Slashdot Mirror
iPhone X Has the 'Most Innovative and High Performance' Smartphone Display Ever Tested (macrumors.com)
The display in the iPhone X is produced by Samsung and improved by Apple, says screen technology analysis firm DisplayMate. The company has released a display shoot-out for the iPhone X, praising Apple's technology in areas like the higher resolution OLED screen, automatic color management, viewing angle performance, and more. Mac Rumors reports: According to DisplayMate, the iPhone X has the "most innovative and high performance" smartphone display it has ever tested. DisplayMate also congratulated Samsung Display for "developing and manufacturing the outstanding OLED display hardware in the iPhone X." iPhone X matched or set new smartphone display records in the following categories: highest absolute color accuracy, highest full screen brightness for OLED smartphones, highest full screen contrast rating in ambient light, and highest contrast ratio. It also had the lowest screen reflectance and smallest brightness variation with a viewing angle. The iPhone X's 5.8-inch OLED display includes a taller height to width aspect ratio of 19.5:9, 22 percent larger than the 16:9 aspect ratio on previous iPhone models (and most other smartphones). Because of this DisplayMate noted that the iPhone X also has a new 2.5K higher resolution with 2436x1125 pixels and 458 pixels per inch. The iPhone X's display resolution provides "significantly higher image sharpness" than can be analyzed by a person with normal 20/20 vision at a 12-inch viewing distance. DisplayMate said this means that it's now "absolutely pointless" to increase the display resolution and pixels per inch of the iPhone any further, since there would be "no visual benefit" for users.
Ars Technica stories of any note invariably end up here, but instead of running iPhone X is the "most breakable iPhone", they ran with this slashvertisement instead.
BeauHD could have at least added the display is the most "innovative in fragility" as a secondary story.
Tentatively posting, critical AC posts have been removed lately, their post number 404'd.
"Apple can't compete against a broad and open market."
Wait... isn't Apple functioning in the world economy? Did I miss something about Apple being uniquely out of the free market economy now? ;-P
It would an amazing achievement to make such massive profits given that they are isolated in their own narrow and closed economic system.
A made-up segment? They target the high end for computers and the phones cover a broad spectrum. So what? Why are you mad that Apple goes after a very specific market?
Quite. It's not as though the specific market is the very rich. People who want an iPhone range from those on the poverty line up to the rich and famous. It's all about the 'draw' of the product to the consumer. >p>I recall seeing a news article about a nurse in the UK who wanted a Dodge Viper for £70k - around 3 years wages. She stopped going out, buying superfluous items and eventually she got the Viper. It didn't make sense to me but the product resonated with her.
The iPhone is small change in comparison and much more useful. Apple has managed to convince consumers that there is extra value to their products for 10 years and the competition between Apple and other manufacturers benefits us all right?
Yeah. So Apple has the greatest display tech..... that their biggest competitor (Samsung) makes
You seem to be under the misapprehension that Samsung is a company. Samsung is a collection of largely independent companies that hate each other only slightly less than they hate all non-Korean companies. It's very misleading to think that Samsung displays, Samsung CPUs, and Samsung phones are made by the same company - Samsung phones often include non-Samsung parts even when there is a Samsung equivalent.
Outsourcing manufacturing fails every, single, time. You give away your technology, teach others to make it, and then get yourself toasted as they figure out how to make it better, cheaper, faster, or just copy it so they don't have to pay for an R&D budget.
There are basically no companies that build products without using any third-party suppliers. Apple makes their own CPUs, GPUs, and OS. They buy RAM and displays from third parties and buy flash from factories that they own but which are operated by third parties. In contrast, Samsung fabs their own SoCs, but typically using CPU and GPU IP that they've licensed from third parties (their flagship Exynos line contains ARM-designed GPUs, and ARM-designed CPUs, though the most recent iterations have also included a Samsung-designed CPU core). Their OS is largely under the control of Google. I'm not really sure what your point is.
All companies do something like this, because manufacturing and R&D both have huge economies of scale. The more units you can amortise the costs across, the better, and if one supplier is selling to a dozen integrators then it's likely to be better and cheaper than anything designed in house. This was why AMD spun off Global Foundries, for example: they were producing around 20% of the volume of chips that Intel produced, and so couldn't compete building fabs with the latest technology, but when GF started fabbing chips for other vendors this volume went up and they were more able to compete (plus AMD had the option of using other companies' fabs if GF stumbled over a particular process node).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News