Galaxy S7's 'Best Smartphone Display' Makes Strong Case for Apple to Shift to OLED iPhones

[ValO]

Modern android phones do not have excellent battery lives. Some of the phablets like the note 5 have fairly ok battery life but none are as good as the iPhone 6 Plus. Also I wouldn't call 1080p poor. It's fine enough. Most people are still using 1080p TVs. 720p on the 6S is Rubbish though. However maybe on such a small phone it doesn't matter. I don't know the 6S just doesn't appeal to me for several reasons (too small, poor battery life, not 1080p, no OIS).
[doublepost=1456733657][/doublepost]
I agree with most of what you've said however don't you think that by 2018 android would have moved forward? They are not going to stand still and wait for Apple to 'catch up'. Anyhow having said that for all of androids technical superiority I'd still pick an iPhone any day of the week. There are too many compromises with android devices and a few impressive specs on a sheet of paper won't compensate for all the flaws.

Alle the catch up I see for android is that they will make it a more closed system .
They should do something with the update system, but that is more complex, because android manufactures always add their own look and apps.
The only difference Google could make is to market their nexus line more agressive. Or that all android manufacturers will use stock android.
Perhaps Google should produce their own phones , Google reference or something like that.
But if android becomes a more closed system, a lot of users won' t like it. They are always complaining about iOS being too limited.

 

[DEman19901]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's better than iPhone 6s plus lol. But people need to stop claiming facts based of experience off one phone.
In many iPhone users mind "I used a Moto g and it lagged! That means all Android lags" or "my Samsung note had bad battery life! That means all androids have bad battery life".

A lot of Android users such as myself, use both Android and iPhones and are aware the the pros and cons of both platforms. You have a lot of iPhone users that are so blinded by Apple that it's kind of scary if you think about it. The whole cult concept is real.

 

[I7guy]

A lot of Android users suck as myself, use both Android and iPhones and are aware the the pros and cons of both platforms. You have a lot of iPhone users that are so blinded by Apple that it's kind of scary if you think about it. The whole cult concept is real.

No hyperbole in that post at all.

 

[Zaft]

A lot of Android users such as myself, use both Android and iPhones and are aware the the pros and cons of both platforms. You have a lot of iPhone users that are so blinded by Apple that it's kind of scary if you think about it. The whole cult concept is real.

There is also a cult thing with some android users. They go out of there way to comment on apple news with " Apple suck lol it's for stupid people ". Check out any article relating to Apple anywhere. They come out and start the nonsense.

 

[BlankSlate]

The s7/s7 edge screen is beautiful. Another cool thing about the s7 is the themes, I have been waiting forever for iOS to get themes in the App Store. Come on Apple!!!

 

[Palladium SG]

There is also a cult thing with some android users. They go out of there way to comment on apple news with " Apple suck lol it's for stupid people ". Check out any article relating to Apple anywhere. They come out and start the nonsense.

It's rather amazing that Android cheerleaders don't get why people willingly choose Apple for a better software experience and security than raw specs.

 

[jaymzuk]

It's rather amazing that Android cheerleaders don't get why people willingly choose Apple for a better software experience and security than raw specs.

You do realise that it's 2016, and 'better software experience' is BS, right? Every large app is practically identical between iOS and Android, and the overall look and feel of Android and iOS is quite similar.

Security... I think it's a valid point in so far as the roll-out of patches in a timely manner

 

[rGiskard]

I hope Apple doesn't move to over boosting color saturation. It pops on the screen but pictures and video looks terrible on anything else.

The 5K iMac's DCI(P3) color gamut makes it possible to oversaturate colors to to impress fools at Best Buy, but Apple chooses color accuracy instead.

 

[LordVic]

touchwiz is the devil. nexus is the only way to go in the android world

what I wouldn't give to get pure android on my S6. Themed Touchwiz isn't nearly as bad as it used to. my phone looks / works almost the same as stock (Themed and launcher changes). but it's still just not that super clean, and extremely snappy Nexus experience. I miss my Nexus 5 exclusively for that.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Too bad the buyers are stuck with a clunky OS

Pretty much

 

[jamesrick80]

I think Samsung has done really well with the OLED screen technology but I still feel if Apple did not push for Retina we would have larger screens with so-so display qualities.

Retina doesn't mean anything while iPhones are stuck on 1080p resolution or less......

 

[Shanghaichica]

Retina doesn't mean anything while iPhones are stuck on 1080p resolution or less......

There's nothing wrong with 1080p on a 5.5 inch screen.

 

[Kabeyun]

When it was small, everyone wrote the bigger screen off and said, "you can't use it with one hand."

I still say that. Every day. If they'd made the SE with more storage I'd be typing this on one right now. With one hand.

 

[Led-zep]

Christ, are people saying oled isn't better than LCD? Really?

Do you like grey blacks on LCDs, because that's what it is. Boot up your iphone in complete darkness and tell me how black the display looks - it's because oled has native black without having a backlight

The only real problems with oled are, white sub pixel arrangement and blue pixel having a lower lifespan.

The rgb oled in the Sony 11" oled TV, the ps vita with true oled and samsung 55" oled rgb where some of the best displays ever made. Unfortunately it's difficult to make a true rgb oled with a long lifespan

We jus have to deal with woled for the time being until Qled makes a mark on the industry

 

[Vanilla35]

Christ, are people saying oled isn't better than LCD? Really?

Do you like grey blacks on LCDs, because that's what it is. Boot up your iphone in complete darkness and tell me how black the display looks - it's because oled has native black without having a backlight

The only real problems with oled are, white sub pixel arrangement and blue pixel having a lower lifespan.

The rgb oled in the Sony 11" oled TV, the ps vita with true oled and samsung 55" oled rgb where some of the best displays ever made. Unfortunately it's difficult to make a true rgb oled with a long lifespan

We jus have to deal with woled for the time being until Qled makes a mark on the industry

I've had many OLED displays, and I just don't like the color profile. Adjusting it to make it cooler doesn't quite fix the issue, it is just a different experience. I have yet to test Apple's approach to OLED, in the apple watch, but likely will have the same issue. I prefer an LCD experience.

Btw my daily driver atm is a Nexus 6P and I still prefer the screen on my iPhone 5s, except for differences in resolution and contrast.

You're absolutely correct about true blacks though, and while it's nice for what it is, I just don't come across it that much to find that to be an ultimately better aspect of the screen technology. Maybe with LCD having a backlight across the entire back just makes the viewing experience seem much more even and balanced, which may contribute. I am not an engineer, but I do notice fine details, and it's pretty evident to me what I like about LED, and don't like about OLED.

*Please take note I am not talking about oversaturation, which I was able to fix very easily by putting a custom color profile on my Nexus 6P's display via kernel settings, as well as extensively using the developer option "sRGB mode" which washes colors out a lot (obviously when compared to oversaturation) but makes it a much more balanced experience than without.

 

[AllieNeko]

I think Samsung has done really well with the OLED screen technology but I still feel if Apple did not push for Retina we would have larger screens with so-so display qualities.

I strongly disagree. I think Retina was their response to the Motorola Milestone (Droid in the US). 854x480 pixel screen (compared to iPhone's 480x320 - 2.67 times the pixel count) with virtually perfect sRGB colour.

When the iPhone 4 came out eight months later, it had an even higher resolution, but arguably the display still wasn't as good as it had a very restricted colour gamut. It wasn't until the iPhone 5, almost four years later, that the iPhone matched the colour gamut of the Motorola Milestone.

Apple pushed for better screens in phones? History disagrees.

Where Apple pushes for better screens is the Macbooks... danngggg Apple has used some nice displays in recent years (except for the Macbook Air).

 

[kdarling]

I think Samsung has done really well with the OLED screen technology but I still feel if Apple did not push for Retina we would have larger screens with so-so display qualities.

Smartphone "retina" screens had already been done years before Apple got around to them. In fact, during the very summer of 2007 when the first 320x480 iPhone came out, Toshiba came out with an 800x480 display at 310 PPI on their Windows Mobile smartphone. (Most WM makers were coming out with WVGA screens around that time.)

Such density was called "print quality" back then, referring to laser quality of 300 DPI, where most people could not see the print dots from a foot away.

Of course, three years later there was no way on earth that Steve Jobs was going to introduce his 2010 iPhone as NOT being the first "print quality" display, so he had his people come with a different term ("retina") for the exact same thing.

Brilliant marketing of course, and typical of Apple to let naive people assume they invented something. (I don't think Jobs actually said they did. He just carefully avoided mentioning the fact that Apple was not the first to have one. It's similar to the way he avoided showing other touch phones at the iPhone introduction, and only showed ones with keyboards.)

 

[I7guy]

Smartphone "retina" screens had already been done years before Apple got around to them. In fact, during the very summer of 2007 when the first 320x480 iPhone came out, Toshiba came out with an 800x480 display at 310 PPI on their Windows Mobile smartphone. (Most WM makers were coming out with WVGA screens around that time.)

Such density was called "print quality" back then, referring to laser quality of 300 DPI, where most people could not see the print dots from a foot away.

Of course, three years later there was no way on earth that Steve Jobs was going to introduce his 2010 iPhone as NOT being the first "print quality" display, so he had his people come with a different term ("retina") for the exact same thing.

Brilliant marketing of course, and typical of Apple to let naive people assume they invented something. (I don't think Jobs actually said they did. He just carefully avoided mentioning the fact that Apple was not the first to have one. It's similar to the way he avoided showing other touch phones at the iPhone introduction, and only showed ones with keyboards.)

Nobody invented dpi. And you don't invent a 800x480 pixels. Resolution has been steadily going up since the cga days; cga -> vga -> svga etc. In 1981 cga was capable of 640x200, so fast forward 23 years and we're looking at 800x480? Steve was actually smart in that one respect. People wanted better resolution because in 1984 HP introduced the laserjet capable of 300dpi, but steve focused on what eye sees not what print engine sees.

 

[kdarling]

Steve was actually smart in that one respect. People wanted better resolution because in 1984 HP introduced the laserjet capable of 300dpi, but steve focused on what eye sees not what print engine sees.

Print quality was already about what the eye sees.

300 DPI at one foot was chosen as the original qualifier, using the exact same dot angle subtend calculations that Apple later called "retina" for marketing purposes.

 

[I7guy]

You're confused. Print quality was already about what the eye sees.

300 DPI at one foot was chosen as the original qualifier, using the exact same dot retinal angle subtend calculations that Apple later called "retina" for marketing purposes.

Nope a laser jet dot is not a pixel per se. 300 dpi comes from the turn of the century 150 lpi used for printing photographs. 800 pixels across in a 60 inch tv is different than on a one inch display. The former has a resolution of 800/60 ppi the latter 800 ppi. At 300 dpi yields a width of about 2.5 inches.

 

[Three141]

I strongly disagree. I think Retina was their response to the Motorola Milestone (Droid in the US). 854x480 pixel screen (compared to iPhone's 480x320 - 2.67 times the pixel count) with virtually perfect sRGB colour.

When the iPhone 4 came out eight months later, it had an even higher resolution, but arguably the display still wasn't as good as it had a very restricted colour gamut. It wasn't until the iPhone 5, almost four years later, that the iPhone matched the colour gamut of the Motorola Milestone.

Apple pushed for better screens in phones? History disagrees.

Where Apple pushes for better screens is the Macbooks... danngggg Apple has used some nice displays in recent years (except for the Macbook Air).

We both see it differently then.
[doublepost=1482151379][/doublepost]

Smartphone "retina" screens had already been done years before Apple got around to them. In fact, during the very summer of 2007 when the first 320x480 iPhone came out, Toshiba came out with an 800x480 display at 310 PPI on their Windows Mobile smartphone. (Most WM makers were coming out with WVGA screens around that time.)

Such density was called "print quality" back then, referring to laser quality of 300 DPI, where most people could not see the print dots from a foot away.

Of course, three years later there was no way on earth that Steve Jobs was going to introduce his 2010 iPhone as NOT being the first "print quality" display, so he had his people come with a different term ("retina") for the exact same thing.

Brilliant marketing of course, and typical of Apple to let naive people assume they invented something. (I don't think Jobs actually said they did. He just carefully avoided mentioning the fact that Apple was not the first to have one. It's similar to the way he avoided showing other touch phones at the iPhone introduction, and only showed ones with keyboards.)

Nothing Naive about what I said.
I'm aware of what Apple have created but if you think Apple did not focus the industry on screen improvements that's up to you, i know it differently.

 

[kdarling]

Nope a laser jet dot is not a pixel per se. 300 dpi comes from the turn of the century 150 lpi used for printing photographs.

Again, it's all about the human eye and not seeing dots, which is all related to 300 DPI/PPI at 12". Or more generally, a pair of dots/lines each subtending about 0.4 arcminute, IIRC.

You're right that, whereas previous high DPI smartphones only compared themselves to 300 PPI, Jobs used the same background calculation to create a marketing term where he could claim "retina" even on lower resolution displays... as long as you held them far enough away

Btw, I gave him too much credit when I said that I didn't think he claimed to be first. I forgot that he made the bogus claim that, "There's never been a display like this on a phone. People haven't even dreamed about a display like this on a phone."

Nothing Naive about what I said.

Was not implying that it was. You seemed to know that Apple was not first. My post explicitly referred to his listeners who came away with the impression that Apple was the first with a high DPI "retina" display.

I'm aware of what Apple have created but if you think Apple did not focus the industry on screen improvements that's up to you, i know it differently.

The industry was already doing screen improvements before Apple got involved. They were already doing higher resolution displays, and high-DPI screens.

There's no doubt that the industry would've also moved to OLEDs without Apple. As they did.

 

[I7guy]

Again, it's all about the human eye and not seeing dots, which is all related to 300 DPI/PPI at 12". Or more generally, a pair of dots/lines each subtending about 0.4 arcminute, IIRC.

You're right that, whereas previous high DPI smartphones only compared themselves to 300 PPI, Jobs used the same background calculation to create a marketing term where he could claim "retina" even on lower resolution displays... as long as you held them far enough away

Btw, I gave him too much credit when I said that I didn't think he claimed to be first. I forgot that he made the bogus claim that, "There's never been a display like this on a phone. People haven't even dreamed about a display like this on a phone."



Was not implying that it was. You seemed to know that Apple was not first. My post explicitly referred to his listeners who came away with the impression that Apple was the first with a high DPI "retina" display.



The industry was already doing screen improvements before Apple got involved. They were already doing higher resolution displays, and high-DPI screens.

There's no doubt that the industry would've also moved to OLEDs without Apple. As they did.

300 dpi is not 300 ppi. Dpi is constant while ppi is size and resolution dependent. Which was my example in a previous post. Jobs made sure the phone had enough ppi(300) based on screen size and resolution, which maybe was a first. No cga for Apple. That's why I said jobs didn't invent dpi, he invented a marketing term that covers decent screen resolution.

And I do remember in the mid 1990s high resolution displays.

 

[kdarling]

300 dpi is not 300 ppi. Dpi is constant while ppi is size and resolution dependent. Which was my example in a previous post. Jobs made sure the phone had enough ppi(300) based on screen size and resolution, which maybe was a first. No cga for Apple. That's why I said jobs didn't invent dpi, he invented a marketing term that covers decent screen resolution.

I think you're talking about PPI settings for printing, not about display PPI.

Display PPI is a hardware constant for a particular display, just as output DPI capability is constant for a particular printer.

 

[I7guy]

I think you're talking about PPI settings for printing, not about display PPI.

Display PPI is a hardware constant for a particular display, just as output DPI capability is constant for a particular printer.

Correct. Display ppi is dependent on resolution and screen size while laserjet output 300 dpi=300ppi.