>>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.
Swap OLED to AMOLED. And that should be fine.
The rest of the article? I think many has already mentioned in the comment. But Basically, please, AI, stick to non technical stuff.
The iPhone 7s is this year. The iPhone 8 is NEXT YEARS MODEL. The sooner you all come to terms with that the better. ...And even then, who knows if the supply chain can deliver enough for next years iPhone 8.
One place we will see oled this year, will be in the function area that takes place of the home button on the iPhone 7s and 7s plus .
$1000??? That price is certainly not right. Far too high. A lot of people will baulk at that and go buy a cheapo Android. So what if it only lasts a year. Then they buy another $200 manx phone and so on. Apple has to be really careful or they will price themselves way out of the market for most people
This misses out one of the main benefits of OLED; the extremely fast pixel response rate. This is needed for Virtual Reality and, together with near-total black levels, the reason that watching movies on a Samsung Galaxy/Google Pixel is a much better experience than on the iPhone. LCD's still have the advantage in that they can currently get much brighter than OLEDs, but in the mobile space this is negated somewhat by the need to keep LCD backlighting to a minimum to conserve battery. If Apple do go for an OLED display, I would imagine they will also announce a new 'dark' theme for iOS too.
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!
You've said it exactly.
Apple's MacBook Pro and iPad Pro have specific Pro features that make it more usable for a specific class of professional user. The iPhone doesn't fit. There is no Pro application for an iPhone. It is a utilitarian device.
Just as there is no Apple Watch Pro, just because there is a model that is more expensive with more features.
I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.
...
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'm still of the mind that Apple will never adopt OLED for the mobile devices because there simply isn't any reason to. The entire market would have to move to OLED (like when it moved to LCD from CRT,) and it hasn't, and is not likely to due to screen-burn-in effects that plague OLED screens. Go look at any OLED monitor, TV or smartphone used for demonstration mode in the Samsung store or Best Buy. Chances are if it's been operational for more than a month with a static image, it will show persistence.
>>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.
Swap OLED to AMOLED. And that should be fine.
The rest of the article? I think many has already mentioned in the comment. But Basically, please, AI, stick to non technical stuff.
As far as I'm aware, these OLED screens are AMOLED.
$1000??? That price is certainly not right. Far too high. A lot of people will baulk at that and go buy a cheapo Android. So what if it only lasts a year. Then they buy another $200 manx phone and so on. Apple has to be really careful or they will price themselves way out of the market for most people
The 7+ with 256GB storage is now $949. It's not much of a stretch to say that the top storage version of the 8 would top $1,000. After all, it's only $50 more.
I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.
...
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'm still of the mind that Apple will never adopt OLED for the mobile devices because there simply isn't any reason to. The entire market would have to move to OLED (like when it moved to LCD from CRT,) and it hasn't, and is not likely to due to screen-burn-in effects that plague OLED screens. Go look at any OLED monitor, TV or smartphone used for demonstration mode in the Samsung store or Best Buy. Chances are if it's been operational for more than a month with a static image, it will show persistence.
so you're saying that all of these rumors about OLED is wrong?
I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.
...
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'm still of the mind that Apple will never adopt OLED for the mobile devices because there simply isn't any reason to. The entire market would have to move to OLED (like when it moved to LCD from CRT,) and it hasn't, and is not likely to due to screen-burn-in effects that plague OLED screens. Go look at any OLED monitor, TV or smartphone used for demonstration mode in the Samsung store or Best Buy. Chances are if it's been operational for more than a month with a static image, it will show persistence.
so you're saying that all of these rumors about OLED is wrong?
They've been wrong for 5 years, why change now? If Apple does turn around and use OLED for the iPhone 8, it's only because nobody is willing to produce th IPS panels at the size Apple wants, and someone can produce the OLED panels in the necessary quantities. Think about other devices in that size range. The Nintendo Switch didn't even use OLED's. Japan Display was recently bailed out by the Japanese government, so they are clearly not making money with the panels for Nintendo and Apple.
I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.
...
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'm still of the mind that Apple will never adopt OLED for the mobile devices because there simply isn't any reason to. The entire market would have to move to OLED (like when it moved to LCD from CRT,) and it hasn't, and is not likely to due to screen-burn-in effects that plague OLED screens. Go look at any OLED monitor, TV or smartphone used for demonstration mode in the Samsung store or Best Buy. Chances are if it's been operational for more than a month with a static image, it will show persistence.
so you're saying that all of these rumors about OLED is wrong?
They've been wrong for 5 years, why change now? If Apple does turn around and use OLED for the iPhone 8, it's only because nobody is willing to produce th IPS panels at the size Apple wants, and someone can produce the OLED panels in the necessary quantities. Think about other devices in that size range. The Nintendo Switch didn't even use OLED's. Japan Display was recently bailed out by the Japanese government, so they are clearly not making money with the panels for Nintendo and Apple.
Even this item suggests that Japan Display is producing only medical/industrial medium/large OLED screens.
We've never seen rumors like this before. There are too many sources, and many are too specific. Besides, OLEDs have improved markedly over the years. Honestly, it's always been known that once Apple thought they were ready, and could offer benefits that LCD couldn't, they would switch.
im not sure what your link is supposed to prove. Samsung does produce most all high quality small OLED display panels. LG produces all those for Tvs. Other manufacturers haven't done well because of lack of demand, because of prices. Apple can get good pricing from Samsung because of quantity. It's one thing for HTC to,want a half million to a million displays, and Apple, roumored to,have made deals with Samsung for 150 million display panels.
its extremely difficult to believe that a manufacturer wouldn't want to make the IPS displays Apple wants. At minimum, they order tens of millions in a single batch. Usually, they order a year's supply, which is over 100 million.
the Switch? Why would they spend more for OLED? What purpose would be served by that? This is something made to a price. It's a bigger display too. How much would Nintendo pay for that in the quantities needed? It could raise the price by at least $25, possibly as much as $50. The difference in efficiency is nil, so no gain in play time, which is kind of short.
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.
No, microled is still to soon. Poor yield rates, too expensive, and so on ...
$1000??? That price is certainly not right. Far too high. A lot of people will baulk at that and go buy a cheapo Android. So what if it only lasts a year. Then they buy another $200 manx phone and so on. Apple has to be really careful or they will price themselves way out of the market for most people
No, Apple won’t. Apple grabs over 90%the money of the entire smartphone market and this because Apple sells 1000$~ devices (the plus ones!) already! Apples customers form a way more emotional and loyal bond to their iPhones which will certainly NOT make them go to android. Also, they buy an iPhone because it’s an iPhone running iOS and not because of price.
Comments
Swap OLED to AMOLED. And that should be fine.
The rest of the article? I think many has already mentioned in the comment. But Basically, please, AI, stick to non technical stuff.
...And even then, who knows if the supply chain can deliver enough for next years iPhone 8.
One place we will see oled this year, will be in the function area that takes place of the home button on the iPhone 7s and 7s plus .
That price is certainly not right.
Far too high. A lot of people will baulk at that and go buy a cheapo Android. So what if it only lasts a year. Then they buy another $200 manx phone and so on.
Apple has to be really careful or they will price themselves way out of the market for most people
No kidding.
You've said it exactly.
Apple's MacBook Pro and iPad Pro have specific Pro features that make it more usable for a specific class of professional user. The iPhone doesn't fit. There is no Pro application for an iPhone. It is a utilitarian device.
Just as there is no Apple Watch Pro, just because there is a model that is more expensive with more features.
"iPhone Edition" sounds exactly right on target.
The 7+ with 256GB storage is now $949. It's not much of a stretch to say that the top storage version of the 8 would top $1,000. After all, it's only $50 more.
so you're saying that all of these rumors about OLED is wrong?
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/Japan-Display-eases-bailout-concerns-with-OLED-plans
Even this item suggests that Japan Display is producing only medical/industrial medium/large OLED screens.
im not sure what your link is supposed to prove. Samsung does produce most all high quality small OLED display panels. LG produces all those for Tvs. Other manufacturers haven't done well because of lack of demand, because of prices. Apple can get good pricing from Samsung because of quantity. It's one thing for HTC to,want a half million to a million displays, and Apple, roumored to,have made deals with Samsung for 150 million display panels.
its extremely difficult to believe that a manufacturer wouldn't want to make the IPS displays Apple wants. At minimum, they order tens of millions in a single batch. Usually, they order a year's supply, which is over 100 million.
the Switch? Why would they spend more for OLED? What purpose would be served by that? This is something made to a price. It's a bigger display too. How much would Nintendo pay for that in the quantities needed? It could raise the price by at least $25, possibly as much as $50. The difference in efficiency is nil, so no gain in play time, which is kind of short.