Bloomberg: HTC scraps plans for large Windows Phone device


HTC's Windows Phone 8X will likely remain the company's flagship Windows Phone device.

When rumors began to surface regarding HTC's Windows Phone 8 device lineup, there was word that one device – codenamed 'Zenith' – would be the company's flagship phone. Now it appears Zenith won't be HTC's flagship phone because it won't be made at all.

According to a new report from Bloomberg, HTC has cancelled its plans to produce a "large-screen smartphone" that runs on Windows Phone 8 because of Microsoft's guidelines for the platform. An unidentified source told Bloomberg that Microsoft's software doesn't allow resolutions as high as Google's Android operating system. When the first rumors of HTC's Windows Phone 8 lineup were leaked, the Zenith was said to feature a pixel density similar to Apple's Retina display.

Microsoft has imposed several hardware restrictions on smartphone developers for their Windows Phone 8 devices, and one of those restrictions is resolution. Currently, Windows Phone 8 devices can't exceed a resolution of either 1280 x 720 or 1280 x 768.

Bloomberg's source stated that HTC ultimately decided a Windows Phone 8 device featuring a large screen wouldn't be competitive against its own large-screen Android devices and those of Samsung and other smartphone manufacturers. Representatives from both Microsoft and HTC declined to comment on Bloomberg's report.

Source: Bloomberg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mozilla's 2012 in an infographic

Next Story

UK-based Comet electronics retailer to shut down Tuesday

48 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

ok when are we gonna stop getting stupid with specs on a phone... 1080p really???? on a 5" screen. Nobody needs 1080p on a mobile phone unless you are the bionic man with your bionic eye. Nobody in the world would be able to tell the difference between720 and 1080 on a 14" screen much less a 5" screen. These specs are starting to get to the point of being utterly moronic.

Here's a bit of reference of what 300 ppi means and where higher resolutions are useful.
300 pixels per inch
phone 5" = 1280 x 768
small tablet 7.33" = 1920 x 1080
large tablet 10.06" = 2560 x 1600
Tablet / monitor 4k resolution 14.686" = 3840 x 2160
Computer monitor 20" = 5120 x 3200
Monitor / TV 8k Resolution 29.372" = 7680 × 4320
TV 39" = 10240 x 5760
TV 78" = 20480 x 11520

Invizibleyez said,
Here's a bit of reference of what 300 ppi means and where higher resolutions are useful.
300 pixels per inch
phone 5" = 1280 x 768
small tablet 7.33" = 1920 x 1080
large tablet 10.06" = 2560 x 1600
Tablet / monitor 4k resolution 14.686" = 3840 x 2160
Computer monitor 20" = 5120 x 3200
Monitor / TV 8k Resolution 29.372" = 7680 × 4320
TV 39" = 10240 x 5760
TV 78" = 20480 x 11520

When you compute in antialiasing and smoothing these change considerably. A well drawn font at 200ppi can look crisper and more defined than a poorly drawn font at 300ppi.

In terms of black and white these resolutions are relative, in full color the resolution to what a human can easily perceive changes rather quickly.

Most people over 35 cannot tell the difference of 200ppi compared against anything higher on a full color display. Heck even on a 6 color system (like an Epson Inkjet) moving beyond 720dpi is beyond the eyesight of most people over 25. (And 6 colors compared to 16million colors is a massive difference.)

People forget that in viewing 'text' and 'video' on display smaller than 24" at a distance of two feet comparing 720p vs 1080p was undetectable by 80% of the population.

So it is cute that Android and iOS needs the extra pixels to smooth out their poor aliasing rendering, but in reality, it is not much more than marketing.


As for Microsoft and Windows Phone 8... People are forgetting that the only restriction is an ARTIFICAL restriction imposed by Microsoft for the WP Framework.

WP8 is running the same code under the phone framework as Windows RT. It is Windows 8 on ARM with the WP shell. PERIOD.

Even consider the WP framework difference, it in and of itself scales rather well as WP8 users can attest when using WP7 apps that were designed for a much lower resolution yet look stunning at the higher resolution.

So maybe Microsoft told HTC, no reason to do this, or maybe HTC wanted to run Window RT on the device and Microsoft didn't allow it as they wanted to keep a consistent Phone UI.

The only thing to be sure of is that it is not a limitation of the OS or the scaling technology in Windows NT or the WP framework.

What? That's stupid. You can still make a rather large device using the 1268x720/768 resolution. The pixel density won't be very high, but so what. We dont need 1080P phones running Windows.

Look at Samsung HTC. That is why they are kicking your butt. The Galaxy S III and the Gakaxy Note 2, both have the same resolution of 1280x720 and they are 4.8" and 5.5" respectively.

Lame excuse using MS restrictions as a reason. LAME. That is why I stop buying your phones. They have pretty miuch sucked since the orginal DROID Incredible I bought which I loved. The One X is great too but VZW decided to pass up on it whih was stupid because I would have gotten it over the GS3.

HTC this is why your sales have dropped.

Higher resolution IS needed on devices. Doesn't really matter what the size. I'm sure people were fine with 800x600 at some point to. The resolutions need to keep growing. It's progress. Would be awful mindset to just be fine with what is current. Sad.

Well then, since you won't be able to tell the difference, why not just pretend it is higher resolution? Bam! Your phone now displays in 8k resolution! But the battery will only last about 10% of what it used to. What's that you say? It looks the same? Well, yeah, cause the human eye cannot detect finer than 300ppi, but you wanted it, so enjoy your weaker battery, because that is all you WILL notice.

thatguyandrew1992 said,
Higher resolution IS needed on devices. Doesn't really matter what the size. I'm sure people were fine with 800x600 at some point to. The resolutions need to keep growing. It's progress. Would be awful mindset to just be fine with what is current. Sad.

Invizibleyez said,
Well then, since you won't be able to tell the difference, why not just pretend it is higher resolution? Bam! Your phone now displays in 8k resolution! But the battery will only last about 10% of what it used to. What's that you say? It looks the same? Well, yeah, cause the human eye cannot detect finer than 300ppi, but you wanted it, so enjoy your weaker battery, because that is all you WILL notice.

Like I said. Sad.

1080p will come, I bet it will be added in the next big OS update. Till then the current 720p or 768p is good even on a 5 inch device imo.

well, regardless of anybody actually noticing any difference between 4.8 inches at 768p, vs 1080p, the fact remains 1080p is the new defacto high resolution standard and MSFT NEEDS to support it because it cannot afford to be perceived as lagging yet again.

WP should scale up easily thanks to it's vector based XAML ui.

Invizibleyez said,
Correct. I am and always will be, regardless of manufacturer, designer, or programmer, be a fan of LOGIC. Thanks for noticing.

Didn't direct to you but Thanks for confessing?

Also, using the current maximum resolution of 1280 x768 and the 300ppi number the largest screen that doesn't start losing quality or less than 300ppi would be 2.56" X 4.26" or a 4.9757" or rounded off to 5" screen roughly.

Higher resolution means higher power consumption. To drive such a high res display you'll also need a powerful GPU, which will also increase the power consumption.

Don't know about you, but I'd take better battery life over such a utterly pointless, high PPI screen.

Saying all that, MS better add 1920 x 1080 and 1920 x 1200 support to WP sooner than later.
Actually I am surprised that WP8 doesn't support them already.

I did a little A squared + B squared = C squared and used the "Can't see the difference magic number" 300ppi and came up with a 3.6" wide by 6.4" display or a 7.343023900274328" display, which could be rounded to roughly a 7.3" display. So, technically, anything with a screen SMALLER than that, and according to the magic 300ppi number, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. So... 1080p on anything less than a 7" screen (such as a 7" TABLET) and you are just wasting battery on rendering useless resolution.

This whole story sounds bogus... HTC has known these guidelines for a looooooooong time. Far too long for them to plan to release a device that didn't abide by those guidelines and need to cancel it...

I call complete nonsense...

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that they were working with Microsoft on support of a larger screen resolution. The majority of the HTC rumors panned out with the exception of the Zenith.

It makes absolute sense for them NOT to release a 5" Phone until Microsoft releases 1080P support for the SLCD3 Screen. The simple fact is that the mainstream + staff at retailers are spec wh0re$... very few would buy a 720P over a 1080P screen, WHETHER OR NOT THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS.

It's just the way it works!

Gaffney said,
No need for 1080P on a phone, keep that for tablets and above.

I don't even think that's needed on a tablet. LOL

But as I said below, I think this story is completely bogus...

Putting 1080px density on a 5 inch or a smaller phone is a nuisance and not essential at all for the usability and even beauty of a mobile device, so yeah it's not holding back any progress at all.

Same ole argument from you people. Similar statements were said about multi-core processes on Windows phones. Did it make much of a different? Probably not.

The Apple fans may be annoying but only in the Microsoft camp have I seen people come to accept mediocrity.

A rule in place so app scale correctly. Instead of the Apple retina issue where most apps look like crap until the dev updates if they do update at at.

Really? The Note 2 is "only" 720p and the iPad mini is like 1024x768 lol. Microsoft isn't holding anything back. It's probably more to do with the technology, ie: battery consumption of high resolution displays.

AWilliams87 said,
Same ole argument from you people. Similar statements were said about multi-core processes on Windows phones. Did it make much of a different? Probably not.

The Apple fans may be annoying but only in the Microsoft camp have I seen people come to accept mediocrity.

And Windows Phone STILL doesn't need multi-core. At some point in the future it might be able to truly make use of it, but unlike Android, it was actually designed to run well on reasonable hardware. Not poorly coded to the point of requiring multi-cores just to run the home screen without lag...

M_Lyons10 said,

And Windows Phone STILL doesn't need multi-core. At some point in the future it might be able to truly make use of it, but unlike Android, it was actually designed to run well on reasonable hardware. Not poorly coded to the point of requiring multi-cores just to run the home screen without lag...

Precisely. Windows Phone works fine on single core processors unlike Android. The mentality of increase the hardware specs so we don't have to bother with or can't increase the software efficiency has been a problem with Linux/UNIX since the dawn of their existence. Back on topic though, a 1080p screen... in a phone? I'm just not feeling it, we've already reached the magic barrier of pixel differentiation and we've also reached the limit of a portable phone size. Allowing for a new higher resolution will not only ruin the Windows Phone experience because none of the apps will scale correctly (at all).

So again, to back M_Lyons10. why do you need an excessively powerful phone if the performance requirements are met with a lower processor? Bragging rights?

blueboy75 said,
why do you need an excessively powerful phone if the performance requirements are met with a lower processor? Bragging rights?

To run more demanding apps, obviously. Why do people buy faster cars or graphics cards? Because they want better performance.

You just made his point, you are running a "CUSTOM" cooked ROM to be able to have no lag. The Windows Phone OS "STOCK" is blazing fast! Period.

I was pointing out that Android runs excellently with a single core CPU, ironically its WP8 that needs a dual-core because its now NT-based so is more demanding.

ingramator said,

Precisely. Windows Phone works fine on single core processors unlike Android. The mentality of increase the hardware specs so we don't have to bother with or can't increase the software efficiency has been a problem with Linux/UNIX since the dawn of their existence. Back on topic though, a 1080p screen... in a phone? I'm just not feeling it, we've already reached the magic barrier of pixel differentiation and we've also reached the limit of a portable phone size. Allowing for a new higher resolution will not only ruin the Windows Phone experience because none of the apps will scale correctly (at all).

Hummmm! There are plenty of Android users running ICS on single core phones. Your claim is BS. Android doesnt need dual or quad. What youi do need dual or quad for is being able to run full multi-tasking. The dualcore or quad keeps all the apps running without lagging the phone.

iPhone has a dual core yet doesnt support apps outside the kernel to run in full multi-tasking. So question, then what is that extra core doing? RUNNING THE OS. Oh and I guess iOS is designed to run on less fancy hardware? NOPE! iOS6 runs like crap on the iPhone 4. The 4S runs it well because DUH...you guess it, it has a dualcore CPU.

Windows Phone 8 likely does need dualcore because the fancier features would likely cause some lag if you had a lot of apps running, especially on phones with low RAM.

I am betting Jelly Bean would run perfect on a single core device as long as it had 2GB of RAM.

redavenger said,
You know that's not true right? WP8 runs laps around Android in terms of efficiency, battery life, boot speed I could go on and on.

Efficiency is up for debate, as I've said WP8 is much heavier than 7.5/7.8. When properly optimised Android can be uber quick. Battery, may have to give that one but depends from model to model. My Desire HD out of the box had a quick boot feature, got to lock screen in 2 seconds and took a further 10 to load the home screen.

TechieXP said,

Rando Stuff

Have you ever used an Android phone with a single core on 4.1? I have and it is an awful experience unlike WP7.

ingramator said,

Have you ever used an Android phone with a single core on 4.1? I have and it is an awful experience unlike WP7.

I am right now, nought wrong with it