1. EVs + thermal power plants are still more efficient than ICEs when it comes to CO2 emissions 2. I don't live in the United States. There is a world outside the US. Where I live electricity generation is 99% green.
coal should be banned and oil very limited for electricity generation. Natural gas is much cleaner and ICE are less efficient than thermal power plants.
We could say the same for CO2. The current level of CO2 world-wide CO2 emission is not sustainable and we will have to drastically reduce the number of ICE cars. You are not paying the full price when you drive an electric car. But neither are you when you drive a gas car when you count the pollution.
At some point I think the rest of the world will want to stop you. You can't dumb your waste (including your CO2) forever to the rest of the world and hope they won't do anything when they suffer the consequences.
Compare that to gold. It is mined. It requires energy and manpower. And then it is stored in a vault forever and traded on Wall Street. Fortunately, gold also has some use (electronics, jewelry). But what is the value of the gold that remained in a vault for 100 years?
At least Bitcoin by itself doesn't steal some precious non-renewable metal from more productive use.
Actually it's the opposite. Net neutrality is cheap to implement. Breaking net neutrality require more complex routers/software which are not worth developping if you are a small ISP.
Small ISPs tend to respect net neutrality and large (if allowed) tend not to.
One thing is as nation we really need to decide if we want to take a global or national approach to this. There might be options in terms of adaptation and engineering we could pursue independently and that might be better for 'us'. Some people do believe we have a higher obligation to our families, friends, and citizens than to other people around the world. That is a philosophical question and it IS AN OPEN ONE, but its one we will need to resolve as a democracy.
When your nation emit CO2, does it stay within your nation or you export it globally? Is your nation one of the worst emitter of the planet per capita? Sorry but that question has long been answered. Some people just don't want to face the consequences of the answer however.
We can say forget about controlling emissions! We can let the economy run because that will best enable us to develop and deploy the technology to remove carbon from the air at the giga-ton scale. Human emissions have had rather linear growth. Frankly without knowing much more about how we would do it its a reasonable assumption that: if we can find a practical way to such 2 giga-tons of carbon out of the atmosphere we can probably such 3 giga-tons out of the atmosphere. Divert all our creative energies and wealth toward capture and sequestration, mostly forget about the conservation angle, certainly don't sacrifice for it.
Except that unlike what you seem to think, getting larger cars and producing more electricity from coal isn't going to get you the large scale carbon-capture technology any faster. And when we do get that technology, it's going to be a lot cheaper for the humanity if we only have to capture 2 giga-tons instead of 3.
That's the whole point of climate change by the way. Acting now to reduce emissions is projected to be cheaper (more efficient) than doing nothing. And again, this is the part deniers refuse to hear.
Saying we are fucked, so let's not do anything to fight climate change is a fallacy.
Just because it is hard, or some would even say impossible to avoid the 2 C temperature increase, doesn't mean we should not try to do our best. If it ends up the temperature raises by "only" 4 C instead of say, 7 C if we give up all efforts, it's still a big win.
the assembly is worth about $5-10 shipping is probably even cheaper. Marketing is not done for every iPhone produced, but again, given the quantities Apple sells, ends up pretty low on a per phone cost.
Even if what you said was true, Apple's $999 PC (say base level Macbook) cost them a lot more to make then their $999 iPhone. And Apple has big margins on PCs compared to the rest of the industry.
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
The review says this: "But what makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration that Apple developed that transforms the OLED hardware into a superbly accurate, high performance, and gorgeous display!" It's not my interpretation. The review says it in plain English. Are you just in deep denial?
There are 3 possibilities here. 1. Apple performed the calibration 2. someone else performed the calibration and display mate is wrong 3. someone else performed the calibration for Apple but display mate still credit them as the integrator
I am not denying any of the above 3 is possible. You are denying 2 and 3.
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
These are your exact words: "I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration..."
You asserted calibrations are "not that important". You asserted that you can't re-perform a calibration. Do you deny it?
Yes, I do. Please read the words you just quoted again. It,s one thing to misread. But it's another to make a point out of it over and over again. You are pathetic
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
Bahahahahaha. You do realize a professional monitor doesn't mean highest resolution monitor right? Professional monitors can be 1080p, 4k, or even 5k. The resolution isn't what puts them into the "professional monitor" category. The color accuracy specifically does.
A professional monitor has many different characteristics. The first 4k monitors may have been professional ones. So at that time, the only way to get that resolution was to get a professional monitor
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
False dichotomy: Your assertion that they can't know because they rate displays.
No. It was your assertion that they know because it's their business to know. I simply replied with the fact that it's not their business. I never claimed that they can't know because they rate displays.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
Bahahahaha. Dude, I hope you never work for QA in any capacity. Part of testing is calibration. Before I can check any specs, I have to make sure my readings are accurate. How do I do that? Calibration. Even if I'm doing something as simple as weighing a part, calibrating the scale is part of the testing.
That's because the scale is a measuring tool. A display is not a measuring tool. Anyway if you are testing a scale, you won't be calibrating it. You'll make sure (test) that it was properly calibrated. The calibration of the scale should happen during production, before QA.
I'm going to calibrate all instrumentation. I might do tests before and after calibration but the before has limited use to pass it. But I'm going to calibrate it.
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves..
I never said that Apple must 100% calibrate every single display.
Well you inferred it. As every display is different. Calibrating one out of two would be useless, and you think it's impossible that someone else performed the calibration.
Please show me above where I said that. You're just making things up. I said th
Of course. But this is still an anomaly in the market. Market forces should force lower margins in the future. Apple knows it and is trying to profit while it lasts.
Markups like this, in all kinds of industries, are not uncommon, and quite frankly, are to be expected.
Not in the consumer electronics industry. PC and TV have much lower margins. Video game consoles are sold at loss to sell games. So did cell phones for most of their existence. Markups like this are uncommon.
I agree, but that is included in the BOM cost. By the way, the CPU, the display and the battery are all more expensive to make on a PC compared to a phone. So is the power supply, the RAM, the storage, and obviously the keyboard. The only thing which is more expensive on the smartphone is the cellular radio, which the PC almost always lacks.
A mash-up of components without software and without online services would be as useful as a rock.
What about all the services included with the iPhone? Email account, iMessages, Facetime, iCloud, App store (some applications are free but Apple still has to run all the backend even if you never buy anything there).
There's also all the engineers to pay for designing the hardware, all the software developers to pay for writing iOS and all the included programs.
A $999 PC has all that (and more), but the BOM cost is much higher and the profit margin much lower. Are you saying engineers who design PC and components, and its software, are working for free?
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
A person might be able to maybe if they could get low level access to a phone. That wasn't the point. DisplayMate didn't test that a person could. What they did test is both devices based on factory settings.
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
"Calibration isn't as important. . . you can't re-perform a calibration" Says who?
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
Do you work with any displays or any instrumentation at all?
Yes, both.
For most consumer monitors, calibrations are not as important because color accuracy isn't as important. If the goal is color accuracy (which it is in this case),
I disagree. Accuracy is at least as important on consumer monitors as on consumer phones. I also disagree the goal s color accuracy. The goal is to have a good display for its users.
You don't pay $500+ for a professional monitor if the calibration wasn't important to the manufacturer.
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
For high-end smartphones like the Note 8 and the iPhone X, color accuracy and thus calibration is important.
To a point, for some users yes I assume. I never said it wasn't important anyway.
Are you ignoring the fact that in fact DisplayMate credited Apple for doing so?
I already answered that and you keep repeating this non-sense.
So according to you, DisplayMate doesn't know but did so anyway.
No, that's not what I said. Read again.
By the way, it is DisplayMate's business to know.
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
And it makes no sense that Apple didn't because it is fairly standard that a smart phone maker calibrates their displays. Huawei buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. Sony buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. And so on.
Says who? I don't know that. Do you work for a smartphone manufacturer?
It's part of a QA process: Did the part that I bought meet my specifications? It has to be calibrated then tested.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
So now you are throwing in rampant speculation
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves. We don't know. Perhaps it's already calibrated, perhaps it isn't. Unlike you, I don't rule out any possibility when I don't know.
Manufacturer A buys a part from Supplier B. They test it. Your assertion: Manufacturer A never tests the part they get from Supplier B. They just always accepts whatever Supplier B says.
Again, testing isn't the same as calibrating.
Yes I did. I referred you again to the DisplayMate review as I go by their definition of "performance". Again, read the review. The word performance is only used 37 times on the page.
Performance is a vague term. Do me, the best performing display is the best display. Color accuracy is one aspect, out of many, of performance.
Are you willing to admit that Apple in fact did make their Samsung display better? That it wasn't all Samsung?
We don't know. We can't know. Unless we work in the right division at Samsung or Apple. I agree there is a possibility that Apple did something, like I always said. But there are many other credible explanations.
Have you ever worked in the display industry?
No, like 99.9999999999999999% of the people here. What's your point? That the discussion is reserved for display manufacturers?
Because your advice would be terrible. You don't use the same settings that some competitor uses. You don't even use the same settings you used in another device. You use the settings that best fits the device you're trying to calibrate to the goal that you are setting. Every display is slightly different. Anyone using the same settings on the Note 8 that was used on the iPhone X might have terrible results.
I meant anyone should be able to calibrate their Note 8 display for color accuracy just as good as the iPhone X if it's only a software setting AND the display panel is the same. Perhaps the display panel in the iPhone X is superior and will always give better results. Perhaps they are the same. Who knows?
No that wasn't the point: the point is the calibration settings are important contrary to what you wrote above. Do I have to link the multiple times you said that?
I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration...
So you're admitting that Samsung didn't calibrate their display for the best accuracy. Apple did. Are you at this time willing to give Apple credit for doing so?
No as again, we don't know who is performing the calibration of the iPhone X display. Even Displaymate doesn't know that. Perhaps it's Samsung and they have a firmware storing the calibration values in their display. Perhaps Samsung is giving the numbers to Apple so that they can be stored in the iPhone main flash memory. Let say I break my iPhone display and go to the Apple store for a repair, they will exchange the display and that's it. They won't calibrate it again. So it seems logical to me that the calibration data be stored in the display. A smartphone display should give the same color no matter what phone you connect it to.
How does the resolution affect the color accuracy and performance score that DisplayMate tested?
I asked you what you meant by performance and you never answered. I could argue that resolution is a key metric of a display performance. A low resolution display doesn't perform as great as a high resolution one. Also there might be some trade-offs. Perhaps Samsung is able to produce either a high resolution display or one with good accuracy, but not both at the same time. So it's possible that even if they happen do be doing the calibration, Apple wouldn't be able to calibrate a Note 8 as good as an iPhone X even if they wanted to.
You mean besides the fact that DisplayMate being in the industry credited Apple with the calibration?
Yes, as they don't know that. They may be crediting Apple for the result. That doesn't mean they are not allowed to outsource the calibration to Samsung or someone else, and still be credited for the result as the integrator.
Oh and I forgot to say the most important: nothing tells us it's not Samsung who is performing the calibration of the color accuracy for their panels in Apple's phones.
This is what you said above: "There are many different explanations, most of which do not include any engineering on Apple's side." Sure seems like you're unwilling to give Apple any credit.
Most is the key word in my sentence. Any is the key word in yours and it doesn't fit. Seems like you misread.
Also you seem to ignore that the test DisplayMate did had nothing to do with user calibration settings. DisplayMate specifically is applauding Apple for their factory calibration settings.
I don't ignore that. I just say that whatever default settings are chosen by Apple, anybody should be able to use the same settings on their Note 8 if they want to.
Reviews for professional displays always look at the factory calibration.
Of course. But again you missed the point completely. They don't care whatever PC is connected to it, and it has no impact on the review.
They also judge the monitor for color accuracy because that is what is most important if someone buys a professional monitor. For the vast majority of consumers, color accuracy isn't a main concern.
I understand that, and that's why Samsung choose not to get the best color accuracy. They think flashy colors will please more people. They are probably right, by the way.
Yes the results of the tests showed the iPhone X was better but please tell me what "more" are you talking about.
Well for a start it's not even the same resolution, isn't it?
I'm not saying the calibration has nothing to do with it. Just that the calibration is a software setting that could (should) be available to the user.
When is it the last time a monitor reviewer said monitor XYZ works better with PC ABC because it has better calibration settings? Wouldn't that be kind of dumb?
What I understood from DisplayMate was that there was more than calibration settings in the difference between the two displays.
Because this is the first OLED that Apple has used. DisplayMate can't compare LCD and OLED displays. That wouldn't be an apple to apple comparison would it?
They did. They are both displays and can be compared. The iPhone 7 had a great LCD, but OLED displays on the Note 7 and Galaxy S7 were better displays, overall, according to them.
I'm pretty sure if you set your PC's monitor refresh rate to 25Hz, it would affect the monitor's display.
Duh, of course, and the resolution as well. But two PCs with a 60 Hz refresh rate and identical resolution will display the same colors on a given monitor.
unless you are going for color accuracy then it's going to be off which in the case of DisplayMate was the exact thing they were testing.
So they are testing a software setting?
You missed the point: The iPhone X isn't exactly the same as a Note 8 or an iPhone 8. That's the difference.
Of course. But a Note 8 should be able to output to an iPhone 8 display just like both of them can output to an external monitor/TV. What's your point again?
So Apple choosing to calibrate their display for more color accuracy and performance had nothing to do with it?
It shouldn't. Scores shouldn't be awarded on calibration. And what do you mean by "performance"? Anyways, it's the first time in years that Apple can beat Samsung according do DisplayMate. And this is by using a Samsung display. So despite their poor color accuracy, Samsung phones had better displays for years.
From what I've seen Samsung phones are calibrated for more vibrant color. At times it's over-saturated. It looks better but it's not as accurate.
So which is it, the display or the software?
It does if your one PC has a better video card.
No. That was my point. The video card and the rest of the PC doesn't matter. It's a digital connection. If my PC tells the monitor to turn on pixel #42 with color code 1234, then the display should do so no matter which video card I use. And by default I believe it does.
It also depends on what each PC has set in their monitor calibration settings.
They are settings. They should be adjustable. And it should be possible to get the exact same image from two different PCs by using the same settings.
Maybe Samsung was able to produce a higher resolution panel with worse color reproduction characteristics and they chose that for the Note 8. Maybe they could have chosen the iPhone X panel for a lower cost and they still preferred the Note 8 one.
But chances are Apple had nothing to do with what makes that panel so great in displaymate's opinion. Just like my Dell monitor has the same performance no matter what type of PC I connect to it.
How do you know that the price difference were in the displays?
I never talked about the total price of the phone. Apple has insanely high profit margins on iPhones, so that alone may explain why the iPhone X is $100 more expensive. What I meant is that of all the displays Samsung can make, the best one is probably the most expensive. Maybe Samsung decided it wasn't worth it to invest $X to get a better display in their Note 8, because it wouldn't result in significantly more sales.
Or maybe buying a part and sticking it into your phone isn't all it takes to get the most out of a part?
It's a possibility. I'd say a lot less probable than every other possibility I mentioned in my previous posts.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe...
No, because:
1. EVs + thermal power plants are still more efficient than ICEs when it comes to CO2 emissions
2. I don't live in the United States. There is a world outside the US. Where I live electricity generation is 99% green.
coal should be banned and oil very limited for electricity generation.
Natural gas is much cleaner and ICE are less efficient than thermal power plants.
We could say the same for CO2. The current level of CO2 world-wide CO2 emission is not sustainable and we will have to drastically reduce the number of ICE cars.
You are not paying the full price when you drive an electric car. But neither are you when you drive a gas car when you count the pollution.
At some point I think the rest of the world will want to stop you. You can't dumb your waste (including your CO2) forever to the rest of the world and hope they won't do anything when they suffer the consequences.
Compare that to gold. It is mined. It requires energy and manpower. And then it is stored in a vault forever and traded on Wall Street.
Fortunately, gold also has some use (electronics, jewelry). But what is the value of the gold that remained in a vault for 100 years?
At least Bitcoin by itself doesn't steal some precious non-renewable metal from more productive use.
Actually it's the opposite.
Net neutrality is cheap to implement. Breaking net neutrality require more complex routers/software which are not worth developping if you are a small ISP.
Small ISPs tend to respect net neutrality and large (if allowed) tend not to.
One thing is as nation we really need to decide if we want to take a global or national approach to this. There might be options in terms of adaptation and engineering we could pursue independently and that might be better for 'us'. Some people do believe we have a higher obligation to our families, friends, and citizens than to other people around the world. That is a philosophical question and it IS AN OPEN ONE, but its one we will need to resolve as a democracy.
When your nation emit CO2, does it stay within your nation or you export it globally? Is your nation one of the worst emitter of the planet per capita?
Sorry but that question has long been answered. Some people just don't want to face the consequences of the answer however.
We can say forget about controlling emissions! We can let the economy run because that will best enable us to develop and deploy the technology to remove carbon from the air at the giga-ton scale. Human emissions have had rather linear growth. Frankly without knowing much more about how we would do it its a reasonable assumption that: if we can find a practical way to such 2 giga-tons of carbon out of the atmosphere we can probably such 3 giga-tons out of the atmosphere. Divert all our creative energies and wealth toward capture and sequestration, mostly forget about the conservation angle, certainly don't sacrifice for it.
Except that unlike what you seem to think, getting larger cars and producing more electricity from coal isn't going to get you the large scale carbon-capture technology any faster. And when we do get that technology, it's going to be a lot cheaper for the humanity if we only have to capture 2 giga-tons instead of 3.
That's the whole point of climate change by the way. Acting now to reduce emissions is projected to be cheaper (more efficient) than doing nothing. And again, this is the part deniers refuse to hear.
Saying we are fucked, so let's not do anything to fight climate change is a fallacy.
Just because it is hard, or some would even say impossible to avoid the 2 C temperature increase, doesn't mean we should not try to do our best.
If it ends up the temperature raises by "only" 4 C instead of say, 7 C if we give up all efforts, it's still a big win.
the assembly is worth about $5-10
shipping is probably even cheaper.
Marketing is not done for every iPhone produced, but again, given the quantities Apple sells, ends up pretty low on a per phone cost.
Even if what you said was true, Apple's $999 PC (say base level Macbook) cost them a lot more to make then their $999 iPhone.
And Apple has big margins on PCs compared to the rest of the industry.
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
The review says this: "But what makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration that Apple developed that transforms the OLED hardware into a superbly accurate, high performance, and gorgeous display!" It's not my interpretation. The review says it in plain English. Are you just in deep denial?
There are 3 possibilities here.
1. Apple performed the calibration
2. someone else performed the calibration and display mate is wrong
3. someone else performed the calibration for Apple but display mate still credit them as the integrator
I am not denying any of the above 3 is possible. You are denying 2 and 3.
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
These are your exact words: "I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration..."
You asserted calibrations are "not that important". You asserted that you can't re-perform a calibration. Do you deny it?
Yes, I do. Please read the words you just quoted again. It,s one thing to misread. But it's another to make a point out of it over and over again. You are pathetic
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
Bahahahahaha. You do realize a professional monitor doesn't mean highest resolution monitor right? Professional monitors can be 1080p, 4k, or even 5k. The resolution isn't what puts them into the "professional monitor" category. The color accuracy specifically does.
A professional monitor has many different characteristics. The first 4k monitors may have been professional ones. So at that time, the only way to get that resolution was to get a professional monitor
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
False dichotomy: Your assertion that they can't know because they rate displays.
No. It was your assertion that they know because it's their business to know. I simply replied with the fact that it's not their business.
I never claimed that they can't know because they rate displays.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating.
Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
Bahahahaha. Dude, I hope you never work for QA in any capacity. Part of testing is calibration. Before I can check any specs, I have to make sure my readings are accurate. How do I do that? Calibration. Even if I'm doing something as simple as weighing a part, calibrating the scale is part of the testing.
That's because the scale is a measuring tool. A display is not a measuring tool. Anyway if you are testing a scale, you won't be calibrating it. You'll make sure (test) that it was properly calibrated. The calibration of the scale should happen during production, before QA.
I'm going to calibrate all instrumentation. I might do tests before and after calibration but the before has limited use to pass it. But I'm going to calibrate it.
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves. .
I never said that Apple must 100% calibrate every single display.
Well you inferred it. As every display is different. Calibrating one out of two would be useless, and you think it's impossible that someone else performed the calibration.
Please show me above where I said that. You're just making things up. I said th
Of course. But this is still an anomaly in the market.
Market forces should force lower margins in the future. Apple knows it and is trying to profit while it lasts.
Markups like this, in all kinds of industries, are not uncommon, and quite frankly, are to be expected.
Not in the consumer electronics industry.
PC and TV have much lower margins. Video game consoles are sold at loss to sell games. So did cell phones for most of their existence.
Markups like this are uncommon.
I agree, but that is included in the BOM cost.
By the way, the CPU, the display and the battery are all more expensive to make on a PC compared to a phone. So is the power supply, the RAM, the storage, and obviously the keyboard. The only thing which is more expensive on the smartphone is the cellular radio, which the PC almost always lacks.
A mash-up of components without software and without online services would be as useful as a rock.
What about all the services included with the iPhone? Email account, iMessages, Facetime, iCloud, App store (some applications are free but Apple still has to run all the backend even if you never buy anything there).
There's also all the engineers to pay for designing the hardware, all the software developers to pay for writing iOS and all the included programs.
A $999 PC has all that (and more), but the BOM cost is much higher and the profit margin much lower. Are you saying engineers who design PC and components, and its software, are working for free?
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
A person might be able to maybe if they could get low level access to a phone. That wasn't the point. DisplayMate didn't test that a person could. What they did test is both devices based on factory settings.
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
"Calibration isn't as important. . . you can't re-perform a calibration" Says who?
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
Do you work with any displays or any instrumentation at all?
Yes, both.
For most consumer monitors, calibrations are not as important because color accuracy isn't as important. If the goal is color accuracy (which it is in this case),
I disagree. Accuracy is at least as important on consumer monitors as on consumer phones.
I also disagree the goal s color accuracy. The goal is to have a good display for its users.
You don't pay $500+ for a professional monitor if the calibration wasn't important to the manufacturer.
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
For high-end smartphones like the Note 8 and the iPhone X, color accuracy and thus calibration is important.
To a point, for some users yes I assume. I never said it wasn't important anyway.
Are you ignoring the fact that in fact DisplayMate credited Apple for doing so?
I already answered that and you keep repeating this non-sense.
So according to you, DisplayMate doesn't know but did so anyway.
No, that's not what I said. Read again.
By the way, it is DisplayMate's business to know.
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
And it makes no sense that Apple didn't because it is fairly standard that a smart phone maker calibrates their displays. Huawei buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. Sony buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. And so on.
Says who? I don't know that. Do you work for a smartphone manufacturer?
It's part of a QA process: Did the part that I bought meet my specifications? It has to be calibrated then tested.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating.
Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
So now you are throwing in rampant speculation
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves. We don't know. Perhaps it's already calibrated, perhaps it isn't. Unlike you, I don't rule out any possibility when I don't know.
Manufacturer A buys a part from Supplier B. They test it. Your assertion: Manufacturer A never tests the part they get from Supplier B. They just always accepts whatever Supplier B says.
Again, testing isn't the same as calibrating.
Yes I did. I referred you again to the DisplayMate review as I go by their definition of "performance". Again, read the review. The word performance is only used 37 times on the page.
Performance is a vague term. Do me, the best performing display is the best display. Color accuracy is one aspect, out of many, of performance.
Again, read the review
They say that more pixels wou
Are you willing to admit that Apple in fact did make their Samsung display better? That it wasn't all Samsung?
We don't know. We can't know. Unless we work in the right division at Samsung or Apple.
I agree there is a possibility that Apple did something, like I always said. But there are many other credible explanations.
Have you ever worked in the display industry?
No, like 99.9999999999999999% of the people here. What's your point? That the discussion is reserved for display manufacturers?
Because your advice would be terrible. You don't use the same settings that some competitor uses. You don't even use the same settings you used in another device. You use the settings that best fits the device you're trying to calibrate to the goal that you are setting. Every display is slightly different. Anyone using the same settings on the Note 8 that was used on the iPhone X might have terrible results.
I meant anyone should be able to calibrate their Note 8 display for color accuracy just as good as the iPhone X if it's only a software setting AND the display panel is the same. Perhaps the display panel in the iPhone X is superior and will always give better results. Perhaps they are the same. Who knows?
No that wasn't the point: the point is the calibration settings are important contrary to what you wrote above. Do I have to link the multiple times you said that?
I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration...
So you're admitting that Samsung didn't calibrate their display for the best accuracy. Apple did. Are you at this time willing to give Apple credit for doing
so?
No as again, we don't know who is performing the calibration of the iPhone X display. Even Displaymate doesn't know that. Perhaps it's Samsung and they have a firmware storing the calibration values in their display. Perhaps Samsung is giving the numbers to Apple so that they can be stored in the iPhone main flash memory.
Let say I break my iPhone display and go to the Apple store for a repair, they will exchange the display and that's it. They won't calibrate it again. So it seems logical to me that the calibration data be stored in the display. A smartphone display should give the same color no matter what phone you connect it to.
How does the resolution affect the color accuracy and performance score that DisplayMate tested?
I asked you what you meant by performance and you never answered. I could argue that resolution is a key metric of a display performance. A low resolution display doesn't perform as great as a high resolution one.
Also there might be some trade-offs. Perhaps Samsung is able to produce either a high resolution display or one with good accuracy, but not both at the same time. So it's possible that even if they happen do be doing the calibration, Apple wouldn't be able to calibrate a Note 8 as good as an iPhone X even if they wanted to.
You mean besides the fact that DisplayMate being in the industry credited Apple with the calibration?
Yes, as they don't know that. They may be crediting Apple for the result. That doesn't mean they are not allowed to outsource the calibration to Samsung or someone else, and still be credited for the result as the integrator.
Oh and I forgot to say the most important: nothing tells us it's not Samsung who is performing the calibration of the color accuracy for their panels in Apple's phones.
This is what you said above: "There are many different explanations, most of which do not include any engineering on Apple's side." Sure seems like you're unwilling to give Apple any credit.
Most is the key word in my sentence. Any is the key word in yours and it doesn't fit. Seems like you misread.
Also you seem to ignore that the test DisplayMate did had nothing to do with user calibration settings. DisplayMate specifically is applauding Apple for their factory calibration settings.
I don't ignore that. I just say that whatever default settings are chosen by Apple, anybody should be able to use the same settings on their Note 8 if they want to.
Reviews for professional displays always look at the factory calibration.
Of course. But again you missed the point completely. They don't care whatever PC is connected to it, and it has no impact on the review.
They also judge the monitor for color accuracy because that is what is most important if someone buys a professional monitor. For the vast majority of consumers, color accuracy isn't a main concern.
I understand that, and that's why Samsung choose not to get the best color accuracy. They think flashy colors will please more people. They are probably right, by the way.
Yes the results of the tests showed the iPhone X was better but please tell me what "more" are you talking about.
Well for a start it's not even the same resolution, isn't it?
I'm not saying the calibration has nothing to do with it. Just that the calibration is a software setting that could (should) be available to the user.
When is it the last time a monitor reviewer said monitor XYZ works better with PC ABC because it has better calibration settings? Wouldn't that be kind of dumb?
What I understood from DisplayMate was that there was more than calibration settings in the difference between the two displays.
Because this is the first OLED that Apple has used. DisplayMate can't compare LCD and OLED displays. That wouldn't be an apple to apple comparison would it?
They did. They are both displays and can be compared. The iPhone 7 had a great LCD, but OLED displays on the Note 7 and Galaxy S7 were better displays, overall, according to them.
I'm pretty sure if you set your PC's monitor refresh rate to 25Hz, it would affect the monitor's display.
Duh, of course, and the resolution as well. But two PCs with a 60 Hz refresh rate and identical resolution will display the same colors on a given monitor.
unless you are going for color accuracy then it's going to be off which in the case of DisplayMate was the exact thing they were testing.
So they are testing a software setting?
You missed the point: The iPhone X isn't exactly the same as a Note 8 or an iPhone 8. That's the difference.
Of course. But a Note 8 should be able to output to an iPhone 8 display just like both of them can output to an external monitor/TV.
What's your point again?
So Apple choosing to calibrate their display for more color accuracy and performance had nothing to do with it?
It shouldn't. Scores shouldn't be awarded on calibration. And what do you mean by "performance"?
Anyways, it's the first time in years that Apple can beat Samsung according do DisplayMate. And this is by using a Samsung display.
So despite their poor color accuracy, Samsung phones had better displays for years.
From what I've seen Samsung phones are calibrated for more vibrant color. At times it's over-saturated. It looks better but it's not as accurate.
So which is it, the display or the software?
It does if your one PC has a better video card.
No. That was my point. The video card and the rest of the PC doesn't matter. It's a digital connection. If my PC tells the monitor to turn on pixel #42 with color code 1234, then the display should do so no matter which video card I use. And by default I believe it does.
It also depends on what each PC has set in their monitor calibration settings.
They are settings. They should be adjustable. And it should be possible to get the exact same image from two different PCs by using the same settings.
Maybe Samsung was able to produce a higher resolution panel with worse color reproduction characteristics and they chose that for the Note 8. Maybe they could have chosen the iPhone X panel for a lower cost and they still preferred the Note 8 one.
But chances are Apple had nothing to do with what makes that panel so great in displaymate's opinion. Just like my Dell monitor has the same performance no matter what type of PC I connect to it.
How do you know that the price difference were in the displays?
I never talked about the total price of the phone. Apple has insanely high profit margins on iPhones, so that alone may explain why the iPhone X is $100 more expensive.
What I meant is that of all the displays Samsung can make, the best one is probably the most expensive. Maybe Samsung decided it wasn't worth it to invest $X to get a better display in their Note 8, because it wouldn't result in significantly more sales.
Or maybe buying a part and sticking it into your phone isn't all it takes to get the most out of a part?
It's a possibility. I'd say a lot less probable than every other possibility I mentioned in my previous posts.