By the way, I've responded to the other posts using my iPad, but was required to respond to this one using my computer, because the scroll bar at the right side of the text box doesn't appear, and so there is no way to scroll the text down.
Use two fingers to scroll inside text boxes. This has been around since iPhone OS 1.0. Multitouch is your friend.
- AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the power requirements problem, and the refresh rate problem but that's all.
- "Super" AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the problem of the display being unreadable in direct sunlight, but the last I heard they weren't even close to the performance of a good IPS panel on the same issue.
The main issues with OLED displays from Apple's point of view are poor colour reproduction, poor readability of text specifically, and poor readability in direct sunlight. Only the third issue has been *somewhat* mitigated by the very latest and best Super AMOLED screens. The technology really just isn't there yet.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
So what happens is Apple remains mostly silent on the issue. This means a lot of consumers are looking at the OLED screens (which may look great to them) and wondering why Apple isn't using them. The reason they aren't using them is that the colours are all over-saturated and the and the contrast is wonky, but no one wants to say it out loud. (except me! )
PS - I am seriously not trying to be offensive to anyone who likes OLED here, but instead trying to explain some of the background motivations as I see them.
The trouble is, you obviously haven't seen or used a Samsung device with a super AMOLED screen, other wise you wouldn't be spouting such a complete load of tosh.
Direct comparisons of Nexus Ones to Samsung phones with Super AMOLED screens would suggest the Nexus One does not have such a screen, or of it does, it is a woeful implementation.
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.
You need to take a look at the comparison photos here:
Samsung Wave Super AMOLED at top, Nexus One below.
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
You're arguing in circles. Apple has to make a decision based on what's best for their business. Then consumers choose only what's right for them. If Apple offers something the consumers want, then they grow-which is what has been happening. Apple has shown the ability to give consumers what they want more than anyone else in the industry over the past 5 years.
if you go only by what consumers want, it's simple. I want the price cut by 90%, RAM quadrupled, and free 3G service. Looking at only one side of the equation is silly. Apple has to look at both their costs AND what the consumer is willing to pay for - and so should you.
Now, let's get back to the facts at hand. melgross is arguing flat out that Apple made the wrong decision (and you are defending him). In order for that to be a rational position, you'd have to be able to prove that you have the facts to back that claim up - and that Apple was wrong.
As I've said repeatedly (you don't seem to get it, so maybe one more time). There are 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision (with 'right' being defined as what's best for Apple in the long run - but that includes offering consumers a greater value than the competition, so consumer's needs are included).
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB and should have chosen it, but did not do so because they made a mistake. This implies that you and melgross know more than Apple does.
You can argue that some tiny subset of people might be willing to pay $100 more for 512 MB or that some subset of people would have been willing to have a shorter battery life or whatever other tradeoffs are involved. But WHEN CONSIDERING THE MARKET AS A WHOLE, Apple decided as they did. You are arguing that their decision was wrong.
So please enlighten us as to what FACTS (not unfounded opinions) you have that prove that Apple was wrong and that you know better than Apple does what level of RAM should have been included.
Just slow down a little bit. I never said that Melgross was right or that apple was wrong. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
What I was trying to say is that apple might have played it safely, as they do often first gen products, and did not put in everything that could have been done and would have been good from a consumer point of view. In general the more RAM there is, the better for the user, especially when multitasking is right around the corner. Instead I think they kept costs down to have some flexibility on the price if the product doesn't sell right. I guess they have learned from the Newton that things can go wrong.
I have no iPad, so I have no idea if 256MB is enough for the normal user or not, but if you read about all those issues with Safari, something is wrong. Melgross also pointed out, IIRC, a limited size for the images he was able to work on in a given program, which might point to RAM limitations.
So, yes I believe they have considered putting in 512MB of RAM, and yes they have made the chose not to go into production with it. Again, they made the right chose from their point of view, and limited the timespan those first gen iPads will be useful for as they have limited RAM. And I think this might not be the best compromise for the consumer, but I certainly don't think I'm right or that apple is wrong. I just saying that there seem to be some issues, maybe with the Safari application itself, but given Melgross' example, RAM limitation could be an issue. Only time will tell, and we will se what happens when multitasking comes to the iPad.
As other phones are coming out with 512 MB of RAM in their SoC's, I think that Melgross is right and that the same amount of memory could have been a viable option in the iPad, at least from a technology POV, however I don't have enough facts to say that technical issues were not the reason Apple went with 256MB.
BTW do you have any facts to justify/explain apple's decision?
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell.
Have no axe to grind here - I'm an engineer who has chosen and integrated display within OEMs for a decade or so. I also have lots of phones so can compare them
That picture actually shows the true nature of Samsung's "Super AMOLED": basically, it's about 10% brighter and has slightly less surface reflectance, so the contrast ratio's a bit better too. All good but no game changer, sorry. That picture was taken in very controlled lighting conditions in Samsung's show booth.
Arrived at this thread late; lots of points to make.
1) "Super" AMOLED has the touch sensor integrated, rather than needing a separate layer. There's nothing really super about that - LCD TFTs can also integrate that and get the same boost of performance, which is about 10-15% more brightness for the same power.
2) Nexus One and HTC Desire use the last generation Samsung AMOLED. They have to overlay a separate touch sensor on top. Nexus uses a cheaper model which only supports dual touch; HTC have a multitouch version but they're the same AMOLED underneath.
3) "Super" AMOLEDs are still about half as bright as an equivalent TFT LCD so, while not quite as unusable than the older AMOLEDs, are still much less than half as easy to read in sunlight as a good TFT.
4) The iPhone doesn't actually use a very good LCD so don't base your assumptions of performance on that. The black brightness level is shocking, which means it has a very poor contrast ratio indoors; I find it quite painful to use in the dark on anything with a dark background. It also color shifts big time as you change the viewing angle. Motorola use a much better screen in the Droid so it's not like the LCDs aren't available - Apple have got some serious work to do here but, for the next few years at least, LCD is still the way to go and the iPad has shown that they do get what it takes to make a great screen.
5) I have an HTC Desire and a Nexus one and the Pentile pixel layout really bugs me - you see jagged edges on all the text and straight lines. Sure, it's high resolution so you need good eyesight but, once you've seen it, you can't unsee it. Also I don't like being cheated out of 1/3rd of the pixels I paid for (Pentile only gives you either a blue or red subpixel per white pixel, not both. You're guaranteed a green.)
6) Even the best AMOLED displays still use about 2-3 times as much power as equivalent TFT LCDs when displaying web content. It's insane how bad the battery life is and, helpfully, Android has a power meter that tells you what was to blame. Even on the Nexus running Flash in a web page, the display is still the main factor destroying the battery, by a mile.
7) The color reproduction on my HTC is awful (as proven by displaymate). It is so oversaturated that it hurts my eyes. Yes, that's a factor of the way that the pixels are driven, but that isn't up to the phone maker - it's up to Samsung who designed the integrated driver chip on the display module, aiming to exaggerate the colours to make you think the display is more vivid when, in fact, it's just fake. Side note: gamut is nothing to do with bits per pixel.
8) The eye strain you get from reading an AMOLED display seems much higher as the light is 100% artificial; on a mobile TFT LCD, part of the natural ambient light is reflected and that reduces the strain. (The least eye strain comes from 100% reflective displays like e-ink)
9) Real world AMOLED screens still have poor lifetimes and degrade inelegantly. You get screen burn and the blue fades much faster than the other colours. I did a side by side comparison of the HTC with a few other phones and it was clear that Samsung overdrive the blue pixels to try to prolong the display's usable lifetime. It really looks hideously blue to start with and, after a year, will look yellow and dim.
10) As others have pointed out, there's just no way Apple could use an AMOLED display as there aren't enough people making them. Only Samsung have invested heavily in them as others have spotted all the flaws. They have a lot tied up in this tech and are desperate to see it succeed - hence they are exaggerating all the benefits like mad and relying on marketing tricks like the whole "super" thing to try to put down the inherent weaknesses in the approach: relying on emitted light is a really bad plan.
So, ask yourself this: which company has the most money tied up in making AMOLED screens? Why did every other company stop or reduce their investment? Which company is producing all the hype and is telling you that "Super" AMOLED solves all the problems? Which company is trying to transition to using AMOLED across all its phones as soon as possible?
Which company relies on nasty tricks like dynamic contrast ratio to inflate all its headline figures on the TVs it sells? Which company has been sued for bribery, corruption and fraud across the management? I'm not saying they don't produce some great products, but is that a company whose word you should take as gospel?
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
Although the Samsung Wave?s 3.3-inch screen isn?t huge by today?s smartphone standards, it does a great job of rendering detail thanks to its 800×480 resolution and wonderfully bright Super AMOLED display. AMOLED screens are infamous for their poor performance in direct sunlight though, so we took the Samsung Wave out for a stroll out in the sun with an iPhone, which uses a standard LCD TFT, to see how they compare.
When not in sunlight, the Wave shames the iPhone in contrast terms ? blacks are so much blacker on the Super AMOLED screen ? but in sunlight reflectivity is noticeably better on the iPhone. It?s not a deal breaker though, especially when you can switch on the Wave?s Outdoor Visibility mode.
Outdoor Visibility cranks up colour saturation, and while it looks absolutely hideous when you?re indoors, it does the trick when out in the sun. This mode is available in the Wave?s features that rely most on screen visibility, such as the video player and camera.
I think Samsung should allow the user to adjust the contrast as it can be a bit over the top at Samsungs standard setting, but that doesn't mean the screen is infereior, just that Samsung should stop showing off so much with it.
Thanks for the very informative post. Didn't know many of the issues behind Super AMOLED vs. AMOLED vs. TFT LCD that you put out. Now I can see what Apple's decision makes sense.
I guarantee you that if Apple uses OLED it will not be the poor OLED used in the Nexus One. It sounds like you are getting hung up on an acronym and making a case that if Apple ever a better version of OLED, that doesn't yet exist in the market, that they are hypocrites, cheats and liars.
You also seem to be ignoring the long history of Apple choosing the best all around option, not the option that excels in one area but fails completely in others. There are many tests that clearly show the AMOLED used in the Nexus One is in many ways inferior to the iPhone's LCD.
BTW, competitors are moving to AMOLED because of the marketing hype behind it, not because they think it's better for the average user. This is a well worn idea. There have even been TV shows helping guys without personalities and confidence pickup up women by donning some ostentatious clothing so they can seem interesting. It's all a means to an end, it's just that some have more merit than others.
Super AMOLED seems to be the way to go, but I'm sure a quick glimpse at availability would have revealed insufficient production capacity to sustain a new iPhone model launch. My bet is that the capabilities of Super AMOLED are being finely examined and tested even as we speak.
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
Don't forget too that you can overdo contrast as well. Our eyes aren't the only factor that determines how we see things. If you can display much darker darks & contrast sometimes that takes too much guess work away from the brain, which fills in guess work based on other times we have seen & observed objects and colors.
Early plasma used to suffer from a pixelated appearance because the plasma was too good at displaying subtle color differences. It would make plasma appear to have a slight background snow under the image. HD can also suffer from this sometimes, grainy film shots can be an eye sore because your eye isn't used to seeing pixelation.
This is like Plasma vs LCD all over again, and we still haven't totally resolved that one.
Well, we have really. The Pioneer KURO plasma still beats any LCD hands down, and you can check pretty much any professional review anywhere for confirmation. It's just too bad Pioneer couldn't afford to keep making them.
LCD is only winning in sales because it's cheap and in available in tiny sizes.
Don't forget too that you can overdo contrast as well. Our eyes aren't the only factor that determines how we see things. If you can display much darker darks & contrast sometimes that takes too much guess work away from the brain, which fills in guess work based on other times we have seen & observed objects and colors.
Early plasma used to suffer from a pixelated appearance because the plasma was too good at displaying subtle color differences. It would make plasma appear to have a slight background snow under the image. HD can also suffer from this sometimes, grainy film shots can be an eye sore because your eye isn't used to seeing pixelation.
Having been in the commercial side of color production, I can say that something that looks better to the general public is often, objectively, worse. Right now, AMOLED panels have terrible color. Whether this new panel has better color, or just more dramatic color, I don't know. That's why I have to see it. It's too bad we can't adjust the color and such on these screens. AMOLEDS might actually have very good color if we were allowed to adjust them to a standard, as I do with my monitors.
Well, we have really. The Pioneer KURO plasma still beats any LCD hands down, and you can check pretty much any professional review anywhere for confirmation. It's just too bad Pioneer couldn't afford to keep making them.
LCD is only winning in sales because it's cheap and in available in tiny sizes.
Well, actually, plasma Tv prices had dropped to even, or even below LCD Tv prices. There are very expensive models in both lines, but people are simply moving to LCD.
Comments
By the way, I've responded to the other posts using my iPad, but was required to respond to this one using my computer, because the scroll bar at the right side of the text box doesn't appear, and so there is no way to scroll the text down.
Use two fingers to scroll inside text boxes. This has been around since iPhone OS 1.0. Multitouch is your friend.
I don't think this is really true though.
- AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the power requirements problem, and the refresh rate problem but that's all.
- "Super" AMOLED displays have *somewhat* overcome the problem of the display being unreadable in direct sunlight, but the last I heard they weren't even close to the performance of a good IPS panel on the same issue.
The main issues with OLED displays from Apple's point of view are poor colour reproduction, poor readability of text specifically, and poor readability in direct sunlight. Only the third issue has been *somewhat* mitigated by the very latest and best Super AMOLED screens. The technology really just isn't there yet.
IMO the biggest problem with discussions of OLED technology is that different people have different capabilities in terms of their ability to detect colours. The real explanation for OLED screens not being used is that they just aren't that good, but it's a hard thing to tell someone that. You have to tell someone (potentially a customer), that even though they can't see the difference, that there is in fact a difference and other people (with essentially better eyes or a more discerning vision), can tell the difference.
There is just no way to frame that without making it sound like an insult (it's not intended to be by me of course).
So what happens is Apple remains mostly silent on the issue. This means a lot of consumers are looking at the OLED screens (which may look great to them) and wondering why Apple isn't using them. The reason they aren't using them is that the colours are all over-saturated and the and the contrast is wonky, but no one wants to say it out loud. (except me!
PS - I am seriously not trying to be offensive to anyone who likes OLED here, but instead trying to explain some of the background motivations as I see them.
The trouble is, you obviously haven't seen or used a Samsung device with a super AMOLED screen, other wise you wouldn't be spouting such a complete load of tosh.
Direct comparisons of Nexus Ones to Samsung phones with Super AMOLED screens would suggest the Nexus One does not have such a screen, or of it does, it is a woeful implementation.
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.
You need to take a look at the comparison photos here:
http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/02/1...samsung-s8000/
Samsung Wave Super AMOLED at top, Nexus One below.
Use two fingers to scroll inside text boxes. This has been around since iPhone OS 1.0. Multitouch is your friend.
That's funny. I never needed to do that on my iPhone because I never bothered to answer long posts there. But it does work here. Thanks.
You need to take a look at the comparison photos here:
http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/02/1...samsung-s8000/
Samsung Wave Super AMOLED at top, Nexus One below.
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
You're arguing in circles. Apple has to make a decision based on what's best for their business. Then consumers choose only what's right for them. If Apple offers something the consumers want, then they grow-which is what has been happening. Apple has shown the ability to give consumers what they want more than anyone else in the industry over the past 5 years.
if you go only by what consumers want, it's simple. I want the price cut by 90%, RAM quadrupled, and free 3G service. Looking at only one side of the equation is silly. Apple has to look at both their costs AND what the consumer is willing to pay for - and so should you.
Now, let's get back to the facts at hand. melgross is arguing flat out that Apple made the wrong decision (and you are defending him). In order for that to be a rational position, you'd have to be able to prove that you have the facts to back that claim up - and that Apple was wrong.
As I've said repeatedly (you don't seem to get it, so maybe one more time). There are 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision (with 'right' being defined as what's best for Apple in the long run - but that includes offering consumers a greater value than the competition, so consumer's needs are included).
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB and should have chosen it, but did not do so because they made a mistake. This implies that you and melgross know more than Apple does.
You can argue that some tiny subset of people might be willing to pay $100 more for 512 MB or that some subset of people would have been willing to have a shorter battery life or whatever other tradeoffs are involved. But WHEN CONSIDERING THE MARKET AS A WHOLE, Apple decided as they did. You are arguing that their decision was wrong.
So please enlighten us as to what FACTS (not unfounded opinions) you have that prove that Apple was wrong and that you know better than Apple does what level of RAM should have been included.
Just slow down a little bit. I never said that Melgross was right or that apple was wrong. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
What I was trying to say is that apple might have played it safely, as they do often first gen products, and did not put in everything that could have been done and would have been good from a consumer point of view. In general the more RAM there is, the better for the user, especially when multitasking is right around the corner. Instead I think they kept costs down to have some flexibility on the price if the product doesn't sell right. I guess they have learned from the Newton that things can go wrong.
I have no iPad, so I have no idea if 256MB is enough for the normal user or not, but if you read about all those issues with Safari, something is wrong. Melgross also pointed out, IIRC, a limited size for the images he was able to work on in a given program, which might point to RAM limitations.
So, yes I believe they have considered putting in 512MB of RAM, and yes they have made the chose not to go into production with it. Again, they made the right chose from their point of view, and limited the timespan those first gen iPads will be useful for as they have limited RAM. And I think this might not be the best compromise for the consumer, but I certainly don't think I'm right or that apple is wrong. I just saying that there seem to be some issues, maybe with the Safari application itself, but given Melgross' example, RAM limitation could be an issue. Only time will tell, and we will se what happens when multitasking comes to the iPad.
As other phones are coming out with 512 MB of RAM in their SoC's, I think that Melgross is right and that the same amount of memory could have been a viable option in the iPad, at least from a technology POV, however I don't have enough facts to say that technical issues were not the reason Apple went with 256MB.
BTW do you have any facts to justify/explain apple's decision?
Use two fingers to scroll inside text boxes. This has been around since iPhone OS 1.0. Multitouch is your friend.
I never knew this was an option. I've always done the slow method I described earlier in this thread.
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell.
Have no axe to grind here - I'm an engineer who has chosen and integrated display within OEMs for a decade or so. I also have lots of phones so can compare them
That picture actually shows the true nature of Samsung's "Super AMOLED": basically, it's about 10% brighter and has slightly less surface reflectance, so the contrast ratio's a bit better too. All good but no game changer, sorry. That picture was taken in very controlled lighting conditions in Samsung's show booth.
Arrived at this thread late; lots of points to make.
1) "Super" AMOLED has the touch sensor integrated, rather than needing a separate layer. There's nothing really super about that - LCD TFTs can also integrate that and get the same boost of performance, which is about 10-15% more brightness for the same power.
2) Nexus One and HTC Desire use the last generation Samsung AMOLED. They have to overlay a separate touch sensor on top. Nexus uses a cheaper model which only supports dual touch; HTC have a multitouch version but they're the same AMOLED underneath.
3) "Super" AMOLEDs are still about half as bright as an equivalent TFT LCD so, while not quite as unusable than the older AMOLEDs, are still much less than half as easy to read in sunlight as a good TFT.
4) The iPhone doesn't actually use a very good LCD so don't base your assumptions of performance on that. The black brightness level is shocking, which means it has a very poor contrast ratio indoors; I find it quite painful to use in the dark on anything with a dark background. It also color shifts big time as you change the viewing angle. Motorola use a much better screen in the Droid so it's not like the LCDs aren't available - Apple have got some serious work to do here but, for the next few years at least, LCD is still the way to go and the iPad has shown that they do get what it takes to make a great screen.
5) I have an HTC Desire and a Nexus one and the Pentile pixel layout really bugs me - you see jagged edges on all the text and straight lines. Sure, it's high resolution so you need good eyesight but, once you've seen it, you can't unsee it. Also I don't like being cheated out of 1/3rd of the pixels I paid for (Pentile only gives you either a blue or red subpixel per white pixel, not both. You're guaranteed a green.)
6) Even the best AMOLED displays still use about 2-3 times as much power as equivalent TFT LCDs when displaying web content. It's insane how bad the battery life is and, helpfully, Android has a power meter that tells you what was to blame. Even on the Nexus running Flash in a web page, the display is still the main factor destroying the battery, by a mile.
7) The color reproduction on my HTC is awful (as proven by displaymate). It is so oversaturated that it hurts my eyes. Yes, that's a factor of the way that the pixels are driven, but that isn't up to the phone maker - it's up to Samsung who designed the integrated driver chip on the display module, aiming to exaggerate the colours to make you think the display is more vivid when, in fact, it's just fake. Side note: gamut is nothing to do with bits per pixel.
8) The eye strain you get from reading an AMOLED display seems much higher as the light is 100% artificial; on a mobile TFT LCD, part of the natural ambient light is reflected and that reduces the strain. (The least eye strain comes from 100% reflective displays like e-ink)
9) Real world AMOLED screens still have poor lifetimes and degrade inelegantly. You get screen burn and the blue fades much faster than the other colours. I did a side by side comparison of the HTC with a few other phones and it was clear that Samsung overdrive the blue pixels to try to prolong the display's usable lifetime. It really looks hideously blue to start with and, after a year, will look yellow and dim.
10) As others have pointed out, there's just no way Apple could use an AMOLED display as there aren't enough people making them. Only Samsung have invested heavily in them as others have spotted all the flaws. They have a lot tied up in this tech and are desperate to see it succeed - hence they are exaggerating all the benefits like mad and relying on marketing tricks like the whole "super" thing to try to put down the inherent weaknesses in the approach: relying on emitted light is a really bad plan.
So, ask yourself this: which company has the most money tied up in making AMOLED screens? Why did every other company stop or reduce their investment? Which company is producing all the hype and is telling you that "Super" AMOLED solves all the problems? Which company is trying to transition to using AMOLED across all its phones as soon as possible?
Which company relies on nasty tricks like dynamic contrast ratio to inflate all its headline figures on the TVs it sells? Which company has been sued for bribery, corruption and fraud across the management? I'm not saying they don't produce some great products, but is that a company whose word you should take as gospel?
[very long post]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge on the topic, I really enjoyed reading your post!
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
GSM arena did a Youtube vid comparing the Wave and iPhone 3G: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRkb75gjVD0
I also found this hands-on comparison:
Although the Samsung Wave?s 3.3-inch screen isn?t huge by today?s smartphone standards, it does a great job of rendering detail thanks to its 800×480 resolution and wonderfully bright Super AMOLED display. AMOLED screens are infamous for their poor performance in direct sunlight though, so we took the Samsung Wave out for a stroll out in the sun with an iPhone, which uses a standard LCD TFT, to see how they compare.
When not in sunlight, the Wave shames the iPhone in contrast terms ? blacks are so much blacker on the Super AMOLED screen ? but in sunlight reflectivity is noticeably better on the iPhone. It?s not a deal breaker though, especially when you can switch on the Wave?s Outdoor Visibility mode.
Outdoor Visibility cranks up colour saturation, and while it looks absolutely hideous when you?re indoors, it does the trick when out in the sun. This mode is available in the Wave?s features that rely most on screen visibility, such as the video player and camera.
http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/05...ds-on-preview/
Cnet compared the Wave to the iPhone and Nexus one and said the Wave definately had the better screen: http://cnettv.cnet.com/samsung-wave/...-50083771.html
I think Samsung should allow the user to adjust the contrast as it can be a bit over the top at Samsungs standard setting, but that doesn't mean the screen is infereior, just that Samsung should stop showing off so much with it.
Thanks for the very informative post. Didn't know many of the issues behind Super AMOLED vs. AMOLED vs. TFT LCD that you put out. Now I can see what Apple's decision makes sense.
Originally Posted by solipsism
I guarantee you that if Apple uses OLED it will not be the poor OLED used in the Nexus One. It sounds like you are getting hung up on an acronym and making a case that if Apple ever a better version of OLED, that doesn't yet exist in the market, that they are hypocrites, cheats and liars.
You also seem to be ignoring the long history of Apple choosing the best all around option, not the option that excels in one area but fails completely in others. There are many tests that clearly show the AMOLED used in the Nexus One is in many ways inferior to the iPhone's LCD.
BTW, competitors are moving to AMOLED because of the marketing hype behind it, not because they think it's better for the average user. This is a well worn idea. There have even been TV shows helping guys without personalities and confidence pickup up women by donning some ostentatious clothing so they can seem interesting. It's all a means to an end, it's just that some have more merit than others.
Super AMOLED seems to be the way to go, but I'm sure a quick glimpse at availability would have revealed insufficient production capacity to sustain a new iPhone model launch. My bet is that the capabilities of Super AMOLED are being finely examined and tested even as we speak.
That was a wise decision by Apple.
This is like Plasma vs LCD all over again, and we still haven't totally resolved that one.
Very interesting, but it's really hard to see from those pictures. Some had greater contrast, but that in itself isn't always good. I think we have to see it in "person" to tell. My iPhone looks better than anything I saw there, but that's to be expected, as the video camera contributes its own problems, and then there's compression for the internet, etc..
Don't forget too that you can overdo contrast as well. Our eyes aren't the only factor that determines how we see things. If you can display much darker darks & contrast sometimes that takes too much guess work away from the brain, which fills in guess work based on other times we have seen & observed objects and colors.
Early plasma used to suffer from a pixelated appearance because the plasma was too good at displaying subtle color differences. It would make plasma appear to have a slight background snow under the image. HD can also suffer from this sometimes, grainy film shots can be an eye sore because your eye isn't used to seeing pixelation.
This is like Plasma vs LCD all over again, and we still haven't totally resolved that one.
Well, we have really. The Pioneer KURO plasma still beats any LCD hands down, and you can check pretty much any professional review anywhere for confirmation. It's just too bad Pioneer couldn't afford to keep making them.
LCD is only winning in sales because it's cheap and in available in tiny sizes.
Don't forget too that you can overdo contrast as well. Our eyes aren't the only factor that determines how we see things. If you can display much darker darks & contrast sometimes that takes too much guess work away from the brain, which fills in guess work based on other times we have seen & observed objects and colors.
Early plasma used to suffer from a pixelated appearance because the plasma was too good at displaying subtle color differences. It would make plasma appear to have a slight background snow under the image. HD can also suffer from this sometimes, grainy film shots can be an eye sore because your eye isn't used to seeing pixelation.
Having been in the commercial side of color production, I can say that something that looks better to the general public is often, objectively, worse. Right now, AMOLED panels have terrible color. Whether this new panel has better color, or just more dramatic color, I don't know. That's why I have to see it. It's too bad we can't adjust the color and such on these screens. AMOLEDS might actually have very good color if we were allowed to adjust them to a standard, as I do with my monitors.
Well, we have really. The Pioneer KURO plasma still beats any LCD hands down, and you can check pretty much any professional review anywhere for confirmation. It's just too bad Pioneer couldn't afford to keep making them.
LCD is only winning in sales because it's cheap and in available in tiny sizes.
Well, actually, plasma Tv prices had dropped to even, or even below LCD Tv prices. There are very expensive models in both lines, but people are simply moving to LCD.