iPhone 5 outperforms Samsung's Galaxy S III in display test

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 111
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    I realize you want to take it out on DaHarder, but PC is not just an overhyped word for plastic, nor is it ordinary. It is a chemistry that's known for extreme impact resistance. It's not cheap either, a few times more expensive than acrylic, for example, even though it often looks the same. This is one of those plastics that cost more per unit volume than aluminum.

    Sorry, but you're providing misleading information. I have been involved with plastics production for decades. In fact, I played a significant role in polycarbonate production. If you remember the early 80s, CDs were difficult to come by and expensive - and had a short life. It turned out that making PC that didn't turn yellow over time was very difficult. The reason was that the acid used to catalyze the reaction remained in the product. I worked with one of the major PC makers to implement a process that removed that acid and created a much more stable polycarbonate.

    Price is a red herring - and not really correct, either. Al typically sells for around $0.75-80 per pound now while PC ranges between $0.52 and $1.00 per pound (with some specialty grades being higher). Given that aluminum is much denser, PC does not cost more per unit volume than aluminum. Not that it matters - the price has nothing to do with it.

    PC is a standard industrial plastic. There's nothing advanced or high tech about it - certainly not the grades that Samsung is using in their phones. (Similarly, there's nothing high tech about aluminum, although the process Apple uses for machining are certainly state of the art). Claiming that Samsung is using some "advanced thermoplastic polymer composite material' is nonsense. It's a standard plastic grade that has been available for decades and is a commodity at this point.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    I realize you want to take it out on DaHarder, but PC is not just an overhyped word for plastic, nor is it ordinary. It is a chemistry that's known for extreme impact resistance. It's not cheap either, a few times more expensive than acrylic, for example, even though it often looks the same. This is one of those plastics that cost more per unit volume than aluminum.


     


    I've seen the Apple's video on polycarbonate 15 years ago when the first iMac comes out. 


     


    I don't question Polycarbonate high quality, but still is one of the most produced plastic in the world, and one of the most wasted.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Sorry, but you're providing misleading information. I have been involved with plastics production for decades. In fact, I played a significant role in polycarbonate production. If you remember the early 80s, CDs were difficult to come by and expensive - and had a short life. It turned out that making PC that didn't turn yellow over time was very difficult. The reason was that the acid used to catalyze the reaction remained in the product. I worked with one of the major PC makers to implement a process that removed that acid and created a much more stable polycarbonate.

    Price is a red herring - and not really correct, either. Al typically sells for around $0.75-80 per pound now while PC ranges between $0.52 and $1.00 per pound (with some specialty grades being higher). Given that aluminum is much denser, PC does not cost more per unit volume than aluminum. Not that it matters - the price has nothing to do with it.

    PC is a standard industrial plastic. There's nothing advanced or high tech about it - certainly not the grades that Samsung is using in their phones. (Similarly, there's nothing high tech about aluminum, although the process Apple uses for machining are certainly state of the art). Claiming that Samsung is using some "advanced thermoplastic polymer composite material' is nonsense. It's a standard plastic grade that has been available for decades and is a commodity at this point.


    Great insight, thanks!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 111


    Yeah... We've seen how durable it is in the drop tests. All we have to do is grab both phones from the sides horizontally and twist with both hands in opposite directions. Let's see whose cracks first...

     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


     


    Wow, they even copied the exact shade of white. That's depressing.


     



    Thank god someone called it a shade for once and not a color. LOL

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post



    ...and it matters to very few but those bent on some silly 'Team This vs Team That' nonsense.

    Reasonable people just buy what they want and don't bother worrying about what others do.


    Somehow I'd wager you'd be lambasting all Apple fans and users for loving their retina displays as much as they do if the testing had shown the SIII to be comparable to Apple's 2 year old tech. Really wish you would get banned.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    Yeah, but isn't Apple now using the In-Cell screens that Apple has a patent on?  IPS screens were originally designed by Hitachi YEARS ago, but I guess Apple has been working with various screen suppliers, LG IS ONLY ONE OF THEM, to improve them.



    Apple's technology is merely to incorporate the touch sensors into the display itself, as opposed to having a separate layer.  The effect this has on display quality is debatable, although it brings the pixels that little bit closer to your finger. 


     


    LG is only one of Apple's suppliers, but Apple's screens are based mostly on LG's tech (as LG has been the primary supplier since the earlier iPhones).  If you look at the various Android phones, the LG displays are closest to Apple's in colour, contrast, brightness, etc... 


     


    Again, for a balanced view on things, it should be noted that Samsung not only uses the worst display technology of any manufacturer, they also are the least original.  HTC and Sony IMO are producing the best quality Android phones at the moment.  LG has the hardware down but are still weak on the software side, Motorola sucks, and Samsung is the worst period - their software sucks, their quality sucks, their screens suck (although they are improving since the original Galaxy S). The fact that Samsung is becoming synonymous with Android should be worrying to Google - no wonder HTC is hedging their bets by pushing Windows 8 as well. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


     


    looks kinda huge, if you ask me.........


     




     


    I don't think DaHarder is looking hard enough if he thinks there is no significant size difference between the iPhone 5 and GSIII. I would say this photo is all the "fact" you need. Also the amount of plastic below the screen is about the same as the iPhone. Since the GSIII is wider, it could even have slightly more plastic area at the bottom but I'll be nice and say it's at least the same as the iPhone 5. The GSIII does have the edge at the top of the phone however.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 111
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,954member
    I don't think DaHarder is looking hard enough if he thinks there is no significant size difference between the iPhone 5 and GSIII. I would say this photo is all the "fact" you need. Also the amount of plastic below the screen is about the same as the iPhone. Since the GSIII is wider, it could even have slightly more plastic area at the bottom but I'll be nice and say it's at least the same as the iPhone 5. The GSIII does have the edge at the top of the phone however.

    Centering it vertically hides the difference in an optical illusion way. Roughly a half inch taller and a half inch wider, it's quite a difference in person. It's why I've been calling the GSIII a mini tablet with phone circuitry. In person, it's just enormous. It's a clown phone in reality.

    bigmac2 wrote: »
    I don't question Polycarbonate high quality, but still is one of the most produced plastic in the world, and one of the most wasted.

    Where do you get that factoid? I couldn't find very many production volume figures for plastics.

    jragosta wrote: »
    Sorry, but you're providing misleading information. I have been involved with plastics production for decades. In fact, I played a significant role in polycarbonate production. If you remember the early 80s, CDs were difficult to come by and expensive - and had a short life. It turned out that making PC that didn't turn yellow over time was very difficult. The reason was that the acid used to catalyze the reaction remained in the product. I worked with one of the major PC makers to implement a process that removed that acid and created a much more stable polycarbonate.

    Interesting history, thanks.

    And yet their phones are "cheaper".

    That wasn't my point. I'm just saying it's not some junk material. I'll even go as far to say that the cost of a finished part in PC is probably considerably lower than an aluminum one. I don't think that means it's necessarily inferior.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 111

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    Where do you get that factoid? I couldn't find very many production volume figures for plastics.

     


     


    I agree It's a baseless claim of mine, but considering how many CDs and DVDs spindles I've consume and how many AOL and Netscape CD I've trashed, I'm pretty sure I'm not so far of reality. 


     


    In term of volume can you name me beside packaging another plastics product that is more disposable than a coaster disc?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 111 of 111
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,954member
    bigmac2 wrote: »
    I agree It's a baseless claim of mine, but considering how many CDs and DVDs spindles I've consume and how many AOL and Netscape CD I've trashed, I'm pretty sure I'm not so far of reality. 

    In term of volume can you name me beside packaging another plastics product that is more disposable than a coaster disc?

    You probably have a point there, I didn't think too much about the optical disc waste. It turns out that they are recyclable, but in practice, I think it's pretty clear that most are just tossed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.