Apple won't be using BOE OLEDs at least for the first batch of iPhone 12 Comments
- Anonymous
- xja
AnonD-909757, 13 Jun 2020What I wonder is, when the first phones with miniled (as LCD backlight) and microled will come... moreSlow down on the weed bro
- Rambo
- Dk9
Samsung is Samsung
Apple used to rely on Samsung from the beginning
Samsung makes great products that's why not just apple but many other companies also rely on Samsung's components
- AnonD-909757
- pZQ
What I wonder is, when the first phones with miniled (as LCD backlight) and microled will come out, they are for sure the next step.
Though this next step may not last long as graphene based display are way, way, way way better than any other.
But then screenless display are also getting really close, like only few years away, from retinal projection to neural interface.
BOE should seriously consider looking into the futur now that the two biggest phone brand aren't customers anymore...
But BOE might get saved by foldable displays as Qualcomm work with them to integrate their ultrasonic FPS into their displays for foldable devices...
Anyway, the futur of displays sound really interesting !
- Nick Tagataka
- gRy
Anonymous, 13 Jun 2020People want oled with over 760 nits, then when burn in shows up, they complain they need to pa... moreModern OLED panels are fairly long lasting and I don't think extra 200-300 nits boost in max brightness will cause a major difference in pixel degradation speed, especially when you consider the fact that you don't use set it at such high brightness at all times. I've been using my S10 (820 nits peak brightness according to GSMArena) for roughly a year with auto brightness turned on outside and usually 80-100% manual brightness indoors, and so far there's absolutely no sign of burn in whatsoever. I'm pretty sure I can use this thing for at least another 2 years without facing any issues with its display.
And before you say something else, I get it - You seriously hate Samsung.
- Anonymous
- LQw
Anonymous, 13 Jun 2020Im not surprised Apple and Huawei used BOE displays.
Samsung will always have the best disp... moreEven TCL tvs provide better images than Samsung tvs.
Let alone Sony, LG, Panasonic and Philips.
- dbjungle
- 47L
Samsung only for review and launch units. Then they can switch it up after a positive reception...
- Anonymous
- LQw
Nick Tagataka, 13 Jun 2020For such a lengthy post somehow you didn't mention the most probable reason why no phone manuf... morePeople want oled with over 760 nits, then when burn in shows up, they complain they need to pay for new screen.
Cant believe ppl here read about tech daily but do not know more brightness will increase the speed of chemical reactions that degrades organic compounds of oled screens.
- Shanti Dope
- C9a
Nick Tagataka, 13 Jun 2020For such a lengthy post somehow you didn't mention the most probable reason why no phone manuf... morePower consumption is barely a problem nowadays for smartphones with large battery capacities. And high refresh rate consume just as much energy, if not more with the higher touch sampling rate.
The only reason why 4K screens seem to draw a lot of power is because Sony kept on using small-ish batteries to drive such panel, but now that they're using a better standard capacity, endurance will no longer be a problem here. Well, the Xperia 1 did manage an endurance rating that's quite similar to the iPhone 11 Pro (5.8") with smaller and lower resolution display and a not-so-much-smaller battery, which goes to say that it still depends on how the manufacturer plans to optimize and manage the power draw of the phone.
Needless to say, what I could imagine is that other manufacturers simply don't have the capacity to properly optimize their software to have longer battery life even with a high resolution display. Battery life wasn't a pro on the Xperia 1, but neither was it a con. Nevertheless, it's still a necessity for a flagship that's trying to claim the "best display" on the market.
Limiting the brightness to 600 nits mark was merely about preventing burn ins from happening, and for a fact that such brightness was already enough to be visible even in direct sunlight and to provide a great HDR experience.
Even Samsung did limit their display's maximum brightness and give a warning before letting users bypass the threshold limit that's set from the maximum brightness.
Yes, they do that because they also know that people don't constantly buy new phones every year, so their phones must last no less than 3 years before starting to have problems.
Others simply don't do that because they want their users to buy their new products every year.
Sony knows this OLED screen technology as much as the manufacturers do. They did pioneer this technology after all, and they know the limits and disadvantages of this tech, which is why you could barely see any reports of Sony Xperia OLED phones having burn in problems even after a year, while the latest S20 Ultra is already experiencing green tint problems in just under a year. Even the iPhones are prone to this problem. Sony definitely isn't resilient to this, but they do take much longer before it starts to occur.
High refresh rates can be activated by setting the display resolution a little lower. After all, the 865 can easily handle QHD+ @120Hz, so there should be no problem with that. Even so, Sony's Motion Blur Reduction tries to somehow compensate for that, and even if you can't feel the true 90Hz refresh rate, at least it's somehow a "better 60Hz" than a normal 60Hz screen.
Besides, how many contents are you going to see that can utilize this feature anyway? Are there any YouTube videos that's available in 120fps? If so, then I might want it. Otherwise, I simply don't need it for now.
I doubt high refresh rate contents will even bloom that quickly in the future after its introduction on smartphones.
Heck, majority of the contents that are easily accesible are still in 16:9 despite phones now coming with elongated screen ratios for 3 years already.
That's exactly my point of why 4K is a must for a high end phone. It can simply display any content in the highest possible quality (except 8K videos, which are good for uhmm...Idk, maybe for nothing?)
That comparison alone made the iPhone's screen look so cheap and mediocre. Of course you wouldn't appreciate it because you've been using lower resolution screens for ages, and I'm not against your will of sticking to that. However, we are talking about super premi devices already, and skipping on that major aspect of what makes it so worth it is disappointing to see especially from the biggest phone brands in the modern times. You have your own choice, but I simply wouldn't buy a thousand dollar phone with just 1080p display, unless it is a sub-6" device, where the difference is less noticeable and unnecessary.
No, just no. Just because green pixels are twice as large, doesn't mean it's already enough to fulfill the missing pixels that would complete the matrix.
On OLEDs, it is a RG BG RG BG setup, while on IPS screens, it' s always RGB RGB RGB everywhere, so for every matrix, you are losing either a red pixel or a blue pixel, so the actual resolution would be just about 2/3 of the claimed resolution of the panel. Besides, it's actually the blue pixels that are the largest on OLEDs because of their natively lower brightness than the other two, and so they need to shine almost twice as much just to appear as bright as the other two, which then leads to its early degradation, where the screen starts to appear yellowish (it was made almost twice as big so that it could last as long as the other two pixels).
Even without the maths, real life comparison can easily show you the difference. I personally don't have the best eyesight for a human, but I could easily discern the pixel arrangement on my friend's 1080p Super AMOLED display, as opposed on my 1080p IPS LCD display that looks a little sharper than a 1440p Super AMOLED display. With that being said, you are again free to believe what you want to think, but these are the straight up facts that explains why OLED screens, and premium flagship phones with larger than 6" screens, should have no less than 1440p displays.
- Anonymous
- 04N
Whackcar, 13 Jun 2020Apple product prices are exorbitant. They should be using the highest-end components only. It ... moreiphones are alredy made cheaper than any 100$ android phone foxcon made same phone apple sell same phone but with new name
- Nick Tagataka
- gRy
Right now Samsung's panel is ahead of BOE's in most aspects by a significant margin, so no wonder. P40 Pro+' Samsung-made OLED display is over 230 nits brighter than the "regular" P40 Pro's LG/BOE display and provides slightly superiour colour accuracy, too. BOE needs to catch up, Samsung is going fast this year.
- harwey
- 3qG
Apple asked for trendy,very popular green displays and BOE couldn't deliver...lol
- Anonymous
- mp8
Im not surprised Apple and Huawei used BOE displays.
Samsung will always have the best display. True kings in displays and smartphones even TV's
- AnonD-909757
- pZQ
Does anyone know where/why BOE displays didn't pass Samsung and Apple requirements ?
- Nick Tagataka
- gRy
Shanti Dope, 13 Jun 2020Speaking of screens, I simply don't understand why manufacturers keep on insisting to have 4K ... moreFor such a lengthy post somehow you didn't mention the most probable reason why no phone manufacturers apart from Sony is willing to adopt 4K - power consumption.
Xperia 1 wouldn't have posted somewhat mediocre battery life score on GSMArena and sat at near the bottom of Anandtech's battery life chart if it didn't have a 4K panel. Sony not letting GSMArena carry out the battery test on Xperia 1 Mk.II (Even though they say it's because "firmware isn't entirely final when it comes to battery management") and limiting the max brightness of its panel to 600 nits vs other high end phones' 750-900 nits are quite telling, aren't they?
On top of that, there is an issue with refresh rate as well. Snapdragon chipsets don't support refresh rate higher than 60Hz in 4K, therefore with such a high resolution achieving 90Hz let alone 120Hz is dream within a dream.
As for the difference in sharpness when playing movies on Xperia 1 II and iPhone 11 Pro Max, it's worth mentioning that iPhone can only play videos at up to FHD on Netflix, so you're essentially comparing FHD and 4K resolutions here. Newer Android phones with Netflix HD certification can play videos at WQHD resolution which makes the difference in perceived sharpness much smaller.
"so 1440p OLEDs aren't as sharp as even 1080p IPS screens, let alone 1440p ones"
WQHD OLED panel is just as sharp as or slightly sharper than 1080p IPS because even though they both share the same number of red and blue subpixels, the number of green subpixels is still twice as large on the former.
- ULTRAHYPERCAPITALIST
- D06
As supreme ultra capitalist I would put lower priced BOE panels in iPhone and people are willing to buy iPhones anyway reap the profits.
Same people bought Samsung 14nm inefficient chip compared to 16nm TSMC.
- Anonymous
- Kxr
Shanti Dope, 13 Jun 2020Speaking of screens, I simply don't understand why manufacturers keep on insisting to have 4K ... moreNobody wants to use 4k battery hog.
Screen manufacturers have found their Sweet spot at 3k.
Now they are focused on reducing latency, bumping up refresh rate and touch response times, improving efficiency, increasing brightness levels, focusing on color accurate displays, etc.
- Shanti Dope
- C9a
Speaking of screens, I simply don't understand why manufacturers keep on insisting to have 4K screens for large screen flagships.
I mean, come on, it's 2020 already and the technology is beyond ready for years now. And for the price they're asking, us customers deserve to get the most of what we could possibly have in the modern times.
Don't get me started on the nonsense argument of "4K screens are useless on smartphones."
1. 4K HDR contents are slowly but surely getting more mainstream as technology progresses, and definitely there are more of those types of contents than those that go beyond 60fps (high refresh rate).
2. Yes, there IS a noticeable difference, especially with smartphone screens getting bigger each year. And with modern OLEDs' Diamond PenTile pixel matrix, resolution is almost halved in comparison to proper RGB pixel matrix like on IPS LCDs, so 1440p OLEDs aren't as sharp as even 1080p IPS screens, let alone 1440p ones.
3. It's not about not being able to discern pixels to say that a screen is more than high-resolution enough. It's how an image appears on the whole display, where 4K screens will definitely show a big improvement in overall picture quality.
A proof of comparison between the iPhone 11 Pro Max and Xperia 1 II (both 6.5" screens)
https://youtu.be/aiVWHwENkJw
Jump to 7:50 and watch in highest resolution to get the idea.
4. Having a 1080p display for a flagship phone feels like cheating to the consumers, especially considering many phones at more than half the price are getting the same feature. Flagships are supposed to be better than mid rangers and budget phones in every single possible way, but weirdly enough, not having the headphone jack seems to be "better" according to these manufacturers' definition of flagships. Simply calibrating the panels better don't cut it.
To me, any phone that costs over $1000 and doesn't have 4K display is truly overpriced, though $1000 phones are still far too costly in general.
Tip us
1.5m 109k
RSS
EV
Merch
Log in I forgot my password Sign up