I've looked for something that supports your claim and can't find anything. Where did you see that Samsung had a substantial investment in Displaymate?
Their investment is this
"Samsung provided DisplayMate Technologies with early pre-release production units of both the Galaxy S6 and the Galaxy S6 Edge"
Apple does not provide sample so when Samsung is providing them access to prototypes it an investment in ensuring a good outcome. Displaymate can not say they are not unbais. Also keep in mind Displaymate makes a living off providing the media industry information they can publish for click bait. I have said this before you can do all the theoretical testing you like unless it translated to the real world it is totally meaningless.
Also these guys are not taking into consideration all the trade offs, today you can not make a display that perfectly represents the real world so you have a compremise and these guys never talk about which trade off is better than others.
If you hold your Apple Watch with sapphire screen at just the right angle to the light, you can see the "worry and disappointment since Steve died" written all over it. /s
"While the Sport starts at $349, even the cheapest sapphire model is $549, although that also comes with the benefit of stainless steel casing instead of aluminum."
What, exactly, is the benefit of the stainless steel casing?
From my perspective, the stainless steel model has three disadvantages versus the aluminum model
1. Steel is heavier.
2. Stainless steel is glossy, which means it shows fingerprints/smudges, a problem I have yet to have with my aluminum sport model.
3. The Stainless steel model costs more.
But it's way more beautiful, and is the default choice in watch manufacturing of the better watches. It looks more like a regular watch, imho.
And it's not noticeably heavier, nor does it smudge.
I've already, in the couple of weeks I've had it, whacked my watch into door jams way too many times to count (once every couple of days I seem to cut that corner just a bit too close...). Not a mark on it so I, for one, am going to stay pleased with the more scratch resistant Sapphire I seem to need!
Haven't noticed any readability issues. People's ITRW mileage varies I assume.
Couldn't agree more. I've whacked mine around quite a bit as well, and not a scratch! I am quite impressed.
nope. Samsung 'invested' a good chunk of money in DisplayMate a few years ago. Read all the reviews since the iPhone5S. The Samsung bias is obvious.
I would like to see a link or proof of this. Always asking for one when it's something not that good about Apple, it's only fair you provide one the other way around.
Well, I am really loving the matted finish of my ? Watch Sport — especially with the black band. Being a couch potatoe, desk-hogging developer I have no scratch on its surface yet.
Hopefully, Apple will not only go down the bling-bling road in the future but also offer other material versions with a matted finish. Maybe in titan or ceramic, with corresponding buckles made of these materials on the bands as well.
Contrastgate? Doesn't rhyme with Watergate. Let me come up with some rhymes, by going through the alphabet. Bottergate - Skynet. Daughtergate - Arnold's out of wedlock child. Or "Fathergate". Foughthergate - Chris Brown beat up Rhianna. Gothergate - O.J. killed his girlfriend. Hottergate - Global warming conspiracy. Kottergate - John Travolta's real orientation. Plottergate - the "real" 9/11 planners. Qatargate - The world cup bribery scandal for Qatar in 2022.
Some of the notes from link above about post iPhoen5S devices...
"The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are the current Best Mobile LCD Displays "
"
In our detailed Lab tests the measured Absolute Color Accuracy for the for the iPhone 6 is 2.6 JNCD, and for the iPhone 6 Plus 3.1 JNCD. See thisFigure for an explanation and visual definition of JNCD and the Color Accuracy Plots showing the measured display Color Errors. Both are Very Good, among the most accurate mobile displays we have ever measured, and are very likely considerably more accurate than your living room TV. See theColor Accuracy section and the Color Accuracy Plots for measurements and details.
"
"Reflectance – the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have both. They each provide over 550 cd/m2 (Luminance, which is a measure of Brightness sometimes called nits), among the brightest that we have ever measured for a Smartphone, and considerably higher than the Full HD LCD Smartphones that we tested in 2013."
"On the other hand, for a Full White Screen with 100 percent APL, the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are 45 percent more display power efficient than the latest OLED Galaxy Note 4 display."
"The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have significantly better Viewing Angle performance than the iPhone 5 or any other LCD that we have ever tested"
Notice that it's much more difficult to make out the bezels on the Sapphire screen. I would take that trade off. It's easy enough to cover the screen with your hand if it's a little difficult to read in direct sunlight.
I thought this fact was already known and established months ago?
It was. There is nothing new in this - it is the same problem that has always existed for sapphire windows, because without coatings (which defeat the purpose of using sapphire) there is virtually nothing that can be done about the refractive index, which determines reflectance. The 74% extra reflectance figure quoted is probably correct, but it should be taken in the context of the actual reflectances of the materials, which are roughly 7.5% for sapphire and 4% for ion exchange glass products for normally incident illumination.
They've also rightly panned certain Apple products, such as the terrible iPad Mini 2 and 3.
I have never had a problem with my iPad mini 2's display. Compared to my previous small screen tablet, a Galaxy Tab 2 7.0, it is excellent both in display quality and touch response.
Refractive index has nothing directly to do with light transmission. Grossly simplified, it's the ratio of the speed of light in the material to the speed of light in the medium that the material happens to be in, determining how strongly light is bent passing through something. Usually it's compared to air, sometimes water or vacuum.
What the refractive index tells you is how strongly light bends when traveling between the material and the medium it's in. Diamond has an index of refraction of about 2.417, which is why brilliant cut diamonds sparkle so brightly. Beside transmission, reflection, and refraction, there is also dispersion to consider, which varies according to frequency, and is what causes rainbows, why different transparent materials might make better or worse prisms, etc. (This could all get lost down the rabbit hole...)
Refractive index has nothing directly to do with light transmission. Grossly simplified, it's the ratio of the speed of light in the material to the speed of light in the medium that the material happens to be in, determining how strongly light is bent passing through something. Usually it's compared to air, sometimes water or vacuum.
What the refractive index tells you is how strongly light bends when traveling between the material and the medium it's in. Diamond has an index of refraction of about 2.417, which is why brilliant cut diamonds sparkle so brightly. Beside transmission, reflection, and refraction, there is also dispersion to consider, which varies according to frequency, and is what causes rainbows, why different transparent materials might make better or worse prisms, etc. (This could all get lost down the rabbit hole...)
Optical physics is fun. It's not simple.
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
R = {(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)}2
Yeah, my first sentence was badly phrased. For most casual use, you can treat transparency/reflectance/refraction separately. Everything is pretty much tangled together if you look closer. And the rabbit hole was referring to getting into those fine entangled details, bringing in their train all our old friends like Brewster, Snellius, Kepler, Huyghens, Newton, Maxwell, a bunch of Greeks, quantum optics, ...
Apologies, my last math-heavy optical physics class was almost 50 years ago.
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
R = {(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)}2
Yeah, my first sentence was badly phrased. For most casual use, you can treat transparency/reflectance/refraction separately. Everything is pretty much tangled together if you look closer. And the rabbit hole was referring to getting into those fine entangled details, bringing in their train all our old friends like Brewster, Snellius, Kepler, Huyghens, Newton, Maxwell, a bunch of Greeks, quantum optics, ...
Apologies, my last math-heavy optical physics class was almost 50 years ago.
No problem. But I would still emphasize that the reflectance differences observed between uncoated glass and sapphire are entirely due to refractive index, so you really cannot treat them separately, however casually, in this discussion.
This is a plus for my having gotten the sports watch version, but the bigger problem with sapphire is that it's more prone to shattering, which I've heard a couple of stories about.
Absolute nonsense supported by "I've heard a couple of stories" You have to be kidding.
I have worn watches with sapphire faces most of my life they are -incredibly- durable AND scratch resistant. I have on many occasions been amazed that the face didn't break (considering the force it took)
I can't speak to the AppleWatch specifically, however sapphire faces are nothing short of amazing in terms of real world durability.
I have never had a problem with my iPad mini 2's display. Compared to my previous small screen tablet, a Galaxy Tab 2 7.0, it is excellent both in display quality and touch response.
Glad you're happy. I like my Mini 2 as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that the home screen looks like a washed out piece of garbage next to an iPhone 5 or 6.
Comments
Their investment is this
"Samsung provided DisplayMate Technologies with early pre-release production units of both the Galaxy S6 and the Galaxy S6 Edge"
Apple does not provide sample so when Samsung is providing them access to prototypes it an investment in ensuring a good outcome. Displaymate can not say they are not unbais. Also keep in mind Displaymate makes a living off providing the media industry information they can publish for click bait. I have said this before you can do all the theoretical testing you like unless it translated to the real world it is totally meaningless.
Also these guys are not taking into consideration all the trade offs, today you can not make a display that perfectly represents the real world so you have a compremise and these guys never talk about which trade off is better than others.
"While the Sport starts at $349, even the cheapest sapphire model is $549, although that also comes with the benefit of stainless steel casing instead of aluminum."
What, exactly, is the benefit of the stainless steel casing?
From my perspective, the stainless steel model has three disadvantages versus the aluminum model
1. Steel is heavier.
2. Stainless steel is glossy, which means it shows fingerprints/smudges, a problem I have yet to have with my aluminum sport model.
3. The Stainless steel model costs more.
But it's way more beautiful, and is the default choice in watch manufacturing of the better watches. It looks more like a regular watch, imho.
And it's not noticeably heavier, nor does it smudge.
I've already, in the couple of weeks I've had it, whacked my watch into door jams way too many times to count (once every couple of days I seem to cut that corner just a bit too close...). Not a mark on it so I, for one, am going to stay pleased with the more scratch resistant Sapphire I seem to need!
Haven't noticed any readability issues. People's ITRW mileage varies I assume.
Couldn't agree more. I've whacked mine around quite a bit as well, and not a scratch! I am quite impressed.
I would like to see a link or proof of this. Always asking for one when it's something not that good about Apple, it's only fair you provide one the other way around.
Hopefully, Apple will not only go down the bling-bling road in the future but also offer other material versions with a matted finish. Maybe in titan or ceramic, with corresponding buckles made of these materials on the bands as well.
Bottergate - Skynet.
Daughtergate - Arnold's out of wedlock child. Or "Fathergate".
Foughthergate - Chris Brown beat up Rhianna.
Gothergate - O.J. killed his girlfriend.
Hottergate - Global warming conspiracy.
Kottergate - John Travolta's real orientation.
Plottergate - the "real" 9/11 planners.
Qatargate - The world cup bribery scandal for Qatar in 2022.
nope. Samsung 'invested' a good chunk of money in DisplayMate a few years ago. Read all the reviews since the iPhone5S. The Samsung bias is obvious.
There's bias alright, only it's yours.
http://www.displaymate.com/iPhone6_ShootOut.htm
Some of the notes from link above about post iPhoen5S devices...
"The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are the current Best Mobile LCD Displays "
"
In our detailed Lab tests the measured Absolute Color Accuracy for the for the iPhone 6 is 2.6 JNCD, and for the iPhone 6 Plus 3.1 JNCD. See thisFigure for an explanation and visual definition of JNCD and the Color Accuracy Plots showing the measured display Color Errors. Both are Very Good, among the most accurate mobile displays we have ever measured, and are very likely considerably more accurate than your living room TV. See theColor Accuracy section and the Color Accuracy Plots for measurements and details.
"
"Reflectance – the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have both. They each provide over 550 cd/m2 (Luminance, which is a measure of Brightness sometimes called nits), among the brightest that we have ever measured for a Smartphone, and considerably higher than the Full HD LCD Smartphones that we tested in 2013."
"On the other hand, for a Full White Screen with 100 percent APL, the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are 45 percent more display power efficient than the latest OLED Galaxy Note 4 display."
"The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have significantly better Viewing Angle performance than the iPhone 5 or any other LCD that we have ever tested"
Though I love stainless, I thought it best to test the Apple Watch waters with the Sport for the first iteration.
I like it and use it a lot.
I thought this fact was already known and established months ago?
It was. There is nothing new in this - it is the same problem that has always existed for sapphire windows, because without coatings (which defeat the purpose of using sapphire) there is virtually nothing that can be done about the refractive index, which determines reflectance. The 74% extra reflectance figure quoted is probably correct, but it should be taken in the context of the actual reflectances of the materials, which are roughly 7.5% for sapphire and 4% for ion exchange glass products for normally incident illumination.
I have never had a problem with my iPad mini 2's display. Compared to my previous small screen tablet, a Galaxy Tab 2 7.0, it is excellent both in display quality and touch response.
Some people like to have a bit of weight to their watches, especially the more expensive ones.
Steel is just more shiny..
Simple physics.
Gorilla glass refractive index n=1.51
Sapphire n=1.77
Air n=1
Refractive index has nothing directly to do with light transmission. Grossly simplified, it's the ratio of the speed of light in the material to the speed of light in the medium that the material happens to be in, determining how strongly light is bent passing through something. Usually it's compared to air, sometimes water or vacuum.
What the refractive index tells you is how strongly light bends when traveling between the material and the medium it's in. Diamond has an index of refraction of about 2.417, which is why brilliant cut diamonds sparkle so brightly. Beside transmission, reflection, and refraction, there is also dispersion to consider, which varies according to frequency, and is what causes rainbows, why different transparent materials might make better or worse prisms, etc. (This could all get lost down the rabbit hole...)
Optical physics is fun. It's not simple.
No months a go it was speculation on their part, and since Apple would not give them a prototype verse selling
Simple physics.
Gorilla glass refractive index n=1.51
Sapphire n=1.77
Air n=1
Refractive index has nothing directly to do with light transmission. Grossly simplified, it's the ratio of the speed of light in the material to the speed of light in the medium that the material happens to be in, determining how strongly light is bent passing through something. Usually it's compared to air, sometimes water or vacuum.
What the refractive index tells you is how strongly light bends when traveling between the material and the medium it's in. Diamond has an index of refraction of about 2.417, which is why brilliant cut diamonds sparkle so brightly. Beside transmission, reflection, and refraction, there is also dispersion to consider, which varies according to frequency, and is what causes rainbows, why different transparent materials might make better or worse prisms, etc. (This could all get lost down the rabbit hole...)
Optical physics is fun. It's not simple.
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
R = {(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)}2
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
R = {(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)}2
Yeah, my first sentence was badly phrased. For most casual use, you can treat transparency/reflectance/refraction separately. Everything is pretty much tangled together if you look closer. And the rabbit hole was referring to getting into those fine entangled details, bringing in their train all our old friends like Brewster, Snellius, Kepler, Huyghens, Newton, Maxwell, a bunch of Greeks, quantum optics, ...
Apologies, my last math-heavy optical physics class was almost 50 years ago.
That is incorrect, and there is no rabbit hole here. The Fresnel equations for reflectance depend only on refractive index (n), which is itself wavelength dependent, and angle of incidence, and for normal incidence reduce simply to:
R = {(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)}2
Yeah, my first sentence was badly phrased. For most casual use, you can treat transparency/reflectance/refraction separately. Everything is pretty much tangled together if you look closer. And the rabbit hole was referring to getting into those fine entangled details, bringing in their train all our old friends like Brewster, Snellius, Kepler, Huyghens, Newton, Maxwell, a bunch of Greeks, quantum optics, ...
Apologies, my last math-heavy optical physics class was almost 50 years ago.
No problem. But I would still emphasize that the reflectance differences observed between uncoated glass and sapphire are entirely due to refractive index, so you really cannot treat them separately, however casually, in this discussion.
This is a plus for my having gotten the sports watch version, but the bigger problem with sapphire is that it's more prone to shattering, which I've heard a couple of stories about.
Absolute nonsense supported by "I've heard a couple of stories" You have to be kidding.
I have worn watches with sapphire faces most of my life they are -incredibly- durable AND scratch resistant. I have on many occasions been amazed that the face didn't break (considering the force it took)
I can't speak to the AppleWatch specifically, however sapphire faces are nothing short of amazing in terms of real world durability.
I have never had a problem with my iPad mini 2's display. Compared to my previous small screen tablet, a Galaxy Tab 2 7.0, it is excellent both in display quality and touch response.
Glad you're happy. I like my Mini 2 as well. However, that doesn't change the fact that the home screen looks like a washed out piece of garbage next to an iPhone 5 or 6.