Apple Looks To Introduce OLED Displays In iPhone Models From 2018 (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple is expected to integrate organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display technology in its iPhone handsets from 2018. The Cupertino-based giant will jump from liquid crystal display (LCD), which has been used in iPhones since 2007, to OLED – turning to suppliers like LG Displays, according to Japanese reports. The switch follows the steps of other smartphone makers such as Samsung and LG, which have both already integrated OLED technology in their mobile device ranges.

Comments

Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

My I9100 has OLED too. In 2018 it will be 5 years old. Really up to date hardware reseller, this apple inc. is.

Re:Oh, really?

[alvinrod]

And people flipped shit when they thought there was a big difference in CPU quality. It turned out that this was completely overblown after people did more testing, but it didn't stop it from devolving into a complete shit show for a few days. Imagine if they used different manufacturers for their OLEDs and one had slightly better color accuracy. The baboon screeching and shit flinging would never cease.

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to ship a couple thousand OLED screens, it's an entirely different thing to ship millions of them.

The Galaxy SII (I9100) sold 40 million units in the first 18 months after release.

Like OP said: really up to date hardware reseller, this apple inc. is.

Re:Oh, really?

[cheater512]

My Nokia N85 (which still works) has a OLED screen.

In 2018 it will be 10 years old.

Re:Oh, really?

[gstoddart]

The baboon screeching and shit flinging would never cease.

Yes, it's called the internet .. that's kind of what if does.

And it's been like that since before you could explain it to your mom.

Re:Oh, really?

[Computershack]

It's one thing to ship a couple thousand OLED screens, it's an entirely different thing to ship millions of them.

Samsung has sold hundreds of millions of phones with OLED screens in. Even their new entry level Galaxy J3 will have an OLED screen.

Re:Oh, really?

[perryizgr8]

Couple thousand? i9100 sold more than 40 million units. i9300 has sold over 80 million units. i9500 sold 40 million within the first 6 months of release. Need I continue?

Re:Oh, really?

[perryizgr8]

The N series phones were too far ahead of their time. I remember my N73 had a physical shutter in the camera. Never seen that trick again.

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but now that Apple is doing it, clearly Samsung is copying something that Apple invented.

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple thousand? i9100 sold more than 40 million units. i9300 has sold over 80 million units. i9500 sold 40 million within the first 6 months of release. Need I continue?

No this is the point where the morons who didn't know what they were talking about, they suddenly shut up and you don't see them posting in this thread again. Suddenly the cat's got their keyboard-tongue. Never do they say "hey, you made a compelling point, I was all wrong and didn't remotely have any acquaintence with the facts, thanks for setting me straight on this". Such grace is beyond the reach of douchebags who shoot off at the mouth because their feelings are offended at hearing the truth.

Re:Oh, really?

[Bing Tsher E]

Only a sucker buys products from a company that boasts of a high markup on their products.

It's just weird when people come on here praising Apple, as consumers of Apple products, with this as one of the 'virtues' they prize.

Is there some sort of secret form of self esteem boost that comes of proudly proclaiming that you are a sucker for a company?

Re:Oh, really?

[Bing Tsher E]

As long as Samsung makes enough money to stay in business and continue selling phones, their customers should be happy to get 'the latest stuff' while Apple trails behind.

Unless you're a hooker who works out of a hotel in Cupertino, or an Apple employee, it's just weird to be so elated that Apple sells a trailing edge product at a jacked up price.

Re:Oh, really?

[jblues]

Hehe, I thought the same thing. But seriously: As I understand it, current iPhones use IPS (in-plane switching) displays, which, while more expensive offer superior color reproduction. I'd bet that by 2018 OLED will have caught up or exceeded IPS in this regard and therefore it makes sense to switch at this time.

Re:Oh, really?

[Beck_Neard]

I've had my AMOLED phone for 3 years now, using it aggressively for several hours a day, and no visible sign of wear as of yet. If you place it right next to a spanking-new phone and squint your eyes, you can make out the slightest amount of color tint. But so what? LCD backlights degrade too.

I wouldn't recommend an OLED screen for something like a desktop computer where it's on 24 hours a day every day. But for a phone, it's perfect.

Re:Oh, really?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Is there some sort of secret form of self esteem boost that comes of proudly proclaiming that you are a sucker for a company?

Ask anybody who purchased a Dreamcast.

Re:Oh, really?

[gl4ss]

nokia 808 had one too iirc. also oled. good for time display.

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

My I9100 has OLED too. In 2018 it will be 5 years old. Really up to date hardware reseller, this apple inc. is.

That's nice. Now you can thank Apple for your Samsung I9100 since they're the company that showed everyone how to do smartphones.

Re:Oh, really?

[shugah]

But they'll be "retina" OLED displays. :P

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't buy soda or bottled water?

Re:Oh, really?

[perryizgr8]

Samsung is the only android phone manufacturer who has earned profits for several years now.

Re:Oh, really?

[perryizgr8]

OLED has caught up and surpassed IPS in everything: http://www.displaymate.com/Gal...

Re:Oh, really?

[AbRASiON]

"As I understand it, current iPhones use IPS (in-plane switching) displays, which, while more expensive offer superior color reproduction."

What?
Pardon?

I think you got your technology backwards. OLED is the one which is superior in color reproduction, always has been, by a leaping mile.
There are some good IPS displays out there but OLED is superior technology, has been for years (burn in issues aside, I'm talking colour / blakcs)

Re:Oh, really?

[Tomahawk]

A desktop computer screen that's on 24 hours a day??!

My work computer screens are turned on for 8 hours a day. My phone screen would be on for almost that amount too (most of the evening while "watching" tv). I'd venture that in an average week my phone screen would be turned on for longer than any computer screen I use. Perhaps with the exception of my TV screen, which is OLED...

Re:Oh, really?

[cfalcon]

> Only a sucker buys products from a company that boasts of a high markup on their products.

How does this follow? Nintendo and Apple are both famous for this- their per unit profit is always a record high within the industry.

Nintendo has had this policy since at least the 80s, and Apple since right about the time they stopped being broke as all hell.

So why would you be happy to be ripped off? You aren't- but you might be happy to:
1- Pay money to a company who is trying to *make money in a market*. When you see someone come along and give away their product, like Microsoft, this isn't charity- it's an attempt to grab marketshare. Do they want the marketshare just to drive out the competition? What's next after that? Once you injure Nintendo, do they keep selling at a loss? Most phones are Android, and a lot are priced sub commodity- what's their business model, because it obviously isn't selling you a phone, right?

2- Pay money to a company that is rewarding itself by selling to consumers instead of monetizing them, betraying them, or monitoring them. If the hardware is the loss leader, do they just want to get you subscribed to something so that they can pile on adware, bloatware, and crapware endlessly, and now you are locked into their product? Buy an iphone, it has all the stuff an iphone comes with. Buy and Android and start trying to remove all the vendor crapware, that varies from place to place.

3- Pay for a status symbol.

(1) and (2) are fully and completely rational. (3) is usually not rational, but it's still a reason.

Now, many Androids are sold at profit, and many vendors are honestly trying to earn money by selling you a product- but some are not.

As one final note in (1) and (2)- this isn't some vague "vote with your dollars" thing that maybe benefits society eventually- this benefits you personally immediately, because the company you just bought the product for is heavily motivated to please you and keep you around. If you buy and iphone and never buy a single app or anything, Apple loves you. If you buy a break-even or sell-at-loss phone, and then don't ever buy stuff, you're basically playing a "freemium" game- the devs have every motivation to dick you around until you open wallet. But unlike a freemium game, this is not obvious to most buyers- they don't realize they are "freeloading" and that the company is looking for ways to make them either become a real user, or gtfo to another brand.

Anyway, "high profit margin" doesn't only mean "you're getting ripped off". It can, and whether Apple products are worth their "Apple Tax" is certainly not any manner of given.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

Electric cars were available before gasoline cars. Gasoline cars were available before Diesel cars. But if you ask someone which is newer or better, you'll get the reverse order.

Just because something is newer doesn't make it better. The OLED in the Samsung got lots of Samsung press, but the reviews and side-by-side comparisons didn't see the difference Samsung claimed. Maybe Apple was waiting for it to actually be better than the LCD before moving to it.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

Are you sure it's not where the Android fanboys say "oh, one Apple fan got one fact wrong, more proof Apple is Evil!!!!!!!!111!!!!one!one!!"?

Because the equally silly stuff comes from both sides.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

OLED is the one which is superior in color reproduction, always has been, by a leaping mile.

Then why, when two phones are side by side in the store, do the customers not even notice which has OLED without Samsung's huge AMOLED+ signs pointing at their phones?

Re:Oh, really?

[dotwhynot]

As long as Samsung makes enough money to stay in business and continue selling phones, their customers should be happy to get 'the latest stuff' while Apple trails behind.

Unless you're a hooker who works out of a hotel in Cupertino, or an Apple employee, it's just weird to be so elated that Apple sells a trailing edge product at a jacked up price.

I too have never understood why some Apple fans are so happy about having huge profit margins extracted from them. Unless the criticism of Samsung having too low profit is actually some sort of passive aggressive envy of their devices giving more bang for the buck for the users.

Re:Oh, really?

[AmiMoJo]

Imagine if they used different manufacturers for their OLEDs and one had slightly better color accuracy.

They have done this in the past. When MacBooks first started getting "retina" displays they used two LCD panel suppliers, LG and Sharp. The Sharp displays were perfect, but the LG ones suffered from quality issues. Most of them had ghosting to some degree. People found a way to determine if they had an LG or Sharp panel and were demanding to have their MacBooks swapped for Sharp models because they knew that problems with the LG panels were inevitable. The command used was:

ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6

It's quite a common problem. Manufacturers like to have at least two sources for every part. One source turns out to be defective or measurably lower performance, even if it is still in spec. Customers always find out.

Re:Oh, really?

[AbRASiON]

I'm not sure where you're getting your evidence here but I think you need to go and do some googling and read up on OLED technology, colour depth, black levels and what have you. This stuff is tried, tested, proven, documented and ... honestly, I thought well known?

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

So, side by side in the store, the only way for a regular human to tell them apart is to read the spec sheets on them and declare "this one should be better, so I'll believe it to be better because the spec sheet says so".

Thanks for the help. Next time I see them side by side in a store, I'll be sure to note that as the difference.

Re:Oh, really?

[Carewolf]

You don't buy soda or bottled water?

Do you buy it due to the high margin or because you like/need it?

Re:Oh, really?

[AmiMoJo]

IPS displays offer more accurate colour overall, but AMOLED has better blacks and colour seem to "pop" more. Having said that, AMOLED is already 99% as good as IPS now, when properly calibrated. LG AMOLED TVs are pretty accurate, for example.

There are some other advantages too, like they can go into a low power black and white mode for display notifications while the screen is "off", or rather in an ultra low power state. AMOLED also reproduced motion much better than LCD, with much lower transition times. One of the reasons why video looks fantastic on AMOLED is that there is no LCD blurring as pixels change colour. LCDs try to hide it by flickering the backlight, but they are never as good.

Re: Oh, really?

[binarylarry]

Actually the macbook display wasn't the issue. Apple determined that it was caused by users simply looking at the screen the wrong way.

Mystery solved.

Re:Oh, really?

[dgatwood]

Back in the day when Gopher was still useful, and 2400 baud was enough for anybody.

Re:Oh, really?

[dgatwood]

Samsung has sold hundreds of millions of phones with OLED screens in.

Samsung manufactures OLED screens. They don't have to worry about a supplier not being able to meet demand, because they are the supplier. If they have to throw more money at it to bump up production, they will. If the yield is too low, they can make up for it by cranking up the price of OLEDs disproportionately for everyone else that they supply panels to, or by cutting off those other companies entirely.

A company buying panels from somebody else doesn't have that flexibility.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

Ah, the "If you can't prove reality with a scientific study, then I'll choose my unsubstantiated opinion over your unsubstantiated fact" response.

Re:Oh, really?

[the_B0fh]

Apple goes for color accuracy, which OLED isn't known for previously.

Of course, all the haters love to pile on just for fun.

Re:Oh, really?

[the_B0fh]

40 mil units over the lifetime of a product, a 2 year period, vs 40 mil units in one quarter, is a little different. Not as much as a couple of thousand vs 40 mil in a quarter, of course. But as others have mentioned, OLEDs aren't known for color accuracy when it first came out.

Apple screens _are_ known for color accuracy. Until OLEDs can match the color accuracy, Apple wouldn't move to them.

Re:Oh, really?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yeah, and when Sega didn't make enough money it died a pre-mature death. Think about it.

Re: Oh, really?

[perryizgr8]

Read up. OLED is as color accurate as any LCD.

Re:Oh, really?

[bingoUV]

Intel processors i3 and i7 of the same generation are also typically indistinguishable when put side by side, except for the label. Your point?

Re:Oh, really?

[bingoUV]

Profit margin need not be high for your points to apply, it just needs to be positive and sustainable. So you changed the topic.

Coming back to topic, why is high profit margin ever good for the customer?

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

I don't find them indistinguishable. Run a benchmark, play a game, encode a video, and you'll see the difference.

I could tell you how to see a difference between i3 and i7. But apparently everyone else here thinks that OLED is better, but doesn't know how to describe it to anyone else.

Re:Oh, really?

[bingoUV]

Haha , OLED is far easier to recognize, and people here have already told some ways in the comments here. Just look for the much much darker blacks, or attach power consumption meters to the screen when displaying black, or measure battery life of OLED displaying black vs white.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

Ah yes, power consumption when black is the best meter. Like that's possible to see in a demo phone in a store. And how useful is that when my LCD phone has twice the run time as my OLED phone? It's a theoretical difference that:
1) isn't visible in a store, and
2) doesn't make a lick of difference in the real world

If it were easy to see the dominance of OLED, somone could point to something that can be seen on a demo phone in a store, without downloading apps to the phone, or changing the lighting in the store. So far not a single thing has met those simple and clear requirements, but people are lining up to tell me that I'm 100% wrong, but they just can't prove it, but that doesn't affect their belief in the Religion of OLED. Apparently more popular than the Pastafarians.

Re:Oh, really?

[bingoUV]

Ah yes, power consumption when black is the best meter

No.

Like that's possible to see in a demo phone in a store

And in a CPU displayed in a store, it is not possible to run benchmarks between i3 and i7. Your point?

And how useful is that when my LCD phone has twice the run time as my OLED phone?

1. Are you displaying primarily black?

2. Is there any other difference between the phones other than the screen?

doesn't make a lick of difference in the real world

For many people, i3 vs i7 doesn't make a lick of difference in the real world because both run facebook, office and gmail in a browser equally well.

If it were easy to see the dominance of OLED, somone could point to something that can be seen on a demo phone in a store, without downloading apps to the phone, or

You yourself admit that this is not a great way to measure dominance - by your example of generic network cable and Denon one. So how about using some other way to measure it?

Realistic battery life is another thing that can't be told from a casual look on a demo store in a store, without downloading apps to the phone unless one has days to spend at the store and use the phones to be compared identically as they will in the "real world". So battery life also must be a useless thing?

but they just can't prove it

1. Do you agree OLED has a much darker black that is visible from naked eye in somewhat dimly lit situations?

Others agree.

2. Do you spend any amount of time of your life in dimly lit situations?

Some others do.

Once the difference is obvious, people may decide that the darker blacks don't matter. Or they do. Shockingly, different things matter to different people in the "real world". But first you need to check if one has much darker blacks than the other.

Re:Oh, really?

[maccodemonkey]

Samsung has sold hundreds of millions of phones with OLED screens in. Even their new entry level Galaxy J3 will have an OLED screen.

By the time the Galaxy S3 was released they had run out of OLED screens and went back to their horrific LED "Pentile" displays. So it's not like OLED worked out all that great for Samsung. Then to try to get production back up, they combined OLED with Pentile, taking a screen with lovely colors, and totally destroying it's color accuracy and eveness. Samsung has done a horrible job of keeping up with OLED demand. I'd rather take an accurate LED display, than a bright but inaccurate OLED.

To try to make up for the issue, Samsung has brought their device resolutions up to just ridiculous resolutions. 2560x1440 is ridiculous in a 5" phone, until you realize the reason they've pumped the resolution that high is to hide the issues in Pentile pixels by making them really small. But now of course you pay for that in GPU and CPU (because you have to push more pixels) and power (because you have to power the pixels and the CPU/GPU that pushes them.)

Every phone up until the S6 is still using Pentile OLEDs. That's a heck of a tradeoff to make. And Apple won't do Pentile when they do OLED displays. Samsung is throwing a lot under the bus to get OLED on their spec sheets.

Re: Oh, really?

[tsa]

That joke has a beard longer than Father Christmas's.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

What does "satureated" mean to you? Is it the most negative word you can come up for for "Vivid"? If saturated were a bad thing, why is it so hard for anyone to define it in a way that someone else can see it?

Everyone claiming OLED is better sounds indistinguishable from the audiophile people everyone here makes fun of. I know it's better, I'm not sure how, but I'm sure I know it when I see it. I'm convinced that if I swapped OLED and LCD cards on phones in a store, everyone here that hates LCD but loves OLED would say the wrongly labeled OLED phone was the best.

Re:Oh, really?

[AK Marc]

Ah yes, saturated is the same definition as "vivid" yet one is a compliment, and the other an insult.

It's not that I didn't know it had a definition, but that I wanted the idiot arguing with me to think about it.

And it's funny that I'm being accused of being a shill for Samsung. I'm the one pointing out OLED doesn't actually improve screens, and Samsung is one of the industry leaders in advertising OLED. Though even Samsung knows OLED sucks, so they only advertise AMOLED and its variants.

2015

[hcs_$reboot]

The switch follows the steps of other smartphone makers such as Samsung and LG, which have both already integrated OLED technology in their mobile device ranges

Plus, Apple, in 2015, is still not able to provide Macbooks with matte screens. Working while watching a mirror for hours is an eye killer..

Re:2015

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Maybe if you put a paper bag over your head?

Re:2015

[cfalcon]

Apple plays "catch up" on a lot of tech. But I think matte screens are like mice with multiple buttons- their company position is that the glossy solution "is better". I don't think they even believe they need to get on stuff like that, oddly.

Re:2015

[hcs_$reboot]

I thought about that, and agree Apple is usually taking (right) decisions on our behalf, but if you consider the number of posts from not glossy-satisfied people... spending [more] money on anti-glare stuff like that. Maybe they just couldn't reach the "retina" rendering without a glossy screen?

Re:2015

[hcs_$reboot]

Is it supposed to be funny? Or is it just plain dumb?

Re:2015

[damnbunni]

The IBM T221 monitors had 'retina' resolutions and matte screens in 2001.

They had some down sides - they needed quad-DVI connections, couldn't manage a 60 HZ refresh, and they were $8400. But they were matte and 204ppi.

Re:2015

[Tomahawk]

Fine grain sandpaper will sort that out for you... *snigger*

Re:2015

[EvilSurfinCow]

Hmm.. I have a 2 or 3 year old 15" MBP from work that has a matte display. I vaguely recall also seeing a MB Air of same age with matte display also (I could be wrong though). I think these are/were available (special order) but people just didn't know about it.

Re:2015

[gweihir]

And who in their right mind would buy such a defective product?

Re:2015

[hcs_$reboot]

Me. Because I'd like to do some iOS dev for fun, and there is no alternative ... you need a Mac for that.

Re:2015

[gweihir]

My condolences on that. Can you at least connect an external display?

Re:2015

[pauljlucas]

Yes, a matte screen used to be a BTO option, but said option hasn't been available for at least couple of years. Jobs was enamored with glossy screens. I was hoping, with Tim Cook taking over Apple and giving users what they want (e.g., larger iPhones that also reversed a Jobs' decree of smaller iPhones), that the matte option would come back, but so far it hasn't.

Re:2015

[hcs_$reboot]

No, it was actually a special coating Apple would put on top of the glossy screen. It proved to be a very bad idea! This is why they stopped doing that...

Re:2015

[bingoUV]

Why? Did someone say "mattress " to him? Anyway climb in the fish tank and sing the song for him.

Re:2015

[MachineShedFred]

The matte finish display was a BTO option until the 'retina' MacBook. Now they're all glossy, which totally sucks.

Samsung did it first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies.

Damn lies.

Apple will do it first in 2018 and it will be innovative.

Re:Samsung did it first?

[BronsCon]

Troll moderation? LOL

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your old OLED screens don't compare to modern OLED displays - they're at least two generations behind. And black bars? That's the controller, not the 'phosphors'. It could be that a certain OLED panel had a bad production run, but try to keep proper separation of concerns.

A 4-year-old GS3 AMOLED screen looks great compared to any iPhone screen produced today, and the newer ones are even better (I considered switching to a 'better' phone (circuit-board level) after running a GS4 for years, and just couldn't go back to LED). Apple is switching to better technology obviously (and good for them).

Most importantly, the iPhone OLED screen will last longer than security updates will be available for the device. Be a responsible netizen and recycle the thing in 2023. Or go with an open product instead to extend the safe lifetime of your purchase.

Re:Don't be fooled kids

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

It's spelled TurboGrafx-16.

Re:Why...

[pollarda]

You ask and you shall receive ....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1015238-REG/sony_pvma250_25_professional_oled.html
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=4k+oled&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=80219436733&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8649967677167467747&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_332gpox0u4_b

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Have a look at the latest OLED screens used in GS6 or Note 5. They beat everything else by such a huge margin that it's not even funny.

Re:Why...

[perryizgr8]

I need a laptop with the screen that samsung uses in their phones. Maybe the Surface Book 2?

Re:Organic?

[Michael Woodhams]

But organic LEDs are good for you and the environment, because chemical fertilizers and pesticides aren't used to make them.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Hmmm... Anecdote from a random person on one side and detailed scientific analysis and comparison on the other. Wonder what to believe in.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Color accuracy is better than any other mobile screen available. http://www.displaymate.com/Gam...

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

HTC is famous for using shitty OLED screens. Look at a Galaxy phone from the last 3 years, and gaze at the screen in stunned amazement. The brightness range is stupefying, the color reproduction is perfect, the contrast ratio is literally infinite.

"Me too"

[wwalker]

I don't give a tiny rat's ass either way, I still have an old flip-phone, but it sure seems Apple is turning more and more into a follower every day. I saw an ad on TV the other day: a large tablet being clicked into a very thin looking keyboard, with the person proceeding seamlessly from tablet mode to typing on the said keyboard. I thought, oh no, not another Surface Pro ad. And before I could skip it, the text on the screen (or voice over?) says "Our largest iPad for professionals". Or something to that effect. First time I confused an Apple product with something else, and not the other way around.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Osgeld]

1) OLED has gotten a lot better
2) people dispose of their phones after 24 months, not half a decade +

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Anonymous Coward]

" And black bars? That's the controller, not the 'phosphors'"

Black bars are almost NEVER a result of the controller and are more often the result of failed edge IC tabs or the IC tabs coming unglued from the contacts.

Source: I manufacture LED panels.

Apple CEO: Little understanding of marketing

[Futurepower(R)]

Apple CEO Tim Cook: Announces things before they are ready.

Re:Apple CEO: Little understanding of marketing

[schnell]

Apple CEO Tim Cook: Announces things before they are ready.

Slashdot reader Futurepower(R): doesn't actually read articles or even article summaries enough to understand that Tim Cook and/or Apple didn't announce anything here. It was speculation by some douchebag "analyst."

There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Apple. Making shit up is not one of them. Please don't give fuel to flamewars by just posting anti-Apple shit without actually even reading either the article or the goddamn summary.

Re:Apple CEO: Little understanding of marketing

[Dog-Cow]

Idiot Slashdot Poster Futurepower(R): Not understanding basic English.

Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED?

[aussersterne]

I'm actually a fan of OLED displays when they're perfect, yes, even the bright colors.

But dammit it's hard to find a really good *actual* OLED display in an *actual* unit.

Went through five phones before I got a Note 4 with a good display. Went through four Galaxy Tab S units to find a good one new out of the box. Let's see, what are the problems encountered in the various and sundry displays?

- Strong yellow cast, like ridiculously strong
- Pink/green gradient, usually from corner to corner, with "white" only in display center
- Uneven brightness, i.e. dark "splotches" on white backgrounds or "dark gradients" at one edge of the screen to about 1-2" in from bezel
- Terrible pixelation/pixel noise at low brightness, not unlike digital camera "noise" in low-light exposures
- Burn-in (even in supposedly factory-new devices)

Either QC or the production process or both appear to be nearly fatally flawed for Samsung, and they're currently the biggest shipper of OLED screens in gadgets, and have had years of experience. You'd think they'd have it sorted out by now.

I love the *potential* of OLED, but it seems like for the most part right now, attempts to actually ship them in consumer devices leave a lot to be desired.

Re:Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED?

[AmiMoJo]

That's odd, all those sound like problems you get with LCDs, not AMOLED screens.

The uneven brightness is common with LCDs due to them being backlit, and I have to say that the iPad in particular is terrible for it (well, the older ones, I haven't looked at the new ones). Same for uneven brightness and splotches. AMOLED is generally immune to them, if it fails it tends to be via banding rather than blotching.

The yellow discolouration is the glue used to stick the screen layers together, affects LCD as well. The noise at low brightness was an issue but has been fixed on newer panels, from the last couple of years. Burn in with AMOLED clears up pretty quickly, I used to get it with the status bar on my old Samsung but after a few seconds in a full screen app it would fade away.

You have been incredibly unlucky it seems.

Re: Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED?

[aussersterne]

No, these arw characgeristic of OLEDs.

LCDs have their own problems:

- Backlight leakage
- "Bright" and "dark" edges (relative to backlight edge)
- Dim corners (usujally just one, due to slight LCD warping)

etc.

The iPad Air IZGO display had tons of problems at first, too. I remember seeing them at a store and thinking, "geez, there's not a single good display in this entirew row of iPad Air units."

But that doesn't absolve OLED of its problems. I think for me the big issues arew the color cast issues. The pink/green gradient is probably the worst, followed by the yellow color cast esp. when dim and the uneven whites (usually not visible in when colors are being displayed).

Re: Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED?

[Solandri]

Color cast is entirely an Android problem. If Google would get off its butt and implement color management in Android, you could simply profile the screen and correct the color in software. That is in fact what Apple does with its phones, tablets, and laptops to eliminate color casts - they color calibrate each screen and implement the correction in software. It's got nothing to do with OLED - as long as red, green, and blue are being generated in sufficient quantities, you can have a perfectly color calibrated display assuming the software lets you actually calibrate it. And OLED generates gobs of red, green, and blue - enough to cover AdobeRGB color space and beyond. Most LCDs are limited to sRGB or less (they only use blue LEDs, and a phosphor which converts some of that blue light into yellow, with the yellow substituting for red+green).

Uneven backlighting and dark splotches a LCD problem. You try coming up with an arrangement of lights around a rectangular perimeter which provides even brightness across the entire surface area. LCDs use an complex arrangement of diffusers and light channels to try to spread the light around evenly. It is not precise at all, and very fragile. I had left my laptop closed on a table, and someone signed a piece of paper on top of it. Apparently they pressed down very hard, because the pressure from the pen was concentrated enough to deform the diffusers slightly, and that laptop screen developed a dark splotch right where the person signed.

Pixel noise is due to most LCD panels being 6-bit and using time-dithering (rapidly flickering it between two 6-bit color values) to achieve 8-bit color depth.

Color gradients I've seen on OLED screens, but it's not because of the OLED layer itself. It's something to do with the layers they put on top. It's greatly exaggerated if you look at the screen through polarized glasses. In theory OLEDs should look identical through a polarizer as without. But something they're doing with the layers above it (maybe the capacitive touch layer?) leaves stresses in the material which are obvious through a polarizer.

Burn-in is the one problem OLED does have. But I used my Galaxy S for 5 years without any significant burn-in.

Re:Will Apple be able to spec/source a good OLED?

[tlhIngan]

Perhaps that's why Apple isn't going OLED until 2018 - OLEDs have/had issues and Apple believes in 2018 they can get good ones.

Sure Apple doesn't implement the latest and greatest all the time - they often wait for technology to mature to the point where it meets existing quality. OLED displays are like that - they're bright and vibrant, but their color accuracy is often crap because the gamut is exaggerated on one end. And they're nice and people love the oversaturated look, but again, not accurate.

Then there's the whole RGB pixel versus PenTile displays which cause all sorts of resolution issues and color issues.

Also, since LCDs have hit 100% sRGB gamut, the next target is apparently AdobeRGB, where OLEDs are able to get 97%. Perhaps in 2018 Apple can make it 100% AdobeRGB, producing a wide gamut and accurate color.

OLEDs may have been on other phones for years, but that doesn't mean it's a technology that makes it "acceptable" to Apple - it's just a technology. Apple may be a latecomer, but when they do that, it usually means they've been waiting for the technology to mature and fulfill their requirements.

Re:Why...

[thegarbz]

I don't. At least not until the burn-in problem is resolved. There's a fundamental problem with dimming in OLEDs that is yet to be resolved. Worse still it doesn't affect all colours equally so the blues fade first. If I bring up a white screen on my old Galaxy S1 I can see the faded and very yellow outline of the notification bar on the top, and I only used that phone sparingly for 2 years.

I don't want that kind of degradation in a far more expensive device that I intend to use significantly more and keep for significantly longer.

Re:I avoid OLED when buying displays

[thegarbz]

All of which is not at all relevant on a disposable device like a smartphone.

But I agree. I'm not going to call for this technology in desktop or laptop monitors. But on a phone. I won't ever buy a phone without it. They are just so much better to look at. Also I don't see any difference in daylight visibility now. I did back in the Galaxy S vs iPhone 3G days. But I have no problem using my current phone in the sun.

Re:Why...

[perryizgr8]

Burn-in is gone in the latest screens. Also, dimming is better on OLEDs now, compared to LCD. The Galaxy S is over 5 years old now. OLED tech has come a long way from those days.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Dog-Cow]

the contrast ratio is literally infinite.

perryizgr8 is literally an idiot.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Dog-Cow]

2) people dispose of their phones after 24 months, not half a decade +

Spewing random shit on slashdot doesn't make it true. If everyone dumped their iPhones after 2 years, Apple wouldn't bother ensuring iOS updates worked on 5 year old devices.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Umm...is there a point in your comment? I'm unable to find any.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

I tried to give my GS3 AMOLED phone to my kids, and they wouldn't take it. The screen is so horrible compared to my new phone, LCD, of course. Though for them, the 5.5" is the biggest feature of the screen (that and being QHD), and the battery life is much better in my newer 5.5" phone than the GS3.

And Samsung sucks. GS3 is not that old, and Samsung won't put out a recent firmware for the millions of people that are still on it. Samsung has one of the worst support cycles of anyone out there. But that's OK, as TouchWiz is pretty bad anyway, and all the Samsungs are begging to be rooted and flashed. HTC, Oppo and others do a much better UI than Samsung. Samsung is too focused on duplicating Google's apps, rather than augmenting them. I don't need a Samsung store next to the Google store.

I'd put my GS3 down as my worst tech purchase. I should have gone with the HTC I had as a work phone, but wanted to try something different for my personal phone and heard good things about the GS3, obviously only from people who wanted company in their misery with that POS.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

I've looked at a Note 5 next to a Oppo Find 7, and I didn't see the difference you assert. Aside from AMOLED bragging rights, how would a regular human spot the difference?

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[gweihir]

This is likely by intent: Planned obsolescence can simply be implemented a lot better with OLED than with LCD. LCD was designed from the start as a long-lifetime technology. OELD is now correcting that mistake.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

How does it compare with something like the Oppo (or the many others) with a similar sized screen and the same resolution?

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

Apple's last update for my 3GS was a few months after it was bought new. Apple's iOS updates only seem long if you measure from the first phone sold, not the last.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Create an image with pixels completely black. All channels zero. View it on screens side-by-side in the dark. Also, the brightness can go up insane high in AMOLED.

Apple to do what everyone else did 5 years ago

[gavron]

Apple is going to do in 2018 what others have done in 2013, 2014, and 2015.

What is news is this:

Apple is no longer a trendsetter, an innovator, a company that others seek to follow.
Apple is a follower, a duplicator, the ass on the donkey of innovation.

E

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

The stores don't like when you wipe their phones and install a custom test firmware, and shoot out all the lights in the mall, as your test would require for the parameters I gave.

Why would you need to do any of that to view an image? Just image search for "AMOLED black" and see. And you can see the difference without turning off all the lights. Although the effect is much more affecting in the dark.

I guess idiots prefer OLED because it would be better, if anyone ever ran across that one specific test, though nobody has yet.

I do not understand what's wrong. Do you want to know which is the best display tech right now and why? If yes, I gave you the answers. If not, then why are you reading this?

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[serviscope_minor]

This is likely by intent: Planned obsolescence can simply be implemented a lot better with OLED than with LCD. LCD was designed from the start as a long-lifetime technology. OELD is now correcting that mistake.

You're missing a crucial point. The lifetime of LCDs is more or less indefinite. The lifetime of the backlight however is very much finite, and the backlights (whether LED or cold cathode) fade and dim over time.

The problem is that making light emitting things that don't dim with age is really hard, because there are almost always unpleasant interactions between the various bits. Like gas can slowly leak in/out of gas discharge things. Electromigration occurs, and so on and so forth.

The light source with the best aging properties is sulphur lamps because the sulphur gas is (a) self healing (unlike semiconductor crystals) and (b) has no metal electrodes anywhere near it. Of course, the magnetron used to drive the lamp ages...

But yeah, OLED age and LCDs don't, but LCD backlights do.

Re:Why...

[thegarbz]

No it isn't. No one has demonstrated that they've eliminated the degradation of the organic materials used in the manufacture.

The modern screens are *better* than the ones from 5 years ago, but only marginally. OLED tech hasn't fundamentally changed and the problem has not been addressed. It may be enough on a modern smartphone, but no where near enough on a laptop or desktop which could quite easily have several orders of magnitude more active use during it's usable life.

Quantum Dots First

[monkeyxpress]

My guess is that Apple will move to a quantum dot LCD on the iPhone 7. The main tangible advantage of these is that they are more efficient than existing displays that use RGB filters, which will mean they can make the phone a bit thinner (or more battery life, but then again this is Apple). They also can have better colour performance, which I imagine Apple will heavily tout, despite most people not really caring.

After that they will move to OLED, since this will allow them to go even thinner.

For the iPhone 7 I imagine they will:

• 1. get rid of the headphone jack, allowing them to go thinner.
• 2. finally get rid of the sim card slot, allowing them to go thinner.
• 3. go back to a square (iPhone 5) style edge design.
• 4. move to a multi-element camera, which will allow them to remove the camera bulge from their thinner design.

iPhone 7S will probably just have wireless charging after all these years.

Re:Quantum Dots First

[Anonymous Coward]

For the iPhone 7 I imagine they will:

• 1. get rid of the headphone jack, allowing them to go thinner.
• 2. finally get rid of the sim card slot, allowing them to go thinner.

I'd like to see the shit storm after those two moves. Maybe Apple fanboys would see them as awesome, but:

• - not everyone wants to have bluetooth headphones.
• - the rest of the world doesn't feel like going the CDMA way.

Re:Quantum Dots First

[quenda]

3. go back to a square style

Square phone? Nokia did that years ago. Apple could never be so daring.

https://www.google.com.au/sear...

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[gweihir]

No, I am not. Historically, with CFLs you are right. With LED backlights that became unworkable as reliable self-destruct. Hence OLED (which has a lot lower lifetimes than standard LEDs used in backlights) to the rescue.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[serviscope_minor]

With LED backlights that became unworkable as reliable self-destruct

LED backlights do dim over time. I think the quoted lifetime you get in LED datasheets is the number of hours continuous operation until the LED reaches 50% brighteness.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[gweihir]

They do. But too slowly.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Karlt1]

Apple stopped selling the iPhone 3GS new September 2011. Apple didn't drop support until iOS 7 - introduced September 2013. In fact, Apple released a patch for iOS 6 for the "goto fail" bug February 2014.

Anandtech for the Quantitative Results

[glennrrr]

Here is the display section of Anandtech's iPhone 6S and 6S+ review.
http://anandtech.com/show/9686...
There is something for everyone there, depending on what metric you think is most important. It seems as though the iPhone 6 has one of the best screens in terms of accuracy, but probably the Samsung Galaxy 6 Edge is the best overall screen.
Here is the Anandtech iPhone 6 review from last year:
http://anandtech.com/show/8554...
At that time, the iPhone had easily the best display on a phone in display accuracy and was quite good at every other characteristic.
The lesson here is that it is probably a good time for Apple to jump off the IPS train.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[fnj]

Dog-cow is the idiot. Math challenged. An OLED bit that is off has literally zero luminance. The same way a 60 watt light bulb with zero current flowing through it has zero luminance. The ratio of an on bit to an off bit is then literally infinite. Infinite in the true mathematical sense.

You can't get that in an LCD due to basic physical reality. Physically realizable LCDs can never block that backlight 100.0%.

Samsung's Quality Control is Crap

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

"Either QC or the production process or both appear to be nearly fatally flawed for Samsung"

I'd lean towards this explanation, and not just in the matter of OLED displays. Over the years, I've noticed a trend of faulty hardware from Samsung. Samsung refrigerator/freezer whose temperature control is prone to go nuts after power outages (usually it stops bothering to cool the contents despite the temerature controls working and showing the current temerature accurately, though on one occasion getting stuck "on" and freezing everything in the fridge. Also, the ice maker ironically freezes up so it can't make ice), camera with a lens/focussing flaw that renders everything outside of a small circle in the center of every photo out-of-focus (sent in in for RMA, got it back unchanged a few weeks later with a note to make sure the battery was fully charged when using, WTF?), Galaxy "Mesmerize" (Galaxy S for US Cellular) whose 3G/wifi/gps/bluetooth radio would regularly completely die until the phone was power-cycled (its replacement actually was okay). My current phone is a Galaxy S4 (running Optimized CyanogenMod 12.1) that I'm actually pretty pleased with, but its USB port failed within a few months and I can't transfer data over it (it still charges and I can easily transfer data via sftp, so I haven't gotten around to getting the $5 replacement port and ripping the phone apart to fix it yet).

Samsung's Quality Control sucks. If I'd had the option of any other rootable phone from another manufacturer when I got the S4 I'd have gone with it instead, but US Cellular's selection is pretty meager. I'm just glad "have to use something other than USB to transfer files" is the only real problem I've had with it.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

That's exactly what I meant.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Osgeld]

you mean about 2 years after the last one's sold, how interesting

They have done this for years.

[Gonoff]

Apple has been trying to play catch up for some time now. When the nice shiny Mac+ came out, that was them (partly) passing the Nexus5 generation. My daughters one seems nearly comparable to my Note4 except that her photos don't seem as sharp as mine.
Perhaps its just the inferior display?

It probably doesn't matter how far they are behind the market leaders. Few people by an iPhone because of its superiority.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

I do not understand what's wrong. Do you want to know which is the best display tech right now and why?

If it's clearly better, why is it not clearly better when two phones are next to each other in regular lighting conditions under regular use?

Downloading special apps and reading spec sheets to find which is theoretically better is a masturbatory act unrelated to which is best.

By your comments, one can only conclude that they are equal, and you have no facts contradicting that, but you prefer OLED.

It's fine to have an opinion, but opinions aren't fact.

I gave you the answers.

You didn't answer what I asked. "How do I tell in a store which is which under normal operating conditions?" isn't answered by "read the spec sheet" or "download a special app".

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

Reality isn't making shit up, unless an A/C doesn't like it, then reality is wrong.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

I had my 3G and 3GS confused. The 3G was last sold new June 7 2010, and last update November 22, 2010. It's not like I've touched that phone in years. The kids use it as an iPod touch that's big, heavy, with bad battery life, and can't play many modern apps.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Karlt1]

Apple stopped selling the iPhone 3G June 2010. It had the latest OS until September 2011 when iOS 5 was introduced. Even if you bought a 2 generation old iPhone 3G on the last day it was for sell, you still had 15 months where it had the latest OS.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Karlt1]

If by "about two years" you mean 2 and a half years. Then you're right. But let's look at what Apple has done since then....

iPhone 4 - (introduced 6/2010) discontinued 9/2013, had the latest OS until 9/2015

IPhone 4s - (introduced 9/2011) discontinued (9/2014) has the latest OS at least until 9/2016.

Of course every iPhone since the iPhone 4s is still supported.

So if you cared about keeping a phone for as long as possible, why would you buy a 2 generation old phone? If you bought the iPhone 4s the day it went on sell, you would have had 5 years of support. How many Android devices that were introduced in 2011 are still supported by their manufacturer?

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Osgeld]

that wasnt my point, my original statement which was in question by dog-cow was people ditch their phone after 24 months, you backed that statement up so relax

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

I didn't say download an app. I said if your eyes and brain are not sensitive enough to see the obvious difference in screen quality, then you can look at a black image so that the difference is most pronounced.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[Karlt1]

I did no such thing. Apple supports iPhones a lot longer than 2 years. If a user wants to keep an iPhone longer, they wouldn't buy an iPhone that is already over two years old.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

When both are black (turned off) they look identical.

Again, you are being obtuse. The only difference between OLED and LCD in regular use under regular lighting is that one is clearly better. I have some directional cat-5 to sell you.

Steve Jobs was abusive, but good at marketing.

[Futurepower(R)]

You think you found an outlet for your anger! You feel superior!

Stories like this Slashdot story did not happen when Steve Jobs was running Apple. Why? Jobs was very careful to assure secrecy until he was ready to announce a finished product.

What happened in this case? Apparently someone at Apple was negotiating with LG. From one of the articles: "In light of the decision, South Korea's LG Display is already planning capacity upgrades." Whoever was negotiating didn't make clear that no information should be made public.

There have been other seriously bad communications errors at Apple since Tim Cook has been in charge. Apparently, even though Tim Cook worked with Steve Jobs for years, Mr. Cook did not learn about marketing from Mr. Jobs.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[bingoUV]

Yeah, the Imam brainwashes his kids about the evils of eating pig so they wouldn't take pork even if offered. That doesn't mean there is anything necessarily wrong with the pork being offered.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

So your argument is that pork is indistinguishable from any other meat? Or are you implying that the only reason my kids don't want my old GS3 is that they recognize OLED and are afraid of it? One of the reasons I bought the GS3 was to have a phone with OLED. It wasn't better than my work phone, an HTC One (an older one, before HTC used OLED). I'm not an Imam teaching a religion. I'm only reporting reality, and that really pisses off the religious spec-worshipers.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[bingoUV]

You are displaying a carefully cultivated non-absorption of facts here. E.g. even after being told about the much darker blacks in OLED, you create artificial requirements like "most people" recognizing the difference when screens are put side by side. Now it is common knowledge that "most people" cannot recognize the difference when elementary technical information is required to do so, so this requirement is idiotic. But once that elementary technical knowledge is imparted, it required no special senses to recognize the technical difference e.g. i3 vs i7, and the far easier OLED vs LCD.

Now an irrational dislike is easy to impart to children and amounts to brainwashing, not unlike an Imam's.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[perryizgr8]

Black != turned off. I don't know why I'm responding to an idiot like you anymore.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

And most people can't tell the difference between a network cable and http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AK... Are you arguing that there is a real difference between those because *you* can tell the difference, even if nobody else can?

Simply put, I went from LCD to OLED and the OLED was not an improvement, then went from OLED to LCD and the LCD was an improvement. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of everyone that's seen my new phone. So I asked a simple question, and nobody can answer it, though they get quite angry that I'm even asking it.

That makes me push the issue, to see if anyone can actually answer it. So far many are 100% sure I'm wrong, but can't tell me an easy way to see a difference between an OLED phone and LCD phone as displayed in a typical store, side by side. I've compared my current LCD phone to an OLED in a store, and didn't see any difference.

Go on, tell me how to tell. If you can.

Re: Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

In regular lighting both set to black while on look exactly the same. Perhaps if I were to go to a darkroom and turn both to max brightness to then display a black screen, one may see the difference, but with adaptive screen brightness, both will turn "black" down to the lowest level in a dark room, and LCD is not nearly as bad as asserted here, as the screen on minimum brightness gets minimal light leakage.

Again, all you can present is theoretical differences, thus, I must be deliberately obtuse in any response, as the person I'm responding to was deliberately obtuse in the first place.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[bingoUV]

And most people can't tell the difference ....

1. Your method of telling whether something is an improvement or not - i.e. by asking whether "most people" can tell the difference when put side by side or not.

2. You yourself now found out that it is not a good method because it doesn't work with generic network cable and Denon cables.

3. You still don't have an answer about i3 vs i7 - they are distinguishable at a hugely higher effort as compared to OLED vs LCD.

So why don't you accept that it is not a good method at all?

Simply put, I went from LCD to OLED and the OLED was not an improvement, then went from OLED to LCD and the LCD was an improvement

Everything else was same?

Even if it was, your method of telling whether something is an improvement is massively idiotic - i.e. by asking "most people" to tell the difference when put side by side.

but can't tell me an easy way to see a difference between an OLED phone and LCD phone as displayed

I already told here. So yours is not only a carefully cultivated ignorance but painstakingly cultivated one.

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[AK Marc]

You still don't have an answer about i3 vs i7

Ah, so you lie to support your position. I answered that, you just feed lies and insults. You can't tell them apart either, or you'd have an answer. I have mine in your inability to answer my simple question (aside from breaking open an display unit and hooking up power meters to it, or running special apps to display test patterns that would highlight differences - both proof that the display itself isn't very different).

As you refuse to answer the question, and just hurl insults, I'm done. But thanks for such a long argument when you clearly agree with me, as you haven't contradicted me once, just insulted and argued. I'm sorry that reality doesn't agree with your opinion, but when the two conflict, holding on to your opinion is a mental illness, and I have no time for willful idiots like yourself. This would have been much easier if you had just told the truth, as all your answers are summed up by "they are the same, but I prefer OLED for reasons I can't articulate".

Re:Disposable screens for disposable products?

[bingoUV]

You can't tell them apart either, or you'd have an answer

I cannot tell them apart when put side by side. That is the whole point - telling 2 things apart when put side by side is a stupid metric. Why do you insist on this metric?

aside from breaking open an display unit and hooking up power meters to it, or running special apps to display test patterns that would highlight differences - both proof that the display itself isn't very different).

Darker blacks?

Re:I avoid OLED when buying displays

[WaffleMonster]

All of which is not at all relevant on a disposable device like a smartphone.

I don't consider my mobile phone to be a disposable device. I refuse to waste my "disposable income" continuously upgrading phones for increasingly marginal benefit. Mobile is fast approaching parity with PC in terms of pointlessness of continuous replacement.