Apple reportedly taps Samsung to supply 5.5" OLED iPhone panels in 2017

Posted:
in General Discussion
Riding on the back of rumors that Apple plans to make the switch to OLED display technology, a report on Thursday claims Samsung has won a three-year contract to supply the iPhone maker with 5.5-inch panels starting in 2017.




Citing sources familiar with the matter, The Korea Herald reports Samsung's display manufacturing arm will provide Apple with 100 million 5.5-inch OLED panels per year in a deal worth $2.59 billion. Details of the arrangement are scarce, but industry watchers believe the contract will run for at least three years.

Today's report jibes with a rumor from early March that claimed Apple reached out to both LG and Samsung to discuss the viability of ramping up OLED production for a 2017 iPhone model. As the world's two leading suppliers of OLED panels, LG and Samsung are clear choices for Apple, which needs reliable production at scale to meet the demands of its customers. In December, a report suggested Apple would likely look to the two Korean companies for initial orders.

Apple has long been rumored to move its flagship smartphone product away from LCD displays, but OLED suppliers lack the production capacity required to keep pace with brisk iPhone sales. Parts makers are taking notice, however, as LG last year announced plans to build out an advanced OLED plant, and in January was said to be ramping up curved panel production for 2017.

Samsung's supposed contribution of 5.5-inch panels does not line up with predictions from noted insider Ming-Chi Kuo, who last month said Apple would market a 5.8-inch AMOLED iPhone as part of next year's lineup. Taking on a "glass sandwich" design reminiscent of iPhone 4/4s, the 2017 handset is expected to feature both a curved front and back.

Kuo said the 5.8-inch AMOLED model will either be tacked on to Apple's existing 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch iPhone formats, or completely replace the 5.5-inch TFT-LCD model, depending on supply.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Pfft. I'd put money on AMOLED's not going into iPhones. iPod's maybe.

    Mainly there are two concerns: Battery life, and Screen life/quality. Currently AMOLED's wear out extremely quickly, if they're don't maintain 80% of the quality in 7 years, then they're not worth switching to. If the battery life isn't improved by at least 20% in the switch, then it also isn't worth it.



    macplusplus
  • Reply 2 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    misa said:
    Pfft. I'd put money on AMOLED's not going into iPhones. iPod's maybe.

    Mainly there are two concerns: Battery life, and Screen life/quality. Currently AMOLED's wear out extremely quickly, if they're don't maintain 80% of the quality in 7 years, then they're not worth switching to. If the battery life isn't improved by at least 20% in the switch, then it also isn't worth it.



    iPods are pretty much dead due to mobile phones.  A 5.5" iPod is unlikely.  The display quality of OLED is ahead of LCD.

    I have an OLED screened phone I have been using for 6 years and I would be extremely unusual in using a phone for that long.  Why do you say an OLED screened phone has to last 7 years.  How many people are still using a 3GS?

    Anyway, you and Foggyhill are just going to have do some serious BSing and backpedaling when the OLED screened iPhones do arrive to switch to claiming they are now obviously superior to current LCDs, because Apple are now using them.  I have a few theories about what rationale will be used to explain why AMOLEDs were inferior when Samsung were featuring them in their flagship devices but Apple fairy dust suddenly makes them superior.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,027member
    That news is cooked and served again and again to manipulate oled prices but Apple will never go oled. Why would it? It has a huge LCD business with its computers, tablets and phones. Oled is crap because the white color consumes more energy than LCD. This is why oled phones have huge batteries and consequently gigantic unmanageable screens. Can you imagine a 5K oled iMac?
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 4 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    That news is cooked and served again and again to manipulate oled prices but Apple will never go oled. Why would it? It has a huge LCD business with its computers, tablets and phones. Oled is crap because the white color consumes more energy than LCD. This is why oled phones have huge batteries and consequently gigantic unmanageable screens.
    Every colour on a LCD, including 'attempts' at black, consume energy. White may consume more energy with an OLED, but everything else consumes less, and black, nothing at all.  My Nokia has an amazing feature in the settings, you can choose whether to have a light or dark OS theme.  If it had an OLED screen and was set to dark, it would consume less power than it currently does with it's LCD screen.  I have it set to dark anyway as I prefer it, particularly in low light.

    Apple will never go OLED - right, so what type of display does the Watch use?  Apple has no LCD business.  They don't manufacture stuff so can just buy whatever they think is best for their products.

    OLED phones have gigantic batteries so they can last longer between charges. When I bought my Samsung Wave with its 3.5" OLED screen, the equivalent Apple phone was the iP4.  The Wave had a 1500 mah battery while the iP4 had a 1420 mah battery.  They both used pretty much the same processor, Samsungs's Hummingbird, which Apple used a very slight variation of they dubbed the A4.  2G standby time of my Wave - 600 hours.  2g standby time of the iP4 - 300 hours.  3G standby time of the Wave - 550 hours vs 300 for the iP4.

    The Wave had the best battery life of any phone as tested by GSM Arena, for years until it was finally dethroned.

    Posted in: Mobile phones

    Samsung S8500 Wave is our new battery life champion


    The Bada-running Samsung S8500 Wave withstood so much torture that at one point we were wondering if it would ever die. Well it finally did after 3 and a half days

    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-samsung-s8500-wave-is-the-new-battery-life-champion/

    When the battery was new, I used to only have to charge it once a week, sometimes twice if I was using it more than normal.


    So there goes that little misconception of yours.




  • Reply 5 of 25
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,027member
    cnocbui said:
    That news is cooked and served again and again to manipulate oled prices but Apple will never go oled. Why would it? It has a huge LCD business with its computers, tablets and phones. Oled is crap because the white color consumes more energy than LCD. This is why oled phones have huge batteries and consequently gigantic unmanageable screens.

    Apple will never go OLED - right, so what type of display does the Watch use?  Apple has no LCD business.  They don't manufacture stuff so can just buy whatever they think is best for their products.

    So there goes that little misconception of yours.

    Apple going oled on the watch proves it won't go oled in its computing products, Watch is not a computer it is just a display extension to the iPhone. It is proof because of the way it uses oled on the Watch: all Watch faces are white on black, there is no white background on the watch. The way Apple uses oled, without white background, proves the truth of the claim regarding the white color burning more energy, and also proves Apple will never use oled in its computing products, I.e. Macs, iPhones and iPads. Being a computing giant makes a difference in every component's market...
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 6 of 25
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,027member
    If Apple would go oled it would do that before releasing the iPad Pro which has that special screen for the Pencil. Wouldn't it be better to finalize that high tech screen with oled if it would switch to oled in a couple of years? The iPad is a low margin product regardless of how pro it is, does changing the screen tech with all the associated design, production and stock costs before even the product matures, appear a wise business decision?

    Imagine how many 4.7 inch iPhones a single 27 inch iMac LCD screen is equal to, add to this all the other iMacs, Thunderbolt displays, MacBooks and iPads and educate again your guess on the cost of a unit LCD to Apple... Oled vendors have a long way to go to sell their tech to Apple...
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 7 of 25
    seankillseankill Posts: 539member
    cnocbui said:
    That news is cooked and served again and again to manipulate oled prices but Apple will never go oled. Why would it? It has a huge LCD business with its computers, tablets and phones. Oled is crap because the white color consumes more energy than LCD. This is why oled phones have huge batteries and consequently gigantic unmanageable screens.
    Every colour on a LCD, including 'attempts' at black, consume energy. White may consume more energy with an OLED, but everything else consumes less, and black, nothing at all.  My Nokia has an amazing feature in the settings, you can choose whether to have a light or dark OS theme.  If it had an OLED screen and was set to dark, it would consume less power than it currently does with it's LCD screen.  I have it set to dark anyway as I prefer it, particularly in low light.

    Apple will never go OLED - right, so what type of display does the Watch use?  Apple has no LCD business.  They don't manufacture stuff so can just buy whatever they think is best for their products.

    OLED phones have gigantic batteries so they can last longer between charges. When I bought my Samsung Wave with its 3.5" OLED screen, the equivalent Apple phone was the iP4.  The Wave had a 1500 mah battery while the iP4 had a 1420 mah battery.  They both used pretty much the same processor, Samsungs's Hummingbird, which Apple used a very slight variation of they dubbed the A4.  2G standby time of my Wave - 600 hours.  2g standby time of the iP4 - 300 hours.  3G standby time of the Wave - 550 hours vs 300 for the iP4.

    The Wave had the best battery life of any phone as tested by GSM Arena, for years until it was finally dethroned.

    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-samsung-s8500-wave-is-the-new-battery-life-champion/

    When the battery was new, I used to only have to charge it once a week, sometimes twice if I was using it more than normal.


    So there goes that little misconception of yours.




    Am I missing something? How does the energy consumption of a screen impact its standby time? The screen is physically off during standby, thus the screen energy consumption has no affect on standby time.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    Funny how Ming-Chi Kuo still gets hyped ("noted insider"!) in an article that otherwise suggests that he is wrong. 
  • Reply 9 of 25
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,072member
    cnocbui said:
    That news is cooked and served again and again to manipulate oled prices but Apple will never go oled. Why would it? It has a huge LCD business with its computers, tablets and phones. Oled is crap because the white color consumes more energy than LCD. This is why oled phones have huge batteries and consequently gigantic unmanageable screens.
    Every colour on a LCD, including 'attempts' at black, consume energy. White may consume more energy with an OLED, but everything else consumes less, and black, nothing at all.  My Nokia has an amazing feature in the settings, you can choose whether to have a light or dark OS theme.  If it had an OLED screen and was set to dark, it would consume less power than it currently does with it's LCD screen.  I have it set to dark anyway as I prefer it, particularly in low light.

    Apple will never go OLED - right, so what type of display does the Watch use?  Apple has no LCD business.  They don't manufacture stuff so can just buy whatever they think is best for their products.

    OLED phones have gigantic batteries so they can last longer between charges. When I bought my Samsung Wave with its 3.5" OLED screen, the equivalent Apple phone was the iP4.  The Wave had a 1500 mah battery while the iP4 had a 1420 mah battery.  They both used pretty much the same processor, Samsungs's Hummingbird, which Apple used a very slight variation of they dubbed the A4.  2G standby time of my Wave - 600 hours.  2g standby time of the iP4 - 300 hours.  3G standby time of the Wave - 550 hours vs 300 for the iP4.

    The Wave had the best battery life of any phone as tested by GSM Arena, for years until it was finally dethroned.

    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-samsung-s8500-wave-is-the-new-battery-life-champion/

    When the battery was new, I used to only have to charge it once a week, sometimes twice if I was using it more than normal.


    So there goes that little misconception of yours.




    • 90 minutes of video playback
    • 2 hours music playback through loudspeaker
    • 40 minutes voice call
    • 20 minutes games
    • 50 minutes browsing
    • 30 minutes general usage
    • 10 minutes navigation
    • 20 minutes shooting photos and videos
    Your so full of shit. The iPhone 4 blew that away. Add those times up; 6.3 hours of use. Brilliant! /s

    It sucks as a phone, but it has great standby time!! Only gsmarena would get palpitations over that.
  • Reply 10 of 25
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,505member
    If OLED was that much better than LG who manufacturers it's own OLED panels (including OLED TVS) would have switch all of their phones to OLED but even newest flagship G5 is LCD..
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 11 of 25
    Finally! Apple usually always desires to utilize the best technology in their mobile products. LCD is an inferior display technology. 

    OLED is superior to conventional LCD. Every time I see a Samsung Galaxy S7, I lust after the display. 

    JDI and Sharp have failed. Their LCD display technology is interior to the best that LG and Samsung have to offer. 

    I myself am purchasing a 65 inch LG OLED television with 4K resolution. It is the best television display my eyes have ever seen. 

    As far as longevity goes, those Korean OLED handsets are lasting long enough and well past my upgrade intervals and I usually go at least 2 years between upgrades. 

    JDI and Sharp are no longer competitive. Now if Apple would dump the inferior Sony camera for a Samsung or LG built one, the phone would have superior technology in all aspects. 

    I've seen the difference in the Apple vs. Samsung displays along with the difference in picture quality. The Samsung handset is better and the difference isn't slight. 

    If it weren't for the fact that the other handsets use the spyware OS known as Android, I would already have switched. 

    Taking excellent photos to go along with a great display is worth it to many people. And why Samsung is at the top of Android hardware although LG also makes some very nice phones also. 
  • Reply 12 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    tmay said:
    cnocbui said:
    Every colour on a LCD, including 'attempts' at black, consume energy. White may consume more energy with an OLED, but everything else consumes less, and black, nothing at all.  My Nokia has an amazing feature in the settings, you can choose whether to have a light or dark OS theme.  If it had an OLED screen and was set to dark, it would consume less power than it currently does with it's LCD screen.  I have it set to dark anyway as I prefer it, particularly in low light.

    Apple will never go OLED - right, so what type of display does the Watch use?  Apple has no LCD business.  They don't manufacture stuff so can just buy whatever they think is best for their products.

    OLED phones have gigantic batteries so they can last longer between charges. When I bought my Samsung Wave with its 3.5" OLED screen, the equivalent Apple phone was the iP4.  The Wave had a 1500 mah battery while the iP4 had a 1420 mah battery.  They both used pretty much the same processor, Samsungs's Hummingbird, which Apple used a very slight variation of they dubbed the A4.  2G standby time of my Wave - 600 hours.  2g standby time of the iP4 - 300 hours.  3G standby time of the Wave - 550 hours vs 300 for the iP4.

    The Wave had the best battery life of any phone as tested by GSM Arena, for years until it was finally dethroned.

    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king-samsung-s8500-wave-is-the-new-battery-life-champion/

    When the battery was new, I used to only have to charge it once a week, sometimes twice if I was using it more than normal.


    So there goes that little misconception of yours.




    • 90 minutes of video playback
    • 2 hours music playback through loudspeaker
    • 40 minutes voice call
    • 20 minutes games
    • 50 minutes browsing
    • 30 minutes general usage
    • 10 minutes navigation
    • 20 minutes shooting photos and videos
    Your so full of shit. The iPhone 4 blew that away. Add those times up; 6.3 hours of use. Brilliant! /s

    It sucks as a phone, but it has great standby time!! Only gsmarena would get palpitations over that.
    Can you not read?  Did you fail at that too?  Did you think GSM Arena never reviewed and tested the iP4 as well?  Well they did.  The Wave lasted "3 and a half days" - that's 84 hours.  The IPhone 4 managed 68.

    The final verdict is that the iPhone 4 is a pretty good performer. Its score is day shorter than what Galaxy S and Samsung Wave achieved
  • Reply 13 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    seankill said:
    cnocbui said:
      The Wave had a 1500 mah battery while the iP4 had a 1420 mah battery.  They both used pretty much the same processor, Samsungs's Hummingbird, which Apple used a very slight variation of they dubbed the A4.  2G standby time of my Wave - 600 hours.  2g standby time of the iP4 - 300 hours.  3G standby time of the Wave - 550 hours vs 300 for the iP4.


    Am I missing something? How does the energy consumption of a screen impact its standby time? The screen is physically off during standby, thus the screen energy consumption has no affect on standby time.
    You are right, however the real life battery test GSM performed still showed the Wave lasting a full day longer than the iP4.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    seankillseankill Posts: 539member
    cnocbui said:
    seankill said:
    Am I missing something? How does the energy consumption of a screen impact its standby time? The screen is physically off during standby, thus the screen energy consumption has no affect on standby time.
    You are right, however the real life battery test GSM performed still showed the Wave lasting a full day longer than the iP4.
    That may be true, I have never looked into it but how does that give merit to either side? LCD/OLED?       

    They are both good screen;however, every OLED screen older than 3 months at bestbuy has screen ghosting/burn-in, even with the screen demos that constantly change. The Apple devices do not show this when I check them. Just my experience and I check everytime I go to Bestbuy which is usually every 4 weeks. Never fails. That said, I hope these ghosting issues are improved on by 2017 releases and the iPhone has OLED.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    seankill said:
    cnocbui said:
    You are right, however the real life battery test GSM performed still showed the Wave lasting a full day longer than the iP4.
    That may be true, I have never looked into it but how does that give merit to either side? LCD/OLED?       

    They are both good screen;however, every OLED screen older than 3 months at bestbuy has screen ghosting/burn-in, even with the screen demos that constantly change. The Apple devices do not show this when I check them. Just my experience and I check everytime I go to Bestbuy which is usually every 4 weeks. Never fails. That said, I hope these ghosting issues are improved on by 2017 releases and the iPhone has OLED.
    I would have thought that was obvious: http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=3146&idPhone2=3275

    The two are very comparable in specs and vintage - particularly in display size, battery capacity and processor.

    You are a big fan of the bestbuy demo phones and burn-in.  I still use my Wave daily and no burn in after 6 years.  Samsung have sold many hundreds of millions OLED screened phones and the negative reports on the screens are statistically minuscule, amounting to a few  anecdotal gripes about phones that have been abused in some way.  I am sure my phone might have  screen burn-in if I left it on with a static image being displayed for months, but since I haven't, the screen is still fine after 6 years.

  • Reply 16 of 25
    "The Samsung Won" meme is alive and right on schedule just before its earnings report is not thoroughly scrutinized by analysts. Looking at the spin about the S7 beating out the S6 so far, shows nobody appears to caring about the massive 2-for-1, the buy one get a free Gear VR and the buy one and get a free 48-inch TV campaigns to move those S7s. Oh well.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    seankillseankill Posts: 539member
    cnocbui said:
    seankill said:
    That may be true, I have never looked into it but how does that give merit to either side? LCD/OLED?       

    They are both good screen;however, every OLED screen older than 3 months at bestbuy has screen ghosting/burn-in, even with the screen demos that constantly change. The Apple devices do not show this when I check them. Just my experience and I check everytime I go to Bestbuy which is usually every 4 weeks. Never fails. That said, I hope these ghosting issues are improved on by 2017 releases and the iPhone has OLED.
    I would have thought that was obvious: http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=3146&idPhone2=3275

    The two are very comparable in specs and vintage - particularly in display size, battery capacity and processor.

    You are a big fan of the bestbuy demo phones and burn-in.  I still use my Wave daily and no burn in after 6 years.  Samsung have sold many hundreds of millions OLED screened phones and the negative reports on the screens are statistically minuscule, amounting to a few  anecdotal gripes about phones that have been abused in some way.  I am sure my phone might have  screen burn-in if I left it on with a static image being displayed for months, but since I haven't, the screen is still fine after 6 years.

    I understand that OLED consumes less energy, typically, but how does screen OFF time dictate good screen ON time? All three times listed (shown below) have very little to do with screens. In all three cases, these times will be with the screen OFF. This is not a way to reflect the energy efficiency of a screen when it is OFF. I am not sure why you can't understand these times mean nothing in terms of screen time. Internet surfing is a better indicator if WIFI/GSM chip are the same. The phones show the same talk time and the iPhone has more music time. Also remember, the iPhone has 12% more screen area, 80 mAh less battery, and 60% more pixels to drive; all much more power consuming, even if these times were an indication for screen ON time.

    The big difference in time is standby time. This is an indication of the efficiency of the processor/RAM (it looks like the iPhone had 122MB more?)/ROM, and mostly the OS (also what the OS is doing in the background). Overall, these times are a very poor way to judge an OLED over an LCD. That said, long term, OLED is where the iPhone will need to go. Again, I am all for OLED but it has some problem areas, like all new technology. I just don't see how you can compare these two phones and say this proves OLED is better? Could at least use screen ON times.

    Stand-byUp to 600 h (2G) / Up to 550 h (3G)Up to 300 h (2G) / Up to 300 h (3G)
    Talk timeUp to 15 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)Up to 14 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)
    Music playUp to 35 hUp to 40 h

    Also, the demos don't allow for static screens, at least the ones I see. I will need to look at some real world S4s sometime.

    edited April 2016
  • Reply 18 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    seankill said:
    cnocbui said:
    I would have thought that was obvious: http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=3146&idPhone2=3275

    The two are very comparable in specs and vintage - particularly in display size, battery capacity and processor.

    You are a big fan of the bestbuy demo phones and burn-in.  I still use my Wave daily and no burn in after 6 years.  Samsung have sold many hundreds of millions OLED screened phones and the negative reports on the screens are statistically minuscule, amounting to a few  anecdotal gripes about phones that have been abused in some way.  I am sure my phone might have  screen burn-in if I left it on with a static image being displayed for months, but since I haven't, the screen is still fine after 6 years.

    I understand that OLED consumes less energy, typically, but how does screen OFF time dictate good screen ON time? All three times listed (shown below) have very little to do with screens. In all three cases, these times will be with the screen OFF. This is not a way to reflect the energy efficiency of a screen when it is OFF. I am not sure why you can't understand these times mean nothing in terms of screen time. Internet surfing is a better indicator if WIFI/GSM chip are the same. The phones show the same talk time and the iPhone has more music time. Also remember, the iPhone has 12% more screen area, 80 mAh less battery, and 60% more pixels to drive; all much more power consuming, even if these times were an indication for screen ON time.

    The big difference in time is standby time. This is an indication of the efficiency of the processor/RAM (it looks like the iPhone had 122MB more?)/ROM, and mostly the OS (also what the OS is doing in the background). Overall, these times are a very poor way to judge an OLED over an LCD. That said, long term, OLED is where the iPhone will need to go. Again, I am all for OLED but it has some problem areas, like all new technology. I just don't see how you can compare these two phones and say this proves OLED is better? Could at least use screen ON times.

    Stand-byUp to 600 h (2G) / Up to 550 h (3G)Up to 300 h (2G) / Up to 300 h (3G)
    Talk timeUp to 15 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)Up to 14 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)
    Music playUp to 35 hUp to 40 h

    Also, the demos don't allow for static screens, at least the ones I see. I will need to look at some real world S4s sometime.

    My reply #13 above addressed that.

    As I said before - the number of OLED screened phones now in circulation is vast.  Where are all the complaints - as in 10s of thousands of them, given there must be well over a hundred million OLED screened phones by now?

    Try a Google search - iphone display problem.  41,400,000 results - oops, better not buy an iPhone then.  (Yes, I am being deliberately facetious.)

    I'll bet when Apple release the new iOS with the AMOLED screen phones, they will include a screen saver, for those users who might otherwise be inclined to accidentally leave a static image displaying for months.

  • Reply 19 of 25
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    "The Samsung Won" meme is alive and right on schedule just before its earnings report is not thoroughly scrutinized by analysts. Looking at the spin about the S7 beating out the S6 so far, shows nobody appears to caring about the massive 2-for-1, the buy one get a free Gear VR and the buy one and get a free 48-inch TV campaigns to move those S7s. Oh well.
    That's actually funny.

    Buy an iPhone 6S and get another one free...

    https://www.att.com/shop/wireless/apple-iphone-buy-one-get-one-free.html




  • Reply 20 of 25
    seankillseankill Posts: 539member
    cnocbui said:
    seankill said:
    I understand that OLED consumes less energy, typically, but how does screen OFF time dictate good screen ON time? All three times listed (shown below) have very little to do with screens. In all three cases, these times will be with the screen OFF. This is not a way to reflect the energy efficiency of a screen when it is OFF. I am not sure why you can't understand these times mean nothing in terms of screen time. Internet surfing is a better indicator if WIFI/GSM chip are the same. The phones show the same talk time and the iPhone has more music time. Also remember, the iPhone has 12% more screen area, 80 mAh less battery, and 60% more pixels to drive; all much more power consuming, even if these times were an indication for screen ON time.

    The big difference in time is standby time. This is an indication of the efficiency of the processor/RAM (it looks like the iPhone had 122MB more?)/ROM, and mostly the OS (also what the OS is doing in the background). Overall, these times are a very poor way to judge an OLED over an LCD. That said, long term, OLED is where the iPhone will need to go. Again, I am all for OLED but it has some problem areas, like all new technology. I just don't see how you can compare these two phones and say this proves OLED is better? Could at least use screen ON times.

    Stand-byUp to 600 h (2G) / Up to 550 h (3G)Up to 300 h (2G) / Up to 300 h (3G)
    Talk timeUp to 15 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)Up to 14 h (2G) / Up to 7 h (3G)
    Music playUp to 35 hUp to 40 h

    Also, the demos don't allow for static screens, at least the ones I see. I will need to look at some real world S4s sometime.

    My reply #13 above addressed that.

    As I said before - the number of OLED screened phones now in circulation is vast.  Where are all the complaints - as in 10s of thousands of them, given there must be well over a hundred million OLED screened phones by now?

    Try a Google search - iphone display problem.  41,400,000 results - oops, better not buy an iPhone then.  (Yes, I am being deliberately facetious.)

    I'll bet when Apple release the new iOS with the AMOLED screen phones, they will include a screen saver, for those users who might otherwise be inclined to accidentally leave a static image displaying for months.

    I have no doubt Apple will adopt OLEDs, I've though 2018 would be the target date since the iPhone 5S came out. As far as issues with OLED screens, I am just voicing what is seen at Bestbuy, where iPhone/iPad screens are 12 months old and fail to show the same issues as a 4 month old OLED screen. Just my experience, definitely not a good first impression. 

    Still a pretty big difference in these phones, tough to compare screens. Especially when both have gotten significantly better and more efficient in nearly 6 years.

Sign In or Register to comment.