Apple's iPhone 4: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Brian Klug & Anand Lal Shimpi on June 30, 2010 4:06 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- iPhone 4
- Gadgets
- Mobile
More Display
It's obvious how Apple settled on 960x640; it's four times the resolution of the previous iPhones. However, instead of decreasing text size, iOS 4 scales appropriately, and the size of everything remains the same. The result is that there are small details everywhere that pop out. Apple's icons on the home screen are the first that really pop out, and new iOS 4 optimized applications will bring that increased detail as developers add higher resolution artwork.
The display panel itself uses a subset of IPS (In Plane Switching) display technology called Fringe Field Switching (FFS). Where IPS switches the crystal polarization in the plane of the display with two opposing electrical substrates composed of semi opaque metals (which decreases transmission and viewing angles), FFS uses considerably less metal by arranging the electrodes in a comb like structure.
See that - it almost looks like a comb. Or an impulse train. Or Dirac comb. So many combs.
The result is that there's considerably less metal in back and in front of the pixel, resulting in much higher transmission of light through the display, and higher brightness for a given backlight level. Using FFS to drive pixel switching is critical here because of the high dot pitch in the iPhone 4's display.
The other interesting difference between iPhone 4's retina display and previous displays is that the digitizer is in optical contact with the display itself. There's no longer an air gap, and as a result, no longer any opportunity for dust to gradually work its way inbetween. Over time, I've noticed a few dust specks creep in on my 3GS, it does happen. The digitizer and display panel are essentially laminated together. The added benefit is that fewer material interfaces results in fewer internal reflections - think the "super" in Super AMOLED but applied to TFT. That's what Apple has done here.
Apple is using Corning's Gorilla glass which touts hugely increased scratch resistance and robustness. Both the front and back of the iPhone 4 are that same type of glass. I've noticed a few superficial scratches (called sleeks) that have appeared on the back, but really the true test will be how the phone looks after 6 months in the pocket. It's interesting that the iPhone capacity markings have disappeared from the back of the phone - no doubt this was done so Apple could make one part and one part only for each color.
The rest of the details are in the specifications. Apple advertises increased brightness of 500 nits and a contrast ratio of 800:1. We measured, and our iPhone 4 exceeded specs at 571 nits and just under 1000:1 contrast ratio.
Note that the HTC EVO 4G is missing as Anand has it, but it's on its way to me. As soon as I get it, I'll measure display brightness, black point, and contrast and update these results. In addition, the HTC Droid Incredible (and thus Nexus One) contrast is effectively infinity by the way we calculate, due to pixels being completely turned off in the black state. In addition, I'm led to believe that the AMOLED's PenTile grid throws off our numbers when measuring brightness. I've run and rerun this test, it keeps coming up that way.
Next to the iPhone 4, the 3GS display really shows its age. It leaks light when displaying black, with an absurdly high black point of nearly 3 nits. Just looking at the lock screen on the iPhone 4 next to the 3GS it's readily apparent how much better blacks are. iPhone 4 easily bests the 3GS but still isn't quite as contrasty as the Incredible or Nexus One AMOLED displays, or the IPS in the Motorola Droid. You do get higher resolution and brightness, however, but nothing is free.
Going from the iPhone 4's display back to the 3GS is pretty painful, but going back to even relatively high dot pitch displays on the desktop is painful as well. Even on the "high resolution" MacBook Pro with 1680x1050 display, displaying an iPhone 4 screenshot at native resolution uses up 91% of the height. If there's one thing I hope the iPhone 4 display does, it's generate demand for 300 PPI level desktop displays - the era of 110 PPI displays being the norm needs to end now.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
270 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - link
How does international work? Are other parts of Europe covered by that as well or are they all additional?B3an - Thursday, July 1, 2010 - link
Theres way WAY less options for network and internet providers in the U.S, especially compared to here in the U.K..So less competition means higher prices. And of course the size of the U.S/Canada is a problem.
strikeback03 - Thursday, July 1, 2010 - link
Some friends who have been living in England say that cell usage over there is way more expensive. They claim the only affordable way to do it is with pay as you go SIMs and just not use them much.But yes more competition would be nice. For me Verizon is the only carrier that offers the kind of coverage I need. So between the fact that I can't go anywhere and that they don't offer an off-contract rate I have no reason not to take the subsidized phones and contract extensions.
Chissel - Sunday, July 4, 2010 - link
I'm an American living in the UK. iPhone 4 rates here are much lower. The best I have seen is from Tesco (o2 network). Low cost no frills service. 750 minutes + unlimited texts + 1gb of data per month. Also, incoming calls do not charge minutes. 1 yr. contract 32gb iPhone 4 = £299/$450 + £35/$50 per month (all tax included). After 1 yr. they have to unlock your phone. After you unlock the phone you can drop down to £20/$30 per month.This means the 2 year cost of the phone + service in the UK is £959/$1,438. In the US the 2 year cost is $299 + tax and $105/mo + tax. Total cost over 2 years is $2,819 without tax.
As you can see the UK has much lower price over the 2 years. Plus, after 1 year you 'own' your phone and can resell and buy iPhone 5.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - link
I think the unlock on AT&T can be requested after 3 months, definitely after a year as I had a friend do that.StormyParis - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
I've abandonned data plans, and switched back to plain voice, on my HD2. I get Wifi most everywhere (at home and at work for sure, and most places in between). I was simply not using data that much, it's not worth the monthly 30 euros they want for it.99.5% of the time, there's no difference at all. 0.5% of the time... i can survive...
vol7ron - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
I agree, but..."The fact that Apple didn't have the foresight to coat the stainless steel antenna band with even a fraction of an ounce worth of non-conductive material either tells us that Apple doesn't care or that it simply doesn't test thoroughly enough. The latter is a message we've seen a few times before with OS X issues..."
Apple would just see this as another selling point for the bumper.
Anand/Brian-
I'm curious if you've had a chance to test with the microfilm covers like Bodyguardz or Zagg.
I use these because of how thin they are and how great they are at protecting the device (scratch free even when dropping on concrete). They cover all points of the phone rather effectively. I'm curious if they would be beneficial to your testing.
vol7ron
Brian Klug - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
vol7ron,You're totally right, I need to test with a thin film or some heavy duty tape/invisible shield. I originally thought of doing that, but somehow it got lost in all that frenzied testing. I'll whip something up and see if anything changes. I mean that's a good point too, it might not do very much.
I mean, ultimately there's a thickness you do need to achieve, and to be fair a lot of the benefit the case adds is that extra couple mm or two from the antenna. If the film is too thin, it might not do much. What makes me uneasy about saying anything definitively is that this is so near field - literally on top of the radiative surface. I'll admit I have only a basic level of understanding about what kind of interference happens in the very near field. I mean even at 1.8 GHz, one wavelength is 16 cm - the case and your hands on the phone is way inside near field.
-Brian
rainydays - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
Agree. Outstanding review. The detailed analysis and level headed tone is excellent. Keep up the great work.Antenna section was illuminating. Good point about using SNR. I wonder if that number by itself is sufficient though. I guess signal power in dbm along with SNR would give the most complete picture of reception.
At any rate, as is abundantly clear in the article, you never really know where you are till you see the numbers.
John Sawyer - Thursday, July 1, 2010 - link
Yes, the numbers, details, etc. are more important than a lot of people realize. It often annoys me when I see people commenting about issues that involve actual measurement, technical facts, etc., without referring to any of those, and thus winding up with all kinds of conspiracy theories, bogus suggestions, etc. As applied to hardware problems from any manufacturer, generally many such commenters, in their understandable desire to just see a fix for a problem, wind up suggesting the only important thing is for the manufacturer to set up a return exchange program, which would be nice if it were always that easy, but it doesn't address the details of the problem that are often quite interesting, and can be very useful for people trying to learn from the situation.