zlacker

non-OLED screen

I'd consider that an advantage: No burn-in.

>>userbi+(OP)
Is OLED burn-in really something people still care about? I have a handful of OLED devices, some of which I've used daily for nearly 10 years, and none of them have any burn-in. I've never even seen burn-in on anything other than a signage TV, and that happens even on some LCDs.

>>franga+9e
> I've never even seen burn-in on anything other than a signage TV, and that happens even on some LCDs

AFAIK, the hardware still suffers from that problem, but it's been fixed in most devices by software fixes. Instead of displaying the exactly same content 24/7, it has "cleaning programs" or similar to runs once in a while to prevent the burn in from happening. Our OLED TV does the same I think too.

>>diggan+5l
Of course, and many devices also use various pixel shift techniques. My point is that this isn't really a drawback from the user's perspective. Saying "I consider non-OLED to be a selling point because it won't burn in" simply doesn't make sense anymore.

>>franga+9e
I know someone who spends so much time with YouTube on their phone that the logo is visibly burned in to the screen. The phone is less than 2 years old.

>>philip+Lu1
Samsung smartphones are everywhere here and I've never seen a burn-in screen. Is there a difference between OLED and AMOLED? I thought that AMOLED was just a "flavor" of OLED.