I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
My wife and I had phones that were 3 and 4 years old and got an 8 and 8plus. We weren't going to wait for a more expensive phone that would be in limited supply for months with possible face unlocking bugs.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
And you're future-proofed for what iOS can do with that upgraded hardware (ARkit, etc.).
I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
My wife and I had phones that were 3 and 4 years old and got an 8 and 8plus. We weren't going to wait for a more expensive phone that would be in limited supply for months with possible face unlocking bugs.
Ditto... My wife went from a 5 to an 8 and I went from a 5s to an 8Plus. Big upgrade for us, we tend toward a 4 year cycle as long as the phones hold out and so far we have done good on that part. This is our 3rd iPhone each.
I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
Google Pixel 2 is flawed by screen burn in. OLED defendents claimed that that was an old issue already resolved. But a recent phone with presumably good tech still presents OLED burn in.
So I wouldn’t take the risk, even with Apple and would stay with the good old LCD. I bought my iPhone 8 Plus a couple of days ago and TrueTone is wonderful.
The 2XL with the burn-in uses Plastic OLED, versus AMOLED. We'll see what Apple's using -- but I suspect it's the latter.
Isn’t POLED and AMOLED just the names LG and Samsung use for their display tech?
It is, but there is a huge difference in the maturity of the display technology deployed by those 2 companies. LG has started with the OLED display technology for smartphones only this year. All of their flagship phones until last year used LCD technology. Samsung has been using OLED for lot of years and faced burn-in in earlier years and resolved the issues and matured the technology to what it is now. So there is an important distinction to be made, while talking about OLED which was NOT made by @macplusplus. Mike was correct in pointing out the differences. The chances of iPhone X suffering from burn-in should be close to Nil because Apple chose Samsung to manufacture the panels for them who are at a different level in this technology.
1. This isn't LG first mobile OLED. P-OLED and AMOLED came out at about the same time. But Samsung has millions of its flagship phone to test and put out their AMOLED. LG never really had a mobile phone business, at least not in any decent size, and especially not in the top end market where these OLED are used. LG decide to focus on larger panels with their WOLED, and see how well they are doing now on that front.
2. The burn in issues do exist in Samsung's panel, but they have been improving on it for so long that you are not likely to see it in one to 2 years time. And that is a problem, because Apple's iPhone tends to have a longer usage cycle then Android...........
3. I still dont understand why Apple choose to use OLED. There isn't anyone who could provide them alternative quality OLED screen next year. And highly unlikely in 2019. So Apple is basically stuck with Samsung for nearly three years with no creditable alternative sources. Yes there are huge number of Chinese companies making and jumping on the OLED tech, but i dont expect them to come close to Samsung in such short period time. JDI is only just starting now..............
So the 6s/plus “only” sold 33% more in 5 days than the 8/plus did in 11 days? I know we’re talking about percentages of percentages, but the comparison doesn’t seem as rosy as I was hoping for based on the headline.
I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
Google Pixel 2 is flawed by screen burn in. OLED defendents claimed that that was an old issue already resolved. But a recent phone with presumably good tech still presents OLED burn in.
So I wouldn’t take the risk, even with Apple and would stay with the good old LCD. I bought my iPhone 8 Plus a couple of days ago and TrueTone is wonderful.
The 2XL with the burn-in uses Plastic OLED, versus AMOLED. We'll see what Apple's using -- but I suspect it's the latter.
Isn’t POLED and AMOLED just the names LG and Samsung use for their display tech?
It is, but there is a huge difference in the maturity of the display technology deployed by those 2 companies. LG has started with the OLED display technology for smartphones only this year. All of their flagship phones until last year used LCD technology. Samsung has been using OLED for lot of years and faced burn-in in earlier years and resolved the issues and matured the technology to what it is now. So there is an important distinction to be made, while talking about OLED which was NOT made by @macplusplus. Mike was correct in pointing out the differences. The chances of iPhone X suffering from burn-in should be close to Nil because Apple chose Samsung to manufacture the panels for them who are at a different level in this technology.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
That's like touting the latest specs on a top-line gaming rig with a 16 core Ryzen processor, 32GB RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti video card. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference when they are posting on Facebook and Instagram, sending messages, or browsing the internet. I've got a 6 Plus that would be perfectly functional if it just had the 2GB RAM it should have come with in the first place. The processor is far from being the limiting component.
I do think you are overselling the real-world capabilities of the A11 Bionic. The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs for at least another three or four years until it stops getting system updates (likely with iOS 15). Sure there will be some advanced software that requires the A11 to run, but it will likely be of very niche appeal as developers continue to write for all phones that support the latest operating system for the foreseeable future.
3. I still dont understand why Apple choose to use OLED. There isn't anyone who could provide them alternative quality OLED screen next year. And highly unlikely in 2019. So Apple is basically stuck with Samsung for nearly three years with no creditable alternative sources. Yes there are huge number of Chinese companies making and jumping on the OLED tech, but i dont expect them to come close to Samsung in such short period time. JDI is only just starting now..............
Apple would never stick itself to 60% yield of Samsung’s OLED production and the $120-130 panel price it imposes. So think of Samsung OLED as interim solution and trust on Apple’s ongoing commitment to LCD with 8 series. Apple’s future may rather be microLED, not OLED, they’ve bought LuxVue for that.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
Very true. The A11 Bionic represents Apple's first major step into integrating on-device AI with their cloud efforts.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
That's like touting the latest specs on a top-line gaming rig with a 16 core Ryzen processor, 32GB RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti video card. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference when they are posting on Facebook and Instagram, sending messages, or browsing the internet. I've got a 6 Plus that would be perfectly functional if it just had the 2GB RAM it should have come with in the first place. The processor is far from being the limiting component.
I do think you are overselling the real-world capabilities of the A11 Bionic. The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs for at least another three or four years until it stops getting system updates (likely with iOS 15). Sure there will be some advanced software that requires the A11 to run, but it will likely be of very niche appeal as developers continue to write for all phones that support the latest operating system for the foreseeable future.
When recording 4K video @60 fps the difference between 2-core and 6-core will reveal itself. When playing 3D games Metal-2 will reveal itself. When a company comes in with meaningful outdoor data AR will reveal itself. The buyer category you totalitarize under the term “average consumer” doesn’t even need the 7 to be “average consumer”, 6s/SE would do the job.
There are three CPUs: A9, A10, A11. And three corresponding iPhone ranges: 6s/SE, 7, 8/X making low-end, mid-range and high-end. It is pointless to trying to “destroy” any high-end range by means of an “average consumer” argument, whether it is computer, printer, or smartphone.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
That's like touting the latest specs on a top-line gaming rig with a 16 core Ryzen processor, 32GB RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti video card. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference when they are posting on Facebook and Instagram, sending messages, or browsing the internet. I've got a 6 Plus that would be perfectly functional if it just had the 2GB RAM it should have come with in the first place. The processor is far from being the limiting component.
I do think you are overselling the real-world capabilities of the A11 Bionic. The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs for at least another three or four years until it stops getting system updates (likely with iOS 15). Sure there will be some advanced software that requires the A11 to run, but it will likely be of very niche appeal as developers continue to write for all phones that support the latest operating system for the foreseeable future.
When recording 4K video @60 fps the difference between 2-core and 6-core will reveal itself. When playing 3D games Metal-2 will reveal itself. When a company comes in with meaningful outdoor data AR will reveal itself. The buyer category you totalitarize under the term “average consumer” doesn’t even need the 7 to be “average consumer”, 6s/SE would do the job.
There are three CPUs: A9, A10, A11. And three corresponding iPhone ranges: 6s/SE, 7, 8/X making low-end, mid-range and high-end. It is pointless to trying to “destroy” any high-end range by means of an “average consumer” argument, whether it is computer, printer, or smartphone.
Except even by your own account, the current use for all of this is still very limited, and that's my point. There are some people for whom it makes a difference, but for the vast majority it doesn't, and that's a big part of what drives sales. If I need to get a new phone, it makes sense to future proof by getting the 8 instead of the 7, but if it isn't necessary for the present, why not just wait until next year when they release the A12 processor? Most people decide to upgrade based on their present needs. After they decide to upgrade, they pick which phone to upgrade to based on expected future needs.
There is no denying that the A11 is an outstanding processor. But when the A10 and even the A9 can still handle most if not all of the current tasks, it isn't a compelling reason to buy a new phone. If the low-medium-high end choice is between a Porsche, a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, the number of people who need a Lamborghini is pretty small. (The fact that it looks virtually identical to a 6s doesn't help the fact, either.)
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
That's like touting the latest specs on a top-line gaming rig with a 16 core Ryzen processor, 32GB RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti video card. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference when they are posting on Facebook and Instagram, sending messages, or browsing the internet. I've got a 6 Plus that would be perfectly functional if it just had the 2GB RAM it should have come with in the first place. The processor is far from being the limiting component.
I do think you are overselling the real-world capabilities of the A11 Bionic. The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs for at least another three or four years until it stops getting system updates (likely with iOS 15). Sure there will be some advanced software that requires the A11 to run, but it will likely be of very niche appeal as developers continue to write for all phones that support the latest operating system for the foreseeable future.
When recording 4K video @60 fps the difference between 2-core and 6-core will reveal itself. When playing 3D games Metal-2 will reveal itself. When a company comes in with meaningful outdoor data AR will reveal itself. The buyer category you totalitarize under the term “average consumer” doesn’t even need the 7 to be “average consumer”, 6s/SE would do the job.
There are three CPUs: A9, A10, A11. And three corresponding iPhone ranges: 6s/SE, 7, 8/X making low-end, mid-range and high-end. It is pointless to trying to “destroy” any high-end range by means of an “average consumer” argument, whether it is computer, printer, or smartphone.
Except even by your own account, the current use for all of this is still very limited, and that's my point. There are some people for whom it makes a difference, but for the vast majority it doesn't, and that's a big part of what drives sales. If I need to get a new phone, it makes sense to future proof by getting the 8 instead of the 7, but if it isn't necessary for the present, why not just wait until next year when they release the A12 processor? Most people decide to upgrade based on their present needs. After they decide to upgrade, they pick which phone to upgrade to based on expected future needs.
A11 is a significant jump forward. Such jumps don't occur every year, it takes about 4 - 5 years. A11 is the biggest CPU improvement since the jump to 64-bit with A7. So next year's A12 will not be much different from this year's A11. The issue "if it isn't necessary for the present, why not just wait until next year" was valid for the whole personal computing history but that didn't prevent progress. That argument cannot be used to discredit a breakthrough desktop class CPU and the 8/X series developed to unleash the full power of it.
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
That's just not good enough. Hope the X is something special. Otherwise I totally agree that a 6s is not worth updating right now, those phones are fast enough already to handle any task, camera and display are good enough. Who needs color accuracy for $700??
Except Apple didn’t release a 7s. They released an 8 and the X, so we don’t know how a 7S would have sold. 🙄
Sure they did - it's just called the iPhone 8.
As far as the 'Duh' comment goes - I totally agree. There is very little difference between the 6s, the 7 and the 8 (headphone jack, waterproofing, some incremental changes in the camera and now wireless charging) to excite most people about upgrading. When you dangle the iPhone X on top of that, who can blame people for waiting?
The A11 Bionic is the difference. It is not an incremental change, it is a substantial jump forward and the only jump since four years after A7 which was a jump to 64-bit. With a 7 you can go further at most one year, but 8 series will support you at least four years.
True, I forgot about that, but very few people were actually limited by the processor before. The A9 in my 6s is doing great. The home screen may open 200ms faster on the 8, but I'm not going to pay $700 for that. I suspect many people are in the same boat. In years past 2 model years made a huge difference in features and performance. Not so much any more.
You don’t pay $700 for 200 ms gain, you pay that for 6 cores, Apple GPU, Neural Engine, OIS and better image signal processor, wireless charging, TrueTone display, color accuracy... Not all of these can be summarized as 200 ms.
But how many users actually see a practical real world daily benefit from that new A11 chip? According up Apple battery life is about the same as the 7. Most people aren't going you see any real benefit. Most apps and processes are plenty fast on the A9 and A10
A11 is a significant jump forward. Such jumps don't occur every year, it takes about 4 - 5 years. A11 is the biggest CPU improvement since the jump to 64-bit with A7. So next year's A12 will not be much different from this year's A11. The issue "if it isn't necessary for the present, why not just wait until next year" was valid for the whole personal computing history but that didn't prevent progress. That argument cannot be used to discredit a breakthrough desktop class CPU and the 8/X series developed to unleash the full power of it.
*sigh* No one is talking about progress or discrediting tha A11, only the necessity/usefulness of its processing power at the current time. You seem to be having difficulty grasping that.
I have long since gotten over the need to have the latest, fastest device simply because it’s the best. If you want/need to do so, go right ahead. I’ll save the $700 for a house payment, car payment, college tuition, or my IRA.
The 8's should sell better than 7s since the supplies of the X will be very constrained, maybe they will pick up after people realize they won't be able to get an X except from scalpers on eBay. That being said, me and my wife both got 8's. The X is too expensive for a beta test version of so many new technologies. I don't have a good feeling about the Face ID in the long run, just like about the Touch Bar on the Macs. Time will tell. The 8's seem OK. But my wife's froze, and for the first time I found out about the new way of rebooting them, with the volume up/down and hold the power button. Also, the back glass does not seem perfectly aligned in the places it meets the aluminum edge. Not a big deal, but did not go unnoticed.
I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
Google Pixel 2 is flawed by screen burn in. OLED defendents claimed that that was an old issue already resolved. But a recent phone with presumably good tech still presents OLED burn in.
So I wouldn’t take the risk, even with Apple and would stay with the good old LCD. I bought my iPhone 8 Plus a couple of days ago and TrueTone is wonderful.
The 2XL with the burn-in uses Plastic OLED, versus AMOLED. We'll see what Apple's using -- but I suspect it's the latter.
I remember someone (either on the iMore podcast or Vergecast) saying that even though the AMOLED for the Pixel 2 looks better than 2XL it still looked like an AMOLED screen from 2 or 3 years ago. I'm sure that Apple has access to Samsung's highest quality OLED screens but Google probably had to take older cheaper tech. Apple's relationship with Samsung seems better than Google's.
I must admit that I've been disappointed with DED's articles on the Pixel2 because I don't believe he actually tried/used the phone. I would like one of the AI pros to actually review it and let us know how things truly measure up between the iPhone 8/8S and Pixel 2 (maybe it should be after the X is out). I tend to think that most android reviewers are biased to Android phones and Vlad Savov's complaints about the screen tend to re-inforce that premise. The Pixel 2XL's screen was only acknowledged after he complained about it.
3. I still dont understand why Apple choose to use OLED. There isn't anyone who could provide them alternative quality OLED screen next year. And highly unlikely in 2019. So Apple is basically stuck with Samsung for nearly three years with no creditable alternative sources. Yes there are huge number of Chinese companies making and jumping on the OLED tech, but i dont expect them to come close to Samsung in such short period time. JDI is only just starting now..............
Apple would never stick itself to 60% yield of Samsung’s OLED production and the $120-130 panel price it imposes. So think of Samsung OLED as interim solution and trust on Apple’s ongoing commitment to LCD with 8 series. Apple’s future may rather be microLED, not OLED, they’ve bought LuxVue for that.
MicroLED aren't coming in the near future, heck they haven't got around to MIniLED yet, you should see more of those in next CES show.
So no MicroLED in 2018 / 2019 either. They could have it on Apple Watch first, and it isn't in 2018 Apple watch model. ( We would have know if it was in Apple's Watch's scale of production )
So Apple is likely sticking to OLED, or switching back to FA-LCD.
The only argument which i would agree on with Apple; Samsung OLED are the best there is on the market right now, and likely in the next two years.
I’m waiting to see what the iPhoneX is like before buying the X, the 8, or staying with what I’ve got.
Google Pixel 2 is flawed by screen burn in. OLED defendents claimed that that was an old issue already resolved. But a recent phone with presumably good tech still presents OLED burn in.
So I wouldn’t take the risk, even with Apple and would stay with the good old LCD. I bought my iPhone 8 Plus a couple of days ago and TrueTone is wonderful.
The 2XL with the burn-in uses Plastic OLED, versus AMOLED. We'll see what Apple's using -- but I suspect it's the latter.
Isn’t POLED and AMOLED just the names LG and Samsung use for their display tech?
It is, but there is a huge difference in the maturity of the display technology deployed by those 2 companies. LG has started with the OLED display technology for smartphones only this year. All of their flagship phones until last year used LCD technology. Samsung has been using OLED for lot of years and faced burn-in in earlier years and resolved the issues and matured the technology to what it is now. So there is an important distinction to be made, while talking about OLED which was NOT made by @macplusplus. Mike was correct in pointing out the differences. The chances of iPhone X suffering from burn-in should be close to Nil because Apple chose Samsung to manufacture the panels for them who are at a different level in this technology.
Even if the screen is susceptible to burn in, it's still a viable choice. LCD TVs don't suffer from burn in but some people still bought plasma TVs because they were willing to exercise the care required to maintain them in order to get the better picture. I'm sure some people will be willing to make the same compromise with their phones. The key is making sure people KNOW about the risk and how to mitigate it.
78Bandit said: [...] The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs
I have a 6 Plus (not the "S" version). Many tasks take a few seconds to complete, like opening apps. Music playback is really, really, bad. If I put it on shuffle and keep hitting skip to find something I feel like hearing, it often takes as much as ten seconds to advance (100% locally-stored music library, no cloud). Is that a case of the CPU not keeping up with current software, or is something else to blame? If it's the CPU, that alone would be enough reason for me to upgrade. On the other hand, if drop almost a grand on a new phone and it does the same thing, I'm gonna be very unhappy.
How can I tell whether or not a better CPU will benefit me?
Comments
https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s8-burn-in-issue-768623/
I do think you are overselling the real-world capabilities of the A11 Bionic. The A6 chip in the iPhone 5 would run OK with iOS 10 after five years, and I know people who are still using an iPhone 4S. I believe the iPhone 7 will be perfectly capable for 95% of consumers' needs for at least another three or four years until it stops getting system updates (likely with iOS 15). Sure there will be some advanced software that requires the A11 to run, but it will likely be of very niche appeal as developers continue to write for all phones that support the latest operating system for the foreseeable future.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/17/06/07/apple-may-use-micro-led-in-wearables-as-soon-as-2018
There are three CPUs: A9, A10, A11. And three corresponding iPhone ranges: 6s/SE, 7, 8/X making low-end, mid-range and high-end. It is pointless to trying to “destroy” any high-end range by means of an “average consumer” argument, whether it is computer, printer, or smartphone.
There is no denying that the A11 is an outstanding processor. But when the A10 and even the A9 can still handle most if not all of the current tasks, it isn't a compelling reason to buy a new phone. If the low-medium-high end choice is between a Porsche, a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, the number of people who need a Lamborghini is pretty small. (The fact that it looks virtually identical to a 6s doesn't help the fact, either.)
No one is talking about progress or discrediting tha A11, only the necessity/usefulness of its processing power at the current time. You seem to be having difficulty grasping that.
I have long since gotten over the need to have the latest, fastest device simply because it’s the best. If you want/need to do so, go right ahead. I’ll save the $700 for a house payment, car payment, college tuition, or my IRA.
I must admit that I've been disappointed with DED's articles on the Pixel2 because I don't believe he actually tried/used the phone.
I would like one of the AI pros to actually review it and let us know how things truly measure up between the iPhone 8/8S and Pixel 2
(maybe it should be after the X is out). I tend to think that most android reviewers are biased to Android phones and Vlad Savov's complaints about the screen tend to re-inforce that premise. The Pixel 2XL's screen was only acknowledged after he complained about it.
I have a 6 Plus (not the "S" version). Many tasks take a few seconds to complete, like opening apps. Music playback is really, really, bad. If I put it on shuffle and keep hitting skip to find something I feel like hearing, it often takes as much as ten seconds to advance (100% locally-stored music library, no cloud). Is that a case of the CPU not keeping up with current software, or is something else to blame? If it's the CPU, that alone would be enough reason for me to upgrade. On the other hand, if drop almost a grand on a new phone and it does the same thing, I'm gonna be very unhappy.
How can I tell whether or not a better CPU will benefit me?