Apple planning jump to OLED for 2018 iPhones, report claims

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    I'm referring to power-optimization. The average video lights up most of the pixels most of the time (there's rarely a totally unlit pixel). Unlike viewing "dark themed" static web pages (like Ars Technica), which has been optimized for reducing the number of lit pixels (and therefore power consumption) on OLED phones.

    I am trying to come up with concrete examples instead of gut feelings on what would be more efficient on an OLED versus LCD.



    This here deals with TVs and shows that for actual video content the OLED TV produced better images and was more power efficient.

     

    http://www.displaymate.com/TV_OLED_LCD_ShootOut_1.htm

     

    Here it details the crossover between the Galaxy Note 5 and iPhone 6 Plus (likely the 6S Plus has the same display but who knows)

     

    http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note5_ShootOut_1.htm

     

    Quote:


     

    Comparison with LCDs

    While LCDs remain more power efficient for images with mostly white content (like full text screens, for example), OLEDs are now

    more power efficient for mixed image content because they are emissive displays so their power varies with the Average Picture

    Level (average Brightness) of the image content. OLEDs have been rapidly improving in their power efficiency.

     

    The Galaxy Note 5 is 37 percent more power efficient than the iPhone 6 Plus (scaled to the same screen size and Luminance)

    that we tested for mixed screen content, which includes text together with image content like photos, videos, and movies,

    resulting in a 50 percent (or less) Average Picture Level, APL.

     

    The OLED / LCD Power Efficiency Crossover is currently at 67 percent APL Average Picture Level:

    The OLED display on the Galaxy Note 5 is more power efficient for APLs less than 67 percent, and

    the LCD display on the iPhone 6 Plus is more power efficient for APLs greater than 67 percent.



     

    Here is some explanations on Average Picture Level and examples:

     

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8795/understanding-brightness-in-amoled-and-lcd-displays

     

    How about color accuracy? Here we can see when in a calibrated mode the OLED is the most color accurate display:

     

    http://www.displaymate.com/Color_Accuracy_ShootOut_1.htm

  • Reply 22 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post

     

     

    You do need an OLED display with over 500ppi to have touch ID working. Which means not at the current resolution. I would think even 2018 is slightly too early for that.


    The Galaxy Note 5 has a 518ppi screen & performs quite well, so we're already there in terms of resolution.

  • Reply 23 of 35
    yuck9yuck9 Posts: 112member

    Apple can't get rid of Samsung. Never happen. Not another company in the pipeline that can do what they can. If there was Apple would have found them by now. Like it or not, Apple has to use them.

  • Reply 24 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    I wonder if it would be worth the revenge if Apple subsidized LG's manufacturing plant to help meet demand and take Sammy out of it's display business permanently.

    This would give Apple more control and profit in the long term.



    Just a wild idea.

     

    That would be sticking it to Samsung for sure.  All that revenue they currently get from supplying Apple with OLED panels would suddenly disappear.  They would be devastated

  • Reply 25 of 35
    yuck9yuck9 Posts: 112member

    If only it was that easy. You think Apple is not looking for others to replace Samsung ? Who can do all what they do ? My 1TB SSD in my 2013 Mac Pro is Samsung. What about memory and other things Samsung makes for Apple. 

     

    Apple is in bed with Samsung like it or not.

  • Reply 26 of 35
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,212member

    OLEDs aren't so much better than LCDs that people buy Samsung/LG over Apple. It's inevitable that Samsung/LG will succumb to the pressure of trying to compete against Apple in the smartphone space. Samsung/LG will be forced to lower the price on OLEDs to a reasonable level, to make a profit on selling components instead.

  • Reply 27 of 35
    joshajosha Posts: 901member
    Quote:

    Some functions can potentially deteriorate, but Apple is reportedly talking with both display suppliers and the makers of manufacturing equipment, hoping to eliminate these issues within the next year or so.

    Based on this comment this screen technology isn't ready for me yet.

    The last thing I want is a deteriorating display image.

    I use my devices much longer than Apple would like.

  • Reply 28 of 35
    What you think Apple is spending that $15B on, they are ensuring their suppliers have the necessary capacity to support their business.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

     

    OLEDs aren't so much better than LCDs that people buy Samsung/LG over Apple. It's inevitable that Samsung/LG will succumb to the pressure of trying to compete against Apple in the smartphone space. Samsung/LG will be forced to lower the price on OLEDs to a reasonable level, to make a profit on selling components instead.


     

    How do you know that LG and/or Samsung are not charging a reasonable amount for OLED panels?  OLED TV's aren't the same price as LED based TVs because they are more expensive to manufacture.

     

    No one is going to 'force' either of them to lower prices to a point where they can't make a reasonable profit on the panels.

  • Reply 30 of 35
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,212member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     

    How do you know that LG and/or Samsung are not charging a reasonable amount for OLED panels?  OLED TV's aren't the same price as LED based TVs because they are more expensive to manufacture.

     

    No one is going to 'force' either of them to lower prices to a point where they can't make a reasonable profit on the panels.


    I "know" because it makes sense. Apple would have already switched.

     

    The market will "force" the issue. People like money.

  • Reply 31 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post



    What you think Apple is spending that $15B on, they are ensuring their suppliers have the necessary capacity to support their business.

    There is the mythical Apple Car

  • Reply 32 of 35
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

     

    I "know" because it makes sense. Apple would have already switched.

     

    The market will "force" the issue. People like money.




    Your 'know" is equivalent to my "baseless supposition".  People and companies do like money, which is why they aren't going to manufacture and sell to Apple at a loss.  Plasma TVs were actually cheaper than LCDs, even though they had superior image quality. The reason for that was they were cheaper to make.  I think if OLED panels were as cheap to manufacture as LCD panels you would be seeing LG and Samsung busy decimating the conventional LCD TV market with competitively priced panels.  The fact that they aren't suggests that the high price of OLED panels reflects their higher manufacturing costs.

  • Reply 33 of 35
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,920member

    Predicting accurately about 2018 iphone is way far out to be correct in a fast moving tech industry. Future iphones will be called and attached with year differentiation to reduce confusion like 4" iphone Mini 2016; 4.7" iphone 2016 and 5.5" iphone Plus 2016.

  • Reply 34 of 35
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Sarcasm aside, if they do move to OLED for other devices besides wOS they would have to switch up to a mostly black UI if they want to maximize power efficiency. Because using browsers, or rather black text on a mostly white background is so common on handhelds and traditional PCs, I'm not convinced that will happen (but I can see how it could happen if OLED technology gets to a certain point that benefits Apple over LCD).
    That's an interesting power play. I like it.
    Note the patent was filed in Q2 of 2014. That's just shy of the Apple Watch being announced. While I can see the benefit of an iPhone, iPad, (and even a Mac Touch Pad and Siri Remote) having Touch ID built-in, I would think the best benefit might come from it being on the Apple Watch.

    Only if the watch became a standalone item, one that no longer required an iPhone for Apple Pay. Could make the watch far more popular with Androidians.
  • Reply 35 of 35
    Only if the watch became a standalone item, one that no longer required an iPhone for Apple Pay. Could make the watch far more popular with Androidians.

    1) That can't happen without the Apple Watch having a camera, and cellular or at least WiFi that didn't pull data from the iPhone for setup. I don't see that happening.

    2) Touch ID is not like Apple Pay setup where it talks to your banks to verify your identify. It's all local so Touch ID on Watch could work without any tethering an iPhone for setup.


    PS: You do know that the Watch can be used with Apple Pay without an iPhone being tethered to it, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.