iPhone 14 Pro could get the Apple Watch's always-on display feature

AppleInsider

Apple's upcoming iPhone 14 Pro could feature always-on display capabilities thanks to their variable refresh rates and ProMotion technology, according to an analyst.

iPhone 14 Pro

The two current iPhone 13 Pro models are equipped with low-temperature polycrystalline oxide (LTPO) display panels and are capable of variable refresh rates between 10Hz and 120Hz. Ross Young of Display Supply Chain Consultants, however, says he's expecting the upcoming iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max to be able to drop down to 1Hz.

A 1Hz refresh rate is ideal for displaying static images when a device is inactive because it allows it to display information without significantly draining battery life. As an example, some Android devices made by Samsung already use a 1Hz refresh rate for their always-on display capabilities.

Can't confirm, but expecting it.

-- Ross Young (@DSCCRoss)

May 23, 2022

This is not the first time we've heard rumors of an always-on display on the iPhone. Back in 2021, some Apple watchers expected the iPhone 13 to sport the feature. Those rumors, of course, never panned out.

However, the iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max will likely have the necessary components and technology to make an always-on display possible. While there haven't been any concrete rumors pointing toward the feature's inclusion on the upcoming lineup, it's very much a possibility.

An always-on display on the iPhone could allow users to see important information like the clock and their current battery life when a device is locked or inactive.

Read on AppleInsider

hmlongco

So... how does an always on OLED display combat burn in?

beowulfschmidt

As long as there's a setting to turn it off...

frayapple

Finally! But is a fingerprint reader still on the table??

MustSeeUHDTV

hmlongco said:

So... how does an always on OLED display combat burn in?

If it is like the watch, then the screen is supposed to move slightly.

I think I rather have my phone screen off though.

mulasien

beowulfschmidt said:

As long as there's a setting to turn it off...

Like on every Android phone where this feature has existed for years, I'm sure there will be an option to turn it off. You won't be forced to have a feature you don't like, and those who do like it will get to use it.

mulasien

Can someone provide a technical reason why previous iPhones won't be able to use this feature? You're telling me that the Promotion displays on the 13 Pros can't handle a feature that has existed on budget Android phones for years with minimal battery hit? I'm having a hard time believing that.

Anilu_777

mulasien said:

beowulfschmidt said:

As long as there's a setting to turn it off...

Like on every Android phone where this feature has existed for years, I'm sure there will be an option to turn it off. You won't be forced to have a feature you don't like, and those who do like it will get to use it.

You would hope but never assume. If it’s available to those who want it, great. But I don’t want it on my phone at present (who knows what might happen in future). Options are good and more options are better. 

danox

hmlongco said:

So... how does an always on OLED display combat burn in?

By constant on and off plus throttling, a class action suit waiting to happen for Apple if they do it.

JFC_PA

beowulfschmidt said:

As long as there's a setting to turn it off...

There is for the Series 7 so I expect so. 

JFC_PA

mulasien said:

Can someone provide a technical reason why previous iPhones won't be able to use this feature? You're telling me that the Promotion displays on the 13 Pros can't handle a feature that has existed on budget Android phones for years with minimal battery hit? I'm having a hard time believing that.

“ The two current iPhone 13 Pro models are equipped with low-temperature polycrystalline oxide (LTPO) display panels and are capable of variable refresh rates between 10Hz and 120Hz. Ross Young of Display Supply Chain Consultants, however, says he's expecting the upcoming iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max to be able to drop down to 1Hz.”

The 1 Hz is necessary for Always on. 

avon b7

JFC_PA said:

mulasien said:

Can someone provide a technical reason why previous iPhones won't be able to use this feature? You're telling me that the Promotion displays on the 13 Pros can't handle a feature that has existed on budget Android phones for years with minimal battery hit? I'm having a hard time believing that.

“ The two current iPhone 13 Pro models are equipped with low-temperature polycrystalline oxide (LTPO) display panels and are capable of variable refresh rates between 10Hz and 120Hz. Ross Young of Display Supply Chain Consultants, however, says he's expecting the upcoming iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max to be able to drop down to 1Hz.”

The 1 Hz is necessary for Always on. 

It's curious but I suspect it could be implemented across all modern iPhones, but with a twist.

Instead of using an 'always' on display, the solution would be to use an 'eyes' on display which combines AI, eye tracking and 3D depth sensing to detect when the user is actually looking at the screen and switch on the display information only when the user is actually looking at it. 

It's a solution that has been around for a couple of years now. 

mulasien

JFC_PA said: The 1 Hz is necessary for Always on. 

Is it, really? That's the part I take objection to. I'm not convinced.

Again...this isn't some bleeding edge, experimental technology we're talking about. Android phones, both flagship and budget versions have had this feature for years. None of them go down to 1 Hz and yet they still work fine with MAYBE a few percentage of battery affected. Flagship Android phones that do have a variable refresh rate (though not 1 Hz) are even less affected battery-wise. 

With that in mind, it has been VERY well established for years that 1 Hz is not a requirement for always on display. Again, we have existing precedent. So tell me why 1 Hz is necessary for iPhones to support always on display where 10 Hz simply isn't capable. It makes zero sense, outside of the usual forced upgrade tax.

cornchip

I’m trying to figure out why anyone would want this.