This must be a troll comment. I'm sure you realize that a refresh rate is only one of many display parameters.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Standard iPhone 17 Display Again Said to Feature Higher Refresh Rate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely no change between iPhone iterations can be described as life changing. However, it is one of the more immediately noticeable improvements Apple can make. Far more so than the constant tinkering with the cameras, or shaving 0.1mm of the bezels etc.
The 60hz iPhone display is not acceptable for a phone in this price range. It feels laggy.
I understand, but would you say it’s something you often notice? Or do you get used to it and forget it’s there?
With LCD to OLED I found that I really keep enjoying the leap years after I’ve started using it. Apple was very late to that party as well but I’m less interested in refresh rate this time around.
Read again, he didn't claim that they had it prior to 2017, only prior to when iPhones got it.
The Razer Phone released in 2017 had VRR (Qualcomm Q-Sync).
Hopefully they bring this to the MacBook Air so I don’t have to keep getting the Macbrick pro just to get a modern display.
I can only entertain the idea that 17/17 Plus get “Super Retina XDR” with ProMotion if 17 Pro/Max move on to an obviously superior display type.
I would expect them to adopt something similar to the “Ultra Retina XDR Tandem OLED” displays we got in iPads Pro M4.
Apple is all about sequential and superlative terms in its or product naming strategy.
Thus, iPhones 17 Pro/Max moving from “Super Retina” to “Ultra Retina” display tech would add up perfectly.
The non-Pro iPhones (sans SE 4) could then move to 120Hz without cannibalizing too many iPhone Pro/Max sales.
SE 4 being stuck with the 60Hz OLED would also underline the price/value/$ gap between the low end and mid tier, which I’m sure Apple is aiming for (SE 4 will probably be a little too good value compared to the mid tier iPhone 16 initially. iPhones 17 will then fix that).
The only question that remains is if it’s going to be iPhones 17 Pro or 18 Pro that jump to “Ultra Retina” displays.
If you're not concerned with the weight or thickness of your iPhone, then buy a magsafe battery pack, attach it to your phone, and never remove it. Enjoy doubled battery life.
So you realise that comes with the trade-off in weight? And the 16 Pro is already overweight. I have the 15 Pro only was ok to buy it because it got lighter from the 14 Pro. I wouldn’t want an iPhone even 1g heavier.
And you’re asking 20% every year, do you realise what you’re asking? That is simply unrealistic.
100% this. I still use an iPhone 11 for work and swiping through home pages or web pages I can really notice the difference between 60hz and 120hz.
I was going to make a joke about using 90hz and calling it semi-pro motion but you beat me to it. 😂
Watch Apple make the Pro's 144hz or 165hz and call it super-pro motion or something.
Sure, it should be higher than 60Hz, but let's not kid ourselves that $100 smartphones have better display. Refresh rate is only one parameter, I would take an LTPO Oled 60Hz iPhone screen over some shi**y subpar IPS screen with a high refresh rate any day of the week.
Tbh I don’t notice it but I’m 51. I can hardly tell a difference between my 16PM and my iPad mini 6 and iPad Air 5. They all look good to me.
See post 19 from Unchecked. The Galaxy S21 Ultra was released in Jan 2021 and came with a full VRR 120 hz OLED screen (exact same as promotion). The iPhone 13 Pro was the first iPhone with VRR which was released in Sept 2021.
Same here… I just recently moved from an 11 Pro to a 16 Pro, and honestly I have not even noticed anything remarkable with the refresh rate. This feature might not be as important as many people think, or maybe as other posters say, refresh rate is just a parameter among a large list of screen’s parameters or…. maybe it’s all about my 52 years old eyes.
“Higher refresh rate” does not mean “Promotion”. I’ll expect it will be crippled in some way.
And remember. The slim iPhone with one camera and lacking features is just there as a stepping stone for them to walk back features on the non-pro phones.
In a few years the non-pros will be new versions of the slim. While the pro will be the bigger multi camera “pro” phone. It’s like the iPhone 11 again (which was really just a new iPhone XR).
And remember. The slim iPhone with one camera and lacking features is just there as a stepping stone for them to walk back features on the non-pro phones.
In a few years the non-pros will be new versions of the slim. While the pro will be the bigger multi camera “pro” phone. It’s like the iPhone 11 again (which was really just a new iPhone XR).
I wonder what they'll add to the Pro line to make it worth the $200 difference then... or conversely, how they'll handicap the regular iPhones to make people willing to pay an extra $200 for a "Pro" iPhone. 😩
(because otherwise I don't see people willing to fork over that much money for an extra camera lens and bland metallic colors)
Yea of course. Too bad they didn't trickle it down to the lower end phones and let the competition overtake them.
That's kinda the problem with Apple for the most part. The gatekeeping of features to keep them at a premium, milking it until they're forced to catch up when others have overtaken them. Even simple things like crippling USB-B speeds on the base iPad to USB-2 come to mind.
Does this mean we might one day get a promotion display on an iPad mini?! If we could get a non-****** display on that iPad it would be the perfect mobile device (until Apple releases a foldable iPad).