Why the 'iPhone 8' may see Apple finally adopt OLED

Posted:
in iPhone edited March 9
Conflicting rumors peg the 2017 iPhone refresh to boast OLED screens in just the "iPhone 8," or the high-end model and in the "iPhone 7s," or in nothing at all. AppleInsider examines the technology, and discusses why -- or why not -- it may make an appearance later in the year.




At present, Apple uses organic light emitting diodes -- or OLED -- displays in two products: the Apple Watch, and for the Touch Bar in the 2016 MacBook Pro. What makes it worth Apple's while to shift away from the nearly perfected LCD screen that it uses across the iPhone, iPad, and Mac lines?

Technical matters suggest that an Apple OLED shift is inevitable

OLED displays have a greater contrast ratio, and superior overall color display to LCD. The flexible displays prevalent at recent trade shows are a product of OLED development.

A traditional LCD screen is considered transmissive -- individual elements change color, but are at the mercy of assorted backlight technologies for presentation. OLED screens are emissive, meaning that each individual pixel is its own light source with brightness being able to be set per pixel.

As a result, OLED technology also has significant power efficiency improvements over LCD screens. For instance, a black pixel consumes no power -- this also opens up other utilizations of an OLED screen, such as only using a small portion of it for a constant time and notification display, with minimal impact to battery life.

Without the need for a backlight, an OLED screen can be thinner than competing technologies, all other factors equal. OLED response times can theoretically reach 0.01 milliseconds, versus 1 millisecond for modern LCD screens.

OLED still isn't the easiest thing to manufacture...




Production is more complicated than LCD, with even a speck of dust completely ruining a screen during initial fabrication. The cost to construct each screen still exceeds that of an LCD.

Water impingement is a major problem for OLED screens both during production, and in-use. Even a small amount of water contacting the organic substrate of the screen can immediately damage the display, necessitating replacement.

... and so far, only Samsung makes them in any great quantities.

Other than Samsung, there are several vendors of OLED Panels. However, at this time even with vendor's government aid and Apple's support, none come close to approaching the volume of the Samsung fabrication plants.

Samsung holds the vast majority of OLED technology patents, and in 2010 held 98 percent of the share of the OLED smartphone screen market. The number has since only fallen slightly to 97.7 percent in April of 2016, with manufacturing problems being the primary hurdle to wider success by others.

Despite Apple's continued legal battles with Samsung, the Korean company remains a prolific Apple supplier. Apple draws a large percentage of its flash and DRAM needed for manufacturing of both iOS devices and Macs from Samsung, and sources other components from them as well.
From a battery consumption, color accuracy, and device thickness standpoint, OLED is the next, inevitable, step. Just exactly when it will happen isn't exactly clear.
Apple is clearly aware of the supply situation surrounding OLED screens, and who makes most of them. Over two years, Apple has reportedly signed contracts with Samsung, delivering a total of 155 million OLED screens to the iPhone manufacturer.

Possibly supplementing Samsung, OLED display supplier Applied Materials revealed a quadrupling of orders in May 2016. Applied Materials' CEO Gary Dickerson said that the orders represented "sustainable growth," and implied Apple was the source, adding that "we all know who is the leader in terms of mobile products."

Other potential future suppliers include Apple's LCD supplier Japan Display. Propping up some sagging fortunes due to a late adoption of OLED technology, in December 2016 Japan Display received a $636 million bailout from a Japanese government-backed investment firm.

It dedicated part of the investment into buying a controlling stake in Joled, an OLED firm created out of units formerly belonging to Sony and Panasonic. When the investment in Joled will be productive for Japan Display and crank out OLED screens is not clear, however.

Samsung's OLED marketshare is falling, but not dramatically so. The most recent reports from the supply chain suggest that in January 2017, Samsung was the manufacturer for 90 percent of the world's total OLED supply.

Today's OLED color accuracy is far better than it used to be

The Apple Watch with OLED screen was panned for a lack of color accuracy, and so were early offerings from Samsung sporting the display.

Apple's iPhone 7 was a sea change for Apple in display color reproduction, and it is a combination of screen and software. For the first time Since the Samsung Galaxy Note 4, Apple's mobile offerings sat on top of the heap for color accuracy, as well as Wide Color, or DCI-P3 color-space support.




There's no reason why Apple can't take the OLED technology, and adapt it to its now-excellent iOS color management software. So, it looks like early growing pains for OLED regarding one of Apple's current foci, color space and accuracy, are in the past.

Apple has a surfeit of LCD screens for iPhones on hand

Something as minor as supply chain issues may hold up wide spread adoption this year of the technology across the entire line. While the details aren't clear, Apple is said to have reached deals for screens with suppliers, which has delivered hundreds of millions of Retina-class displays over the last few years.

Exactly how many of these screens Apple is still bound by contract to receive is unclear. It's possible that the "new" 32GB iPhone 6 in the India and Taiwan marketplaces are an effort to clear the supply chain of these extra screens and other left-over components.

OLED is the future... for now

Analysts point to Apple being the driving force of the OLED market in the future. There is a current 20 percent adoption rate mobile industry-wide of the display technology, without deep Apple adoption.

However, the prevalent belief is that that by 2020, the technology will be seen in 40 percent of all smartphones sold.

Some LCD-centric manufacturers are shifting to OLED displays. Some aren't, and are betting on a renaissance of LCD displays, with quantum-dot LED displays on the horizon, amongst other developments that have yet to see mass production.

But, for now, though, from a battery consumption, color accuracy, and device thickness standpoint, OLED is the next, inevitable, step. Just exactly when it will happen isn't exactly clear.

None, one, or both in 2017?

The "iPhone 7s" and "iPhone 7s Plus" are certainly expected this year. However, a "s" year generally suggests a new processor, in the same design.

The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus brought us the A10 Fusion processor, a solid-state home button, and a dual-lens camera on the larger model, in essentially the same design as the iPhone 6 family. An A10X Fusion, or the like, is probable, but given supply constraints on OLED, it wouldn't surprise us if Apple waits another year to implement OLED in the main iPhone line to lengthen the so-called "super cycle" -- but it is coming.

The "iPhone 8" -- as it is currently rumored -- is a device encompassing all of the high-tech that Apple can muster, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the phone that Jobs built. Besides just facial recognition, and all the other niceties, Apple's shift to OLED should start here.



iPhone 8 mockup, by the ConceptsiPhone YouTube channel


The key word, of course, is "start." With Apple rumored to charge more than $1,000 for the "iPhone 8," it's believed that the high-end model will represent only a portion of Apple's sales, positioning itself as a flagship, premium product while the more affordable "iPhone 7s" series targets traditional, budget-conscious consumers.

Given production concerns associated with OLED, limiting the display technology to a premium-priced iPhone would make sense, with costs stifling some consumer demand for the top-of-the-line model.

In other words, while 2017 may see OLED debut on the iPhone for the first time, consumers should expect it to be the first step in a changing direction for Apple's revolutionary handset.
eightzeroedred
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,709member
    So correct me if I’m wrong but this article suggests that the reason Apple hasn’t moved to OLED yet is because of the extremely large quantities it needs to produce all those millions of iPhones. If Samsung has 98% of the OLED manufacturing capacity can it scale up to Apple’s needs, is Apple looking for another supplier, or is something else going on?
    edited March 9
  • Reply 2 of 32
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,025member
    When the original iPhone was introduced, it used tech that was beyond for many competitors, a device where almost any feature was a USP.  This kind of lasted until the 4s, then while they still appear to lead in some tech (and for me in overall user experience), competitors catch up, or even pass by in certain areas (?). 
    With the iPhone being such ubiquitous maybe the time is right for I troducig a clear two level approach: the "bread and butter" iPhone, still very far in front, for most of us, and then the flagship variant, ahead in tech like in the past with the same target: 1% of the market. 
    Then, over time, the most advanced tech can trickle down to the "mass volume" variants (yes, I know, even 1% is actually quite mass volume, hence the quotes). 
    Like with cars, where the newest and coolest features always go first into the high class, then one by one come down to the other classes. 
    Of course, somehow it would be cool, if the iPhone would generally be light years ahead of everybody else, like in the past. But OTOH, first of all when everybody is closer together, this clearly drives innovation, and secondly, it's not 2007 anymore. 

    imergingeniousimergingeniousjustadcomicsedred
  • Reply 3 of 32
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,025member
    lkrupp said:
    So correct me if I’m wrong but this article suggests that the reason Apple hasn’t moved to OLED yet is because of the extremely large quantities it needs to produce all those millions of iPhones. If Samsung has 98% of the OLED manufacturing capacity can it scale up to Apple’s needs, is Apple looking for another supplier, or is something else going on?
    Is aging a thing of the past for sure now?
  • Reply 4 of 32
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,001member
    Title should be "Why the OLED may see Apple finally adopts it into it's iPhone" Because it came long way improving to the strict quality/reliability/image/color reproduction standards of Apple. So, OLED adopted Apple, not other-way around.
    watto_cobramonstrosity
  • Reply 5 of 32
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,025member
    wood1208 said:
    Title should be "Why the OLED may see Apple finally adopts it into it's iPhone" Because it came long way improving to the strict quality/reliability/image/color reproduction standards of Apple. So, OLED adopted Apple, not other-way around.
    You may have forgotten to add "price" to the list of requirements. 
  • Reply 6 of 32
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,348member
    wood1208 said:
    Title should be "Why the OLED may see Apple finally adopts it into it's iPhone" Because it came long way improving to the strict quality/reliability/image/color reproduction standards of Apple. So, OLED adopted Apple, not other-way around.
    You may have forgotten to add "price" to the list of requirements. 
    And production capacity, most of all.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 32
    Another problem with early OLED was the pentile display issue, where the individual color cell arrangement didn't include the same number of each color, making text sharpness pretty bad and white balance all messed up around white on black text. I'm not sure if they've actually fixed that arrangement or if the pixel densities used nowadays have made it moot. And the blue lights didn't last as long as the other colors, which meant that color accuracy, even if calibrated properly upon manufacture (which it wasn't), would drop off a cliff after a couple years. And max brightness (outdoor readability) was always significantly lower than the best of breed LCDs. So OLED may have it's advantages, but it still carries a balance of disadvantages as well. If Apple does decide to shift to OLED, they better have a "night mode" ready because that is how they are going to get the big energy efficiency gains.
    tzeshanwatto_cobrajustadcomics
  • Reply 8 of 32
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 1,518member
    A well-edited and informative article. Thanks.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,750member
    70% chance that the high-end 2017 iPhone will be called "iPhone Pro".
    30% chance that it will be called "iPhone Edition".
    0% chance that it will be called "iPhone 8".
    IMHO.

    edited March 9 imergingeniouswatto_cobrajustadcomics
  • Reply 10 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member
    I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.

    one is that OLEDs have better color. That's not true. Color is the result of a number of decisions. LCD panels, backlights and filters can give color gamuts that are just as wide as OLED, and when lifetimes are taken into account, even wider.

    the second involves contrast. There is an amazing lack of understanding of what contrast means. Yes, OLED can have dead blacks (but doesn't always, for technical reasons). But a small decrease in black levels when compared to the best LCD doesn't translate out to mean better contrast, or more contrast in the practical sense. A major reason is that LCDs can be much brighter than OLED. That gives a wide amount of variation in light output, an amount that OLED can't match.

    Another reason is that our eyes have just a certain range of contrast that they can accommodate. Under normal situations, our iris opens and closed automatically as we look around our environment. It's why we can see dark shadows, and yet see detail where our camera picks up a black hole. But when we're viewing graphics, or photos, or video, we can't do that. We see the entire thing at once, and our eyes can't accommodate the brightness shifts. So very dark grey looks perfectly black. But, brighter areas look bright, brighter than OLED can get. So contrast may easily look greater on the LCD screen.

    and that old bugaboo about efficiency. Sure, in theory, OLEDs  can be more efficient. But while OLED efficiency has been rising, so has that of LCD, mainly because backlights, which are made from non organic LEDs, which are far more efficient than OLEDs, have also gained in efficiency. The relative efficiency between OLED and LCD therefor, has remained about the same, which is to say, neither has an advantage at this point.

    Apple uses an OLED screen for the Watch, not because of efficiency, but because it's simpler to make, and is significantly thinner, with less unlit edge width.

    we also see that Samsung's display only reaches a max brightness level of under 400 nits, though auto mode will bring that to slightly over 600 in bright, direct sunlight. Allowing it otherwise shortens the life of the display. Apple's phones go to 550-600 for manual adjustment, reaching about 700 auto for outdoor direct sun. There is also some burn-in in OLEDs, though it's gotten better over the years.

    an interesting exception to the max output is the Apple Watch Series 2. That reaches 1,000 nits in direct sunlight. I've been trying to figure out how Apple does that. Either, they use a higher quality display, a slightly different design, which perhaps is some of their own IP, or simply because they figure we don't look at our Watch displays that much, so the decrease in life doesn't matter. I've looked at the awatch display under one of my microscopes, and it does have an unusual makeup. One long vertical blue sub pixel, running along a small horizontal red sub pixel, above which is an almost square green sub pixel. Most of the space between the sub pixels is black. I've never seen that arrangement before. Since the blue is the first to go, possibly that long blue sub pixel is there to allow greater brightness.

    will all of this change some day? Sure, but it's not the case now.

    why would Apple be interested? For one thing, there is an efficiency case to be made if Apple wants to follow what some OLED phone manufacturers have been doing with an on all the time time display, or some other small display area function. In that case, where just 1%, or so, of the display elements need to be on, OLED is the choice, because LCDs need the entire backlight on all the time, though I've seen some experimental displays with segmented backlights. In addition, when you need a display with punched out holes, say, for speakers, microphones, cameras, etc. it's much easier to do that with an OLED than an LCD. So for an entire Phone face with a display, OLED would be the choice.
    edited March 9 charlesgreswonkothesaneksecjcs2305bestkeptsecretwatto_cobraloquiturmonstrosityjustadcomics
  • Reply 11 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member

    Another problem with early OLED was the pentile display issue, where the individual color cell arrangement didn't include the same number of each color, making text sharpness pretty bad and white balance all messed up around white on black text. I'm not sure if they've actually fixed that arrangement or if the pixel densities used nowadays have made it moot. And the blue lights didn't last as long as the other colors, which meant that color accuracy, even if calibrated properly upon manufacture (which it wasn't), would drop off a cliff after a couple years. And max brightness (outdoor readability) was always significantly lower than the best of breed LCDs. So OLED may have it's advantages, but it still carries a balance of disadvantages as well. If Apple does decide to shift to OLED, they better have a "night mode" ready because that is how they are going to get the big energy efficiency gains.
    Samsung still uses Pentile with two green pixels. It's still coarse with text and graphics unless very high rez displays are used.
    watto_cobrajustadcomics
  • Reply 12 of 32
    eightzero said:
    A well-edited and informative article. Thanks.
    ^^^ This!
     
  • Reply 13 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 26,221member
    melgross said:
    I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.

    one is that OLEDs have better color. That's not true. Color is the result of a number of decisions. LCD panels, backlights and filters can give color gamuts that are just as wide as OLED, and when lifetimes are taken into account, even wider.

    the second involves contrast. There is an amazing lack of understanding of what contrast means. Yes, OLED can have dead blacks (but doesn't always, for technical reasons). But a small decrease in black levels when compared to the best LCD doesn't translate out to mean better contrast, or more contrast in the practical sense. A major reason is that LCDs can be much brighter than OLED. That gives a wide amount of variation in light output, an amount that OLED can't match.

    Another reason is that our eyes have just a certain range of contrast that they can accommodate. Under normal situations, our iris opens and closed automatically as we look around our environment. It's why we can see dark shadows, and yet see detail where our camera picks up a black hole. But when we're viewing graphics, or photos, or video, we can't do that. We see the entire thing at once, and our eyes can't accommodate the brightness shifts. So very dark grey looks perfectly black. But, brighter areas look bright, brighter than OLED can get. So contrast may easily look greater on the LCD screen.

    and that old bugaboo about efficiency. Sure, in theory, OLEDs  can be more efficient. But while OLED efficiency has been rising, so has that of LCD, mainly because backlights, which are made from non organic LEDs, which are far more efficient than OLEDs, have also gained in efficiency. The relative efficiency between OLED and LCD therefor, has remained about the same, which is to say, neither has an advantage at this point.

    Apple uses an OLED screen for the Watch, not because of efficiency, but because it's simpler to make, and is significantly thinner, with less unlit edge width.

    we also see that Samsung's display only reaches a max brightness level of under 400 nits, though auto mode will bring that to slightly over 600 in bright, direct sunlight. Allowing it otherwise shortens the life of the display. Apple's phones go to 550-600 for manual adjustment, reaching about 700 auto for outdoor direct sun. There is also some burn-in in OLEDs, though it's gotten better over the years.

    an interesting exception to the max output is the Apple Watch Series 2. That reaches 1,000 nits in direct sunlight. I've been trying to figure out how Apple does that. Either, they use a higher quality display, a slightly different design, which perhaps is some of their own IP, or simply because they figure we don't look at our Watch displays that much, so the decrease in life doesn't matter. I've looked at the awatch display under one of my microscopes, and it does have an unusual makeup. One long vertical blue sub pixel, running along a small horizontal red sub pixel, above which is an almost square green sub pixel. Most of the space between the sub pixels is black. I've never seen that arrangement before. Since the blue is the first to go, possibly that long blue sub pixel is there to allow greater brightness.

    will all of this change some day? Sure, but it's not the case now.

    why would Apple be interested? For one thing, there is an efficiency case to be made if Apple wants to follow what some OLED phone manufacturers have been doing with an on all the time time display, or some other small display area function. In that case, where just 1%, or so, of the display elements need to be on, OLED is the choice, because LCDs need the entire backlight on all the time, though I've seen some experimental displays with segmented backlights. In addition, when you need a display with punched out holes, say, for speakers, microphones, cameras, etc. it's much easier to do that with an OLED than an LCD. So for an entire Phone face with a display, OLED would be the choice.
    I was curious about the microscope level view of the Watch's display that you mentioned and found this:

    http://www.iclarified.com/50234/apple-watch-display-under-a-microscope-photo
  • Reply 14 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member
    melgross said:
    I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.

    one is that OLEDs have better color. That's not true. Color is the result of a number of decisions. LCD panels, backlights and filters can give color gamuts that are just as wide as OLED, and when lifetimes are taken into account, even wider.

    the second involves contrast. There is an amazing lack of understanding of what contrast means. Yes, OLED can have dead blacks (but doesn't always, for technical reasons). But a small decrease in black levels when compared to the best LCD doesn't translate out to mean better contrast, or more contrast in the practical sense. A major reason is that LCDs can be much brighter than OLED. That gives a wide amount of variation in light output, an amount that OLED can't match.

    Another reason is that our eyes have just a certain range of contrast that they can accommodate. Under normal situations, our iris opens and closed automatically as we look around our environment. It's why we can see dark shadows, and yet see detail where our camera picks up a black hole. But when we're viewing graphics, or photos, or video, we can't do that. We see the entire thing at once, and our eyes can't accommodate the brightness shifts. So very dark grey looks perfectly black. But, brighter areas look bright, brighter than OLED can get. So contrast may easily look greater on the LCD screen.

    and that old bugaboo about efficiency. Sure, in theory, OLEDs  can be more efficient. But while OLED efficiency has been rising, so has that of LCD, mainly because backlights, which are made from non organic LEDs, which are far more efficient than OLEDs, have also gained in efficiency. The relative efficiency between OLED and LCD therefor, has remained about the same, which is to say, neither has an advantage at this point.

    Apple uses an OLED screen for the Watch, not because of efficiency, but because it's simpler to make, and is significantly thinner, with less unlit edge width.

    we also see that Samsung's display only reaches a max brightness level of under 400 nits, though auto mode will bring that to slightly over 600 in bright, direct sunlight. Allowing it otherwise shortens the life of the display. Apple's phones go to 550-600 for manual adjustment, reaching about 700 auto for outdoor direct sun. There is also some burn-in in OLEDs, though it's gotten better over the years.

    an interesting exception to the max output is the Apple Watch Series 2. That reaches 1,000 nits in direct sunlight. I've been trying to figure out how Apple does that. Either, they use a higher quality display, a slightly different design, which perhaps is some of their own IP, or simply because they figure we don't look at our Watch displays that much, so the decrease in life doesn't matter. I've looked at the awatch display under one of my microscopes, and it does have an unusual makeup. One long vertical blue sub pixel, running along a small horizontal red sub pixel, above which is an almost square green sub pixel. Most of the space between the sub pixels is black. I've never seen that arrangement before. Since the blue is the first to go, possibly that long blue sub pixel is there to allow greater brightness.

    will all of this change some day? Sure, but it's not the case now.

    why would Apple be interested? For one thing, there is an efficiency case to be made if Apple wants to follow what some OLED phone manufacturers have been doing with an on all the time time display, or some other small display area function. In that case, where just 1%, or so, of the display elements need to be on, OLED is the choice, because LCDs need the entire backlight on all the time, though I've seen some experimental displays with segmented backlights. In addition, when you need a display with punched out holes, say, for speakers, microphones, cameras, etc. it's much easier to do that with an OLED than an LCD. So for an entire Phone face with a display, OLED would be the choice.
    I was curious about the microscope level view of the Watch's display that you mentioned and found this:

    http://www.iclarified.com/50234/apple-watch-display-under-a-microscope-photo
    Yeah. They're looking at the display upside down from the way I was looking at it. I didn't have the time to photo the display and get it into the post. The mag is also low there. I was using 200X, so the sub pixels were much larger. In their photo,the green looks about the shape as the red, but it isn't, really.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 32
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,948member
    lkrupp said:
    So correct me if I’m wrong but this article suggests that the reason Apple hasn’t moved to OLED yet is because of the extremely large quantities it needs to produce all those millions of iPhones. If Samsung has 98% of the OLED manufacturing capacity can it scale up to Apple’s needs, is Apple looking for another supplier, or is something else going on?
    It is all rumors at the moment.  Apple could use Samsungs tech, their own MicroLED tech (remember Apples past purchases) or a mixture of several technologies.  With all the rumors of integrated tech they could be doing something unexpected, including licensing Samsungs tech to be produced in the factory of their choice.  

    Basically anything is possible.  
  • Reply 16 of 32
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,126member
    Apple doesn't just adopt everything it can just to see what sticks, like Android phone makers. It's all about using technology when it's good enough. Samsung owners might like half baked pie but Apple owners would rather wait until it's properly cooked and tasty.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 32
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,948member
    Mel;

    One thing you miss is the constant change in the OLED space.   Brightness and wear issues are constanty in flux.   I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple launch with new LED compounds in their display.   

    If any of the rumors of advanced functions are true, im betting we will see a lot of Apple unique tech in the display.    Which has me wondering who finally purchased all of Kodaks original OLED tech?   
    watto_cobraedred
  • Reply 18 of 32
    HBDHBD Posts: 1member
    Recently, while waiting for my flight at London Heathrow airport, I was checking out latest Samsung tablet and Galaxy edge phone with OLED displays at a store in the departure lounge. I noticed that both had very noticeable screen burn-in visible as reddish areas on plain white backgrounds. On my return to the US, I visited a BestBuy store and again checked out Samsung OLED tablet and phone and again I noticed the same issues. I realize that items on display in stores are on most of the time so screen burn-in can be more of an issue but if I were to use a tablet as a point-of-sale terminal, screen burn-in with OLED display would be an issue. I have been using my iPad 2 extensively since 2011 and not had any display issues. I hope Apple takes this into consideration when switching to OLED displays. Blue OLED pixels have a much shorter life span.
    tzeshanwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 32
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,362member
    When the original iPhone was introduced, it used tech that was beyond for many competitors, a device where almost any feature was a USP.  This kind of lasted until the 4s, then while they still appear to lead in some tech (and for me in overall user experience), competitors catch up, or even pass by in certain areas (?). 



    What like?
  • Reply 20 of 32
    sockrolid said:
    70% chance that the high-end 2017 iPhone will be called "iPhone Pro".
    30% chance that it will be called "iPhone Edition".
    0% chance that it will be called "iPhone 8".
    IMHO.

    I think there is a greater chance it will be called "Edition" or even "X" than pro. Pro in Apple parlance somewhat means a different class of device/product that has features useful for professionals that non-pro products never get, but is still meant to be very mass-market. Edition connotes something special, high priced, but not necessarily including features of a different class of device for specific demographics. Just a halo device for those that can afford it. iPhone Pro/X/Edition will have more features than the other sibling iPhones, but those features are expected to be adopted as mainstream within a couple upgrade cycles. The iPhone 7 Plus models were close to being called Pro, but since they were already called plus previously and they didn't include the smart connector, the change would have caused more confusion than was worth it. I don't think anyone could seriously argue against your third point, so why is everyone calling it the iPhone 8? Just crazy talk!
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.