Display expert again claims 'iPhone 12 Pro' will lack 120Hz ProMotion

AppleInsider

Apple's rumored "iPhone 12" models won't feature a 120Hz ProMotion display, a self-described display analyst claims.

A ProMotion display could result in smoother scrolling and animations on an iPhone.

Multiple reports, including those by accurate leaker Jon Prosser, have suggested that 2020's "iPhone 12" models will support the upgraded display type. The 120Hz displays are expected to be restricted to so-called "iPhone 12 Pro" models.

Ross Young, a self-proclaimed display expert and founder of Display Supply Chain Consultants, is bucking rumors with claims that none of the 2020 models will feature the upgraded technology.

None of our contacts could corroborate iPhone 12 Pro models as 120Hz. They told us 2021. So, they are off our latest 120Hz list.. pic.twitter.com/uTQ7uinMUQ

-- Ross Young (@DSCCRoss)

July 1, 2020

None of Young's "contacts" could corroborate the inclusion of ProMotion displays on the "iPhone 12." Instead, he says that the panels will arrive with 2021's "iPhone 13" lineup.

Young previously said that the "iPhone 12" models would lack low-temperature polycrystalline oxide (LTPO) backplanes -- a technology he claims would be essential to ProMotion displays.

There are currently smartphones with 120Hz refresh rates on the market, and Apple's own iPad Pro sports a ProMotion display but not LTPO.

A higher screen refresh rate through Apple's ProMotion display would result in smoother animations and scrolling. According to Prosser, the refresh rate will be variable between 60Hz and 120Hz.

geekmee

Is this a rumor? A guess? A bet.... or an announcement by the secretive company Apple??

edited July 2020

oberpongo

Best thing about 120hz is that it’s a multiple of 24fps cinema and 30Hz US Tv format. No more dropped frames. 

inspiredcode

oberpongo said:

Best thing about 120hz is that it’s a multiple of 24fps cinema and 30Hz US Tv format. No more dropped frames. 

It is a nice feature, but the buttery smooth scrolling is the best thing. I dread using my iPhone and MacBook Pro after experiencing 120hz on my iPad Pro.

edited July 2020

viclauyyc

InspiredCode said:

oberpongo said:

Best thing about 120hz is that it’s a multiple of 24fps cinema and 30Hz US Tv format. No more dropped frames. 

It is a nice feature, but the buttery smooth scrolling is the best thing. I dread using my iPhone and MacBook Pro after experiencing 120hz on my iPad Pro.

Can you tell me why we need 120hz refresh rate? I already find 60fps video annoying.

bluefire1

Two months until the truth comes out. 

rayz2016

bluefire1 said:

Two months until the truth comes out. 

We don’t even know that for sure. 

prismatics

It seems to me iPhone is becoming more consumer-hostile recently.

Purposefully disabling Force Touch on older iPhones so that the new phones with cheaper non-Force-Touch Screens don't seem inferior, still no butter-smooth 120 Hz screen probably because it costs 15$ more per phone to achieve higher energy efficiency and integrate the more expensive hardware for the vastly improved experience, no AirPods at this price, App Store that makes you wonder why you paid 1000$+ (which keeps increasing) for a phone just to be forced to buy some additional random 5$/moth subscriptions (instead of the 79 cents previously) for iOS Developer Example Apps because that's how you increase "Average Revenue per User" after the sale like the Chicago Boys would say it.

And of course you could say why buy then? Well because people have bought into this ecosystem when Apple still was a company to be proud of.
The Mac security theatre is quite telling.

edited July 2020

eriamjh

viclauyyc said:

Can you tell me why we need 120hz refresh rate? I already find 60fps video annoying.

Refresh rate for a GUI is not the same as watching video.  Smoothness and reaction of graphics is always better at higher frame rate.  

And we don’t need it, just some are whining about not having it because 120 is bigger than 60.  

randominternetperson

prismatics said:

It seems to me iPhone is becoming more consumer-hostile recently.

Purposefully disabling Force Touch on older iPhones so that the new phones with cheaper non-Force-Touch Screens don't seem inferior, still no butter-smooth 120 Hz screen probably because it costs 15$ more per phone to achieve higher energy efficiency and integrate the more expensive hardware for the vastly improved experience, no AirPods at this price, App Store that makes you wonder why you paid 1000$+ (which keeps increasing) for a phone just to be forced to buy some additional random 5$/moth subscriptions (instead of the 79 cents previously) for iOS Developer Example Apps because that's how you increase "Average Revenue per User" after the sale like the Chicago Boys would say it.

And of course you could say why buy then? Well because people have bought into this ecosystem when Apple still was a company to be proud of.
The Mac security theatre is quite telling.

Hey don't forget the pandemic and the switch to Apple Silicon.  Obviously those are examples of Apple being "consumer-hostile" too, right?

On the other hand, did you ever think that maybe Apple has learned that force touch isn't as intuitive and functional as they hoped and decided that long touches are a better alternative?  And I'm sorry that some app developers are charging more or more often for their apps.  I can't imagine why they went along with the secret campaign by Apple to raise app costs.  What motivation could they have to not sell all their apps for a one-time 79 cent charge (if that was ever a price point somewhere; it wasn't in the US)?

melgross

The truth is that Apple’s devices already have smooth motion without 120Hz displays. Read, over the years, of Apple’s “buttery smooth” scrolling, for example, compared to the jerky jerky scrolling of Android. Just take your iPhone out and try it. I don’t see the big deal here. It’s a matter of the power of the SoC, and the fact that Apple’s work runs, as the expression goes, “close to the metal”, rather than the slow Java-like implementation of Android, which adds extra software layers. Additionally, they gave these horrible “skins” that slow things down further. Samsung has been pointed out as being particularly egregious in this, with their skin being pretty slow.

i’m really not sure whether we actually need 120Hz, or even 90Hz, particularly as it badly affects battery life. I don’t see what Apple can do that would be so special as to negate that problem. Other than to have an even bigger battery.

edited July 2020

melgross

InspiredCode said:

oberpongo said:

Best thing about 120hz is that it’s a multiple of 24fps cinema and 30Hz US Tv format. No more dropped frames. 

It is a nice feature, but the buttery smooth scrolling is the best thing. I dread using my iPhone and MacBook Pro after experiencing 120hz on my iPad Pro.

viclauyyc said:

InspiredCode said:

oberpongo said:

Best thing about 120hz is that it’s a multiple of 24fps cinema and 30Hz US Tv format. No more dropped frames. 

It is a nice feature, but the buttery smooth scrolling is the best thing. I dread using my iPhone and MacBook Pro after experiencing 120hz on my iPad Pro.

Can you tell me why we need 120hz refresh rate? I already find 60fps video annoying.

I’ve never found anything bad about 120Hz it’s hard to understand people having problems watching it. I just don’t see the need for it on an iPhone. It’s great for iPad gaming and 3D projects though.

melgross

prismatics said:

It seems to me iPhone is becoming more consumer-hostile recently.

Purposefully disabling Force Touch on older iPhones so that the new phones with cheaper non-Force-Touch Screens don't seem inferior, still no butter-smooth 120 Hz screen probably because it costs 15$ more per phone to achieve higher energy efficiency and integrate the more expensive hardware for the vastly improved experience, no AirPods at this price, App Store that makes you wonder why you paid 1000$+ (which keeps increasing) for a phone just to be forced to buy some additional random 5$/moth subscriptions (instead of the 79 cents previously) for iOS Developer Example Apps because that's how you increase "Average Revenue per User" after the sale like the Chicago Boys would say it.

And of course you could say why buy then? Well because people have bought into this ecosystem when Apple still was a company to be proud of.
The Mac security theatre is quite telling.

The reason usually given for removing Force Touch has nothing to do with cheaper phones. It has to do with the apparent problems Apple was having getting it to work properly on the large iPad screens. Additionally, few developers were taking advantage of it, so it was inconsistent. People never knew whether it was working or not. While I like it, I understand the phones we’ll be buying this year won’t have it, and that’s fine. They’re removing it from the watch too, from what I read.

Consistency across devices is more important that the limited benefits a particular feature can give. I imagine that if developers has supported it enthusiastically, as Apple had hoped, we might still have it, iPad or no.

canukstorm

melgross said:

prismatics said:

It seems to me iPhone is becoming more consumer-hostile recently.

Purposefully disabling Force Touch on older iPhones so that the new phones with cheaper non-Force-Touch Screens don't seem inferior, still no butter-smooth 120 Hz screen probably because it costs 15$ more per phone to achieve higher energy efficiency and integrate the more expensive hardware for the vastly improved experience, no AirPods at this price, App Store that makes you wonder why you paid 1000$+ (which keeps increasing) for a phone just to be forced to buy some additional random 5$/moth subscriptions (instead of the 79 cents previously) for iOS Developer Example Apps because that's how you increase "Average Revenue per User" after the sale like the Chicago Boys would say it.

And of course you could say why buy then? Well because people have bought into this ecosystem when Apple still was a company to be proud of.
The Mac security theatre is quite telling.

The reason usually given for removing Force Touch has nothing to do with cheaper phones. It has to do with the apparent problems Apple was having getting it to work properly on the large iPad screens. Additionally, few developers were taking advantage of it, so it was inconsistent. People never knew whether it was working or not. While I like it, I understand the phones we’ll be buying this year won’t have it, and that’s fine. They’re removing it from the watch too, from what I read.

Consistency across devices is more important that the limited benefits a particular feature can give. I imagine that if developers has supported it enthusiastically, as Apple had hoped, we might still have it, iPad or no.

Hit the nail on the head.

eriamjh

I was always activating force touch by accident.  

I will miss it on the new watches, though.  Maybe.