The phone loses TouchID and has a display that's $75 more expensive, and yet that equates to a $1k+ price point? How is that NOT because of Apple?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's OLED Display Monopoly May Explain iPhone 8's Rumored $1,000 Price
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What? Lol. They're not ruling by illegal means. If others don't like their monopoly on OLED panels, then they neef to up their game.
Oh of course yes. Clearly an extra $10 per display means they are forced to charge an extra $200 per unit. Not their decision at all.
Edit: Just actually ready the article. I had no idea the OLED panels cost so much.
Edit: Just actually ready the article. I had no idea the OLED panels cost so much.
Apple always prices their products to have a 33-38% profit margin. That's not ridiculous. Of course you'd have to look at their financial statements to figure that out.
[doublepost=1504728775][/doublepost]
You Apple probably added its own sauce to it. I don't think took Samsungs display as is....
Yea but Apple can easily use a S7 panel or note 7 panel and add true tone and 120 HZ to make up for the older panel. I'm thinking they will add true tone but it doesn't seem like 120 HZ will be ready for iPhones until Fall of next year. Also iPhones may get Apple pencil support next year most likely which will warrant the 120 HZ and try to compete with the Note 9.
Still 120 HZ and true tone does not change the quality of the display. At least Apple will finally have a quad HD panel. 1080p has been long overdone.
Last edited:
Apple's profit margin on the iPhone was 38% last year. To put that into perspective, the next highest company was Samsung at 17%.
You could argue that Samsung know .its' monopoly is going to be short lived and so is taking advantage of it; who wouldn't? Outsized gross profit as you call it has never been an issue for Apple
True, some analysts predict that Samsung's market share will drop to ~72% by 2020. Whether or not that happens is anyone's guess.
Samsung does not solely depend just on it's displays. Even if displays started to not profit as much, they can also rely on their NAND and chip making capabilities. They did manufacturer the 14 nm snapdragon 820 and the 10 nm snapdragon 835 as well as their own Exynos chips and will be manufacturing next year's snapdragon 845. They are the sole reason Qualcomm chips no longer overheat.
Samsung is at least willing to innovate and do the research necessary to improve their products so I wouldn't be so quick to ever see their downfall. In years to come, Apple who depends mostly on their iPhones and iTunes music will need to address their lack of technological diversity in this ever changing market and may not be able to continue with their reliance on mobile phones sells nor music in the streaming age. I don't see the need to continue upgrading phones like we do now in the next upcoming years either.
Last edited:
They might mean "panel" in the "wafer" sense, source sheet material from which smaller panels are eventually produced. It could be that 50 iPhone screens can be made from each panel.
This is curious for many reasons
1) Samsung has OLEDs for their phones but curiously not for their TVs which they prefer quantum dot or QLED displays for
2) LG definitely has OLED displays. It is the main OLED TV maker and sells the most OLED TVs. In addition they make OLED phones as well.
3) Google Pixel has a 5 inch display, is OLED, and sells for $600. So what gives?
1) Samsung has OLEDs for their phones but curiously not for their TVs which they prefer quantum dot or QLED displays for
2) LG definitely has OLED displays. It is the main OLED TV maker and sells the most OLED TVs. In addition they make OLED phones as well.
3) Google Pixel has a 5 inch display, is OLED, and sells for $600. So what gives?
Erm care to explain why?
You seem to be implying that their is something sinister going on. There isn't, Samsung simply has superior manufacturing capability when it comes to OLED panels.
S8 has been selling for 500-600$ for months now.
It's using Samsung's top of the line display unit.
But again... it's Samsung's own device.
They haven't sold their absolute top of the line displays to anybody else yet.
Other devices like the Moto Z or Pixel got the close but a little bit worse last year's stuff.
If Apple demanded best in class, maybe Samsung is demanding high pricing in exchange for exclusivity.
It won't matter...for both Apple and Samsung if the warheads hit S.Korea and California.
Negative. First Galaxy S phone in 2010 featured an AMOLED display.
It was a 4.0” Super AMOLED with RBGB-Matrix (Pentile) at 480x800 px WVGA (233 ppi).
That's not the way it works in a component business. You jack your prices up while you have the monopoly, while using the cash to invest in cost reductions. Then you lower the price as competitors come in. Meanwhile, you invest the profits in developing the next generation of component products.
...Huh? Samsung isn't saying other people can't sell OLED, the reason they have a monopoly is because they've invested in the technology for so long that it's more mature and they can produce in large numbers. You can't sue Samsung just because other companies decided to wait so long before investing into OLED.
I think I may have misinterpreted what the intended implication of your post?
That may be true, but the market will ultimately determine that. Personally, you couldn't pay me what Apple charges to use one of those other companies' phones instead. Phones are about a lot more than screen size, or nice looking hardware.
If that's their position, then they're certainly entitled to do that. Markets would seem to suggest otherwise, considering the consumer of the product had to invest billions of it's own dollars into the competitor to try and spur the investment necessary to induce competition. I would argue, and I think with full validity, that a competitor would be hard pressed to invest billions of their own dollars in fabrication facilities to make a few percent on the displays. It's only when there are considerable margins to be had that that type of response is induced.
Anyway, the main point is that given today's societal context of hostility towards companies,profits, and especially the notion that abusive 'monopolies' can exist for a sustained period in a free market, I felt it necessary to defend the efficiency of the free market in getting rid of actors who make outsized margins, and make the point that if Samsung is actually over leveraging it's dominance in the OLED space, there will be plenty of people who step up to take a piece of that pie, and margins will come right back down to where they should have been, if not lower.
AMOLED, OLED, POLED are all oversaturated.
I have had multiple Android phones and compared to the iPhone the colors are just bad.
Granted the OLED variants have better blacks.
The only way to make an OLED look good it to color balance it.
I hope Apple puts in come color balance controls in because I hate the various OLED implementations on Android.
I have had multiple Android phones and compared to the iPhone the colors are just bad.
Granted the OLED variants have better blacks.
The only way to make an OLED look good it to color balance it.
I hope Apple puts in come color balance controls in because I hate the various OLED implementations on Android.
