The iPhone 5 Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on October 16, 2012 11:33 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- Mobile
- iPhone 5
Design
Section by Vivek Gowri
The iPhone 4, when it launched, represented a clean break for Apple's industrial design. It replaced the soft organic curvature of the iPhone 3G/3GS with a detailed sandwich of metal and glass, something that arguably brought the feel of a premium device to a new level. Obviously, Apple had their fair share of issues with the design initially, and nothing could match the sinking feeling of dropping one and shattering the glass on the front and back simultaneously, but it was a small price to pay for the jewel-like feel of the device. Combined with the (at the time) incredible pixel density of the then-new Retina Display, the iPhone 4 was a revolution in hardware design. The chassis has aged remarkably well over the last two-plus years, so naturally it's a hard act to follow.
The 5 keeps a similar design language to the 4, keeping roughly the same shape as before but with a taller and thinner form factor. At first glance, the 5 actually looks almost the same as the 4, with an unbroken glass front face, prominent corner radiuses, the familiar home button, a rectangular cross-section, and metallic sides with plastic antenna bands. However, those metallic sides are part of an anodized aluminum frame that makes up a majority of the body, and that's where the industrial design diverges from the 4 and 4S.
In contrast to the predominantly glass body of the previous generation iPhone, the 5 is almost entirely aluminum other than the glass front face and two small glass windows at the top and bottom of the back. It's a return to the original iPhone/3G/3GS-style of construction, with the front glass clipping into a unibody chassis. It's a significant departure from the 4 and 4S, where the stainless steel band in the center was the main housing that the front and rear panels clipped into. That was pretty radical way of doing things, so it's not all that surprising to see Apple revert to a more conventional and less complex method for the 5.
The aesthetic is actually pretty awesome, especially in the black version. The combination of black glass and off-black aluminum (Apple is calling it slate) gives the 5 an almost murdered out look that's three parts elegant and one part evil. The white and silver model has a classy look that's much friendlier in appearance than the black one. The color schemes and overall design aesthetic remind me of the Dell Adamo, one of my favorite notebook designs of all time. The similarities may be purely coincidental, but it's interesting to note nonetheless and should give you an idea of how premium the industrial design is.
All three previous iPhone body styles had very similar dimensions, so the biggest question with the 5 was how much the larger display would do to change that. Unlike many Android manufacturers, Apple still believes in things like small pockets, small hands, and one-handed smartphone usage. With the 5 being vertically stretched but no wider than the previous iPhones, the biggest impact on in-hand feel is actually the thinner body. If you're used to a larger Android or Windows device, the change seems radical, but even compared to the 22% thicker iPhone 4S, it feels a good deal smaller.
It's not just the minimized z-height though, the 25% weight loss is definitely also a factor. Even a few weeks later, I still find it striking how much less substantial it feels than the 4 and 4S. The densely-packed glass body just had a reassuring weight to it that the 5 simply lacks. But as you get used to the new form factor, you realize how far Apple is pushing the boundaries of ultrathin design. When the 4th generation iPod touch came out, I told Brian that I wanted an iPhone with that form factor - well, the 5 is essentially there (0.3mm thicker and 11 grams heavier, but close enough). It's pretty impressive to think about. If you thought the 4S was one of the best phone designs on the market in terms of aesthetics and build quality, the iPhone 5 just pushes that advantage further.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
276 Comments
View All Comments
rarson - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
Car bumpers are not made of aluminum.Aluminum oxidizes. So if you scratch it, then you've removed that oxidation layer to allow it to further oxidize at that spot. Rust is just iron oxidation.
Spunjji - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
It is not normal for them to scratch so damn easily. Furthermore, you might notice that other manufacturers (say, HTC?) take steps to harden the surfaces of their devices to avoid this kind of problem.name99 - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
So you're basically(a) upset that Apple fans buy products based on how they look
(b) upset that Apple fans's don't care enough about how products look to care about this
???
The true sign of the demented mind --- that it can happily hold two contradictory opinions at once.
steven75 - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link
Would you buy a car that gets nicks and scratches from normal usage?Um yes, everyone does. I guess all cars should be recalled!
Spunjji - Friday, October 19, 2012 - link
Would you buy a car that gets nicks and scratches from simply driving down the street? No, you wouldn't. Stop distorting the argument for an easy victory, it makes for extremely aggravating reading.doobydoo - Saturday, October 20, 2012 - link
And what evidence do you have that the equivalent of 'driving down the street' with an iPhone causes scratching?ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
Any final MHz rating on the GPU? Given Apple tends to use a 4:1 clock speed ratio between the CPU and GPU, the SGX543MP3 being up to 325MHz would make sense. The SGX543MP2 seemed to be clocked at 200MHz in the iPhone 4S and 250MHz in the iPad 2 and Apple said the iPad 2012 has a 2x faster GPU, so the SGX543MP4 in the A5X likely is also at 250MHz. A SGX543MP3 at 325MHz vs a SGX543MP4 at 250MHz would seem to explain the results seen in the benchmarks.A few corrections, on page 11 the GLBenchmark 2.5 - Triangle Texture Test - Fragment Lit (Offscreen 180p) is missing the iPad 2012 result.
In iPhone 5 Device Conclusions on page 22, you write "Going back to the old 4:3 aspect ratio iPhones feels extremely claustrophobic now", but it should be 3:2.
daar - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
The in-depth tech info was nice, but would have preferred it in a second post. As an engineer, while I can appreciate the advances made with the new SoC and the depth of the effort went into researching all the aspects of the phone, I also think for most purposes, the length is counterproductive when the majority of readers are looking for indicators of whether the phone is worth an upgrade. Even without the tech explanation though, the review unnaturally lacked the concise detail I'm used to at AT.In some ways, it sort of came across that the tech explanation was a long worded way of making excuses for the iPhone 5's faults and direct comparisons to superior implementations were ignored. Simple example would be the camera, where praise was given about how they cut the size, that it looked good, explanation of the purple tint and so forth. If say, Samsung had released a phone with such issues, I'd expect the review to mention the sloppiness of it, esp with rivals such as the One X having a 2.0f lens (I quite enjoyed the One X/SG3 review comparison from AT). The excuse that the lack of innovation in the new iOS being that the aim of the phone is like that of an appliance whereas Android phones aiming to be PC's is baffling; the concept of a smartphone was a versatile device to aid in our daily lives not reach a point of some ambiguity called an appliance.
darwinosx - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
That was a lot of words to say nothing besides bragging that you are an engineer. Nobody cares.kyuu - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link
What nobody cares about are your rabid attacks on any comment that has even the slightest critique of an Apple product.