The Larger iPhone

Marco Arment has posted some mockups of what a larger, 4.94-inch iPhone may look like:

The theory is easy to understand: perform John Gruber’s Mini-predicting math backwards. The iPad Mini uses iPhone 3GS-density screens at iPad resolution. What if an iPhone Plus used Retina iPad screens with iPhone 5 resolution, keeping the rest of the design sized like an iPhone 5?

Later in the post:

An iPhone Plus almost as big as a Galaxy Note isn’t ideal for many people, but it doesn’t need to be quite that large to accommodate a 4.94” screen. It’s clear that other manufacturers have found designs and techniques to make larger-screened phones require smaller bezels. Apple could achieve similar results and shrink the “forehead” and “chin” even further, limited primarily by the size of the Home button and the desire to keep the forehead and chin equal height.

Max Rudberg proposed the same concept in early January:

This way, Apple would enter the “phablet” market2. There is obviously such a market, likely people who figure they can get something in between a phone and a tablet instead of having two separate devices. If they can enter a new market segment this easily, why shouldn’t they?

MacStories readers know that one-handed operation of an iPhone is a big deal for me. I don’t think I would be able to use a larger-than-iPhone-5 device comfortably with one hand; judging from my past (and brief) experiences with the Samsung Galaxy Note and S III, I would say an iPhone such as the one Photoshopped by Marco is not for me.

However, the point I’ve made in the past on Twitter still holds true: there’s a market of consumers who like smartphones with bigger screens. Now, Apple and Samsung are two profoundly different companies also in the way they spend advertising dollars. From what I see here in Italy, I can say Samsung’s marketing push for the Galaxy line-up has been huge, and it’s clear how the company’s handset business is growing. These days, when I’m not seeing an iPhone, I’m seeing a Galaxy device.

The question is whether those Samsung devices could have been iPhones sold by Apple. Is Samsung selling Galaxies because the carriers have an interest in pushing those more to consumers? Are people buying Galaxies because they “hate” Apple? Is Samsung doing well thanks to advertising? Or could it be that some people actually like the idea of a bigger smartphone that’s not a tablet or a computer?

I don’t know the answer, but I’m fairly certain these are questions folks at Apple are asking themselves too. So I’m going to relay the same example again: several friends of mine told me how they ended up choosing a Galaxy Note (which to me looks ridiculously huge) because it allowed them to comfortably “watch movies” and “read” in a screen bigger than an iPhone, bought on contract and therefore “virtually” cheaper than a MacBook. The reason they were not using a computer to do those tasks? They just didn’t want to anymore.

Like I said, I don’t know if the rumors are true, I don’t know if there’s an Apple market for iPhones in between an iPhone 5 and iPad mini, and I don’t think I’d buy one. But if I were to buy that theory, I’d say Marco’s ideas make sense.

Predicting Apple’s Change

People have different opinions as to whether Apple should “change” or not. By “change” most people mean a “new hit product” or “changes to existing product lines”.

Here’s Michael Lopp, in November 2012:

Apple’s doom will start quietly and I doubt anyone can predict how it will actually begin. It will be historians who, decades from now, will easily pin its demise to a single event that will appear obvious given years of quantifiable insight. And it will only be “obvious” because the real details will have been twisted, clouded, or forgotten entirely, so it will all seem clearer, faster, and simpler. Their explanation will start with the passing of Steve Jobs, and they will draw a clear line to a subsequent event of significance and will say, “Here. This is it. This is when it began.”

John Gruber, last week:

Why just Apple? Why does no one argue that Samsung “needs” to unveil a major new disruption? What harm would Apple suffer if they spent the next five years refining and growing the products already in their stable? They’re already the most profitable technology company in the world, and their three major platforms — iPhone, iPad, and Mac — are all growing. They don’t need to change a damn thing.

John Siracusa, in our interview:

Apple needs to at least select its next big mountain to climb, even if it won’t be scaled for years to come. In 2012, Apple made louder rumbling noises about TV, but didn’t commit to anything. In 2013, Apple needs to put up or shut up about TV.

Apple also needs to start diversifying the iPhone line (as it did with the iPad mini this year), beyond just keeping old models around for sale.

Clark Goble, in response to John Gruber:

Here’s the thing. Not that long ago you could have said the same thing about Microsoft. However ten years ago I think the signs of their decline were already starting to be obvious. Fast forward to today and PC sales are stagnant, Win8 is a disappointment, their phone/tablet strategy failed, and Bing is still losing billions of dollars.

With Apple the signs are there too. Network services that still don’t work right and are unreliable. Design that seems to have lost that Apple strength of cutting out the unnecessary. They don’t “just work.” Important product lines that have gone ages without needed updates. (Numbers, Pages, Keynote, and arguably even iTunes since iTunes 11 was a disappointment to basically everyone) Even Apple’s famous ease of use and simplicity met its match with iOS’ system preferences.

I see both sides of the argument. For a company that was revolutionized by breakthroughs in innovation, it’s hard to imagine how they can avoid other major groundbreaking products for the next years. But on the other hand, with their three major platforms growing, why would Apple need to change anything now?

I think people have diverging opinions that are difficult to reconcile, both technically and philosophically. In the long term, perhaps Lopp is right – historians will look back at decades of Apple and understand what went wrong at some point in time. In the short term, perhaps Gruber is right – nothing needs to change.

I’d take a “the truth lies somewhere in the middle” approach. Apple is healthy, profitable, and still growing. But there are areas where they have shown they’re not infallible, such as services. They have problems that are far beyond leather textures and witty Siri jokes. I believe it’s fair to be concerned about Apple’s weakest areas, but I don’t think they spell doom for the near future. It would be silly to ignore those problems, just like it would be absurd to think Apple can go bankrupt next year. There are too many factors at play to ascribe today’s concerns as the single reason Apple “needs to change”. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be criticizing Apple’s problems, or proposing better ways to solve them.

We can only wait.