> Doesn't help much because LCDs getting significantly brighter than OLEDs is normal. The point isn't it's brighter than OLEDs specifically, that's just why it

> Doesn't help much because LCDs getting significantly brighter than OLEDs is normal. The point isn't it's brighter than OLEDs specifically, that's just why it can't have been OLED, the point is it's significantly brighter than normal LCD monitors which are usually <=500 nits. > The dynamic range of this LCD is still not necessarily higher than of an OLED because dynamic range depends both on maximal and minimal brightness. So "extreme dynamic range" is highly uninformative, while "OLED" or "LCD with local dimming", or something like that, wouldn't be. But the dynamic range is actually significantly wider. It goes from a few nits to 2,000 nits peak/1,000 nits sustained full screen. That OLED goes from 0 nits to ~1,000 nits peak/~400 nits sustained full screen on panels of this size makes the contrast much higher, not the range. > XDR is simply a marketing term. Apple is doing the same thing here as TV manufacturers who come up with ever new fantasy acronyms. Well of course it's a marketing term. That isn't the same thing as being meaningless or hiding that it's an LCD. It's literally marketing the main feature.