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.
had a better display...... it only lacked the NSA back doors.
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.
That's 1/200th of my annual salary working in IT outside Silicon Valley!
Depends on your usage scenario.
I got the Daydream from Google and tried using it with my GS7. The resolution needs to increase at least 4x for it to be anywhere near realistic.
For using it as just a smartphone, I absolutely agree we've reached Peak Pixel.
Because Samsung actually makes their own products, and Apple GIVES AWAY every last bit of their research because they can't make their own.
I'm sorry but I did miss the Great Apple Giveaway that they had at Apple HQ last week where every one of their competitors go to take all the research they could carry. Basically none part of what you said is true because the secretive Apple I know isn't above suing people to prevent their research from getting out. I seem to recall them firing an engineer recently because daughter posted a video taken at Apple HQ of an iPhone X prototype. That's the secretive Apple I know.
Also, are you sure Samsung makes all of their own products? You mean for years they didn't say buy processors from Qualcomm, displays from LG, memory from Toshiba, etc.
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
Yes because Samsung has never outsourced a single product or component to another country or company, ever. Oh wait, they have. You can open any Samsung product and see this.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate? Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple. Also it might be the case that Samsung as very large corporation with different markets and divisions might not have total synergy and cooperation across different divisions.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Someone should let DisplayMate know that VR is a thing.
"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.
Any forum is only as good as the content posted and the level of commentary.
Silly bickering and misguided egos always can drag things down. .... just look at basically any political website to see the brainiacs having a go at each other in nonsensical but predictable ways.
Seems like sometimes Slashdot, on certain stories attracts such useless banter.
But mostly it is fun to read and still has interesting content despite the lame commentary that seems to have surged across our society.
Too many internet tough guys unleashed, but still Slashdot has great content and I will always read it.
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate?
They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple.
... at that price.
The only people making it an Apple vs. Samsung competition are the Apple advocates. For everybody else, the smartphone business is a whole bunch of suppliers, and weird Apple off in their own headgame.
Um, you mean besides the poster above who is clearly pro-Samsung and anti-Apple? I wouldn't call him an Apple advocate. It would seem that contrary to OP's assertion that would give Apple an advantage: They can get whatever component they want from a competitor but no competitor buys components from them as they never sell them.
Apple can't compete against a broad and open market. They always narrow the comparison to themselves and the most expensive choice 'The Rest of Us' could choose.
I would say the iPhone is strong contrary to your point. You want a smartphone not made by Apple; you have plenty of choice: Apple still makes a lot of money and is a powerful player in the smartphone market.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The question is why you would post as an AC? But to counter to your point that's like saying Porsche can't compete against a broad and open market. They only makes sports cars and make themselves the most expensive choice. They should make more mini-vans for soccer moms. And to also counter your point it's not factually true. Can you get an iPhone cheaper than a Samsung or LG? Have you heard of the SE, 6, 6 Plus, 7, 7 Plus? I mean it's not like Apple doesn't have 8 models going from $350 to $999.
They constantly position themselves in a magical made-up segment, like that guy who shoots the wall of a barn then goes and draw the target around his bullet holes.
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?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
like anything else in phones and hardware. It is a leapfrog situation that is dependent on when it is released, the IPhone X is the newest device so will have the latest iteration, I would expect the Samsung phone due in feb/march will be as good or better.
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate? Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple. Also it might be the case that Samsung as very large corporation with different markets and divisions might not have total synergy and cooperation across different divisions.
Because their hatred and fanboism will not allow them to acknowledge that Apple actually does have something to do with engineering this stuff. If it was all off the shelf tech then, as you suggest, anyone could build “the best display we’ve ever tested”.
The only thing keeping them alive is lock-in technologies and their walled garden, and that'll die out eventually as Samsung surpasses them in every technology avenue.
If Samsung is so great, why does it abandon it's smartphone and tablet users in two years or less since the device announcement date? The price premium of Apple devices is well worth it because your device will be getting timely security updates and OS upgrades for up to five years. The old iPad Mini 2 and iPhone 5S which were available since the late 2013 are still running the latest iOS 11. On the other hand, where are the 2013 Samsung phones and tablets? Most of them are already in the trash can.
Actually, it's because Samsung prefers to have a vibrant display over an accurate one. OLEDs are known for awesome saturated colors, and Samsung capitalizes heavily on that.
The problem is, if you go for that, while images "pop", they also get horribly inaccurate - reds can be too red, for example. Likewise, it's also often too blue. So Samsung may make the displays, but they don't really calibrate them on their devices. They pretty much exploit it to give you those super-saturated colors at the expense of color accuracy and gamut.
So a Samsung phone will "pop", but take a few photos and things look off. You can set them into sRGB mode, but then they look horrible.
Apple chose to make the Samsung display less saturated, and more accurate. Since OLEDs naturally have an increased color gamut, they enabled switching between sRGB and DCI-P3 gamuts, so you can have your wide HDR video gamuts but not sacrifice color accuracy.
Add to that decreased reflectance (i.e., how much glare), and color shift/color decrease as you increase viewing angle and those measures are what is being objectively measured. Samsung may very well have all those attributes, but their color inaccuracy is what killed them.
I would expect if you compared an iPhone X and an Samsung S8 together, the S8 screen will seem more "vibrant" and "pop" over the iPhone's screen. It'll be very pretty but super-saturated colors can make photos look unrealistic so a few photos will leave something to be desired.
And yes, Samsung has had OLED screens for years. The problem for Apple has always been availability - Samsung likely could not handle the volume of iPhone orders until this year - it takes time to ramp up, and the iPhone X will pretty much demand Samsung produce twice as many screens as they ever needed. (There aren't many manufacturers of OLED screen making equipment, and of them, they can only produce about 3 machines a year. Apple probably has had to purchase their entire output for several years running so Samsung would be able to even have the manufacturing capacity to make another 80+M screens a year, up from 80+M screens a year).
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
That to me basically says "the display that'll suck my battery dry the fastest".
Actually, that depends.
classic IPS TFT LCD display contantly needs power (to keep the light on). Thus even a whole black screen consume power (to make light that will be blocked near completely by every signle liquid cristal). Only very recent high-range desktop and TV display have started locally varying the light emitted by LED backlights to adapt to local display (they'll dim the backlight in some region of the display instead of filtering the light through the LCD).
OLED based display only need power to make the (proteins inside the) pixels shine. A dark pixel doesn't consume power, a whole black screen consume nearly no power at even if the phone is on (that's how OLED phone can manage not to kill battery while displaying time and/or status while suspended : only the non-black pixels consume power).
So switching from LCD to OLED (and turning of display-while-suspended) actually can increase your battery life.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Personally I agree, I like the 16:9 ratio aesthetically, it is close to the ~ 16:10 golden ratio so a lot of artists must agree also.
No, they meant 1 : 0.461538461538.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
"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."
Clearly they haven't used Google Cardboard.
LCDs were a thing in the late 1980s, what on Earth are you talking about? You didn't generally buy them separately but there were quite a few computers sold with LCD screens. There were color "LCDs" by the mid-1990s (most, admittedly, pretty awful, though the technology improved rapidly), and by the late 1990s, standalone VGA-fed LCD monitors were a thing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.