Other Humiliating No 120hz Display = Deal Breaker Apple’s blunder

[macher]

This.

We arent talking about their "budget" phone here, so Im not sure why the XR/11 is relevant. They wouldnt get 120hz or any of the advanced features for the price point (even though $400-500 Android devices somehow can pack 90 or 120hz OLEDs but I digress). The XR/11 were flat out overpriced for LCD phones in 2018-2019, regardless of how popular they were. Separating people from their money is a good business skill but nothing more. It doesnt make the product any more or less impressive

We're talking about PRO phones. $1000 and up. The iPad is "PRO" enough to get 120hz but apparently not the phone? So what "pro" features were you buying? OLED that $500 devices were using ad 1 extra camera? Because those are the current main differences between non-pro and pro; for $300/400 extra (Pro/Pro Max). Oh 1 gig of RAM, there is 50 cents of extra cost.

And let me go back to the sales mean nothing to the actual technology at issue. McDonald's sells the most burgers; they are FAR from the best burgers or even close. It's cheap, convenient and familiar. Same with the XR/11; want an iphone here's the cheapest modern one- shocker it sells the most being the cheapest modern year option (the SE is a niche model with a smaller than average screen).

Sales figures mean people are dumb enough to buy it en masse; not that it is necessarily "good/better" It lines Timmy's pockets to become the next billionaire. And that affects ANY of us how?

Apple makes the phone everyone wants, whether it is fashion or status symbol reasons; whatever the reason. That doesnt make it the best tech. And an honest company should always be trying to make the best product; the money comes with that

For some reason, there are a ton of apologists trying to tell us why we shouldnt care or dont need it; rather than why spending $1000 cant get us that. Lets ot forget Apple makes the highest industry profits despite not shipping the most devices as a company; so lets not pretend they are on razor-thin margins liek a $350-400 phone and cant give us more for the money. And how it would hurt them oh so badly if more was included for the same money.

Or typical like you dont like it "dont let the door hit you." That's a fanboy response when one cant bear to have a rational adult discussion And yes, the average smartphone buyer IS ignorant on tech issues, sorry to break it to you. But yes, you are the "victim" in a victim mentality world we live in now, please do go on.... or rather not because I wont bother reading it.

Sales is the bottom line period end of story whether you like the iPhone or not. Sales is the indicator. If the iPhone was and is going to be so bad then sales will dictate it.

 

[dmccloud]

If the options are 120Hz refresh or higher resolutions, I'd go with the higher resolution. Samsung has to compromise to get 120Hz screens, because running that framerate at higher resolutions kills battery life. Apple is the type of company who won't jump on a trend until they can build it to meet their specifications, which would include higher refresh rates at a higher resolution without compromising battery life. 1144557 - those $400 - $500 Android phones you are referring to only have 720p or 1080p screens at most - that's why they can use 120Hz refresh rates on those devices. They are also running lower end SoCs with a lower power draw and lower performance compared to flagship models. That's the only way they can get 120Hz on those lower end handsets, by using less expensive components everywhere else.

 

[ToddH]

LOL! You guys are way “too high maintenance”! Y’all are going to complain no matter what Apple releases. I don’t see how a 120hz display is going to benefit anyone. Browsing the web and texting at 120hz isn’t going to look any different than what you already have. The notch... really? I don’t even notice it on my iPhone. The screen is just fine the way it is. The iPhone display needs to remain accurate in color / white balance for us photographers.. if the display radically changes, photo editing may be compromised. The iPhone display is fine the way it is.

 

[macher]

LOL! You guys are way “too high maintenance”! Y’all are going to complain no matter what Apple releases. I don’t see how a 120hz display is going to benefit anyone. Browsing the web and texting at 120hz isn’t going to look any different than what you already have. The notch... really? I don’t even notice it on my iPhone. The screen is just fine the way it is. The iPhone display needs to remain accurate in color / white balance for us photographers.. if the display radically changes, photo editing may be compromised. The iPhone display is fine the way it is.

Can you elaborate why the color / white balance needs to be accurate for photographers and how a 120 display could compromise that?

 

[SmugMaverick]

I guess it doesn't really feel like a "pro" device for those prices without 120hz, no real multi tasking or pencil support.

Surface Duo and Note 20 Ultra feel more Pro like devices to me.

 

[macher]

I guess it doesn't really feel like a "pro" device for those prices without 120hz, no real multi tasking or pencil support.

Surface Duo and Note 20 Ultra feel more Pro like devices to me.

Well I have to agree somewhat. The Note 20 is a production device vs an iPhone which is an app based device. Note 20 beats iPhone in production but iPhone beats Note 20 in apps.

 

[1144557]

Sales is the bottom line period end of story whether you like the iPhone or not. Sales is the indicator. If the iPhone was and is going to be so bad then sales will dictate it.

Again, McDonald's burgers. Convincing the mostly ignorant public to shovel it down their throats (figuratively or literally) en masse doesnt make it best by a mile. Sales figures/popularity and "best" are not always directly correlated.

Im not an Apple exec so I couldnt personally care less what the sales figures are. Its baffling why average people argue that as some benefit or a positive to them personally somehow. It's like Mcdonald's yelling "scoreboard!" when a critic rates a local pub as best burger in town; who cares about sales figures except the execs making the $$$$$, and how does that get you/us as the end consumer the best burger/product/etc?

Rather, all that tells me is the company has ZERO incentive to change anything too much when they can convince people to buy it in those numbers as is.

Sometimes the underdog is what is needed to get that push; that is why the iphone became what it was. Apple was the underdog in 2007 and for quite a few years. Maybe that is why Samsung is how they are stuffing it all in- that's not a bad thing giving people every option they can for the money (again unsure why people chalk that as some negative as you don't HAVE to use every feature)

I have still yet to hear anyone provide a viable response to my question of "why not?" Why demanding it be added for the $1000+ we pay is oh so bad and insulting; other than the typical apologist "(allegedly) people dont want/need that," "dont let the door hit you," or "high sales as is" counters. And what they personally have to lose if the notch was smaller, 120hz was included (as surely you could turn it off, and a toggle in an early iOS14 beta suggested), etc. Battery life should be a relative non-issue with LTPO variable refresh rate; maybe Apple should stop shrinking the battery capacity to only get the same runtime for some reason.

Well I have to agree somewhat. The Note 20 is a production device vs an iPhone which is an app based device. Note 20 beats iPhone in production but iPhone beats Note 20 in apps.

This much we can agree on.

I guess it doesn't really feel like a "pro" device for those prices without 120hz, no real multi tasking or pencil support.

Surface Duo and Note 20 Ultra feel more Pro like devices to me.

It's not Pro. It's $300/400 more expensive for OLED, 1 extra camera, and 1gb more RAM. Nothing about those are more "Pro" Its all marketing speak.

On one hand Apple claims things like a stylus and high refresh rate are "pro" features, but then "pro" iphones get none. It's a disjointed vision of what "pro" is. I would personally say things like split screen apps is also a "pro" software feature that bigger display iPhones could handle these days (with more RAM)

The iPad I will give them is a "Pro" device and earns that. Very high end specs and doesnt skimp on features.

 

[macher]

Again, McDonald's burgers. Convincing the mostly ignorant public to shovel it down their throats (figuratively or literally) en masse doesnt make it best by a mile. Sales figures/popularity and "best" are not always directly correlated.

Im not an Apple exec so I couldnt personally care less what the sales figures are. Its baffling why average people argue that as some benefit or a positive to them personally somehow. It's like Mcdonald's yelling "scoreboard!" when a critic rates a local pub as best burger in town; who cares about sales figures except the execs making the $$$$$, and how does that get you/us as the end consumer the best burger/product/etc?

Rather, all that tells me is the company has ZERO incentive to change anything too much when they can convince people to buy it in those numbers as is.

Sometimes the underdog is what is needed to get that push; that is why the iphone became what it was. Apple was the underdog in 2007 and for quite a few years. Maybe that is why Samsung is how they are stuffing it all in- that's not a bad thing giving people every option they can for the money (again unsure why people chalk that as some negative as you don't HAVE to use every feature)

I have still yet to hear anyone provide a viable response to my question of "why not?" Why demanding it be added for the $1000+ we pay is oh so bad and insulting; other than the typical apologist "(allegedly) people dont want/need that," "dont let the door hit you," or "high sales as is" counters. And what they personally have to lose if the notch was smaller, 120hz was included (as surely you could turn it off, and a toggle in an early iOS14 beta suggested), etc. Battery life should be a relative non-issue with LTPO variable refresh rate; maybe Apple should stop shrinking the battery capacity to only get the same runtime for some reason.





This much we can agree on.



It's not Pro. It's $300/400 more expensive for OLED, 1 extra camera, and 1gb more RAM. Nothing about those are more "Pro" Its all marketing speak.

On one hand Apple claims things like a stylus and high refresh rate are "pro" features, but then "pro" iphones get none. It's a disjointed vision of what "pro" is. I would personally say things like split screen apps is also a "pro" software feature that bigger display iPhones could handle these days (with more RAM)

The iPad I will give them is a "Pro" device and earns that. Very high end specs and doesnt skimp on features.

The iPhone 12 Pro will be the best iPhone, better than the 11 Pro.

 

[Abazigal]

Sometimes the underdog is what is needed to get that push; that is why the iphone became what it was. Apple was the underdog in 2007 and for quite a few years. Maybe that is why Samsung is how they are stuffing it all in- that's not a bad thing giving people every option they can for the money (again unsure why people chalk that as some negative as you don't HAVE to use every feature)

I don't really care what other people use as their smartphone, but to say that the next iPhone is doomed just because it lacks a certain feature shows a gross lack of understanding as to why Apple is even so successful today.

The problem comes when you are not giving people more of what they want. All these features mean that the price of the final product increases significantly, but not everybody necessarily needs a stylus, or the ability to control your phone by waving your hand, or a facial scanner which can be fooled with a photograph, or an onscreen fingerprint scanner that's slow and inaccurate, or faster refresh rate that cannot be used in tandem with the highest screen resolution.

If Samsung could include each and every one of their features and have them work properly at launch with no compromises, I would have nothing to say. But as it stands, every single one of the aforementioned features come compromised in some way simply because Samsung is more interested in shoving hardware into a phone for the sake of ticking off a checklist than they are in taking the time to make sure the feature works well for the end user.

If what Samsung is offering happens to be in line with that you want in a phone, go get one by all means. But this is not what I am after in a device. Compare this to the iPhone. Depending on the model you are using, you can unlock it with either Touch ID or Face ID, and Apple went out of its way to ensure that each worked perfectly before releasing them. Apple also takes care to integrate these hardware into the OS, such as your lock screen notifications being hidden until you unlock your phone using Face ID.

Even for something like 3D Touch (back when it was still a thing), Apple had the clout to get developers to support said feature in their apps.

So between 5 half-baked features on a Samsung phone vs 1 feature done really well on an iPhone, I would choose the latter every time.

Don't even get me started about the ecosystem (which Apple is renowned for, and which Samsung has none).

I have still yet to hear anyone provide a viable response to my question of "why not?" Why demanding it be added for the $1000+ we pay is oh so bad and insulting; other than the typical apologist "(allegedly) people dont want/need that," "dont let the door hit you," or "high sales as is" counters. And what they personally have to lose if the notch was smaller, 120hz was included (as surely you could turn it off, and a toggle in an early iOS14 beta suggested), etc. Battery life should be a relative non-issue with LTPO variable refresh rate; maybe Apple should stop shrinking the battery capacity to only get the same runtime for some reason.

I guess my counter-argument then is "why"?

I don't buy an iPhone just to keep up with the android Jones. I buy an iPhone because of Apple's proven track record of taking an emerging product category with a frustrating user experience and then proceeding to deliver a polished product made possible by its control over both the hardware and software.

The 2017 iPad Pro had promotion, which enables a faster refresh rate in a number of scenarios. Drawing is one of them, which is not a common task on an iPhone. This will tell you everything you need to know about the manner in which Apple looks at technology. They view tech as ingredients in a dish. You add them only if you are sure it will augment the end result somehow, and even then, in a very deliberate manner. You don't just throw in tech for the sake of it.

What I am guessing Apple will do (or is doing?) is figuring out the scenarios where a faster refresh rate makes sense on a smartphone (assuming it even does), then figuring out how to implement it in a manner that not only works with the high resolution of their top end models, but has a minimal impact on battery life.

Maybe it will come this year. Maybe it will come next year. Maybe it will never come at all.

Either way, I am content to wait.

 

[macher]

Again, McDonald's burgers. Convincing the mostly ignorant public to shovel it down their throats (figuratively or literally) en masse doesnt make it best by a mile. Sales figures/popularity and "best" are not always directly correlated.

Im not an Apple exec so I couldnt personally care less what the sales figures are. Its baffling why average people argue that as some benefit or a positive to them personally somehow. It's like Mcdonald's yelling "scoreboard!" when a critic rates a local pub as best burger in town; who cares about sales figures except the execs making the $$$$$, and how does that get you/us as the end consumer the best burger/product/etc?

Rather, all that tells me is the company has ZERO incentive to change anything too much when they can convince people to buy it in those numbers as is.

Sometimes the underdog is what is needed to get that push; that is why the iphone became what it was. Apple was the underdog in 2007 and for quite a few years. Maybe that is why Samsung is how they are stuffing it all in- that's not a bad thing giving people every option they can for the money (again unsure why people chalk that as some negative as you don't HAVE to use every feature)

I have still yet to hear anyone provide a viable response to my question of "why not?" Why demanding it be added for the $1000+ we pay is oh so bad and insulting; other than the typical apologist "(allegedly) people dont want/need that," "dont let the door hit you," or "high sales as is" counters. And what they personally have to lose if the notch was smaller, 120hz was included (as surely you could turn it off, and a toggle in an early iOS14 beta suggested), etc. Battery life should be a relative non-issue with LTPO variable refresh rate; maybe Apple should stop shrinking the battery capacity to only get the same runtime for some reason.





This much we can agree on.



It's not Pro. It's $300/400 more expensive for OLED, 1 extra camera, and 1gb more RAM. Nothing about those are more "Pro" Its all marketing speak.

On one hand Apple claims things like a stylus and high refresh rate are "pro" features, but then "pro" iphones get none. It's a disjointed vision of what "pro" is. I would personally say things like split screen apps is also a "pro" software feature that bigger display iPhones could handle these days (with more RAM)

The iPad I will give them is a "Pro" device and earns that. Very high end specs and doesnt skimp on features.

Regardless what you want the iPhone 12 Pro will be the best iPhone.

If you want the best Android then the Note 20. The best iPhone currently is the 11 Pro.

 

[StumpyBloke]

CBA

 

[dmccloud]

Can you elaborate why the color / white balance needs to be accurate for photographers and how a 120 display could compromise that?

Color/white balance is critical for photographers to accurately edit their photographs and ensure that what they see on their screen is what users will see. If you look at most of the companies pushing out 120Hz displays on phones, they are compromising by using lower quality screen technology that a) runs at a lower resolution to maintain that framerate, b) lacks the display gamut to accurately represent the color spectrum, and c) takes other shortcuts to squeeze that framerate into a budget phone.

 

[Jimmy James]

Humiliating? Misplaced values.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Again, McDonald's burgers. Convincing the mostly ignorant public to shovel it down their throats (figuratively or literally) en masse doesnt make it best by a mile. Sales figures/popularity and "best" are not always directly correlated.

McDonald’s burgers are far from the best around but people do like them enough to buy them often. Like an iPhone you know what you are getting and people will continue buying them again and again. I think this analogy pretty much sums it up.

iPhones sell well because it’s a good reliable product. The customer support and clean OS is what keeps the iPhone popular. Specs aren’t as important with iOS as they are for android phones because the performance is stable across older phones. If specs mattered as much as you imply then why do so many people keep iPhones for years and the best selling iPhones aren’t the most expensive and spec heavy? The mid tier iPhones offer enough compared to the Pro models and I have no doubt this year will be no different.

Having a 120Hz iPhone with poor battery life would not be a welcome experience for many this year either.

 

[quamsi]

Over the past 5-6 years, I can’t think of more than a time or two where I had to troubleshoot an issue with my iPhone. Prior to switching to Apple (albeit a few years back) it was nearly daily. Rebooting, frozen screens, error codes, etc were a constant issue with my Android phones and tablets. My husband is still an avid Android user and buys the latest and greatest. And it’s a joke of ours when he inevitably has to reboot his frozen device, or some error code pops up where I say, “heh heh Android” and he calls me a “sheep”. He loves his cutting edge tech and finds the occasional hassle worth it whereas I want nothing more than a headache-free, smooth experience. While I would welcome a 120 Hz display, I actually DON’T want it implemented until it’s good and ready and perfected. That’s what I appreciate about Apple. You’re nearly guaranteed a flawless, headache-free experience. That’s all this sheep wants.

 

[barondebxl]

Ok? I personally don’t care for a 120hz screen. I rather have my battery life and higher res screen. The Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra AMD Note 20 ultra both have it BUT at 1080p not at QHD. Idk about the other phones but I rather have the higher then 1080p res.

I totally disagree. I have an S10 and I keep the resolution at 1080p cause I cannot see the difference. 1080p 120hz would have been awesome on the new iPhones if that was the only way to get 120hz.

 

[macher]

I have still yet to hear anyone provide a viable response to my question of "why not?" Why demanding it be added for the $1000+ we pay is oh so bad and insulting; other than the typical apologist "(allegedly) people dont want/need that," "dont let the door hit you," or "high sales as is" counters. And what they personally have to lose if the notch was smaller, 120hz was included (as surely you could turn it off, and a toggle in an early iOS14 beta suggested), etc. Battery life should be a relative non-issue with LTPO variable refresh rate; maybe Apple should stop shrinking the battery capacity to only get the same runtime for some reason.

If you don’t like the iPhones and what is released there are other phone options. BUT there aren’t other iPhone options. This is what you refuse to understand and get your head wrapped around....

That each year Apple releases the best iPhone to date. You can’t argue with that. The same way when Samsung releases a new Note, it’s the best Note to date.

 

[compwiz1202]

Why don’t they give us the option to activate it? According to reliable leakers, the Pro models will ship with capable 120hz panels, but it will be disabled in software.

I think they should ship the iPhone with a 60hz display, so people no interested in 120hz will not care about worst battery life. But they should give us the option to activate it in the Settings app.

Exactly! Just have a toggle and default to off. If you don't use your iPhone much and/or have constant access to chargers, you turn it on. Otherwise off.

 

[1rottenapple]

I don’t perceive 120hz refresh rate as a must have feature in a phone, especially if there is a marked trade-off in weight/thickness/battery life.

It would be nice to have it, but the lack of such a feature is not a deal breaker at all.

I know seriously I want the best battery life possible not screen refresh that I can't even tell.

I want 3 day battery life because when the inevitable period when you hit 12 months the battery declines. So to go from 3 day battery life to 2.5 day battery life in 1 year is a good mark.

 

[1rottenapple]

120hz is a real difference though. I felt the same way you did about the Pixel 4 where it was noticeable but subtle. The S20 Ultra was very noticeable though.

Really?

I have a 12.9 2018 and a 11 2018 model and I can't tell for the life of me the difference. Maybe I don't take advantage of it with my use case but I do use the pencil for note writing for work. That's probably the reason I can't tell.

 

[freeagent]

I don’t know.. I play games, use apps.. I use my phone. Not once have I thought man this phone sucks, wtf!! I need more hertz. I haven’t used an iPad with the higher refresh, so I don’t know what I’m missing. But I don’t think I’m missing much lol. My phone is as smooth as the glass it’s made with. Just as I paid for.

 

[ToddH]

Can you elaborate why the color / white balance needs to be accurate for photographers and how a 120 display could compromise that?

I don’t know if a 120Hz wil compromise it, just being a new display will do that. Some displays have too much contrast, some have an off color tint. I know on a pc or Mac monitor, tools can be purchased to calibrate the screen for accurate color. You don’t want to process a photo with a non calibrated monitor. The final file or print will look different. The iPhone is no different. I believe that Apple strives to have accurate color on the iPhone display for photographers and videographers alike to process an accurate file.

I’m sure most people just snap a photo on the iPhone and say, yeah, that looks good and not even take the time to adjust highlights, black point, white balance, etc. to make the photo look it’s best. That’s why a new display may change things. I don’t know who would manufacture it, how much contrast it will have.. will skin tones look correct, etc... That’s the way a photographer thinks. The average Joe won’t care. But hey, 120Hz may do ok with gamers or sliding from one app screen on your iPhone to the next and say, that’s smoother looking. Nice!! I’m not sure of any other way that 120Hz will help. Movies?? Why are so many requesting this or getting bummed about it? I’m not a gamer, nor do I watch movies on my iPhone... well sometimes.

 

[dmccloud]

I don’t know if a 120Hz wil compromise it, just being a new display will do that. Some displays have too much contrast, some have an off color tint. I know on a pc or Mac monitor, tools can be purchased to calibrate the screen for accurate color. You don’t want to process a photo with a non calibrated monitor. The final file or print will look different. The iPhone is no different. I believe that Apple strives to have accurate color on the iPhone display for photographers and videographers alike to process an accurate file.

I’m sure most people just snap a photo on the iPhone and say, yeah, that looks good and not even take the time to adjust highlights, black point, white balance, etc. to make the photo look it’s best. That’s why a new display may change things. I don’t know who would manufacture it, how much contrast it will have.. will skin tones look correct, etc... That’s the way a photographer thinks. The average Joe won’t care. But hey, 120Hz may do ok with gamers or sliding from one app screen on your iPhone to the next and say, that’s smoother looking. Nice!! I’m not sure of any other way that 120Hz will help. Movies?? Why are so many requesting this or getting bummed about it? I’m not a gamer, nor do I watch movies on my iPhone... well sometimes.

Movies won't benefit from 120Hz refresh rates, because they usually run at 24FPS (if recorded on film), 60FPS max (if recorded digitally).

 

[1rottenapple]

I don’t know.. I play games, use apps.. I use my phone. Not once have I thought man this phone sucks, wtf!! I need more hertz. I haven’t used an iPad with the higher refresh, so I don’t know what I’m missing. But I don’t think I’m missing much lol. My phone is as smooth as the glass it’s made with. Just as I paid for.

I play one game on my iPad for long hours for the last 2 years which is Pubg, and other than the big screen I see no difference. So I'm not really sure why people are so high on high 120 hertz display. I know the variable refresh rate can be good for the battery in that it class slow down he refresh rate, but it can also eat up battery life when the speed goes up to 120. That is evident in the high refresh rate Samsung phones that do not enable 120 hertz by default because of battery life concerns. I believe you have to enable it.

 

[macher]

I play one game on my iPad for long hours for the last 2 years which is Pubg, and other than the big screen I see no difference. So I'm not really sure why people are so high on high 120 hertz display. I know the variable refresh rate can be good for the battery in that it class slow down he refresh rate, but it can also eat up battery life when the speed goes up to 120. That is evident in the high refresh rate Samsung phones that do not enable 120 hertz by default because of battery life concerns. I believe you have to enable it.

After following people I’m reading that 120 on the Note absolutely destroys and kills the battery. But when you enable it to 60 the battery life is very good.