Why Apple Didn't Use Sapphire for iPhone Screens

Re:Why Apple Didn't Use Sapphire for iPhone Screens by Shivetya on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @05:48AM (#8329277)

I was always under the impression that this is why screen size initially was increased, to cover the space needed for a larger battery. The side benefit of course being, look we have big screens.

I haven't found a site that breaks out power usage by hardware features in a phone, I have seen sites on how apps can affect it. Would be interesting to know jut which parts of the phone are the worst consumers of power

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Apple Didn't Use Sapphire for iPhone Screens by icebraining on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @06:54AM (#8329402)

Android has an embedded energy monitor. On my Nexus 7, the screen consistently uses >60% of the whole, even though the tablet spends most of its time in idle (with the screen turned off) and I keep wifi turned on the whole day, including during commute when it connects to dozens of APs.

EDIT: Oh, and I also listen to podcasts and music over bluetooth for hours/day. It hardly seems to make a dent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Apple Didn't Use Sapphire for iPhone Screens by ZeroGravitas on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:21AM (#8329455)

The screen is the number one power draw, though I think it's true that generally the larger the device the larger the battery and that more than cancels out the larger screen. See iPad vs. iPhone battery life for example (but remember to include/exclude 3/4G for fair comparisons).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Apple Didn't Use Sapphire for iPhone Screens by dailyrorschach on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:44AM (#8330546)

This is also a feature in iOS Settings now as well to help determine where the loss is.

[ Parent | on HN ]