3 ms·
> The iPhone X was the first Apple phone to launch with an OLED screen. Funny they almost write this like Apple was pioneering this. The iPhone X was released
by sva_ 2y ago
> The iPhone X was the first Apple phone to launch with an OLED screen.
Funny they almost write this like Apple was pioneering this. The iPhone X was released 8 years after the Samsung Galaxy S, which was the first OLED smartphone.
- pohl 2y agoExplicitly specifying “Apple” is almost like not specifying “Apple”? Did you “almost” fail to mention Samsung?
- akutlay 2y agoAlso the next sentence after the Apple sentence mentions the Android phones which have OLED. Apple has 60% share so it makes sense to mention it before androids.
- saghm 2y agoIn the context of the article, the sentence preceding the one quoted above is "Until recently, most phones were made with LCD screens", which I imagine is why it stuck out. I'm sure there will be disagreement about whether that's sufficient grounds to find it amusing, but at least personally it feels like "recently" is ambiguous enough to be impossible for people to disagree on how accurate it is. Personally, the fact that eight years is around half the time that smart phones have even existed that while saying "most phones didn't have it until recently" might be correct, it certainly feels like it's missing some important context.
- lolinder 2y agoYou didn't include the sentence where they call out Samsung explicitly: > Until recently, most phones were made with LCD screens. The iPhone X was the first Apple phone to launch with an OLED screen. Other phones with OLED displays include the Samsung Galaxy S10 and the Huawei Mate P30. For these phones, dark mode can offer healthy battery saving capabilities. I don't read that as acting like Apple pioneered anything, but I do read it as assuming that most consumers choose Apple and therefore the moment that Apple included OLED LCDs were no longer "most phones". Which, while frustrating to someone like me who is tired of Android always being treated as an off-brand afterthought, is reflective of reality in the US.
- nubinetwork 2y agoWhy are they talking about the S10... the S5 had an amoled screen.
- BenjiWiebe 2y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the S4, S III, S II, and some S models also had AMOLED screens.
- sva_ 2y agoSure, but the choice of then mentioning the Galaxy S10 (2019) next to the iPhone X (2017) seems like a weird choice, when the Galaxy GT-I7500 (2009) as well as Galaxy S1 (2010) already had AMOLED 9-10 years before that.
- 7734128 2y agoI had an HTC Desire with AMOLED before the release of Galaxy S. Not saying that was the first one either.
- sva_ 2y agoI mixed it up. It wasn't the Galaxy S1, but the Galaxy GT-I7500: > First released 29 June 2009; 15 years ago > Display 320 x 480 px, 3.2 in, AMOLED, Touchscreen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_(original) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_(original) About one year before HTC Desire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Desire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Desire
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sandworm101 2y ago>>> first Apple phone to launch Becomes "first ... phone to launch". People don't instantly recognize brand names as adjectives. Part of our brains drops them as we read. An options for a writer aiming for clarity would be "Apple's first phone to launch with an OLED", but that doesn't place "Apple" beside "first". Leveraging subtext and association makes for better marketing.
- wolfendin 2y agoThey would almost be writing it like that, if they were making statements without qualification. But luckily they were not.