Confession: I hadn't even been considering the screen resolution of iPhone 8 (D22). I'm no stranger to such considerations. I went more than a little overboard running the resolution options on a 4-inch iPhone back before iPhone 5 shipped. Likewise imagining the resolution of a 5-inch iPhone before iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus shipped.
This year, though, John Gruber kicked my ass. From Daring Fireball:
Using similar logic, and considering all of the rumors and purported part leaks, I have a highly-educated guess as to the dimensions of the D22 display:
5.8 inches, 2436 × 1125, 462 PPI, true @3x retina with no scaling.
I think the reason I didn't do the math this year is is that, back then, scaling iOS to different screen sizes was a great unknown. It had been bound by pixel perfection to the original size, then the original size plus a row, for years. Breaking those bonds was a big problem for them to solve and imagining how Apple might solve big problems excites me.
There's a great story about iPad mini and how Apple solved for scaling iOS down:
Originally, Steve Jobs was adamantly opposed to a smaller iPad. An argument led by Eddy Cue, though, ultimately changed his mind. So, an iPad mini was put on the release schedule. That created two problems: How would Apple scale the interface, and how would the already overwhelmingly busy team do it in what was the smallest turn-around window of any iOS product in its history.
It turns out, they lucked out. Instead of having to redesign and implement a custom interface, by scaling down the existing 9.7-inch UI and applying it to the new 7.9-inch display size, it matched iPhone resolution and touch target size exactly. It wouldn't be too small to "read" or to interact with. Indescribable relief for all involved, including customers who then got the benefit of a consistent experience across products.
Scaling iOS up from 4-inches to not just 4.7-inches but 5.5-inches as well was a much more bigger problem to solve. Apple couldn't simply make the UI bigger because it would lose information density and touch targets would become oversized.
So, the teams eventually turned to Auto Layout, a technology that was ported to iOS from the Mac, and built out Size Classes, Dynamic Type, and other frameworks that allowed for design and scaling beyond the absolute coordinates of the pixel grid. (And would go on to enable things like side-by-side Split View apps on iPad Pro as well.)
It made iOS, if not resolution independent, effectively resolution non-depedant. It still requires developers to implement the technologies and to apply just as much care and craft to design as they did in the era of pixel perfection, but it's essentially a solved problem.
That's the reason I stopped thinking about it, but it's not an excuse.
John again:
So we know that iOS 11 has support for a 2436 × 1125 iPhone display. We know that 462 PPI is the "natural" (no scaling) resolution for @3x retina on iPhone. We know that a 2436 × 1125 display with 462 PPI density would measure 5.8 inches diagonally. We know that all rumors to date about the D22 iPhone claim it has a 5.8-inch display. We know that a 5.8-inch display with a 2.17:1 aspect ratio (2436/1125), combined with 4-5mm bezels on all sides, would result in a phone whose footprint would be just slightly taller and wider than an iPhone 7. And we know that all rumors to date say that D22 is slightly bigger than an iPhone 7.
There's also this: The next big break point for phone resolutions is far beyond anything Apple ships today.
Right now, Retina — the density at distance where you no longer see pixels — is tuned for reading distance. The only reason it needs a major improvement is for virtual reality (VR), where it leaps to lens distance. That's going from how far away you typically hold a book to how far away you typically place your sun glasses.
Getting a phone to that high a density, at that high a frame rate, is a significant challenge — assuming Apple is even considering it, given the companies current focus on augmented reality. (Which only requires classic Retina levels of density given its applicable distance.)
In other words, it would depend on whether or not Apple's plans for iPhone include strapping it over your eyes.
But that's the future. Fascinating as it one day might be, I'm currently more intrigued with how Apple might solve the problems of the present. And that's less about display resolution and more about display technology.
For instance:
- How will Apple handle color management with OLED in the mix? There's no world where they'll take the Samsung cop-out of forcing users to manually switch color profiles (yes, like animals) — so how will the company maintain its currently top-notch color matching across devices, new and old?
- Similarly, Apple and developers alike will want to provide consistent visuals between devices that, as of this fall, will have very different screen technologies. How will Apple, internally and externally, help make sure the different elements and geometries all work out to the same experience?
- Once I see Apple's implementation of OLED, how will it feel to go back to LCD on other devices?
- What's the new 3D Touch technology going to feel like? The old 3D Touch used deformation of the screen measured by the LED backlights to determine pressure. OLED has no LED backlight so, rumor has it, Apple is using a film-based technology instead. Will the change be unnoticeable to users or will it, combined with the potential for new taptics, create an entirely new experience?
- OLED burn-in is more common than LCD. What, if anything, will Apple do to mitigate that for persistent on-screen controls like the theoretical virtual home button? I've seen enough persistent Poké Balls burned into Samsung phones to know I don't ever want to see one while I'm trying to watch a video on an OLED iPhone.
As to that last part, while I love the idea of a virtual home button and function area — and loved the gesture area on webOS back in the day — a literal virtualization doesn't seem long-lived to me.
I may be wrong but it feels like a bridge UI to ease hardware > software transition and will evaporate over time?
— Rene Ritchie (@reneritchie) August 6, 2017
Of course, nothing is final or confirmed until Tim Cook or another Apple executive holds it up on stage. Until then, though, it's fun to consider all the myriad possibilities.
What do you want to see?
Reader comments
iPhone 8 screen resolution vs. screen technology
Apple seem to tick all the boxes in AR, VR game, they step up on Mac VR, why would they leave it on their most popular platform - iOS. Unfortunately 461 ppi screen won't bring good user experience - it's simply not enough, I hope we'll see high density - 521 ppi screen in new iPhone.
You don’t need high Rez for AR or VR - except when wearing a device over your eyes. This was mentioned in the article, and it’s a well known fact. Unfortunately, if you take a phone and use it that way, the Rez needs to be extremely high. Sony, and I think one or two others, has a phone with 4K Rez, but that screws up performance in so many other ways that it’s not worth while until the SoC can keep up.
Yes, mobile VR is exactly what I meant and I think it's a valid argument for higher ppi screen.
But it needs to be much, much higher, and the death in performance isn’t really worth it. I’m not saying that eventually, we won’t get it, but the SoC has to keep up.
Right after Apple came out with the 6 and 6+, Cook was asked, in an interview, at I think, Recode, why Apple didn’t come out with large screens earlier. He replied that the technology for the SoC wasn’t there to drive them properly.
If you look at these hi Rez phones, you’ll see that where Apple gets 60fps, they get 20. Is that what you want, along with lousy battery life?
OLED has nothing whatsoever to do with color management. I used to teach that. Samsung needs to change screen characteristics because Android has no color management. It has nothing to do with screen type. That’s a totally separate issue.
With proper per screen compensation, which Apple has been doing for years for its very different LCD screens, color management, with a good screen profile, will take care of matching between screen types. How well Apple does it is a different thing to think about.
LCD doesn’t have less burn-in than OLED. It has NO burn-in.
As far as a different experience with a film Taptic feel, well, who cares? Yes, writers are going to believe they have to agonize over this, because they need to write something. But just as with those who made a fuss about the electronic button at first, people will stop caring, at most, a couple of weeks after using the new technology. It’s not even worth mentioning.
The great thing about the exact 3x resolution is that apple will no longer need to have a screen element as 3x, and then have to computationally re-render that down to 1080p, as they do now. This will speed up graphics, and save battery power. It’s about time! The extra resolution otherwise is a waste.
All displays have burn-in. It's just that some display technologies take many years before we notice them. And some displays fade and burn different colors at different rates depending on the underlying technology. And of course the way each display is used factors greatly into overall burn-in. But I've seen some burn-in on just about every display tech I be ever heard of.
That’s just not true. LCD has no burn-in. The old backlights that used fluorescent tubes, such as iMacs did, had them darkening over time, and that looked like burn-in. But it wasn’t. LCD has no stated lifetimes, in most cases. They can last hundreds of thousands of hours, as long as there are no factory defects.
On the other hand, OLEDs have a stated lifetime of a few tens of thousands of hours. But the reality is that if a pixel remains on, it dims over time, because it’s slowly burning out.
I've been using Samsung phones for years (and thus AMOLED displays) and Samsung mitigates the burn-in of the virtual home button by having it shift every so slightly on the screen. I'm sure Apple will do the same to prevent burn-in.
There's no world where they'll take the Samsung cop-out of forcing users to manually switch color profiles (yes, like animals)
Rene is traumatized permanently from Samsung. We should notify Trump to bombard South Korea along with North.
Apple has system wide color management. Switching color profiles will not be required. If Google ever rewrote Android to have color management, that would happen to Samsung. But as it requires a major rewrite of much of the OS, it’s not likely to happen.
Poor Rene probably never holds his phone any closer than the exact distance Apple says provides a Retina display. Apple needs to improve the iPhone resolution (at least the smaller model) because it's too low for modern standards. It's totally possible to see pixels even on the iPhone 7. I'm not that interested in VR really, but the display needs the resolution bump anyway.
Nonsense! It’s tiring hearing that drivel.
You'll have to excuse my ignorance about the underlying tech for both LCD and OLED screens, but does it simply boil down to VR when it comes to Apple choosing OLED over LCD for its new models? Because if so, as somebody that will never strap a ridiculous VR contraption to my head, I'd rather Apple stick to LCD. Yes, I think the screen "pops" more on my Galaxy than my iPhone. However, I appreciate the iPhone's color accuracy more than I do that pop. I've never said, "Boy, I wish my iPhone had an OLED screen." Just seems a case of keeping up with the Jones.
No. VR is more about resolution than display technology.
In fact, OLED isn’t capable of offering true HDR, because of brightness limitations, while LCD can. I don’t know what Apple is going to do about that problem. Of course, my Apple Watch has the capability of hitting 1,000 nits in bright sunlight, which, as far as I know, is the brightest commercially available OLED screen. The Samsung S8 can do about 700, more or less, under the same conditions, but otherwise is limited to 500 nits for all other use.