[mgkimsal]

> and the component suppliers have also been looking at the trendlines so they are building bigger and bigger

but... aren't they influencing the trendlines by doing this? if the only things manufacturers make are bigger and bigger, they then get to use the sale of those bigger items as justification to continue to make bigger items?

Also seems a bit weird with more eco-awareness going on that some manufacturers wouldn't explore/embrace 'smaller' in some sense. At scale, it would mean less materials, less shipping, less warehouse space, etc. Apple made a huge stink about getting rid of a wall plug in their packaging, and... over hundreds of millions of units, that little bit doesn't hurt.

Wouldn't more 5" screens (vs 6"+) require less power, less weight/shipping, and less input materials?

[davee5]

Yes, it is absolutely in a feedback loop. It's kind of bizarre to see up close.

The consumer hardware duopoly of Apple and Samsung are the only ones who seem to actually drive manufacturing trends. There are also tons of devices being made for the Chinese market, but you can't buy those because they're usually locked up in supplier agreements and honestly they don't meet "flagship" specs for display quality.

Component suppliers, true we-make-parts manufacturers, are not really trying to influence the big picture so much as make sure they are running their manufacturing lines at capacity. And if they are building panels on spec for open market sales, they are going to build >6" displays because it's a higher probability they'll actually sell at volume.

[pixl97]

"Yes, it is absolutely in a feedback loop. It's kind of bizarre to see up close."

So supply chains behave like ecosystems.

In the natural world we see insects and animals develop things like bright plumage and big horns because the animal before them was successful in doing the same thing. This behavior can go on for a long time too. Then an asteroid hits (tantamount to bad economic times) and the fast moving generalists seem to succeed better than the highly adapted specialist.

[achow]

iPhone mini is 3% of sale. That's the trend.

[unethical_ban]

Good point, with caveats: What is the comparison of 13-non pro vs. 13 mini? When I almost bought an iPhone recently, the thing that made me hesitate to consider for so long was that the mini is not pro - I want 90/120 hz, and they made a substandard flagship and blame poor sales on size. However, if the non-pro-fat 13 has great sales, you have a point.

Second, it's only iphone. I hesitated for so long to consider it at all because it requires switching environments.

[kalleboo]

Is it even physically possible to fit all the high-end features in a mini? The 12 mini was panned for poor battery life and they just about got that fixed in the 13, but now you want 120 Hz (which will eat away battery life), someone else in here demanded all the cameras (which will take away internal space from battery), not to mention the difficulty of heat dissipation

[unethical_ban]

And here's the rub. I personally don't need the telephoto lens on the mini. But I tell you, after experiencing high refresh rate on a phone, it is terribly difficult to go back.

Apple touts their variable refresh rate for better use of battery than competitors - surely they could put it on the mini and still get it through a day of use.

[kringo]

When did you see they promote mini? It's always the PRO since high margin is only there.

[MichaelZuo]

What about against the regular iphone 13? I think sales for that are something like 5x to 10x higher.