iPhone X 120hz on iPhone x

[jav6454]

Switch to LG OLED, that'll cut it down to $1100. Take out the heavy steel and replace it with aluminum, $1050. I'll take that deal.

This is Apple, a 120 Hz phone will likely end up costing you $1300 to start @ 64GB ...

 

[Vanilla35]

This is Apple, a 120 Hz phone will likely end up costing you $1300 to start @ 64GB ...

Nope, my guess is they keep the price the same or similar (less than $100 increase) over the next couple years. They started at the current price because that's where they want to sell it; however costs will go down substantially (to them) after they maintain LG as a secondary supplier of OLED. IMO, this gives them room to initiate additional features for next year or 2 years from now's model.

120hz doesn't cost $200. Razer's phone did it at $700 (maybe check my number, but around there), and while that's not a perfect phone (although it's relatively flagship), I'm just saying it's not going to triple the price of the display anything.

 

[barkomatic]

Switch to LG OLED, that'll cut it down to $1100. Take out the heavy steel and replace it with aluminum, $1050. I'll take that deal.

I don't know about that plan, the LG OLED on the Pixel 2 XL got terrible reviews. Overall, cheapening the iPhone doesn't sound like a good idea but providing a cheaper alternative is fine--and that is what Apple is rumored to be doing later this year.

 

[jav6454]

Again... making panels at that size with that resolution, with HDR and at those refresh rates is expensive. Just look at the market for 4k (or 2k) with HDR at 120 or 144 Hz... Monitors with sizes between 26" and 32" start at ~ $550 USD. Now imagine a harder to make phone panel. Lower yields, more complexity... yes, less resolution but that still doesn't mean same complexity of pixel density.

 

[Vanilla35]

I don't know about that plan, the LG OLED on the Pixel 2 XL got terrible reviews. Overall, cheapening the iPhone doesn't sound like a good idea but providing a cheaper alternative is fine--and that is what Apple is rumored to be doing later this year.

LG will manufacture screens to whichever standards apple requests. Google did not request the highest quality display, so it's hard to say how strict their quality control was either.

Apple has used both LG and Samsung in displays over the last 5+ years (from what I can remember), and the only perceivable differences were slightly different color temperatures between the two.

Again... making panels at that size with that resolution, with HDR and at those refresh rates is expensive. Just look at the market for 4k (or 2k) with HDR at 120 or 144 Hz... Monitors with sizes between 26" and 32" start at ~ $550 USD. Now imagine a harder to make phone panel. Lower yields, more complexity... yes, less resolution but that still doesn't mean same complexity of pixel density.

Typical "this plus that plus this plus that" excuse. They already have all those specs in the current panel, they just need to bump it to 120 hz. It's not going to triple the price, like I said. I don't think they'll do it this year, but they could probably add it in 2019 without increasing the cost to consumer.

 

[jav6454]

Typical "this plus that plus this plus that" excuse. They already have all those specs in the current panel, they just need to bump it to 120 hz. It's not going to triple the price, like I said. I don't think they'll do it this year, but they could probably add it in 2019 without increasing the cost to consumer.

No, they don't... and its not as simple as "bumping"

 

[unobtainium]

Neither do I have the faintest of clues. I get HDR, because it is proven that the 8 (+) and X have HDR, but not 4K and certainly not at 120 Hz.... the later would have been a good enough reason to really entice me to the X.

The guy was clearly joking and being sarcastic. “iPhone X has 4k and 120 Hz but Apple disabled it with software” sounded like a serious statement to you? He was making fun of the idea that iPhone X is “secretly” able to do 120 Hz. Obviously if it was capable of those things Apple would list it in specs.

 

[Vanilla35]

No, they don't... and its not as simple as "bumping"

Explain how they integrated it into the iPad Pro without increasing the price?

 

[jav6454]

Explain how they integrated it into the iPad Pro without increasing the price?

The iPad Pro is not 4K... it only handles HDR. Furthermore, the Pro carries a ~$150 price mark up (assuming 9.7 v 10.5).

Those $150 makes the difference between HDR and non-HDR iPads. The other tech could easily be integrated without increasing the price point (see iPad history)

 

[Vanilla35]

The iPad Pro is not 4K... it only handles HDR. Furthermore, the Pro carries a ~$150 price mark up (assuming 9.7 v 10.5).

Those $150 makes the difference between HDR and non-HDR iPads. The other tech could easily be integrated without increasing the price point (see iPad history)

The iPhone isn't 4k either, not really sure what you're talking about there.

2016 9.7 iPad Pro (60 hz) - $599 (at launch)
2017 9.7 iPad Pro (120 hz) - $650 (at launch)

I was wrong about the price, thought they were the same. Even so, it's a similar price. I would wager a guess they would do something similar with the iPhone, slightly higher price. I think they also included dual cameras on 2017 for the first time too, which would add to authenticity of price bump.

 

[Demwun22]

I was certain they throttled it. I was wrong

 

[BigPictureGuy]

I got my phone this morning when I woke up and it seemed to have 120hz cause everything scrolled so seamless and looks cool. There was no lag. Maybe it was a glitch, but something in the device allowed it. Anyone else have their iPhone X do this?

Your noticing the 120hz on the touch panel interaction which is the fastest you can get on any mobile device currently. It’s still a 60hz on the display side which is still plenty fast and probably more efficient use of battery, but yes the iPad Pro has 120hz on both the touch panel and display refresh rate side.