Apple expected to ditch aluminum, release glass-backed iPhone with OLED display in 2017

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 120
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 400member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Cost. Plasma is also superior to LCD for TV in terms of quality but it lost out due to cost. But if you're a connesiour of high quality images of would chose Plasma.
    LOL cost.  OLED are high end TV's selling for $10k or more.

    Samsung and everyone else besides LG dropped OLED because there are better technologies.

    LOL about Plasma. Ever had a plasma with image burn in? That aint high quality at all.
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
  • Reply 82 of 120
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,919member
    staticx57 said:
    sog35 said:
    LOL cost.  OLED are high end TV's selling for $10k or more.

    Samsung and everyone else besides LG dropped OLED because there are better technologies.

    LOL about Plasma. Ever had a plasma with image burn in? That aint high quality at all.
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
    Burn-in is always an issue in those colored molecules excited to emit light. LCD molecules are colored but not excited. Light is provided via backlighting. But when you continuously excite a molecule to emit light, some workout will happen and the substrate will deteriorate as a result of continuous excitement. So, burn-in. All LEDs and light bulbs have a finite life, which is shorter if you use it continuously. 
  • Reply 83 of 120
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,055member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
    Bullcrap.  Plasma burn in is a huge issue. What kind of bullshit technology is Plasma where you can't play a video game for a few hours without worrying about burn in?

    How do I know?  Because my plasma has burn in after playing a video game for a mere 2 hours on it. Crappy tech.  Just like OLED and the blue pixel crap.

    Just face it. OLED has some crappy things about it. If it didn't all the big boys would be making OLED TV's.
    I see two serious problems.  First the screen quality will degrade with time.  Second the whites consumes too much battery. 
  • Reply 84 of 120
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 400member
    staticx57 said:
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
    Burn-in is always an issue in those colored molecules excited to emit light. LCD molecules are colored but not excited. Light is provided via backlighting. But when you continuously excite a molecule to emit light, some workout will happen and the substrate will deteriorate as a result of continuous excitement. So, burn-in. All LEDs and light bulbs have a finite life, which is shorter if you use it continuously. 
    Yes, but TV is the least likeliest scenario for burn-in to happen especially in an enthusiast market that Plasma played in. Where the users would be the most likely to be knowledgeable, yes, a non-issue.

    But as you took it to the logical conclusion, EVERY display requires regular calibration due to back-light degradation over time as well. 
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 85 of 120
    brianmbrianm Posts: 26member
    I really hope it won't be glass back - as others have mentioned that much more glass to break, but purely from performance, glass is an insulator. The 4 & 4S would slow down to avoid overheating way more often than the newer 5/5S/6/6S do (they can if its really warm/direct sun, and/or have a case that reduces heat dissipation)
  • Reply 86 of 120
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 400member

    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
    Bullcrap.  Plasma burn in is a huge issue. What kind of bullshit technology is Plasma where you can't play a video game for a few hours without worrying about burn in?

    How do I know?  Because my plasma has burn in after playing a video game for a mere 2 hours on it. Crappy tech.  Just like OLED and the blue pixel crap.

    Just face it. OLED has some crappy things about it. If it didn't all the big boys would be making OLED TV's.
    Were you using a first generation plasma or something? Most of the major issues cited here are artifacts of early generation products lingering but were solved but not recognized.

    http://hometheaterreview.com/plasma-burn-in-is-it-still-a-cause-for-concern/
    cnocbui
  • Reply 87 of 120
    brianmbrianm Posts: 26member
    sog35 said:
    There are very good reasons why Apple has not done OLED for iPhone. Its not like OLED is top secret hard to get tech. Even cheap POS China brands have OLED screens. Its more about quality control.

    The short life of Blue OLED pixels is horrible. With quick dimming of Blue OLED your screen will never have color accuracy except for the first few months. The only way to correct this is with monthly calibration with expensive equipment done by experienced image engineers. 

    Second problem is OLED battery drain from displaying white. Most websites, spreadsheets, apps, and docs use white as a background. That is why OLED phones have much larger batteries.

    If OLED can fix these two problems then iPhone may get OLED.  But until then I'd rather have a phone with very good black levels (not as good as OLED) but with great color accuracy for the life of the phone.

    And those test by Andantech and Displaymate don't mean crap because those are new phones. Lets see them test those OLED phones after 12 months.
    There have been many advances in the past 6 years on Blue OLED - a quick search comes with up several going back to 2009 to get lifespans up to similar range with Red - although it likely took several years for that research to translate to "in production" tech, so maybe things are finally "ready".

    here is one example:  http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/18503/dupont-oled-technology-achieves-1-million-hours-lifetime
    cnocbui
  • Reply 88 of 120
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    cnocbui said:
    That's why you can't buy super expensive large OLED paneled TV's from LG or Samsung; but then again, maybe you are wrong and you can.

    My Olympus E-M5 had an OLED rear display and it was glorious.  Whites were white.  You haven't a clue.
    The problem with whites in oled is not what color they are but how much energy they consume. White oled consumes more energy than white LCD. Apple's use of oled in Apple Watch can only confirm that: All Apple Watch interface is white on black background.
    It isn't a problem, actually, because everything that isn't white, especially black, consumes less energy so the overall energy consumption works out to be less in total.  You seem to have a fixed notion that iOS can only always have a white background theme.  Has it occurred to you that Apple could provide the option of a dark background?  I'm sure if Microsoft can manage it with Windows Phone OS, that Apple could too.





  • Reply 89 of 120
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    linkman said:
    cnocbui said:

    Could you provide links to show that there are working professional photographers who use a phone-based workflow, as I don't believe they would except for relatively trivial usage.  I am surprised you would bring that up because the Samsung S6 and S7 displays seem better calibrated than an iPhone 6S Plus according to Anandtech's measurements, so mobile workflow pro photographers should be choosing them, shouldn't they?

    Some of these are 100% or mostly iPhone:
    http://www.bonappetit.com/people/shameless-plugs/article/march-culture-issue-iphone
    http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/01/one-iphone-photographers-workflow/
    http://www.cnet.com/news/pro-photographer-iphone-julian-calverley-interview/

    Except for one person, it doesn't appear to be consistent phone-only workflow. You are giving up a lot by sticking with a little screen and no permanent tactile keyboard.
    Thanks, the question really wasn't photographers using an iPhone, it was the whole workflow claim.  I checked the first link and:

    What was post-production like?
    Opperman: I took an Amtrak back from DC to NY and the fun part was sitting on the train, doing what I normally do—a.k.a. playing with my phone—except this time it was for work. I didn’t have to get back to my computer and start this whole process.

    Haas: We still edited everything on the computer. I used the same principles as when I shoot Canon; for instance, having a really strong composition is important.

    Gardner:I’d recommend sticking with your choice of editing software; I still like working with the photos in Capture One.


    Second link - processing for Instagram - that is what I call 'trivial usage'.

    The third link actually does mention a phone based workflow, but that is only for photos shot on the iPhone.  He obviously wasn't using his phone to process his bread and butter work taken with his Phase One.

  • Reply 90 of 120
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    This reminds of 2011, when the rumor mill was saying early on in the year that Apple has a brand new 4" iPhone design with LTE but they are not releasing until next year, and they are releasing an iPhone 4S this year, but it will be delayed from summer to fall.

    Personally I couldn't care less if Apple redesigns the iPhone every 2 years. Most real customers don't care either. But man oh man will the tech blog world eat Apple alive if the iPhone 7 turns out to be the iPhone 6GS.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 91 of 120
    19831983 Posts: 1,201member
    A glass back to make it stand out from the competition? Doesn't the Samsung S7/Edge have a glass back and AMOLED? That's Apple's biggest competition right there.
  • Reply 92 of 120
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,791member
    Glass recycling is usually green, brown, clear. I don't think there's much of a market for black, white, rose gold and space gray recycled glass.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 93 of 120
    cnocbui said:
    The problem with whites in oled is not what color they are but how much energy they consume. White oled consumes more energy than white LCD. Apple's use of oled in Apple Watch can only confirm that: All Apple Watch interface is white on black background.
    It isn't a problem, actually, because everything that isn't white, especially black, consumes less energy so the overall energy consumption works out to be less in total.  You seem to have a fixed notion that iOS can only always have a white background theme.  Has it occurred to you that Apple could provide the option of a dark background?  I'm sure if Microsoft can manage it with Windows Phone OS, that Apple could too.







    Again showing your complete ignorance on readability and usability. Yes it's easy to reverse the color schemes, but it's HARDER ON THE EYES. This has been documented way back since the 80's (when monitors were green on black) through numerous studies on the readability of text.

    There's a very simple reason why we use black text on a white (or off-white) background. It's EASIER TO READ. Although there are certain circumstances where white text on a black background is better, these cases are in the minority.

    You'd have to be a complete idiot to switch to a color scheme that's less readable and harder on your eyes just to save a bit of battery power.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 94 of 120
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    fallenjt said:Every phone is already half glass. Besides, iPhone 4/4S were damn successful with no complaints about the back glass. Now, all the sudden, back glass is bad...
    BTW, Samsung best selling flagships also have back glass in the last 2 years. 
    In my 7 years of iPhone usage (6 iPhones from almost every generation), I dropped my phone twice: one caused a chip in the corner of iPhone 6 and one shattered screen of my 6+. Both times were my reckless habit for putting the phone into pants pocket without looking.
    The correct response to this news is:
    - Yuck AMOLED, burn-in, yellowing, pre-mature ageing, easily damaged (look up "AMOLED damage" or "AMOLED defect")
    - Glass backs will likely result in an increase use of bumper/sock's to prevent fall damage. Remember what happened with the iPhone 4 due to the antenna design? 

    Most people who value their device end up covering the iPhone with a plastic or rubber case anyway. So let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the material of the phone actually matters short of crush-strength when thrown in rear pockets (you should never use rear pockets for anything thicker than a credit card.) 

    edited April 2016
  • Reply 95 of 120
    talexytalexy Posts: 64member
    Don't if someone already mentioned it. But 2017 is more likely a S year, so if there is to come a new glass-design, it would come in 2018 or, unlikely, 2016. 
  • Reply 96 of 120
    So what we will have is fashionable design that will go into rugged and ugly case to protect from damage. How about making that glass strong so drop on flor from some height does not brake it? You know my iPod Toch 1st gen. was getting scratches, but never got broken glass when fel on floor. I am not saying it was not breakable, but at least some modest pounding was not breaking my pocket with expensive glass repairs. Not so with iPhone 6 and others. Put it in cheap plastic until proper material design technologists come up with something. Fashion is least important part of mobile device design - portability, functions and sturidness is.
  • Reply 97 of 120
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,791member
    ericthehalfbee said:

    There's a very simple reason why we use black text on a white (or off-white) background. It's EASIER TO READ. Although there are certain circumstances where white text on a black background is better, these cases are in the minority.
    Easier to read has never been a very high priority for Apple. 4 pt. light gray thin text on a gray background is not exactly easy to read especially when outdoors in the sunlight, but it is supposed to be stylish I guess. I really dislike web sites that lock the viewport on iPhone so the text cannot be zoomed. When I land on one of those sites with tiny text, I instantly bail.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 98 of 120
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Cost. Plasma is also superior to LCD for TV in terms of quality but it lost out due to cost. But if you're a connesiour of high quality images of would chose Plasma.
    LOL cost.  OLED are high end TV's selling for $10k or more.

    Samsung and everyone else besides LG dropped OLED because there are better technologies.

    LOL about Plasma. Ever had a plasma with image burn in? That aint high quality at all.
    The burn in problem was fixed years ago. Even the display life was improved to be longer than LCD. 
  • Reply 99 of 120
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Cost. Plasma is also superior to LCD for TV in terms of quality but it lost out due to cost. But if you're a connesiour of high quality images of would chose Plasma.
    LOL cost.  OLED are high end TV's selling for $10k or more.

    Samsung and everyone else besides LG dropped OLED because there are better technologies.

    LOL about Plasma. Ever had a plasma with image burn in? That aint high quality at all.
    No, Samsung stopped because they had production issues, not because there are better technologies.  The large panel OLEDs are notoriously difficult to make with terrible yields.  LG's production process is obviously superior. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/11/05/samsung-snubs-oled-tvs-until-at-least-2016-lg-poised-to-cash-in/#7787b37c7826

  • Reply 100 of 120
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Yes, cost. LCDs were cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to advance technology wise, and thus cheaper to scale. People bought super cheap LCDs and Plasmas remained a niche item with no cost advantage.

    And one of those better technologies is NOT LCD.

    If you took care of your Plasma burn-in was a non-issue.
    Bullcrap.  Plasma burn in is a huge issue. What kind of bullshit technology is Plasma where you can't play a video game for a few hours without worrying about burn in?

    How do I know?  Because my plasma has burn in after playing a video game for a mere 2 hours on it. Crappy tech.  Just like OLED and the blue pixel crap.

    Just face it. OLED has some crappy things about it. If it didn't all the big boys would be making OLED TV's.
    Bullcrap yourself.  I have a Panasonic Viera plasma TV and I couldn't count the number of hours that have been spent gaming on it.  It's unquestionably far more time than has been spent watching programming.  No burn in whatsoever and the response  time is blazingly fast which makes it far batter suited for gaming than any LCD.

    What brand is your Plasma?

    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.