That's awesome, and I have absolutely no intention of putting a 5" display into my pocket. I survived using old school WinMo slider smartphones and don't miss having a lump of heavy, expensive phone there constantly.
The UX experience/monitor size argument has been discussed many times, and the general consensus seems to be that Apple picked a 3.5" screen because it presents the most comfortable layout.
And I disagree with that. I find 4.3" comfortable to use with the thumb. Also if 3.5" was the perfect size, Apple wouldn't make it any bigger. And yet there is a very real possiblity that they will increase the size. You get so many more benefits from a larger screen. From the beginning I've been of the belief that as long as it fits in your pocket, you will get a better experience the bigger the screen size of the smartphone is. Also you should start looking at them as mini-tablets rather than just "phones" that got "too big".
The experience probably varies quite significantly from person to person. I remember appreciating the decrease in size when I upgraded from my 4" Nexus S to a 3.5" iPhone 4S.
I think you've got a point about a larger screen allows for more info, and apps could probably be designed around the size issues. Facebook pioneer the idea of a side menu that could be swiped open with a gesture, and that technique should allow for easy one-finger usage on even the largest screens.
Occasionally, a company manages to get the race off the number tracks - e.g. AMD, whose lower-frequency processors were way better higher-frequency than Intel's Pentium 4 processors of the time.
But in general, companies compete on (numerical) price or on (numerical) specs, and almost always have.
Only for a certain distance, I suppose. Also, it was true for the iPhone at 329 PPI. Is it still true for the iPad 3 at 264 PPI? Apple keeps calling it retina for marketing purposes, but there's quite a gap between 329 and 264. And if 264 is "good enough", does that mean 250 PPI is good enough, too? What about 220?
There is an argument that you hold the larger screen further from your face. Thus the pixel density your eyes see is different. This would imply that a 5" screen needs less PPI than the 3.5" iPhone.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] threadhttp://www.engadget.com/2012/05/27/lg-display-five-inch-1080...
I read about this display on many news sources, why link from a site that doesn't even proofread the title?!
I believe Dustin Curtis was the first person to start that discussion: http://dcurt.is/2011/10/03/3-point-5-inches
http://www.paulgraham.com/tablets.html
I think you've got a point about a larger screen allows for more info, and apps could probably be designed around the size issues. Facebook pioneer the idea of a side menu that could be swiped open with a gesture, and that technique should allow for easy one-finger usage on even the largest screens.
Wasn't that already true for Retina displays? Maybe I'm missing something but why keep increasing the PPI?
Occasionally, a company manages to get the race off the number tracks - e.g. AMD, whose lower-frequency processors were way better higher-frequency than Intel's Pentium 4 processors of the time.
But in general, companies compete on (numerical) price or on (numerical) specs, and almost always have.
DPI is the new megapixel count.