[chucker]

Many here speculated (sensibly) that the iPod touch would use the iPhone's display, as to save on component costs by buying them in bigger bulks. Then it turned out that it does not: its given ppi, for instance, are 163 instead of 160, and someone measured (can't find it right now) the two to be indeed not identical, so that's not a rounding error on Apple's part. There were also complaints that the iPod touch's display was nowhere near as bright and rich in contrast…

Now, though, Apple has updated the iPhone specs page, to cite the same 163 ppi. The Google cache still says 160; the current page says 163.

Hopefully, this doesn't mean that they've switched to a lower-quality display for the iPhone.

[ghoti]

The difference between 160 and 163 ppi is so small that they probably just used 160 for simplicity, and now updated the iPhone page for the spec whores who think the iPhone is crap because one number is lower.

The screens do look different, Ars Technica's review has a good comparison. There has been speculation also that the difference simply comes from a missing coating, and that that might be due to manufacturing problems with the first batches of iPod Touchs. So there might not be any difference after all (which seems the most logical to me).

[scratt]

I think chucker has a point here... Although some say the only problem with the 'touch' is that they forgot to put a reflective / non-reflective layer in at manufacturing on early models.

I myself have been wondering how long it would be before the savings Apple found in the manufacture of the 'touch' get moved over to the iPhone.

Unfortunately in life, and the way Apple seem to be going these days I think the worst option (for us) is most likely the truth.

The solution, if you don't want 3G, is to buy an iPhone now while the old stocks still are around.

[Robo]

Isn't more pixels per inch a good thing? I'm confused.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman Isn't more pixels per inch a good thing? I'm confused.

Yes, more ppi means more density, and thus translates to a higher-quality output. But in this case, the other factors of the display appear to have lower quality. This has yet to be confirmed, but preliminary tests comparing the iPhone and the iPod touch side-by-side seem to suggest so.

[Robo]

Oh, okay.

Apple seems to be cutting corners with their displays lately. Crooked ones on the iPod nano, 18-bit ones on the 20" iMac...didn't they get sued for including 18-bit displays in their other Macs? I don't like this at all.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by Roboman Isn't more pixels per inch a good thing? I'm confused.

Yeah, if you're a mindless spec-whore More ppi at the same number of pixels just gives you a smaller screen. Also, the difference between 160 and 163 is less than 2%, way below being noticeable. Again, I'm sure the iPhone used a 163 ppi screen from the beginning, they just had the good sense to advertise it as 160 ppi. Now that somebody slipped the 163 ppi into the iPod pages, they had to change that to avoid people from suing them for getting less ppi on the more expensive device or something.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by chucker Yes, more ppi means more density, and thus translates to a higher-quality output. But in this case, the other factors of the display appear to have lower quality. This has yet to be confirmed, but preliminary tests comparing the iPhone and the iPod touch side-by-side seem to suggest so.

If I had to have the two side by side to tell the difference, it wouldn't matter to me. Then again, I think the cruft about the iMac 20" screen being "unusable" to people that looked at it and bought it and only got winked off when they read the specs is ridiculous. Graphics pros? Sure - I used to own an advertising company and was amazed on how they were so anal about Panatone color matching. But a regular Joe? sheesh!

Anything that makes the iPhone a good profit center for Apple is good for the iPhone owners.

[BuonRotto]

I don't understand. Are people concluding that the iPhone now sports a different screen than the ones people are carrying out of the store as of seven days ago? Is there real evidence of this? I know the iPod touch has a dark screen relative to the iPhone, and 160 != 163, but aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves on the thought exercise treadmill?

[ghoti]

Apple has admitted problems with the screen on some iPod Touchs. They say they will do something about the defective ones, but not what exactly. I guess they will simply exchange them once they know exactly which serial numbers are affected.

So now it's safe to assume again that the iPhone and iPod screens are, in fact, identical.

[shatteringglass]

I think it's looking more likely that the iPod touch's screen could be the same ones that's been used in iPhones all along. Here's a thread on MacRumor's forums that shows an iPhone with the same issue that some iPod touches have:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4215023

[scratt]

Well that's good news then.

I am getting a bit niggled at Apple these days.
Like I read in a blog somewhere earlier today, what Apple needs is the Zune to really kick ass in it's second revision and give them some competition, because right now they are turning into all they despise... I think Jobs is furiously stashing money away for some heck of a retirement!