What exactly is “defining bleeding edge specs”? Because I can define bleeding edge specs right now. A ceaseless, foldable 10-bit 4K resolution display with a lifespan of 500K folds. Any idiot can define a bleeding edge specs.
I feel like you’re just throwing around buzzwords with no understanding of how this industry works. The suppliers like Samsung do the engineering and hard intellectual stuff. Apple does not know how the displays are engineered, just what specs the end-product should have.
Apple tells Samsung what brightness they want, the number of pixels, the size, how prominent the crease should be and other superficial specs. This is intellectually equivalent to ordering pizza from dominos.
Samsung is the one who has the engineer and design the solution. Making a spec sheet is low skill work that anyone can do. The hard part is engineering a process that can achieve your desired specs at a sufficient yield and quality.
There is no “collaboration” in engineering between Apple and Samsung other than Samsung telling Apple the price for the intended spec. Apple can then spec up or down depending on their budget (Example: if Apple wanted 3000 nits and Samsung can’t achieve that with their current technology at a low enough price, Apple will then request 2000 nits). Apple isn’t doing any of the developing.
Your argument also makes no economic sense since Samsung is a very expensive display mfg. If this were Apple’s solution, then they’d be using low-cost Chinese mfg. the reason they only use Samsung is that only Samsung can engineer the solution to reach their intended wishlist of features. The others can’t at the moment, but they are probably working on their own engineering solutions to reach Apple’s wishlist of features.
When Apple defines display specs, it’s not just a wishlist like “give us 3000 nits and make it fold.” They’re setting integrated performance requirements — thickness, power efficiency, brightness levels, touch layer integration, durability, and how it all plays into thermal design, battery life, and overall UX. These aren’t abstract wishes; they’re tightly engineered targets based on what the final product needs to deliver, across millions of units.
Apple’s role is a lot like an architect working with a structural engineer. The architect defines the vision: how the building should look, feel, and function. The engineer figures out
how to make it structurally viable — and often feeds back constraints that lead to design revisions. It’s not one-way. That’s the kind of back-and-forth any company has with its suppliers. Apple is not doing the fab work, but they know exactly what they’re asking for and why — and the end product is only possible because of that collaboration.
Also, Apple employs experts in display systems, materials, and hardware integration — just because they don’t manufacture doesn’t mean they don’t understand the underlying technology. Their patents often cover the way displays work in the product context, such as how they’re laminated, powered, controlled, or integrated with sensors.
Apple uses Samsung not because it’s the cheapest option, but because they’re the only ones who can currently meet the bar Apple sets. Once others like BOE or LG catch up, Apple brings them in too — which is exactly what’s been happening over the past few iPhone cycles.
So no — Apple isn’t doing the materials engineering. But reducing their role to “making a spec sheet” misses just how critical and technically demanding system-level product definition is — especially when the result is something no one else has built before.
