Are you implying that you know the internal schedule of the development of these phones and the displays by Apple and Samsung?
I know facts. Fact: The Note 8 was released only weeks prior to the iPhone X. This is a fact. Please bring up any relevant facts you have.
Do share. If you don't, GTFO. You do know that the Samsung that made the Galaxy phones and the Samsung that design and manufacture displays are two separate entities, right?
And yet Apple released a phone with a Samsung display only weeks after Samsung releasing a phone with a Samsung display and beat it. Please present any facts counter to this.
Aside from better black level, LCD used to have advantages over OLED.
So is your answer yes, you are willing to engage in unfair comparisons?
A fact is a fact.
And yet to failed to acknowledge the basic facts when it doesn't suit you.
Apple used to procure the displays for their high end phones from multiple sources. For iPhone X, they can only go to Samsung (and LG later next year), because only Samsung has the capability and capacity to produce them. The iPhone 7 lackluster display over 6 month older S7 is a testament that Apple software implementation, if there were any, has little to no effect on the quality of the phone display
And how does any of that relevant to the point that Apple was able to score higher with a Samsung display than Samsung?
Making OLED display is hard [imore.com], and Samsung get it right. From the day of HTC Nexus one OLED display (by Samsung) which placed last in 2010 to iPhone X at the top, Samsung has been improving their OLED technology, without Apple involvement.
Again how does any of that relevant to the point that Apple was able to score higher with a Samsung display than Samsung?
Aren't you ignoring the fact that the Note 8 came out only weeks before the iPhone X? We're not talking six months or a year difference. A few weeks. If you're going to compare an LCD display with an OLED one, it seems you're willing to partake in unfair comparisons.
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.
You mean besides the fact that DisplayMate being in the industry credited Apple with the calibration? You should really pay attention to the review. Or are you trying to weasel your way out of admitting that Apple might have had a hand in the matter? Because your scenario would be Apple bought a display from a supplier and didn't calibrate to their specifications when manufacturing the phone. That would make Apple idiots or completely lazy. Every phone manufacturer would calibrate the display to their specifications as it would be one of the tests to ensure that the displays are made to the specification required.
Most is the key word in my sentence. Any is the key word in yours and it doesn't fit. Seems like you misread.
No I didn't. Are you willing to admit that Apple in fact did make their Samsung display better? That it wasn't all Samsung?
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.
Have you ever worked in the display industry? 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Well for a start it's not even the same resolution, isn't it?
How does the resolution affect the color accuracy and performance score that DisplayMate tested? You might want a larger screen but that had very little to do with color accuracy.
So what magical new processor would you have Samsung use in their newest devices? How about the fastest and latest Samsung makes (which they did)? Or do you think Samsung semiconductors makes a new processor every six months? They could also use the latest and greatest Qualcomm they can (which they sorta did)? What other processor would you have them use?
you mean the same old processor that was released in the s8 6 months ago, yeah I was aware the Note was also not really anything special processor wise too.
By that statement, aren't you equating the S8 with "not really anything special processor" wise as well? Flawed logic perhaps?
An Apple phone is a communication appliance and an Android phone is a computer.
That a rather false premise isn't it? Please show me how an Android phone is somehow a computer when an Apple phone is not. And in the case of an Android phone being a "computer", you realize that you are seemingly ignoring the fact a phone is updated longer than the computer. You are advocating for more obsolescence in what you consider a "computer."
This older patent while not exactly the same as the Corephotonics patents would seem to be necessary for the Corephotonics technique to work but Corephotonics didn't cite it in any of their patent applications. That could spell trouble for Corephotonics. Apple could challenge all of their Corephotonics patents on that basis. At the very least, Apple could force Corephotonics into a lengthy lawsuit that only ends up in cross-licensing instead of mutually assured destruction.
The oldest phone to get iOS 11 is the 5S which means your phone is older than 4 years. There aren't that many Android phones that still get updates 4 years after release.
Apple has one major release stream. Android have several with security updates backported back to version 4.4.
Android in general does. Android phones have a different story. Some phones require rooting the phone for new updates which may be unsupported for the phone so things might break/fail/not work right. Some Android phones simply can't be updated.
There is more of a requirement to run the latest shiny for iOS, whereas in Android the requirement is not there and the shiny is reserved for customers paying for updated devices.
And security patches having nothing to do with updates? On average, Apple supports their phones longer than Android. This is somewhat perplexing if you're paying the same price for both phones.
they still consider it a leading niche product, just not important enough to plonk in the best they make.
By "not important enough" are you ignoring that Samsung considers the Note line a flagship phone and that it includes the latest and most powerful processors? The Note might have the Exnos 8895 (Samsung's most powerful mobile processor) or the Snapdragon 835 which was Qualcomm's most powerful until the 845 was released in March 2017. Unlike Apple Samsung release 2 flagship phones a year. The S is in the spring and the Note is in the fall.
1) The Note was released Sept 15 so I would expect it to have fewer sales than the S which was released in March. 2) How does having fewer sales detract from the fact that the Note 8 is indeed the latest flagship phone from Samsung that could have beaten the iPhone X in a display comparison?
It might be but my gut feeling is that it wasn't done on purpose. Samsung in my opinion tends to tweak their displays for more vibrant color and which leads to over-saturated colors by sacrificing some color accuracy. Simply it looks better on most images that a consumer would see: camera phone images etc. It looks better to consumers thus more consumers think the display is better.
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.
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. 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.
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?
You don't work in the field of professional imaging do you? Reviews for professional displays always look at the factory calibration. 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. If it's off, it's an annoyance. If it's part of your job, it's a detriment not to have a well-calibrated monitor especially since these displays are not $300 cheap.
Professional monitors always come at a premium price but for that extra coin you get multiple color gamut options, factory-certified calibration and often times the ability to create your own color presets with included software and instruments. When you need the absolute pinnacle of color accuracy, one of the screens can fulfill that need, usually without any initial adjustment.
What I understood from DisplayMate was that there was more than calibration settings in the difference between the two displays.
Yes the results of the tests showed the iPhone X was better but please tell me what "more" are you talking about. The only thing DisplayMate did was praise Apple's calibration as the reason it got their best score. Anyone in the business like DisplayMate knows that how the manufacturer decides to calibrate a display is important. If they mess up, they can get terrible results. Some of the settings are however intentional as not all displays and manufacturers target a high level of color accuracy for every product.
For example, I have two ASUS monitors exactly the same size but with one being a model version higher than the other. The older model has far better color accuracy than the newer one. I thought it was that particular monitor but switching it out with the same model, I get the same problem: Blue is slightly purple but red is still red so it's not a color balance problem. No matter how I try to adjust the settings, I can't get rid of the color balance problems. Both models were consumer grade and my job doesn't require color accuracy but it is annoying when things don't look right side by side.
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.
And do you know every setting that Apple did in their calibration? Do you know every setting that Samsung did in their calibration? You don't know but you are certain that it had no effect. Whereas DisplayMate who does this all the time is sure the display is better because of Apple's calibration.
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?
That DisplayMate tested both and said the iPhone X was better. Both use Samsung displays. Why is that? You: It has nothing to do with anything Apple did. Me: it has everything to do with Apple did. DisplayMate agrees with me.
It shouldn't. Scores shouldn't be awarded on calibration. And what do you mean by "performance"?
Please read the DisplayMate test. DisplayMate tested for color accuracy. It appears Apple calibrated their phones for better accuracy. Thus it was awarded more points. That seems logical to me.
Anyways, it's the first time in years that Apple can beat Samsung according do DisplayMate.
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?
And this is by using a Samsung display. So despite their poor color accuracy, Samsung phones had better displays for years.
You missed the point and introduce another false dichotomy. No one has said Samsung displays has poor color accuracy. What DisplayMate says is that the iPhone X currently has the best OLED display and the display was made by Samsung. I'm arguing that (and confirmed somewhat by DisplayMate) that this was due to how Apple calibrated the display. It's the same point I've made multiple times.
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.
I'm pretty sure if you set your PC's monitor refresh rate to 25Hz, it would affect the monitor's display. For most monitors, setting the wrong color management profile doesn't have much of an effect--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.
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.
You missed the point: The iPhone X isn't exactly the same as a Note 8 or an iPhone 8. That's the difference.
doesnt do an OS ( darwin is just a skin on top of freeBSD)
That's not factually true. Darwin is the open source variant of macOS which is derived from NextSTEP which is a long way derived from BSD. That's like saying humans are just skins on top of orangutans.
doesnt do a processor (dumped its own powerPC chip in favor of intel)
Yes because Dell, HP, Lenovo (formerly IBM), etc. all made their own processors for their x86 computers in the last decade . . . wait none of them did.
processor was bought from ARM under license
Not factually true either. Buying an architecture license is from ARM is not buying a processor from ARM. Ask Qualcomm.
But chances are Apple had nothing to do with what makes that panel so great in displaymate's opinion.
So Apple choosing to calibrate their display for more color accuracy and performance had nothing to do with it? 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. That's why DisplayMate said they have the best display as they actually test for color accuracy.
Just like my Dell monitor has the same performance no matter what type of PC I connect to it.
It does if your one PC has a better video card. It also depends on what each PC has set in their monitor calibration settings.
I never talked about the total price of the phone.
But how do you know that the component was in fact more expensive. All we can gauge the relative cost is the total cost of the product. And the iPhone X is $100 more expensive overall.
Apple has insanely high profit margins on iPhones, so that alone may explain why the iPhone X is $100 more expensive.
Wouldn't adding in a Kinect module increase the cost of the iPhone X? Also this introduces a false dichotomy that the profit margins on the Note 8 are not "insanely high". Samsung overall has lower profit margins than Apple on phones, but Samsung makes many more models and targets more segments some of which are lower profit.
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.
But you don't know for sure that the iPhone X display was actually more expensive than the Note 8 display. All we know is that the iPhone X was rated better. The facts that we do know: the Note 8 display is larger, curved, and has a higher resolution and DPI. All of those would add to the cost. The iPhone X display is irregular with the notch at the top which adds to the cost. On paper I wouldn't know which would be more expensive. Maybe the notch at the top would make it more expensive; however, the notch doesn't affect the performance and color accuracy metrics that DisplayMate tested
It's a possibility. I'd say a lot less probable than every other possibility I mentioned in my previous posts.
I'd say it's more than likely considering that Samsung engineers had a larger, higher DPI display to work with than Apple. As well as them working within the same company.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that you know the internal schedule of the development of these phones and the displays by Apple and Samsung?
I know facts. Fact: The Note 8 was released only weeks prior to the iPhone X. This is a fact. Please bring up any relevant facts you have.
Do share. If you don't, GTFO. You do know that the Samsung that made the Galaxy phones and the Samsung that design and manufacture displays are two separate entities, right?
And yet Apple released a phone with a Samsung display only weeks after Samsung releasing a phone with a Samsung display and beat it. Please present any facts counter to this.
Aside from better black level, LCD used to have advantages over OLED.
So is your answer yes, you are willing to engage in unfair comparisons?
A fact is a fact.
And yet to failed to acknowledge the basic facts when it doesn't suit you.
Apple used to procure the displays for their high end phones from multiple sources. For iPhone X, they can only go to Samsung (and LG later next year), because only Samsung has the capability and capacity to produce them. The iPhone 7 lackluster display over 6 month older S7 is a testament that Apple software implementation, if there were any, has little to no effect on the quality of the phone display
And how does any of that relevant to the point that Apple was able to score higher with a Samsung display than Samsung?
Making OLED display is hard [imore.com], and Samsung get it right. From the day of HTC Nexus one OLED display (by Samsung) which placed last in 2010 to iPhone X at the top, Samsung has been improving their OLED technology, without Apple involvement.
Again how does any of that relevant to the point that Apple was able to score higher with a Samsung display than Samsung?
I think it was well known in advance that 32-bit processors wouldn't run iOS 11.
Aren't you ignoring the fact that the Note 8 came out only weeks before the iPhone X? We're not talking six months or a year difference. A few weeks. If you're going to compare an LCD display with an OLED one, it seems you're willing to partake in unfair comparisons.
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.
You mean besides the fact that DisplayMate being in the industry credited Apple with the calibration? You should really pay attention to the review. Or are you trying to weasel your way out of admitting that Apple might have had a hand in the matter? Because your scenario would be Apple bought a display from a supplier and didn't calibrate to their specifications when manufacturing the phone. That would make Apple idiots or completely lazy. Every phone manufacturer would calibrate the display to their specifications as it would be one of the tests to ensure that the displays are made to the specification required.
Most is the key word in my sentence. Any is the key word in yours and it doesn't fit. Seems like you misread.
No I didn't. Are you willing to admit that Apple in fact did make their Samsung display better? That it wasn't all Samsung?
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.
Have you ever worked in the display industry? 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Well for a start it's not even the same resolution, isn't it?
How does the resolution affect the color accuracy and performance score that DisplayMate tested? You might want a larger screen but that had very little to do with color accuracy.
So what magical new processor would you have Samsung use in their newest devices? How about the fastest and latest Samsung makes (which they did)? Or do you think Samsung semiconductors makes a new processor every six months? They could also use the latest and greatest Qualcomm they can (which they sorta did)? What other processor would you have them use?
you mean the same old processor that was released in the s8 6 months ago, yeah I was aware the Note was also not really anything special processor wise too.
By that statement, aren't you equating the S8 with "not really anything special processor" wise as well? Flawed logic perhaps?
An Apple phone is a communication appliance and an Android phone is a computer.
That a rather false premise isn't it? Please show me how an Android phone is somehow a computer when an Apple phone is not. And in the case of an Android phone being a "computer", you realize that you are seemingly ignoring the fact a phone is updated longer than the computer. You are advocating for more obsolescence in what you consider a "computer."
This older patent while not exactly the same as the Corephotonics patents would seem to be necessary for the Corephotonics technique to work but Corephotonics didn't cite it in any of their patent applications. That could spell trouble for Corephotonics. Apple could challenge all of their Corephotonics patents on that basis. At the very least, Apple could force Corephotonics into a lengthy lawsuit that only ends up in cross-licensing instead of mutually assured destruction.
The oldest phone to get iOS 11 is the 5S which means your phone is older than 4 years. There aren't that many Android phones that still get updates 4 years after release.
Apple has one major release stream. Android have several with security updates backported back to version 4.4.
Android in general does. Android phones have a different story. Some phones require rooting the phone for new updates which may be unsupported for the phone so things might break/fail/not work right. Some Android phones simply can't be updated.
There is more of a requirement to run the latest shiny for iOS, whereas in Android the requirement is not there and the shiny is reserved for customers paying for updated devices.
And security patches having nothing to do with updates? On average, Apple supports their phones longer than Android. This is somewhat perplexing if you're paying the same price for both phones.
Where in the entire agreement where it says what you claim it says. It makes no mention that the US is the only country with obligations.
Then you (b) would be a false conclusion as the iPhone X display is better than the Note 8 display.
they still consider it a leading niche product, just not important enough to plonk in the best they make.
By "not important enough" are you ignoring that Samsung considers the Note line a flagship phone and that it includes the latest and most powerful processors? The Note might have the Exnos 8895 (Samsung's most powerful mobile processor) or the Snapdragon 835 which was Qualcomm's most powerful until the 845 was released in March 2017. Unlike Apple Samsung release 2 flagship phones a year. The S is in the spring and the Note is in the fall.
1) The Note was released Sept 15 so I would expect it to have fewer sales than the S which was released in March. 2) How does having fewer sales detract from the fact that the Note 8 is indeed the latest flagship phone from Samsung that could have beaten the iPhone X in a display comparison?
It might be but my gut feeling is that it wasn't done on purpose. Samsung in my opinion tends to tweak their displays for more vibrant color and which leads to over-saturated colors by sacrificing some color accuracy. Simply it looks better on most images that a consumer would see: camera phone images etc. It looks better to consumers thus more consumers think the display is better.
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.
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. 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.
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?
You don't work in the field of professional imaging do you? Reviews for professional displays always look at the factory calibration. 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. If it's off, it's an annoyance. If it's part of your job, it's a detriment not to have a well-calibrated monitor especially since these displays are not $300 cheap.
Professional monitors always come at a premium price but for that extra coin you get multiple color gamut options, factory-certified calibration and often times the ability to create your own color presets with included software and instruments. When you need the absolute pinnacle of color accuracy, one of the screens can fulfill that need, usually without any initial adjustment.
What I understood from DisplayMate was that there was more than calibration settings in the difference between the two displays.
Yes the results of the tests showed the iPhone X was better but please tell me what "more" are you talking about. The only thing DisplayMate did was praise Apple's calibration as the reason it got their best score. Anyone in the business like DisplayMate knows that how the manufacturer decides to calibrate a display is important. If they mess up, they can get terrible results. Some of the settings are however intentional as not all displays and manufacturers target a high level of color accuracy for every product.
For example, I have two ASUS monitors exactly the same size but with one being a model version higher than the other. The older model has far better color accuracy than the newer one. I thought it was that particular monitor but switching it out with the same model, I get the same problem: Blue is slightly purple but red is still red so it's not a color balance problem. No matter how I try to adjust the settings, I can't get rid of the color balance problems. Both models were consumer grade and my job doesn't require color accuracy but it is annoying when things don't look right side by side.
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.
And do you know every setting that Apple did in their calibration? Do you know every setting that Samsung did in their calibration? You don't know but you are certain that it had no effect. Whereas DisplayMate who does this all the time is sure the display is better because of Apple's calibration.
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?
That DisplayMate tested both and said the iPhone X was better. Both use Samsung displays. Why is that? You: It has nothing to do with anything Apple did. Me: it has everything to do with Apple did. DisplayMate agrees with me.
It shouldn't. Scores shouldn't be awarded on calibration. And what do you mean by "performance"?
Please read the DisplayMate test. DisplayMate tested for color accuracy. It appears Apple calibrated their phones for better accuracy. Thus it was awarded more points. That seems logical to me.
Anyways, it's the first time in years that Apple can beat Samsung according do DisplayMate.
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?
And this is by using a Samsung display. So despite their poor color accuracy, Samsung phones had better displays for years.
You missed the point and introduce another false dichotomy. No one has said Samsung displays has poor color accuracy. What DisplayMate says is that the iPhone X currently has the best OLED display and the display was made by Samsung. I'm arguing that (and confirmed somewhat by DisplayMate) that this was due to how Apple calibrated the display. It's the same point I've made multiple times.
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.
I'm pretty sure if you set your PC's monitor refresh rate to 25Hz, it would affect the monitor's display. For most monitors, setting the wrong color management profile doesn't have much of an effect--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.
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.
You missed the point: The iPhone X isn't exactly the same as a Note 8 or an iPhone 8. That's the difference.
The US is the only country that would actually have to do anything under the Paris Climate Deal.
Please cite your evidence where this is true.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
That relies on the false premise that the deal isn't "fair" to the US.
doesnt do an OS ( darwin is just a skin on top of freeBSD)
That's not factually true. Darwin is the open source variant of macOS which is derived from NextSTEP which is a long way derived from BSD. That's like saying humans are just skins on top of orangutans.
doesnt do a processor (dumped its own powerPC chip in favor of intel)
Yes because Dell, HP, Lenovo (formerly IBM), etc. all made their own processors for their x86 computers in the last decade . . . wait none of them did.
processor was bought from ARM under license
Not factually true either. Buying an architecture license is from ARM is not buying a processor from ARM. Ask Qualcomm.
And who designs ARM processors for Samsung phones? Sometimes it is a Qualcomm design and sometimes it is Samsung.
Open a Samsung phone and you'll see bits made by other manufacturers.
But chances are Apple had nothing to do with what makes that panel so great in displaymate's opinion.
So Apple choosing to calibrate their display for more color accuracy and performance had nothing to do with it? 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. That's why DisplayMate said they have the best display as they actually test for color accuracy.
Just like my Dell monitor has the same performance no matter what type of PC I connect to it.
It does if your one PC has a better video card. It also depends on what each PC has set in their monitor calibration settings.
I never talked about the total price of the phone.
But how do you know that the component was in fact more expensive. All we can gauge the relative cost is the total cost of the product. And the iPhone X is $100 more expensive overall.
Apple has insanely high profit margins on iPhones, so that alone may explain why the iPhone X is $100 more expensive.
Wouldn't adding in a Kinect module increase the cost of the iPhone X? Also this introduces a false dichotomy that the profit margins on the Note 8 are not "insanely high". Samsung overall has lower profit margins than Apple on phones, but Samsung makes many more models and targets more segments some of which are lower profit.
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.
But you don't know for sure that the iPhone X display was actually more expensive than the Note 8 display. All we know is that the iPhone X was rated better. The facts that we do know: the Note 8 display is larger, curved, and has a higher resolution and DPI. All of those would add to the cost. The iPhone X display is irregular with the notch at the top which adds to the cost. On paper I wouldn't know which would be more expensive. Maybe the notch at the top would make it more expensive; however, the notch doesn't affect the performance and color accuracy metrics that DisplayMate tested
It's a possibility. I'd say a lot less probable than every other possibility I mentioned in my previous posts.
I'd say it's more than likely considering that Samsung engineers had a larger, higher DPI display to work with than Apple. As well as them working within the same company.