Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Samsung to Apple: "You can't have LCD displays anymore. Not yours"   (news.cnet.com) divider line 68
    More: Obvious, LCD, Samsung, Dow Jones Newswires, mobile payments, Displaysearch, tech news, apples, global sourcing  
•       •       •

6448 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Oct 2012 at 11:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 11:08:24 AM  
Apple has been diversifying sources for its display within the current cycle anyway. Sharp and LG are now suppliers where Samsung used to be the only supplier.

Of course, on the flip side, Sharp and LG are running into production delays because they can't supply the amount of screens that Apple needs for their devices fast enough. Only Samsung has the production scale to make displays as fast as Apple demands them, so Apple's going to lose out on it going forward until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.
 
2012-10-22 11:12:23 AM  

RexTalionis: until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.


I'd say if they can make up the slack. This is a massive hit on Apple and I personally think they deserve it. The constant court trolling is finally catching up to them.
 
2012-10-22 11:43:36 AM  

logistic: RexTalionis: until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.

I'd say if they can make up the slack. This is a massive hit on Apple and I personally think they deserve it. The constant court trolling is finally catching up to them.


people will stop buying if you turn your company into douchetronix. won't want the look
 
2012-10-22 11:50:09 AM  
good job Samsung, now kick them while their down!
 
2012-10-22 11:50:35 AM  

RexTalionis: Apple has been diversifying sources for its display within the current cycle anyway. Sharp and LG are now suppliers where Samsung used to be the only supplier.

Of course, on the flip side, Sharp and LG are running into production delays because they can't supply the amount of screens that Apple needs for their devices fast enough. Only Samsung has the production scale to make displays as fast as Apple demands them, so Apple's going to lose out on it going forward until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.


Do you know if they have the tech to make retina displays?

My piss poor understanding was that was a prime reason for Apple to go to Samsung, was the Samsung tech was that much higher.

All in all, it's another interesting chapter or two in the Apple Samsung Google love spats.

If both survive the lirpa, combat will continue with the ahn woon.
 
2012-10-22 11:59:49 AM  
I was wondering if and when Samsung would take this step. Great job biting the hand that feeds you, Apple.
 
2012-10-22 12:02:32 PM  

logistic: RexTalionis: until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.

I'd say if they can make up the slack. This is a massive hit on Apple and I personally think they deserve it. The constant court trolling is finally catching up to them.


Sharp is in a black hole financially. its been in the red since 2008, with cumulative losses of at least $5 billion. its lenders just threw it a $3 billion lifeline, and its selling off a bunch of assets.

its not exactly a company you want to be a critical supplier. perhaps Apple will force a sale to a stronger supplier? who knows.
 
2012-10-22 12:02:34 PM  

RoyBatty: If both survive the lirpa, combat will continue with the ahn woon.


www.startrek.com

Da da da da da da DAN DAN DAN DAN DAN!
 
2012-10-22 12:07:34 PM  

RoyBatty: RexTalionis: Apple has been diversifying sources for its display within the current cycle anyway. Sharp and LG are now suppliers where Samsung used to be the only supplier.

Of course, on the flip side, Sharp and LG are running into production delays because they can't supply the amount of screens that Apple needs for their devices fast enough. Only Samsung has the production scale to make displays as fast as Apple demands them, so Apple's going to lose out on it going forward until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.

Do you know if they have the tech to make retina displays?

My piss poor understanding was that was a prime reason for Apple to go to Samsung, was the Samsung tech was that much higher.

All in all, it's another interesting chapter or two in the Apple Samsung Google love spats.

If both survive the lirpa, combat will continue with the ahn woon.


The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.

Samsung not only has capacity, but they build the best LCDs currently available. There really aren't very many producers out there, and Samsung leads the way. It's going to take some major cash and prodding to get another supplier or two up to the same quality and production levels. On the one hand, "YAY MONEY!" But on the other, "HOLY CRAP WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?!"
 
2012-10-22 12:09:15 PM  
Been waiting for this to happen, surprised it took this long.
 
2012-10-22 12:09:56 PM  
Forgot to say in first paragraph: If Apple doesn't own the process, any new supplier is going to have to literally invent a solid process for making defect-free high-density displays. It's not something that can't be done, but they also can't simply copy Samsung's methods. Just more grist for the Patent War mill.
 
2012-10-22 12:11:00 PM  
I'm sure this is totally unrelated to this article, but if everyone acknowledges that Samsung makes some amazing LCD screens, why is it every time I see a Samsung Galaxy S phone, they have that hideous blue hue/tint/whatever all over the screen? Is it just my defective eyes?

/I went with an HTC phone for this very reason
 
2012-10-22 12:14:41 PM  
Might explain the story last week where Panasonic is shutting down their LCD TV line to make displays for Apple?
 
2012-10-22 12:18:20 PM  

RoyBatty: RexTalionis: Apple has been diversifying sources for its display within the current cycle anyway. Sharp and LG are now suppliers where Samsung used to be the only supplier.

Of course, on the flip side, Sharp and LG are running into production delays because they can't supply the amount of screens that Apple needs for their devices fast enough. Only Samsung has the production scale to make displays as fast as Apple demands them, so Apple's going to lose out on it going forward until Sharp and LG can make up the slack.

Do you know if they have the tech to make retina displays?

.


I'm guessing apple owns the patents on the processes to make the displays (which is why we haven't seen samsung use the same ones). If that is the case they can just transfer the technology to LG and Sharp. It will take a few months but in the long run it is worth it if they plan to continue fighting Samsung in court.
 
2012-10-22 12:21:02 PM  
In fairness to Apple, nobody could have known that suing your business partners might backfire.
 
2012-10-22 12:21:45 PM  

Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays.


In the case of retina displays, they are already sourced from multiple vendors, so obviously Samsung does not own the process in this case.

Apple is also expected to abandon Samsung's chip manufacturing services next year, moving to TSMC in Taiwan instead.

Apple accounted for about 10% of Samsung's profits in the past, so Samsung has basically screwed the pooch here.
 
2012-10-22 12:23:28 PM  

Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.


It's not even a process. Retina is a brand name that Apple uses for Apple devices that have a certain pixel density that the average eye cannot see individual pixels at a certain distance (220 Pixels Per Inch for Macbook Pros (because they have a longer viewing distance) and 326 PPI for iPhones (because they're meant to be held up about a foot away from your eyes)).

Any display manufacturer can make a high density display through whatever technology they might use (for instance, SuperAMOLED as opposed to LCD) and it would be Retina-classed (although they can't use the term Retina because Apple filed a trademark on that).

If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.
 
2012-10-22 12:24:56 PM  

RexTalionis: Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.

It's not even a process. Retina is a brand name that Apple uses for Apple devices that have a certain pixel density that the average eye cannot see individual pixels at a certain distance (220 Pixels Per Inch for Macbook Pros (because they have a longer viewing distance) and 326 PPI for iPhones (because they're meant to be held up about a foot away from your eyes)).

Any display manufacturer can make a high density display through whatever technology they might use (for instance, SuperAMOLED as opposed to LCD) and it would be Retina-classed (although they can't use the term Retina because Apple filed a trademark on that).

If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.


In addition...

The only reason they went to that pixel density is that the resolution on the iPhone was visibly shiatty; however they needed to keep the ratios the same to avoid everyone having to rebuild their apps. So they just doubled everything!
 
2012-10-22 12:25:02 PM  

StrikitRich: Might explain the story last week where Panasonic is shutting down their LCD TV line to make displays for Apple?


Also, Panasonic LCDs are decent displays, but their plasma line is really their money maker, and is really the viera line of TV's is just really top notch. It pushes them into the higher end of their TV's, which they are probably ok with, and allows them to sell the LCDs they are producing elsewhere.
 
2012-10-22 12:26:43 PM  

RoyBatty: Do you know if they have the tech to make retina displays?


I'm not sure who makes the displays, but the HTC 8X and Lumia 920 have a higher pixel density than the iPhone 5, so it is quite possible to get a "Retina" display on a non-iPhone phone right now. On the tablet side, I haven't seen much of anything that is equal to the iPad in size and resolution, however, so that might be more difficult.
 
2012-10-22 12:28:33 PM  

RexTalionis: If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.


Not really. The whole point of calling a display a "retina" display is that after a certain point, the human eye can't perceive individual pixels when at a given distance from the display.

Having more of something people can't make out is not really a design win.

Once manufacturers cross that perception limit, what they need to work on now is increasing color accuracy and reducing power draw.
 
2012-10-22 12:31:49 PM  

Tigger: RexTalionis: Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.

It's not even a process. Retina is a brand name that Apple uses for Apple devices that have a certain pixel density that the average eye cannot see individual pixels at a certain distance (220 Pixels Per Inch for Macbook Pros (because they have a longer viewing distance) and 326 PPI for iPhones (because they're meant to be held up about a foot away from your eyes)).

Any display manufacturer can make a high density display through whatever technology they might use (for instance, SuperAMOLED as opposed to LCD) and it would be Retina-classed (although they can't use the term Retina because Apple filed a trademark on that).

If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.

In addition...

The only reason they went to that pixel density is that the resolution on the iPhone was visibly shiatty; however they needed to keep the ratios the same to avoid everyone having to rebuild their apps. So they just doubled everything!


I can find complaints about Apple, but it would not be their resolution.
 
2012-10-22 12:33:15 PM  
Let me run to the ATM machine and enter my PIN number so I can pay subby for the awesome headline about LCD displays.

/i'm from the DoRD, and i'm here to help
 
2012-10-22 12:36:08 PM  

BullBearMS: Not really. The whole point of calling a display a "retina" display is that after a certain point, the human eye can't perceive individual pixels when at a given distance from the display.


No, actually. Under the way Apple has it, it's more about the average human eye can't perceive individual pixels at a certain distance. People with above-average eyesight can see pixels (or, if you're extremely nearsighted, but with good vision for upclose items)).

Incidentally, if I take off my glasses, I can see pixels on my iPhone 4S with my left eye (which is very near sighted).

BullBearMS: Once manufacturers cross that perception limit, what they need to work on now is increasing color accuracy and reducing power draw.


I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.
 
2012-10-22 12:41:54 PM  
Anything that trolls Apple is cool with me. If they're gonna screw with the entire smartphone industry with this patent bullshiat, then I hope there's more fallout like this
 
2012-10-22 12:43:35 PM  

RexTalionis: BullBearMS: Once manufacturers cross that perception limit, what they need to work on now is increasing color accuracy and reducing power draw.

I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.


Extensive testing of Apple and Samsung's current flagship devices comes to the exact opposite conclusion.

Samsung:
The Brightness is about half of the iPhone 5 due to power limits from the lower power efficiency of OLEDs and concerns regarding premature OLED aging.

The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors, but the Color Gamut is quite lopsided, with Green being a lot more saturated than Red or Blue, which adds a Green color caste to many images.

Samsung has not bothered to correct or calibrate their display colors to bring them into closer agreement with the Standard sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut, so many images appear over saturated and gaudy.

Running Time on battery is less than the iPhone 5 due to the lower power efficiency of OLEDs, even given that the Galaxy S III has a much larger battery capacity and much lower Brightness.

The Galaxy S III has a PenTile OLED display, which has only half of the number of Red and Blue sub-pixels as in standard RGB displays, like those on the iPhones. The eye's resolution for color image detail is lower, so this works well for photographic and video image content, but NOT for computer generated colored text and fine graphics because it produces visible pixelation, moiré, and other very visible artifacts, so a PenTile display is not as sharp as its pixel Resolution and PPI would indicate.


Apple:
Based on our extensive Lab measurements the iPhone 5 has a true state-of-the-art display - it's not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvements (and competitors) but it's the best Smartphone display we have tested to date.
 
2012-10-22 12:50:16 PM  

BullBearMS: RexTalionis: BullBearMS: Once manufacturers cross that perception limit, what they need to work on now is increasing color accuracy and reducing power draw.

I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.

Extensive testing of Apple and Samsung's current flagship devices comes to the exact opposite conclusion.

Samsung:
The Brightness is about half of the iPhone 5 due to power limits from the lower power efficiency of OLEDs and concerns regarding premature OLED aging.

The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors, but the Color Gamut is quite lopsided, with Green being a lot more saturated than Red or Blue, which adds a Green color caste to many images.

Samsung has not bothered to correct or calibrate their display colors to bring them into closer agreement with the Standard sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut, so many images appear over saturated and gaudy.

Running Time on battery is less than the iPhone 5 due to the lower power efficiency of OLEDs, even given that the Galaxy S III has a much larger battery capacity and much lower Brightness.

The Galaxy S III has a PenTile OLED display, which has only half of the number of Red and Blue sub-pixels as in standard RGB displays, like those on the iPhones. The eye's resolution for color image detail is lower, so this works well for photographic and video image content, but NOT for computer generated colored text and fine graphics because it produces visible pixelation, moiré, and other very visible artifacts, so a PenTile display is not as sharp as its pixel Resolution and PPI would indicate.

Apple:
Based on our extensive Lab measurements the iPhone 5 has a true state-of-the-art display - it's not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvements (and competitors) but it's the best Smartphone display we h ...


Okay, I'll concede that one. Although, as noted, SuperAMOLED displays are new technologies, while LCD displays are mature technologies. I think SuperAMOLED has a lot of room for improvement in future interations.

Also, as a side note, Displaymate (the guys who did the review) are also the ones who claim that Apple don't have true Retina displays because the human eyes see at 477 Pixels Per Inch.
 
2012-10-22 12:50:52 PM  

jjorsett: In fairness to Apple, nobody could have known that suing your business partners might backfire.


Lold
 
2012-10-22 12:52:44 PM  

RexTalionis: Also, as a side note, Displaymate (the guys who did the review) are also the ones who claim that Apple don't have true Retina displays because the human eyes see at 477 Pixels Per Inch.


Just to be specific - 477 PPI at a distance of 12 inches.
 
2012-10-22 12:53:08 PM  
I personally don't like Samsung because of a different reason. Why? It's because of a psychopathic politician and a white-collar criminal by the name of Lee Myung-bak has made Samsung a very sketchy tax-dodging electronic company.
 
2012-10-22 12:56:56 PM  
If anyones feeling lucky, i'd be buying shares in Sharp in a BIG way right now....

Hello Tim, it seems that one of our display suppliers seems to be having financial issues, we could y'know, just sort of buy them and use them to push out all the displays for our products saving us a considerable amount of cash in the long term...
 
2012-10-22 12:58:00 PM  

Mantour: Tigger: RexTalionis: Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.

It's not even a process. Retina is a brand name that Apple uses for Apple devices that have a certain pixel density that the average eye cannot see individual pixels at a certain distance (220 Pixels Per Inch for Macbook Pros (because they have a longer viewing distance) and 326 PPI for iPhones (because they're meant to be held up about a foot away from your eyes)).

Any display manufacturer can make a high density display through whatever technology they might use (for instance, SuperAMOLED as opposed to LCD) and it would be Retina-classed (although they can't use the term Retina because Apple filed a trademark on that).

If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.

In addition...

The only reason they went to that pixel density is that the resolution on the iPhone was visibly shiatty; however they needed to keep the ratios the same to avoid everyone having to rebuild their apps. So they just doubled everything!

I can find complaints about Apple, but it would not be their resolution.


pre-retina display the iPhone was losing in blind product comparisons with the Super Amoled and Super Amoled plus screen.

That was what drove the improvement.
 
2012-10-22 12:58:36 PM  
 
2012-10-22 01:03:13 PM  

moel: If anyones feeling lucky, i'd be buying shares in Sharp in a BIG way right now....

Hello Tim, it seems that one of our display suppliers seems to be having financial issues, we could y'know, just sort of buy them and use them to push out all the displays for our products saving us a considerable amount of cash in the long term...


I highly doubt Apple would buy them.

What Apple does is front a manufacturer the money to either build a new factory or to retool an obsolete factory to produce the new components they want.

Apple pays for the manufacturing equipment and the manufacturing partner gives Apple exclusive rights to the output of that factory at a discounted rate.
 
2012-10-22 01:03:48 PM  

RexTalionis: I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.


AMOLED color accuracy actually isn't that hot, IPS LCD has the most accurate reproduction of any of technologies right now, which is what Apple uses for their displays:

www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-10-22 01:04:43 PM  
Either way, the stock price goes up right?

(i'm new to this)
 
2012-10-22 01:05:53 PM  

Mad_Radhu: RexTalionis: I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.

AMOLED color accuracy actually isn't that hot, IPS LCD has the most accurate reproduction of any of technologies right now, which is what Apple uses for their displays:

[www.blogcdn.com image 600x467]


Nevermind. I see that's been covered while I was looking for a link.
 
2012-10-22 01:13:42 PM  
In my mind I'm imagining a world where Samsung and Apple combined technologies to make a super smartphone. The iPhone5's display really is beautiful, but the phone itself can be super annoying. I like Android features like being able to swap out the battery, replace sim cards, use external sd cards as storage, and having a common plug and not that proprietary bullshiat.

But alas, such a thing is not meant for the real world, and exists only in fantasies
 
2012-10-22 01:13:55 PM  

moel: Either way, the stock price goes up right?

(i'm new to this)


If Sharp can completely get past the yield problems for their IGZO LCD process, their stock's value should shoot up, for sure. Small thin devices have less room for batteries, so the most power efficient components should win.

This is a case where the process rights are definitely Sharps. Their displays are extremely color accurate and low power. Win Win.
 
2012-10-22 01:19:28 PM  

Mantour: Tigger: RexTalionis: Kuroshin: The exact same display? It really depends on who owns the process. If Sammy owns the process, then no, other first-tier manufacturers can't produce them unless they pay some mondo licensing fees. If Apple owns the rights to the process, then yes, anybody working for Apple under contract can produce the displays. It isn't so hard from a technical standpoint, but the big issue with high pixel density LCDs is down to defects per inch. All OEMs are rather persnickety these days over screen defects, but Apple is even more so.

It's not even a process. Retina is a brand name that Apple uses for Apple devices that have a certain pixel density that the average eye cannot see individual pixels at a certain distance (220 Pixels Per Inch for Macbook Pros (because they have a longer viewing distance) and 326 PPI for iPhones (because they're meant to be held up about a foot away from your eyes)).

Any display manufacturer can make a high density display through whatever technology they might use (for instance, SuperAMOLED as opposed to LCD) and it would be Retina-classed (although they can't use the term Retina because Apple filed a trademark on that).

If I recall, there's a new HTC phone coming out called the HTC Butterfly. It has a 1080P display packed into a 5 inch handset, with a 440 PPI, which blows the Apple Retina displays out of the water.

In addition...

The only reason they went to that pixel density is that the resolution on the iPhone was visibly shiatty; however they needed to keep the ratios the same to avoid everyone having to rebuild their apps. So they just doubled everything!

I can find complaints about Apple, but it would not be their resolution.


Keep in mind, we're talking about pre-Retina iPhones. The 3GS only had a 480x320 resolution; by comparison, the Motorola DROID released the same year had 854x480.
 
2012-10-22 02:57:58 PM  
jjorsett: In fairness to Apple Samsung, nobody could have known that suing stealing from your business partners might backfire.
 
FTFY
 
2012-10-22 03:01:48 PM  

bingethinker: jjorsett: In fairness to Apple Samsung, nobody could have known that suing stealing from your business partners might backfire.
 
FTFY


Yes, they stole such revolutionary ideas as "rounded black rectangle" and "grid of icons".
 
2012-10-22 03:10:01 PM  

Mad_Radhu: RexTalionis: I agree, although it seems to me that a lot of the best color accuracy and drawing power for displays can be found in SuperAMOLEDs (which is a Samsung technology) and not backlit LCD displays.

AMOLED color accuracy actually isn't that hot, IPS LCD has the most accurate reproduction of any of technologies right now, which is what Apple uses for their displays:

[www.blogcdn.com image 600x467]


While it's true that the colors are overexpressed in most of the devices using AMOLED displays, that's a software problem, not a hardware limitation. Nobody says you have to stretch your signal gamut out to fill a larger gamut-- a larger gamut display has no problem displaying a smaller, subset gamut.
 
2012-10-22 03:15:45 PM  

raygundan: While it's true that the colors are overexpressed in most of the devices using AMOLED displays, that's a software problem, not a hardware limitation. Nobody says you have to stretch your signal gamut out to fill a larger gamut-- a larger gamut display has no problem displaying a smaller, subset gamut.


As has been already been pointed out, Samsung makes no effort to calibrate their displays.

It doesn't really matter to a consumer why the Galaxy S III's display is so inaccurate, making everything look green all the time is a problem.

That's before you take into account the display being only half as bright and sucking so much power that the iPhone 5 gets an extra three hours battery life when browsing the web over LTE, despite having a much smaller battery.
 
2012-10-22 03:16:22 PM  

BullBearMS: The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors,


No. "Stretching" the standard gamut to fill the larger gamut causes distorted and exaggerated colors. Any display whose gamut is a complete superset of another can display exactly the same colors as the smaller-gamut display.

Saying that distorted colors are the fault of the AMOLED display's larger gamut is like saying you should buy cars with a top speed of 65mph. Just because your car will go 175mph doesn't mean it has to, and it will go 65mph just fine, as long as the driver doesn't put his foot all the way to the floor in every car he drives.
 
2012-10-22 03:16:49 PM  
MEH
 
2012-10-22 03:18:30 PM  

BullBearMS: As has been already been pointed out, Samsung makes no effort to calibrate their displays.


Agreed. But this has nothing to do with AMOLED, with the exception that AMOLED gives them the space to oversaturate. They'd be crap on any display tech if they're not calibrating.
 
2012-10-22 03:21:32 PM  

BullBearMS: That's before you take into account the display being only half as bright


Considering I keep my aging, inferior iPhone 4 below half brightness, I don't think this is going to be a real issue for anybody. But the total lack of calibration is a pile of suck, without question. At least with computers, you can buy a little colorimeter and recalibrate it yourself-- and thank god, because the laptop I have right now shipped with a display so blue-bent that the whites were violet.
 
2012-10-22 03:46:42 PM  

tortilla burger: Anything that trolls Apple is cool with me. If they're gonna screw with the entire smartphone industry with this patent bullshiat, then I hope there's more fallout like this


Yeah, because they're the only ones who do it.
 
2012-10-22 04:15:16 PM  

raygundan: Considering I keep my aging, inferior iPhone 4 below half brightness, I don't think this is going to be a real issue for anybody.


Good news. With your phone's display at half brightness your battery lasts longer. Unfortunately, full brightness on the Galaxy S III is only equivalent to half brightness on the iPhone.

This is one of the reasons the iPhone 5 can browse the web over LTE for an extra three hours in comparison with the Galaxy S III despite having a much smaller battery.

raygundan: But this has nothing to do with AMOLED, with the exception that AMOLED gives them the space to oversaturate. They'd be crap on any display tech if they're not calibrating.


Calibration would certainly help, but it's not going to get rid of the underlying fact that Samsung's display is Pentile, and has twice as many green pixels as red or blue. The fact that the Galaxy S III gives everything a green tint is hardly surprising.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report