Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone 6

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 319 posts

Re: iPhone 6

#221

Post by Mandatum »

mrb wrote: post #22

ALL iPhone generations released so far have a CSS pixel width of 320 pixels. But the iPhone 6 is the first to change this. It looks like Apple is finally bumping this up! This means a bit more text can fit on each line when holding the phone vertically for websites using : - iPhone 6 is 1334x750: CSS pixel width is likely 375px (pixel ratio = 2) - iPhone 6 Plus is 1920x1080: CSS pixel width is likely either 432px (pi…

Wait, why does the smaller variant have a larger CSS pixel-width? Wouldn't it make sense for the 6 Plus to allow for more text?

Re: iPhone 6

#222

Post by baddox »

sid05 wrote: post #101
eisa01 wrote: post #78

Too bad there is no longer a high end 4" model. The iPhone 5S won't support Apple Pay since it doesn't have NFC, and it is no longer available in 64 GB. I would have thought that Apple understood they have customers that actually prefer the 4" size, or else they wouldn't have had any sales the last years. Let's hope for a iPhone 6S mini next year.

The 4.7 in version bump is negligible for most ppl's palms. Even the majority of people with small hands still engulf the 4 in. size. I think it would be a moot point in a majority of cases unless you are really jones'ing for the pocket space and portability...

That's definitely not true. I work with plenty of Android phones with 4.7 to 5 inch screen sizes, and they feel comically large in my hand compared to my personal iPhone 5s. Even the jump from the iPhone 4s to the 5 made reaching everything with one hand noticeably more tedious, but of course one gets used to it.

Re: iPhone 6

#223

Post by bzbarsky »

gokhan wrote: post #69

Whoa. On Firefox, that page does not look as polished as previous iPhone product pages. Gray image/animation backgrounds, for example. Interesting.

It's pretty common for Apple to ship website updates around their launches that they've obviously only tested in a WebKit-based browser....

Re: iPhone 6

#224

Post by alasdair_ »

eridius wrote: post #182
blueking wrote: post #133

Wouldn't buy the iwatch or the new iphone, and I have been a Apple longterm user. Like the motorola 360 better, round design is a huge win and again Apple are last to market with a inferior product. The iphone's main feature for me was that it was more secure than android phones. But after the celebrity icloud hacks and the iphone backdoors that were revealed (then denied by Apple) I have had enough - Apple products…

Wow, this comment is really full of FUD. Planned obsolescence? iPhone backdoors? You need to reevaluate where you get your Apple-related news from. > They were caught out slowing the older versions of their phones right before the release of the new ones by analyzing google search data Where did you even get this from? That's 100% made-up. But it's also oddly specific in a way I've never heard before. What site is pu…

It's from a google trends graph showing that the number of searches for "why is my iphone so slow" or something similar consistently peaks (at a 300% above baseline rate or more) right before a new iphone model is released.

Re: iPhone 6

#225

Post by Shivetya »

basisword wrote: post #75
aroman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely no need or desire for more than 16gb and certainly no need for a micro-SD card slot on my iPhone 5s. I barely use 8GB. I would imagine many people are the same way.

>> "I would imagine many people are the same way." Most people are out of space. The number of people I heard complaining when iOS 7 was released and they didn't have enough space to install it shocked me. I also know a tonne of people (especially younger people) who can't backup to iCloud because they have filled their device with photos and they would have to pay for more backup space. When most new games are over…

surely Apple has the ability to determine the minimum space people need from actual usage statistics. I would expect that usage like that is fed back to them. If not it would be one helluva blown opportunity.

Re: iPhone 6

#226

Post by tedunangst »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #90
k-mcgrady wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Only one gig of RAM Why does this matter? Apps run great as is. If the phone was slow I could understand but it isn't. >> base storage still at 16 gigs really annoys me. They pay a little extra for the larger models... It would have been nice to have a 32gb base model and it's a little strange they didn't do it but it's not like they don't offer larger storage versions.

The extra ram is a great way to future proof the device, for starters. I remember how shitty the 4th gen iPod Touch ran with only 256.

Not increasing the RAM is like retroactively future proofing previous devices. As noted, updates (OS and apps) degrade quickly on devices with less memory once newer devices that have more come out. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a 2GB device, but I have little doubt that 1GB devices would be rendered half useless by memory hungry updates within six months if that were the case. Software abhors a vacuum.

Re: iPhone 6

#227

Post by drzaiusapelord »

sid05 wrote: post #101
eisa01 wrote: post #78

Too bad there is no longer a high end 4" model. The iPhone 5S won't support Apple Pay since it doesn't have NFC, and it is no longer available in 64 GB. I would have thought that Apple understood they have customers that actually prefer the 4" size, or else they wouldn't have had any sales the last years. Let's hope for a iPhone 6S mini next year.

The 4.7 in version bump is negligible for most ppl's palms. Even the majority of people with small hands still engulf the 4 in. size. I think it would be a moot point in a majority of cases unless you are really jones'ing for the pocket space and portability...

4.7 is slightly smaller than my Nexus 5 which is HUGE. I think iPhone users are going to be in for quite a shock. A big phone usually means two handed use, compromises on battery life, etc. Interesting, that not too long ago, I kept hearing how my phone was too big, the 4" is the natural size by some Jobsian logic, wont fit the pockets of teens/women, etc, etc. Glad to see Apple contemporizing though.

I'm starting to think this was a move for Apple to not lose Asia as small phones are really out of style there. Apple lives in fear of only becoming an "American" company.

Re: iPhone 6

#228

Post by baddox »

eisa01 wrote: post #116
sid05 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4.7 in version bump is negligible for most ppl's palms. Even the majority of people with small hands still engulf the 4 in. size. I think it would be a moot point in a majority of cases unless you are really jones'ing for the pocket space and portability...

I will definitely try it just to be sure, but even the move from 3.5" to 4" started to stretch it when reaching for the top left corner of the screen for me. And then there's this ad from the original iPhone 5 release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY4c2mh15Yk No iPhone 6 option at 4" is in direct contradiction to what they said before. It's a reason the Apple Watch is released in two different faces, people are di…

It's funny that they clearly demonstrate that you can't reach the top right corner of the phone with your thumb.

Re: iPhone 6

#230

Post by jpmcglone »

eslaught wrote: post #185
jpmcglone wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I imagine it's possible to scale up the app so that the height takes up the full length of the new height, but an app I am working on now was coded to be specifically 320pt wide, so I'm worried about how they handle this. I'm hoping that it keeps the aspect ratio, even if that means black bars for now, because otherwise there will be undefined side-effects in many apps.

Admittedly, I don't know how they've actually implemented this, but I would imagine that it would be possible for them to render the app on a 320pt "virtual screen", then take that and stretch it appropriately for the actual screen. Otherwise I don't see how they'd maintain true backwards compatibility.

Yea agreed. I'm keeping my fingers crossed :P
Post reply on HN