Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple using cheaper screen on iPhone 3G- proof

zub3qin

zub3qin

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 10, 2007
1,315
4
Apple, in an effort to reach the $199 price point, has substituted into the new 3G iPhone the cheaper, slightly lower quality iPod Touch display rather than the previously used "gold standard" iPhone LCD touch screen.

Now on first glance, specs make you think that the pixel resolution is better on the iPod touches vs iPhone- 163ppi (iPod) vs 160ppi (iPhone)-- but pixels aren't the whole story.

As has been well described, the iPod Touch display, while great, is noticeably worse than the iPhone display. (Anyone remember all the complaints on image quality of movies when the iPod Touches first came out? This was fixed, but a discernible difference remains.)

I'm not saying the iPhone 3G is going to be a lousy display, but speaking as someone who owns both iPhone and iPod Touch, there is an absolute degradation in image quality, especially when watching video, on the iPod.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.jpg
    Picture 2.jpg
    58 KB · Views: 5,494
  • Picture 3.jpg
    Picture 3.jpg
    66.5 KB · Views: 5,063
  • Picture 1.jpg
    Picture 1.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 4,121
Ughhhh....so will the glass affect the touch screen at all either, or just image quality? I have never used a touch, so I dont know if the touch capability is of lower quality than the iphone.

I hate when companies try to cheapen things to lower the price! :mad: If people cant afford the higher price for higher quality, tough! :mad:
 
Ever think that you just might have a bad touch display?

And don't be bias and say they all suck. I've used ipod touches and the screen look / works fine.
 
Round down error.

For the iPod Touch screen to have more pixels per inch and the same resolution, it would have to be smaller.

I guarantee you it was not.
 
Is this for real? Meaning, will the iphone 3g have a different (worse) screen than the original iphone?
 
Thats Cuz It"s Budget!!!!

I was wondering about that too. The switch from metal to plastic was more about cost savings than anything else and you can bet the screen was swapped for cheapness. Again this route only makes sense if a new high end model is in the works. Otherwise this might become a fatal mistake for apple and their cell phone ambitions.

X-
 
both screens are the same resolution which means the screen with lower ppi (pixels per inch) will actually be bigger. A 60'' HDTV has a lot lower ppi than a 32'' HDTV. Obviously doesn't mean the 60'' is cheaper or of lower quality.
 
I think that the move to a plastic backing was due to the additional antennae. Reception on 1.0 was a big issue and that was partially due to the metal backing. With the addition of the GPS receiver less interference from the casing was required. Early reports have been that reception is greatly improved in the new iPhone.
 
Hmmm....I hope you are wrong and this just means it is a different screen than the current iPhone--maybe better? But this is not a good sign.
 
Ok, so say you buy an iphone 3g, and then a few months later, a higher-end 3g model with aluminum back and all the bells and whistles comes out. Do you think we will be able to sell our iphone 3g's for a decent amount in a few months? I'd really like to get one, since I have waited this long to get an iphone, but I don't want to wait months and months longer for a high-end version that is just pure speculation at this point...
 
Don't Understand?

I don't fully understand that if Apple is charging $199 for 8GB, and AT&T is subsidizing $200 (which seems to add up to $399), how are they lowering the price to make it cheaper?
Maybe trying to make more profit.
And as for AT&T.... They were 'Revenue Sharing' before, and they raised their Data and Messaging fees.....
Well, the ones that will only get EDGE are going to be paying dearly for the Cell Tower Upgrades to 3G for the City Boys.
But we were not guaranteed that this world would be fair. Especially when it comes to Apple and AT&T. Almost sounds like Microsoft strategy.
 
as an owner of an iPod touch and a very frequent user of an iPhone (brother's), I can say that the screen resolutions are exactly the same so either your blind or Apple made yours different than the rest.
 
Somehow I feel cheated by Apple. Don't reduce the quality of the product just to lower to price for (more) mass appeal. I go to Apple not only for ease of use in their products but also for the quality of those products. Don't cheat us out of superior quality just to sell more phones.
 
It's interesting that you post with such conviction an idea that is so obviously ill-conceived, and for which you have no actual proof. Marketing materials are not proof. Unless you can come up with two different part numbers for the screens, you don't have proof of anything except that you have too much free time.

First: Jobs said specifically that it was the same screen as the old iPhone.

Second: Why would the manufacturer go through the expense of retooling a production line to make a slightly lower quality screen. It would cost them far more money to make multiple screens than it would to just keep pumping out the same ones.

Third: They don't need to lower the cost of components. Apple's net per phone is as high as it has ever been, higher even. The manufacturing costs are lowered automatically with continued production, and they are still getting the same amount per unit that they were with the old phone.
 
I bought a 16 gb touch just a few months ago and any problems apple was having with the screens early on have been fixed. The screen is excellent and it already has a glass cover just like the iPhone so there shouldn't be any difference in the touch capabilities. I really think that the screens have been the same all along and that the specs on the page were wrong, the only reason the iPhone was more expensive was because of the additional hardware required to have the phone functionality. Either way I don't think anyone will notice a difference in the screen quality, the guy reviewing the iPhone 3G "hands on" over at engadget said that the screen looked the same, but possibly brighter.

http://http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/09/iphone-3g-hands-on/
 
If this was anyone but Apple I might buy into this "sky is falling" attitude, but name one product that Apple builds that quality of the product isn't the #1 priority.
You may not like all of the stuff they make and I'm not saying everything they do is perfect, but use some common sense. The iPhone is as big as it gets for them right now. Why would they build a cheap piece of crap like every other phonemaker? If they have a huge push to get you to buy games and movies for the phone, why would they give you a bad screen.
Makes no sense. If they do I would be shocked.
 
crotalus99 said:
If this was anyone but Apple I might buy into this "sky is falling" attitude, but name one product that Apple builds that quality of the product isn't the #1 priority.
You may not like all of the stuff they make and I'm not saying everything they do is perfect, but use some common sense. The iPhone is as big as it gets for them right now. Why would they build a cheap piece of crap like every other phonemaker? If they have a huge push to get you to buy games and movies for the phone, why would they give you a bad screen.
Makes no sense. If they do I would be shocked.
Click to expand...

Methinks this is a new Apple.
Cut corners to cut costs and sell more more more. The mobile phone business is a tough market, and I am surprised Apple jumped into it- there will be missteps along the way.
 
I suppose you could compare this to the problems the iMac screens have had, they're the exact same screen yet some have bleeding/colouration problems etc.
It doesn't mean they are different screen, and as we all know batches of components can differ greatly from other batches, especially as the production line improves.
I guess you can also compare it to TV's with the same screen resolution etc, but still, go to an electrical store and see how very different screens can look, it's not just the hardware either, the components that drive the screen can can give different results too, even if that component is the same.
 
brandonzar said:
I bought a 16 gb touch just a few months ago and any problems apple was having with the screens early on have been fixed. The screen is excellent and it already has a glass cover just like the iPhone so there shouldn't be any difference in the touch capabilities.
Click to expand...

Same here. I just bought mine a few months ago, too. If the iPhone screen is exactly the same as the one on my touch, I'll be 100% happy. Love my touch!
 
iFemme said:
Somehow I feel cheated by Apple. Don't reduce the quality of the product just to lower to price for (more) mass appeal. I go to Apple not only for ease of use in their products but also for the quality of those products. Don't cheat us out of superior quality just to sell more phones.
Click to expand...



WELL SAID! This is exACTLy how I feel

This 3G is an attempt to go mass market. BIG MISTAKE! THE 3G is budget!!!!

X-
 
i don't know what this all comes down to, but he said "the same 3.5 inch gorgeous display" apple has it's way with words, if the screen is truly different, he really could have meant the same screen size and not the same actual screen. idk though..
 
if you want to watch something with High Quality
then get a LCD, you watching video on something that fits in the size of your hand!
 
I know Im a true apple fan boy, gonna get 3G budget model because its mobile web browsing will be a lot faster than 1st Gen. And if they bring a upper class model out I know Im gonna get my wallet out again. Apple innovate and make great products and to my mind its worth it, you know that whatever they come out with next will be amazing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back