- Last Active
The main reason why Google is walking away from Android, at least for tablets and notebooks, is because of AOSP. If people don’t know what that is, it’s the actual open software version of Android, which is NOT open software, despite what a lot of people think.
aosp was intended to be the poor man’s, or poor manufacturer’s version of Android. The idea was that companies selling cheap phones in poor countries would want an OS unencumbeted by the licensing requirements of “real” Android. As people had more money, these companies, and customers, would easily transition to licensed Android devices. Those devices require a much stricter licensing requirement, and can use the official services of Google, such as search, maps, Google Play Store, etc.
companies using AOSP aren’t allowed to call it Android, and companies making Android devices aren’t allowed to use AOSP.
but that plan went awry. Instead, Google pulled out of China, leaving the field to Chinese companies backed by the Chinese government. Chinese manufacturers, also backed by the government, began to rise. They had no incentive to move to Android.
so companies using AOSP began to develop their own services. There were browsers, maps, search engines etc. real Android became less necessary. Google continued to remove more services from AOSP in the hope that it would convince companies to move to Android, but it didn’t work. Now, about 65% of all “Android” phones out there are really AOSP phones, which Google has little control over, and gets nothing from. Instead of being a gateway to Android and Google’s services, it’s become a burden.
that’s one of the reasons they converted the Chrome browser, to ChromeOS. How successful they will be moving phones to that is hard to say, as they’ve moved Chrome OS to x86 from ARM.
I'm reading the same thing here I read elsewhere. Things that simply aren't true.
one is that OLEDs have better color. That's not true. Color is the result of a number of decisions. LCD panels, backlights and filters can give color gamuts that are just as wide as OLED, and when lifetimes are taken into account, even wider.
the second involves contrast. There is an amazing lack of understanding of what contrast means. Yes, OLED can have dead blacks (but doesn't always, for technical reasons). But a small decrease in black levels when compared to the best LCD doesn't translate out to mean better contrast, or more contrast in the practical sense. A major reason is that LCDs can be much brighter than OLED. That gives a wide amount of variation in light output, an amount that OLED can't match.
Another reason is that our eyes have just a certain range of contrast that they can accommodate. Under normal situations, our iris opens and closed automatically as we look around our environment. It's why we can see dark shadows, and yet see detail where our camera picks up a black hole. But when we're viewing graphics, or photos, or video, we can't do that. We see the entire thing at once, and our eyes can't accommodate the brightness shifts. So very dark grey looks perfectly black. But, brighter areas look bright, brighter than OLED can get. So contrast may easily look greater on the LCD screen.
and that old bugaboo about efficiency. Sure, in theory, OLEDs can be more efficient. But while OLED efficiency has been rising, so has that of LCD, mainly because backlights, which are made from non organic LEDs, which are far more efficient than OLEDs, have also gained in efficiency. The relative efficiency between OLED and LCD therefor, has remained about the same, which is to say, neither has an advantage at this point.
Apple uses an OLED screen for the Watch, not because of efficiency, but because it's simpler to make, and is significantly thinner, with less unlit edge width.
we also see that Samsung's display only reaches a max brightness level of under 400 nits, though auto mode will bring that to slightly over 600 in bright, direct sunlight. Allowing it otherwise shortens the life of the display. Apple's phones go to 550-600 for manual adjustment, reaching about 700 auto for outdoor direct sun. There is also some burn-in in OLEDs, though it's gotten better over the years.
an interesting exception to the max output is the Apple Watch Series 2. That reaches 1,000 nits in direct sunlight. I've been trying to figure out how Apple does that. Either, they use a higher quality display, a slightly different design, which perhaps is some of their own IP, or simply because they figure we don't look at our Watch displays that much, so the decrease in life doesn't matter. I've looked at the awatch display under one of my microscopes, and it does have an unusual makeup. One long vertical blue sub pixel, running along a small horizontal red sub pixel, above which is an almost square green sub pixel. Most of the space between the sub pixels is black. I've never seen that arrangement before. Since the blue is the first to go, possibly that long blue sub pixel is there to allow greater brightness.
will all of this change some day? Sure, but it's not the case now.
why would Apple be interested? For one thing, there is an efficiency case to be made if Apple wants to follow what some OLED phone manufacturers have been doing with an on all the time time display, or some other small display area function. In that case, where just 1%, or so, of the display elements need to be on, OLED is the choice, because LCDs need the entire backlight on all the time, though I've seen some experimental displays with segmented backlights. In addition, when you need a display with punched out holes, say, for speakers, microphones, cameras, etc. it's much easier to do that with an OLED than an LCD. So for an entire Phone face with a display, OLED would be the choice.
We continue to read about how much more efficient OLED screens are, particularly because black pixels aren't illuminated from behind. We rarely read, in those same articles, just how much more power is consumed by OLED pixels when they are at a bright level.
apple's watch is using an OLED screen, according to Apple, because it's thinner than an LCD and LED backlight, not because it's significantly more efficient. The entire reason why OLED devices often have a black background is because of the inefficiency at brighter levels. The interesting thing here is that while, over the years, OLEDs have become more efficient, so have LCD LED backlights. The two screen types are at about the same overall efficiency, and apparently will continue to be for some time.
OLEDs do have some other advantages, mainly the mythical edge to edge screen. And, as I've mentioned, they are thinner. The disadvantages include the still problematic burn in. While that has been improved over time, it still exists, and is part of the continued problem over shorter overall screen life. The shorter screen life, and burn in are related to the problem of why OLEDs aren't nearly as bright as LCDs. When more power is poured in, they, like every other illumination device, get hotter. But OLEDs can't get as hot as an inorganic led, so they can only have so much power. That means their brightness is restricted.
the latest OLED screens are stuck below 400 nits in normal mode. They can jump to over 600 for a short time in direct daylight, but there is no manual control over that high brightness. LCDs can get to over 600 nits in normal mode, and up to 700 nits in bright daylight. It's true that most time that isn't needed, but when it is, it makes a big difference.
i don't know what Apple is doing with the Apple Watch Series 2 OLED screens, as Apple states that they can reach 1,000 nits in direct daylight, and indeed, it's a lot brighter than my friends first gen Apple Watch under these conditions. Either Apple has made a breakthrough that their manufacturer uses exclusively for them, or Apple isn't worried about shortening the screen lifetime, as watches aren't used as much as a smartphone.
but, my take on these stories is to be just a bit skeptical about the virtues of OLEDs. While they're better than they used to be, as is everything electronic, they're not yet a paragon of virtue.
I bought Apple’s black bracelet when I bought the Watch series 2 when it first came out. So I’ve had the bracelet for several years. As those who have been here for a while know, because I’ve posted on this several times in Watch discussions, this bracelet is just about perfect.
apple uses a high grade of 316L alloy they’ve modified themselves in their own alloy R&D department. They then coat it with a DLC (diamond like Carbon). Even though I have shops, which include a fair amount of grinding both with fixed grinders and handheld angle grinders, using very hard substances which get in the air, and on horizontal surfaces, I’ve never gotten one tiny scratch, or even a rubbed area. It looks brand new. It works as well as the day I bought it. Its also extremely comfortable.
is it expensive? Well, yes, depending. Depending on which direction you’re looking at pricing. HODINKEE, which is the premiere watch site, has stated that high end watch makers would have a hard time making the bracelet for $3,000. That was when this black one cost $550. now, the price is, I believe $350. Apple has sold a lot of these.
when I bought my series 3, I kept this. When I bought my series 4, I kept this. When I buy the next one, whether it will be the 5, or a later model, I will keep it. Long term, it really isn’t that expensive.
i doubt that this Nomad will hold up nearly as well as the Apple. The fact that there was already some silver showing, despite that they called it a factory defect, is worrying. That means that the black can, and therefor will, wear off. That’s it’s made from titanium is nice, but it doesn’t mean much as far as quality goes. I’d like to have one of these in my hands to examine, though I’m likely not willing to buy one just for that purpose. $180 compared to $350 isn’t really that much of a leap. Yes, it’s about double, but it still isn’t that much. Apple’s bracelet has proven to be a top notch performer, and highly reliable. Let’s come back in a year, and see how this one did.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
OLEDs are not particularly efficient. This is something most people don’t understand. They seem efficient, but only because blacks get almost no current moving through these pixels. But when compared to inorganic LEDs, they are positively inefficient. Inorganic LEDs can also run at a higher temperature, making them even more efficient, and have greater lifetimes.
I’m someone who does believe that companies should be socially responsible. I do believe that Apple is more so than, at least, most other large international companies.
but I also realize that being socially responsible doesn’t mean attempting to force things where doing so won’t work, or will actually do more harm than good. When Google pulled out of China, years ago, because they said that they wouldn’t be censored, that made waves. Google was held up as being responsible. But what good did it actually do? Instead of a censored Google, China’s citizens got a Baidu that is totally controlled by the government. Baidu has become a very large company. Was that a good result of Google pulling out? No, it wasn’t.
companies can’t force governments to do their bidding. If Apple strains too much, they will be kicked out, or shut down. I don’t see that helping anyone.
rob53 said:ericthehalfbee said:k2kw said:gatorguy said:Huh. So one minute Apple is calling Nokia "a patent troll" and the next they become business partners. So goes negotiations by PR.
Nothing wrong with the Intel modems. So no, Apple is not screwing with customers.