Apple using cheaper screen on iPhone 3G- proof

[zub3qin]

Uh, where is the proof that the iPod Touch screen is the same one in the iPhone 3G?

Are all 163ppi displays the same?

Good point. Maybe Apple is using a different LCD vendor that also happens to make a 163 ppi screen. (Although I think the iPod and iPhone 3G are one in the same)

But if you accept Apple's word that they have used 2 different screens, then this is proof that the iPhone 3G is using a different screen than the original iPhone.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

then this is proof that the iPhone 3G is using a different screen than the original iPhone.

only it still isn't.

if they indeed did have the same resolution but different ppi then they would have different sized screens. Obviously they don't so your guess that they are using different screens is unsupported.

Maybe apple just rounded their specs to 160ppi instead of 163.

 

[Niiro13]

Six pages! What are we talking about? (reading it all will take a while) Just because the numbers are the same, doesn't mean it's the same thing.

AMD 1.8 Ghz isn't the same as Intel 1.8 Ghz.

 

[JZ Wire]

if you want to watch something with High Quality
then get a LCD, you watching video on something that fits in the size of your hand!

Sorry, but thats irrelevant. The point is that Im paying good money for something so I excpect a well made product especially when purchasing from Apple. Im not buying some cheapo phone here.
Its an iPhone and as someone who owns an iPhone I expect the same quality.

If they want to make a cheap phone for cheap people then thats fine but dont overlook those who choose to pay their hard earned cash for a well constructed mobile phone.
I sincerely hope the original post is wrong.

 

[javaGuru]

Six pages! What are we talking about? (reading it all will take a while) Just because the numbers are the same, doesn't mean it's the same thing.

AMD 1.8 Ghz isn't the same as Intel 1.8 Ghz.

This is an excellent point. I agree with this.

 

[macduke]

Also...nobody here looked up the prices? Doing a quick google search, ALU is going at about $1.40/lb, while polycarbonate is averaging $1.68/lb. But yeah...Apple went cheap on us! Oh noes!! Even if they did use a cheaper plastic, I mean come on. The case on the iPhone weighs hardly anything. They would only being shaving off a few cents at most. If that were the real reason, they would have done that the first time around instead of coming up with a split back piece. The iPod Touch only has wifi. Why do you think it has a smaller plastic piece? Now the new iPhone has added a 3g chip and a GPS. I also doubt they crammed them into the exact same area as the other chips. Instead of making the back half plastic and half ALU, they probably decided to go with a consistent look. Think people! Aesthetics and function! We are talking about an Apple product here.

Plus we have many people, including myself, who wanted a solid colored back piece all along. The all black is pure sexy IMO. And another point...is the plastic on the bottom of the 1st gen iPhone broken? Scratched? Mine is neither, but my ALU back is scratched and dented. I, for one, welcome our new plastic shielded phone of the future. If you have a problem with the plastic, then get an InvisibleShield or a case and get over it already. Its not going to change!

 

[Ramchi]

My guess is that such products are destined for places like India where downgraded Western products are sold with either stripped features and lowered quality.

Blackberry is a good example where our British employees bought mobiles from Western countries have totally different built quality comparing the same product being sold (with product names sounding like: 8703g,e....)in India uses cheap materials and substandard quality.

May be Indians deserve such products(pay back time)!

So long you are in US, dont need to worry!

 

[zub3qin]

Surely by now someone online has posted a disassembly of the iPod Touch and orig iPhone. Were they the same screen or not?

One small piece of info-- according to Appleinsider who "tore down" the iPod Touch to see each component, in Sept 2007, "The Touch's display attachment is completely different from the iPhone, and is attached to the front of the iPod by 16 Phillips #00 screws. On the iPhone, the display and front bezel are fused together with very strong adhesive which makes it impossible to separate the display from the from glass."

Of course, this isn't proof of LCD pixel differences, but for some reason Apple has chosen to assemble the iPod display in one manner, and the iPhone display in another. Why not keep them identical if they are the same display?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Surely by now someone online has posted a disassembly of the iPod Touch and orig iPhone. Were they the same screen or not?

One small piece of info-- according to Appleinsider who "tore down" the iPod Touch to see each component, in Sept 2007, "The Touch's display attachment is completely different from the iPhone, and is attached to the front of the iPod by 16 Phillips #00 screws. On the iPhone, the display and front bezel are fused together with very strong adhesive which makes it impossible to separate the display from the from glass."

Of course, this isn't proof of LCD pixel differences, but for some reason Apple has chosen to assemble the iPod display in one manner, and the iPhone display in another. Why not keep them identical if they are the same display?

I guess you never noticed that they have completely different form factors. Maybe they needed to be put together this way in order to fit their shells.

 

[zub3qin]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Surely by now someone online has posted a disassembly of the iPod Touch and orig iPhone. Were they the same screen or not?

One small piece of info-- according to Appleinsider who "tore down" the iPod Touch to see each component, in Sept 2007, "The Touch's display attachment is completely different from the iPhone, and is attached to the front of the iPod by 16 Phillips #00 screws. On the iPhone, the display and front bezel are fused together with very strong adhesive which makes it impossible to separate the display from the from glass."

Of course, this isn't proof of LCD pixel differences, but for some reason Apple has chosen to assemble the iPod display in one manner, and the iPhone display in another. Why not keep them identical if they are the same display?

I guess you never noticed that they have completely different form factors. Maybe they needed to be put together this way in order to fit their shells.

Maybe. Maybe not. I am keeping an open mind.

 

[mmoosa]

to quote steve jobs from wwdc 08:

'The SAME gorgeous 3.5" screen'


hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

 

[GutBomb]

I hope these rumours persist and more dumbasses decide not to get an iphone because of them so I have fewer people in line in front of me on July 11th.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I hope these rumours persist and more dumbasses decide not to get an iphone because of them so I have fewer people in line in front of me on July 11th.

Smart thinking. In that case the OP is very smart and thanks to his detective work I have found out some other things about the new iPhone.

First not only will the screens have that weird negative black issue, but they also won't be able to reproduce color. That's right! Black and white with issues on the black.

And a slightly smaller issue with this poor quality phone is that the cellular chip in the phone is a piece of string attached to a tin can.

 

[lilshortjordan]

sorry

Apple, in an effort to reach the $199 price point, has substituted into the new 3G iPhone the cheaper, slightly lower quality iPod Touch display rather than the previously used "gold standard" iPhone LCD touch screen.

Now on first glance, specs make you think that the pixel resolution is better on the iPod touches vs iPhone- 163ppi (iPod) vs 160ppi (iPhone)-- but pixels aren't the whole story.

As has been well described, the iPod Touch display, while great, is noticeably worse than the iPhone display. (Anyone remember all the complaints on image quality of movies when the iPod Touches first came out? This was fixed, but a discernible difference remains.)

I'm not saying the iPhone 3G is going to be a lousy display, but speaking as someone who owns both iPhone and iPod Touch, there is an absolute degradation in image quality, especially when watching video, on the iPod.

I just wanted to post a comment...

 

[DreamPod]

Since this thread is still going and people don't like to read entire threads, you should all note: The OP was proven wrong even before he posted the thread, he just didn't do any research. In one of the three iPhone 3G hands-on articles, where the authors got some time after the keynote speech to play around with an iPhone 3G, the author had his old iPhone with him, and compared them side by side. He specifically said that the picture on both screens was identical, except that the iPhone 3G screen was a tad brighter (which he said could be because it was a brand new screen whereas his was a year old).

 

[Matthew Yohe]

SOMEONE PLEASE END THIS THREAD.

Pure speculation containing nothing even close to proof.

Move along.

 

[zub3qin]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

SOMEONE PLEASE END THIS THREAD.

Pure speculation containing nothing even close to proof.

Move along.

1) Pure speculation is OK on this site, and is not a reason to close a thread. This is, after all, macRUMORS.com !
2) It is more than mere speculation when people are using Apple's own released stats on the device. If Apple's published stats are incorrect (which I doubt) then they should correct them.
3) This thread has been read over 8000 times which is far more than almost every other thread here. Clearly there is interest on this topic.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

Well AT&T Says you will have the same screen

Display
3.5" diagonal
480 by 320 pixel resolution at 163ppi
3.5" diagonal
480 by 320 pixel resolution at 163ppi

Original iPhone to new iPhone 3G Comparison Chart

 

[zub3qin]

Apple, in an effort to reach the $199 price point, has substituted into the new 3G iPhone the cheaper, slightly lower quality display rather than the previously used "gold standard" iPhone LCD touch screen.

Now on first glance, specs make you think that the pixel resolution is better on the iPod touches vs iPhone- 163ppi (iPod) vs 160ppi (iPhone)-- but pixels aren't the whole story.

As has been well described, the iPod Touch display, while great, is noticeably worse than the iPhone display. (Anyone remember all the complaints on image quality of movies when the iPod Touches first came out? This was fixed, but a discernible difference remains.)

I'm not saying the iPhone 3G is going to be a lousy display, but speaking as someone who owns both iPhone and iPod Touch, there is an absolute degradation in image quality, especially when watching video, on the iPod.

I guess there may have been something to this post from several weeks ago. I only wish Apple put in the old iPod Touch display in the 3G.... it turns out that the new display is even WORSE than the Touch...

 

[abijnk]

Hm... Curious thread... And I am replying on my 3G iPhone which happens to have an absolutely gorgeous display.

 

[CWallace]

Look at it this way...

Since you have to activate in the store, when they fire up the 3G iPhone, compare it with your current one. If it looks like crap, have them get you a new 3G iPhone. Repeat until you get one with a good screen.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Apple, in an effort to reach the $199 price point, has substituted into the new 3G iPhone the cheaper, slightly lower quality iPod Touch display rather than the previously used "gold standard" iPhone LCD touch screen.

Now on first glance, specs make you think that the pixel resolution is better on the iPod touches vs iPhone- 163ppi (iPod) vs 160ppi (iPhone)-- but pixels aren't the whole story.

As has been well described, the iPod Touch display, while great, is noticeably worse than the iPhone display. (Anyone remember all the complaints on image quality of movies when the iPod Touches first came out? This was fixed, but a discernible difference remains.)

I'm not saying the iPhone 3G is going to be a lousy display, but speaking as someone who owns both iPhone and iPod Touch, there is an absolute degradation in image quality, especially when watching video, on the iPod.

I guess there may have been something to this post from several weeks ago. I only wish Apple put in the old iPod Touch display in the 3G.... it turns out that the new display is even WORSE than the Touch...

Did you seriously just use yourself as a source of accurate information?