releases the product, they make sure the core usability philosophy is sound and does not need to be changed afterwards. - After a product and the surrounding concepts are released, Apple is very conscious not to depart to far from the original concepts and philosophies surrounding that product group. This creates trust and customer loyalty that more "innovative" brands would pay dearly for.

This, in my opinion, has been an oft-overlooked factor in Apple's success.

But worth $200 and lock-in for 2 more years? Probably not for me. My ATT contract I got with the iPhone 4 just expired. The iPhone 5 specs don't make me want to fork out the cash and get locked into another 2 year contract. I'll wait to see what Android devices do in the next few months.

I prefer just to buy the phone cash and go with a regular monthly contract.

"impressive list of improvements" if you lived in 2010.

Nokia Lumia 920 beats iPhone 5 in pretty much every spec.

I'm curious how the new screen shape will play out. And not just the issues with fragmentation of aspect ratio, but with usability. Currently the iphone screen is just big enough that I can hold it with one hand and reach all four corners with my thumb. That said, I trust Apple has tested the usability aspect of the phone and has a plan for the aspect ratio differences.

I've been working with the new layout system Apple added in iOS6 (Auto Layout). You basically define a set of rules like: this sticks to this, this view's height is proportional to this view's height, etc. The SDK attempts to reconcile the rules you gave and lets you know if there are any ambiguities in a clear way. It's very well thought out- powerful yet easy to use. I don't think fragmentation will be a problem.

I do think however that the extra width in Landscape will now require a completely different interface. Adding 88 extra screen pixels means that simply rotating and stretching the interface has crossed the line from "looks kinda weird" to "looks terrible".

Isn't that pretty much what other layout engines do? i.e. QT etc.

What was the situation before? Absolute positioning via x/y? Really?

Absolute positioning, along with an "auto-resizing" mask for each view defining how it should react to change in the parent view's size.

The old way was versatile actually. What it lacked was being able to relate views to anything aside from it's parent container.

Currently the iphone screen is just big enough that I can hold it with one hand and reach all four corners with my thumb.

This reminds me a bit of the argument that 90 feet is the optimal size for a baseball infield, as evidenced by the number of close plays at first base after a ground ball to an infielder. In actuality, though, the high frequency of close plays is the result of how the infielders choose to position themselves.

You can reach all four corners of the screen with your thumb not because of the size of the phone, but because of how you choose to hold it. Change the size of the phone, and you'll naturally change your grip.

For those of us who paid good money to designers to make backgrounds and graphics based on the old aspect ratio this is going to be quite a costly headache.

Increasing the screen size diagonally would have given a much better power of two increase in surface, which is desperately needed with iPhones (I have a 4.6inch device and feel that the perfect size would be just a tiny bit bigger than that). There was no need for aspect-ratio fragmentation.

If they didn't want to increase the device width, they should have tried doing like Motorola RAZR M and reduce the bezel.

Making the screen higher but not wider is a good choice here. Due to the bone and muscle structure in your hand, it is much easier to move your thumb a little higher and lower, then it is to move it more outward.

But the back button is on the top left. That's a problem. It's already hard to reach now.

I'm totally stoked about people regularly plugging phones into their PCIe (Thunderbolt) port. Hottest talk at BlackHat USA 2013 will be an iPhone 5 -> MacBook exploit using DMA.

They just call it Lightning. AFAIK, it still plugs into USB.

That doesn't seem clear from the coverage so far. Obviously it has to be USB in the box, but the name hints that there would be a Thunderbolt option at least.

I'd be surprised. There's nothing you would need 10 Gbps for on a phone. The flash memory wouldn't even keep up. Plus with cables costing $50, it'd be an expensive option to have a second kind of cable. It's probably just marketing lingo to make it seem like it's related to TB.

Driving a display would be one of those times, though. I would love having a phone as the basic computing device, with a desktop and tablet shell.

No NFC, very disappointing. I guess mobile payments will be delayed another year?

Well, to be fair, I'm not exactly sure where I'd use NFC since no where around where I live has NFC terminals. It's only the transit system... Barcodes at least work at Starbucks and the Airport, among other places.

I know this is a somewhat inaccurate comparison, but no-one (and by that I mean major brands, etc) had mobile apps until Apple made a phone that allowed them. If Apple made an NFC-enabled iPhone companies could see reason to jump on the bandwagon.

I'm sure it would, but it's not a huge loss IMO. It'll come eventually and I'll miss not being able to do things like the Nexus Q + NFC Android phone pairing, but oh well.

Not sure where you live but this may help: http://www.mastercard.us/mobile/paypass-locator.html

It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If Apple were to include NFC in iPhone you can bet adoption would start taking off soon after.

Chicken meet egg.

In my area, Square and LevelUp are pretty much solving the mobile payments "problem." I say "problem" because in every situation where I use Square, I also have a credit card handy (using my credit card is not really a problem).

If I were to buy an iPhone 5, NFC would be the feature I would be guaranteed not to use. There's simply no vendors who are NFC-enabled anywhere near me. I'm not sure I've ever seen an NFC-enabled vendor anywhere, for that matter.

I know this is really silly, but every year I wish they would put an FM tuner in the iPhone, and every year they don't.

OK, replying to my own comment here, but you know what would REALLY be cool? Software defined radio. Think about getting to the point where not only could all the baseband stuff be done in software, but apps could program the transceiver to do whatever they wanted. Then we could get AM/FM, Shortwave, and all other kinds of apps.

Granted, the hardware is still nowhere near there right now, and there would be all kinds of complications with the FCC, but imagine how cool that would be!

Putting a self-contained piece of wireless pentesting kit into the hands of every preteen with rich parents, and then allowing any app developer to blast arbitrary RF through the airwaves doesn't exactly strike me as a good idea.

It certainly would encourage small businesses to fnially secure their wireless networks.

Guess we'll see whether WPA2's security is as strong as imagined.

I'm thinking that, as far as getting any of the apps in the app store, there would be a whole other level of certification involved.

As for one-off apps that wreak havoc, I think within the next couple of years we will be entering the age of dirt-cheap wideband tx/rx software defined radio kits, so we'll have to deal with that anyway!

that's literally the only thing stopping it from happening. the FCC is terrified that someone could write a virus which could then jam emergency radio frequencies.

I can just picture the anti-skeuomorphism crowd having a meltdown over Apple's "iRadio" app that they'd inevitably release. It would probably look like an old-timey stand-up radio.

Which is amazing seeings they have one in the iPod Touch... how hard could it be?

You mean nano.

Huh. I just re-capped the event and you're right. It's in the nano but not the touch.

I've never even thought of this - the iPhone doesn't have an FM radio? That's pretty ridiculous. Pretty much everyone, at least outside US, wants that on their phones. But I guess some learned to live without it because iPhone.

Oh my god. I must have been caught in a time vortex and transported back to 2005 when everyone was saying the iPod would be doomed if Apple doesn't include FM radio. Pronto.

Apple will add an FM tuner when the product no longer really matters. You know, like they now did with the iPod nano.

I've got it on a SGS II and never use it. The reception is pretty variable. I'd rather suffer buffering than hiss and crackle.

What's odd is that they added it to the iPod Nano, but not the iPhone or touch.

"Apple just did what Microsoft couldn't - get people to buy a Windows phone." - Credit to commentor engadget.

So basically, its an inferior Galaxy S3 with the same old design for twice the money. Well done Apple.

If that's your perspective, what do you think it means when people choose to buy the iPhone instead of the Galaxy S3?

It doesn't mean that the people who choose the iPhone are sheep, or don't understand what they want. It means that the iPhone has some kind of appeal that you don't understand. Rather than claiming that something is "basically" something else, I'd recommend taking the time to understand why it's actually different, then applying those lessons to the products you develop.

To answer your question: I'd say it means the people choosing to buy the iPhone aren't doing it based on the merits of the device, but rather the ecosystem around it (A LARGE part of which is advertising, particularly advertising that makes the device a status symbol).

I say this because he's right, from a technical perspective the iPhone is "basically" just another smartphone. The guts are the same, the form factor is essentially the same. Hell, at this point even the feature sets of iOs and Android are basically the same.

So yes, there are reasons why people choose to buy an iPhone. But the only real "lesson" I see at this point is that brand names and advertising work...

Firstly, ecosystem is a bit more than advertising, dude. iTunes, iCloud, AirPlay, and the App Store are all real, tangible things, and much richer than their Android counterparts (my opinion).

Secondly, you're looking at speeds & feeds, and not the design of the thing. It's the best designed phone in the market in terms of look, heft, hand feel, not even beginning to get into the UX of iOS. These are little things, but they matter to people, and they're not easily quantifiable on a data sheet.

But see, that's my point. It's not really the best designed thing on the market anymore. It's one good choice among many.

Sure the first generation iPhone was just hands down better than the competition at the time, but it's not anymore.

Claiming that the look, heft, and hand feel are better is ridiculous, all of them are subjective opinions that vary widely among users (Take me for example, I really like the slate and glass look, but since I have big hands I dislike the heft and hand feel.)

Further, the thing is running a new version of the OS, so when you talk about the UX of iOS 6, what you're really saying is that you believe (based on previous Apple iOS releases) that they will create a good user experience. That's branding.

And I want to stop and state: branding isn't bad. If you've had a previous version of a product and you LIKED it, it's entirely reasonable to assume a future release is also something you'd like. but that doesn't make the device any better or worse, it just makes you more likely to buy it.

And finally, yes I agree that Apple has carefully curated their ecosystem so it seems clean and polished. But it's not any richer (my opinion is that it's considerably less rich since it's so heavily curated, but again that's opinion). MOST importantly though, the ecosystem has little to do with the device itself, that same ecosystem could exist around any device (and does exist around older iPhones).

> Claiming that the look, heft, and hand feel are better is ridiculous, all of them are subjective opinions that vary widely among users

It's no more ridiculous than people saying they prefer the look, heft, and feel of a BMW or Benz vs. a Ford Taurus SHO.

> when you talk about the UX of iOS 6, what you're really saying is that you believe (based on previous Apple iOS releases) that they will create a good user experience. That's branding.

Yes, I agree that's branding, but that wasn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the UX of iOS in general vs. most versions of Android or WinMo. Admittedly, Android 4.x has gotten much better.

> the ecosystem has little to do with the device itself, that same ecosystem could exist around any device (and does exist around older iPhones)

But again, you're splitting a difference that doesn't exist anymore. There's not "just a device".. the whole reason Apple justifies their large margins is that they're selling an integrated experience of device, software, and cloud services.

Yes, it could exist around any device, but it's sort of like saying "anyone with a hot tub and sauna can be a 5-star spa". Those are devices, they're not just about the design of the experience in totum. To suggest this is just marketing and branding is to dismiss design as mere polish and ornament rather than "how something works end-to-end".

The whole iOS6 demo is a flashback to WWDC... Nothing new here for the iPhone 5 so far...

iPod touch loop button - seems like a design decision Steve Jobs would have never allowed. It seems like they are just trying to get into the camera market by attaching a wrist strap, yet they've sacrificed the purity of their design. I'm not gonna speculate on whether this is gonna increase the appeal of the ipod family, but to me it seems like bad design decision - from an aesthetic point of view.

25% smaller...sensor area? so reduced ability to create a depth of field effect?

Does anyone know when the iPhone 5 will be available to purchase, what's the normal time to market after the announcement? (I'm in the UK, if that changes how long I'll have to wait)

Pre-orders start this Friday (Sept 14th), and shipping starts Sept 21st.

edit: US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore markets

For the US, preorders start in two days, and it ships a week later. Looks like it ships to the UK on the 28th.

iphone 5: Bigger iphone is bigger and fits bigger stuff.

Seriously? New iTunes in "October"? That's a weird thing to pull considering the new iPhone's out before then, new iPods, iOS 6, etc...

I was hoping that the iPhone 5 would be as exciting as the iPhone 4. I was disappointed.

Things I was hoping for:

- Completely waterproof design: would allow taking photos/videos underwater, and prevent water damage in general.

- NFC: I think a lot of people wanted to see this. I know not many places use NFC right now but Apple has always been a driving force of technology, not a follower.

- Built-in projector: Would make it ridiculously easy to show your photos/videos to friends (just project them on a wall). Would also allow giving presentations on the go (important business use-case).

- Solar panels: for emergency recharging.

- Radio receiver: not only for listening to the radio, but also for developing integrations between the iphone and remote control devices that use radio frequency

Me too, and I was also hoping for a pony.

I don't think anyone ever predicted there was any chance of a waterproof design, projector, solar panels, or a radio receiver. I get being disappointed that Apple doesn't include the features you want, but why hope for things that are almost certainly never going to happen?

My thinking is that a company that has $117 billion in cash reserves should be able to make a device that has seemingly impossible features, rather than simple incremental improvements.

It's not just what you put into it, but what you keep out that makes it special. More features means more weight, potentially lower battery life, more cost, etc. etc.

At WWDC, in the external accessory and core bluetooth talks, they make mention that they would prefer to see bluetooth 4.0 LE profiles for payment systems, and other NFC type applications. I think this is a big reason they feel they don't need NFC.

The Core Bluetooth framework is definitely worth looking at if you are interested in iPhone external connectivity stuff.

I was gonna write asking if you are sarcastic, but the solar panel thingy settled the case.

As an app developer I thank the Screen Resolution Overlords for making all my competitors look obsolete.

What about the battery? Any news about it? I really do hope Apple improved it as well!

Yes, there is a slight improvement in battery life.

I was expecting a better camera. May be a 10MP. Very disappointed.

More megapixels don't make cameras better. And with small CCD they make them worse.

Smaller sensors make them worse. Sure, they can mitigate that with better software and better optics, but sensor size is the best estimate of image quality. It's really disappointing to see that the 5 has a smaller sensor than the 4S.

When I say more, I meant more in an "Apple" way. Apple has always stood up to the expectations of its users in terms of the camera quality. When it comes to Apple, more mega pixels would definitely mean a better camera. They would never just increase the number of mega pixels and have a low quality camera. I would agree with what you've said otherwise.

Faster image capture is better in an "Apple" way. The speed with which I can take pictures with my 4S makes it far superior for e.g. taking pictures of kids, who tend to not wait for your camera app to get ready.

And yet, you will still miss shots because the camera was slow. 40% improvement here is a big deal.

This is exactly what I came on the threads worried about. They're using a smaller sensor, and they seem to have done something with the IR filter. I suppose that might improve low-light image quality; but I wonder what it's going to do to the photos when the camera is on. All in all, I want to see how this camera performs in various lighting conditions. I'm very curious.

Why? Or just because 10MP has more pixels than a 7MP one?

I doubt people could tell the difference between 7 million and 10 million pixels, unless you want to put it on a billboard

What is the third microphone for?

Top is for noise cancellation, the back is for video.

Better noise cancellation and voice recognition.

When can you order one?

The 14th (Friday)

Thanks.

I am still trying hard to find a reason to get excited about....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com