Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wonder if any of these anti-OLED/AMOLED/SAMOLED/SAMOLED+ posters would continue, uh, posting replies like this if Apple ever decides to adopt some variant of OLED on their next-gen iPhone :rolleyes:

Sometimes, when I read posts saying 'the design of the iPhone 4 is great, there are no signal issues whatsoever and it's your fault if it breaks from a 3-foot drop', I wonder how they would react if Samsung or HTC made a glass sandwich phone which was prone, too, to crack/break/have signal issues :)
 
I wonder if any of these anti-OLED/AMOLED/SAMOLED/SAMOLED+ posters would continue, uh, posting replies like this if Apple ever decides to adopt some variant of OLED on their next-gen iPhone :rolleyes:

Sometimes, when I read posts saying 'the design of the iPhone 4 is great, there are no signal issues whatsoever and it's your fault if it breaks from a 3-foot drop', I wonder how they would react if Samsung or HTC made a glass sandwich phone which was prone, too, to crack/break/have signal issues :)
Come on man! Don't you get it? Whatever Apple makes is tha best!
 
Samsung is a great company that makes many great products. Their weakest products imo is their phones. I have a Galaxy S for work and a iP4 for personal use. In daily use the iP4 screen is better for battery life, reading on sites, outside viewing. The display on the Galaxy looks pixelated, the UI is horrible and the phone feels cheap. It is always on a charger as the battery life is horrible. So why would Apple switch to their screens when they cannot produce enough for them and the experience would be lessened? I agree the technology will be the future but Apple is smart enough not to implement it until it is ready for prime time. Building great components is quite different than putting them together for a finished product. This is where Apple exceeds Samsung's ability.

the samsung focus, on the other hand, is amazing. When they have to make their own OS (because for some reason stock android is never good enough for OEMs) they are terrible at it, but when it comes to hardware they do a damn good job.
 
Lucky for you Ped, looks like you don't need the BS flag anymore.

Actually I still do need it since the person who made the claim massively exaggerated the point by suggesting that EVERY OLED phone he's EVER seen has burn in. Which is blatant BS. Almost as if he's biased and has an axed to grind...

I wonder if any of these anti-OLED/AMOLED/SAMOLED/SAMOLED+ posters would continue, uh, posting replies like this if Apple ever decides to adopt some variant of OLED on their next-gen iPhone :rolleyes:

Of course they'll be onboard immediately and the first to claim it's the best display technology on Earth. Wonder what they think of these links, all of which claim the iPhone 5 will be OLED?

http://mobile-tech-reviews.com/apple-iphone-5-another-masterpiece-from-the-brand/

http://www.prfire.co.uk/press-relea...tion-mobile-phone-for-apple-lovers-50088.html

http://cariblogger.com/5-cool-gadgets-you-must-get-in-2011
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of your links are highly speculative with absolutely no sources cited.

Also, please be aware of the forum rules. Use multi-quote and post editing to avoid double, triple etc. posting.

Finally, it's pretty obvious that Apple will use OLED at some point. At that point, it will have quality better than what LCD can do and will be able to produced in volume at a price Apple is willing to pay. There's nothing to suggest that that all happens this year, especially when they can keep the screen from last year as its still a class leader.
 
From: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/28/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-review/

THE GOOD
Awesome Super AMOLED Plus display

THE BAD
Pixel density is behind the leading pack

Engadget said:
Display

The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular. Blacks are impenetrable, colors pop out at you, and viewing angles are supreme. This would usually be the part where we'd point out that qHD (960 x 540) resolution is fast becoming the norm among top-tier smartphones and that the GSII's 800 x 480 is therefore a bit behind the curve, but frankly, we don't care. With a screen as beautiful as this, such things pale into insignificance. And we use that verb advisedly -- whereas the majority of LCDs quickly lose their luster when you tilt them away from center, color saturation and vibrancy on the Galaxy S II remain undiminished. It is only at extreme angles that you'll notice some discoloration, but that's only if you're looking for it and takes nothing away from the awe-inspiring experience of simply using this device.

Whether you're pushing it to its limits with movie watching or just tamely browsing the web, the Super AMOLED Plus panel inside the Galaxy S II never fails to remind you that it's simply better than almost everything else that's out there. For an instructive example of the contrast on offer here, take a look at our recent post regarding the LG Optimus Big's upcoming launch in Korea. The pattern on that handset's white back was so subtle on our desktop monitor that we completely missed it, whereas when we looked at the same image on the GSII, it looked clear as day. Maybe that doesn't speak too highly of the monitors we're working with, but it underlines the supremacy of the display Samsung has squeezed into the Galaxy S II.

We'd even go so far as to say it's better than the iPhone 4's screen, purely because, at 4.3 inches, it gives us so much more room to work with. It's almost impossible to split the two up in terms of quality of output, they're both top notch. Notably, however, that was also true of Samsung's original Super AMOLED display, the one that graced the 4-inch Galaxy S, and by now you must be wondering if there's actually anything significant enough in the new S-AMOLED technology to justify appending that "Plus" to its name. The short answer is yes, and it's all in the pixels.

The one major downside to the original Super AMOLED panel was to be found in its PenTile matrix subpixel arrangement. It employed an RGBG pattern, wherein you got two green subpixels for every pair of red and blue ones, but the overall resolution was counted on the basis of green subpixels. Ergo, a PenTile 800 x 480 resolution wasn't as rich at the subpixel level as your standard RGB screen (768,000 versus 1,152,000), which resulted in slightly grainier images than would otherwise have been the case. Well, that "otherwise" scenario is now with us, because Samsung has switched to a Real-Stripe RGB array in the 4.3-inch Galaxy S II, which means it packs the full 1.152 megasubpixel count and, as we've already noted, the display looks delectable for it. A lesser criticism of the original Galaxy S was that its colors were a little blown out and oversaturated, but that's once again rendered moot on the successor device -- a software setting called Background effect allows you to tweak saturation, so if you're feeling a little melancholy, you can tone down the intensity of your handset's colors to match your ennui. Basically, if we haven't made it clear already, this is everything that Super AMOLED was, minus the bad parts and plus an extra .3 inches in real estate. A triumph.

Okay, there is one mildly irritating aspect about the Galaxy S II's screen and that's the auto-brightness -- it tends to hunt around for the correct setting and occasionally makes jarring jumps between darker and brighter values. Whether that's down to the ambient light sensor or the software reading data from it isn't all that important, what's relevant is that we found ourselves more comfortable with a human helming the brightness controls.

For those who don't want to jump to the Engadget review.
 
The Galaxy S uses a Super AMOLED display and it is noticeably (and measurably) better than the iPhone4 display. The iPhone4 screen has better resolution, and that is the only category it wins in. Color gamut, brightness, vibrancy, contrast ratio etc are all better on the Galaxy S.

That is a little like saying you "only" won based on the score. Resolution is the game. Having perfectly crisp letters on my iPhone 4 is so nice. Really it beats all the other categories you are talking about. I don't know if AMOLED can be made better, but if I'm seeing individual pixels with my naked eye, than the screen loses to the iPhone.

But I was partial to the original Mac black and white screens over their competitor color screens because I liked the crispness of the tight small pixels. So maybe I've just been on the Apple bandwagon too long.
 
Quotes from the Engadget review...

Being an OLED panel, the 4.3-inch display here doesn't use one single backlight as LCD screens do, and instead only illuminates the pixels that are needed to actively display content. This is the reason why it can generate truer blacks than any backlit panel, but it also permits the user to optimize battery life by doing such things as switching to a darker wallpaper or reading ebooks against a black background.
This is the bit that worries me about the possibility of an iPhone with an OLED screen since most of my screen-on time (i.e. when not just using my iPhone as an iPod) is used for reading ebooks, looking up stuff in text notes and occassional card, board and strategy games. I'm not sure how I would adjust to white text on black background and right now iBooks doesn't support this option (that I could find) so it's hard to experiment. Maybe it would be fine and I might even like it but I'm not at all sure.

Then again...

We didn't actually bother with such tweaks, we were too busy exploring every one of the myriad features on this phone, but the option's there as an extra dimension of obsessive control if you care for it. As to the Galaxy S II's actual endurance, we found it highly competitive with the latest batch of Android phones. After 20 hours, half of which were filled with the above tinkering and exploration, we managed to drag the Galaxy S II down to 15 percent of its original charge. This was with our usual push notification suppliers, Gmail and Twitter, running in the background and while constantly connected to our WiFi network.

If I interpret the screen shot correctly for the picture in the article near to the quote above then it seems as if they actually did 11h 49m 57s of usage during those 20 hours with 15% remaining which, even without the tweaks, is significantly better than I get from my iPhone 4; I would have probably hit 0% battery life at about 11 hours.

Edit: oops. I didn't interpret the screen shot correctly. It is just a shot of them 11h 49m 57s into their 20 hours of playing so, if they are right about half the time with the screen on, then they got to 15% with about 10 hours usage which is probably comparable or just slightly better than my iPhone 4 battery life.

The screen shot I'm talking about is the one in the "Battery Life" section of the review: http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/28/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-review/

- Julian
 
i'd swear i was looking at what the iphone 5 should look like.

11x0428gsii.jpg

there's just nothing not to like about this one.
 
That is a little like saying you "only" won based on the score. Resolution is the game. Having perfectly crisp letters on my iPhone 4 is so nice. Really it beats all the other categories you are talking about. I don't know if AMOLED can be made better, but if I'm seeing individual pixels with my naked eye, than the screen loses to the iPhone.

And so any resolution lower than the iPhone 4 automatically means you can see the pixels? So no cellphone screen resolutions were good/great before the iPhone 4 came into being?
 
And so any resolution lower than the iPhone 4 automatically means you can see the pixels? So no cellphone screen resolutions were good/great before the iPhone 4 came into being?

Both sides have merit. I just went from my iphone 4 to a inspire. The drop in pixel density is immediately noticeable, and I miss it.
 
And so any resolution lower than the iPhone 4 automatically means you can see the pixels? So no cellphone screen resolutions were good/great before the iPhone 4 came into being?

what apple did with retina is make a ridiculously compact pixel density that the human eye cannot even appreciate and of course no one can beat it, because there's no point in making a display so dense the human eye can't detect it.

everyone's comparing these new displays under a microscope and no one looks at a display that way.
 
If you had two options, which would you choose:

1) 300+ppi (retina display) LCD.
2) Super AMOLED plus display - 300+ ppi (3.5 inch screen is 300+; 4 inch is about 288ppi).

It's not really a choice, with s-AMOLED-p you're getting better contrast, black=black, better brightness, nicer colours (for non-photographer [knowing Apple the saturation won't be adjustable]), same ppi and no backlighting problems. I'll choose s-AMOLED-p, thank you very much. Apple will choose the retina display, not AMOLED, as Samsung will probable want it to be named as a Samsung AMOLED, and when, ever, have Apple admited, on their website, that someone else's hardware is in their iDevices. (It's not Samsung, or whoever designed it, A5 - it's Apple A5)
 
Galaxy S2's specs are impressive but the fact is it needs those high end specs to even be stable and smooth as iPhone. The Android OS is flawed in that it requires so much more hardware power.
 
If you had two options, which would you choose:

1) 300+ppi (retina display) LCD.
2) Super AMOLED plus display - 300+ ppi (3.5 inch screen is 300+; 4 inch is about 288ppi).

It's not really a choice, with s-AMOLED-p you're getting better contrast, black=black, better brightness, nicer colours (for non-photographer [knowing Apple the saturation won't be adjustable]), same ppi and no backlighting problems. I'll choose s-AMOLED-p, thank you very much. Apple will choose the retina display, not AMOLED, as Samsung will probable want it to be named as a Samsung AMOLED, and when, ever, have Apple admited, on their website, that someone else's hardware is in their iDevices. (It's not Samsung, or whoever designed it, A5 - it's Apple A5)

I use both an iPhone 4 and a Nexus S with S-AMOLED. I've always been a pixel whore, and consistently hated any phone screens that were qvga or hvga.. I almost couldn't believe it at the time when it was rumoured that Apple would put a 960x640 display in the iPhone 4.

The pentile sub-pixel matrix is somewhat annoying for me, but the colours/blacks of the display are really insane, especially when its next to an LCD display like on the iPhone.

But having a S-AMOLED+ screen (full RGB sub-pixels) and 300ish ppi would just be insane.. Not sure how anyone would turn that down. I was pretty disappointed that the SGS2 is going up to a 4.3" screen and still keeping that 800x480 resolution when everyone else has moved onto 960x540. I'm sure moving to s-amoled+ and trying to increase the pixel count may not be cost effective..

Galaxy S2's specs are impressive but the fact is it needs those high end specs to even be stable and smooth as iPhone. The Android OS is flawed in that it requires so much more hardware power.

There definitely is an advantage as Apple designs the software and hardware as a whole product, so it will give a great experience, but otherwise the experiences are pretty similar. I've used several android phones alongside my iPhones. During 2009 I had Android phones that felt similar in speed/responsiveness to my iPhone 3G and 3GS at the time. And all these 1ghz Android phones during 2010 felt similar in response/speed compared to the iPhone 4 with A4. Definitely don't think you can say that "Android OS is flawed in that it requires so much more hardware power." To me it seems that overall Android phones and iPhones have been advancing in hardware at a similar rate with similar specs.
 
Last edited:
Galaxy S2's specs are impressive but the fact is it needs those high end specs to even be stable and smooth as iPhone. The Android OS is flawed in that it requires so much more hardware power.
Spoken like someone who has never owned an Android device.

You know you can run Gingerbread on an old G2 just fine. ;)
Android 2.3 for example, doesn't "require" the horsepower that the newer phones have. It runs just fine on older hardware. Breathes new life into many older Android phones actually.
 
Not sure of total, but Samsung claims 18% reduction in battery life (may just be referring to the screen - not sure) as compared to the Galaxy S.

Can you imagine the outcry if Apple had an 18% reduction in battery life of the iPhone?
 
checked it out

the samsung focus, on the other hand, is amazing. When they have to make their own OS (because for some reason stock android is never good enough for OEMs) they are terrible at it, but when it comes to hardware they do a damn good job.

Played with Focus at AT&T store real nice! WP7 is really good on this phone. They should dump Android and use WP7! The back felt a little cheezy but it scrolls smooth like a Iphone.
 
Can you imagine the outcry if Apple had an 18% reduction in battery life of the iPhone?

You misunderstand me - the Galaxy S2's screen uses 18% LESS power than than the Galaxy S's screen did. And, considering they moved from Pentile to RealStripe (meaning more subpixels) the power consumption should have gone UP, not down. Which implies that Samsung may be using both the red and green PHOLED materials from Universal Display (they're more efficient), since they managed to increase the number of subpixels and yet still save 18% on the power consumption. Someone I saw elsewhere estimated it's an overall 32% power consumption savings when you factor in the increase in subpixels.
 
Last edited:
what apple did with retina is make a ridiculously compact pixel density that the human eye cannot even appreciate and of course no one can beat it, because there's no point in making a display so dense the human eye can't detect it.

everyone's comparing these new displays under a microscope and no one looks at a display that way.

I'm in complete agreement, except on the "no one can beat it" part, since I would bet a lot that OLEDs will equal and surpass that resolution. And quite soon (next year or two). Though I agree it's largely pointless to get higher resolutions on cellphones. I just don't see OLED taking a backseat to LCD in any area including resolution.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it's just how the glass is cut. The actual display is flat underneath in this hypothetical case and in the case of the nexus s.

In other news, I went and checked out an infuse 4g the other day. The screen was beautiful. Loss of pentile made a big difference (no more grainy grid look) and the blues were nice and vibrant comparatively. I didn't notice the purple hue I saw on my nexus one.
 
Sure the samsung has a better screen. But the S2 is not worth the unsubsidized cost of $1000. Ridiculous. No phone is worth that cost. People are sheeple and can be led like lemmings where they are led to believe a phone is so life changing whether it be apple or any other brand pulling the chain.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.