Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Graphics Hardware Technology

Samsung Galaxy S8 Screen-To-Body Ratio Could Surpass 90%, Near Bezel-Less Design (hothardware.com) 159

MojoKid writes: There aren't many phones on the market currently that can boast an edge-to-edge display with minimal or no bezel on top and bottom, save for perhaps Xiaomi's recently unveiled Mi MIX. However, word on the web is that the field will expand by at least one more next year, and specifically with Samsung's Galaxy S8. This runs contrary to a previous rumor that the Galaxy S8 might only come with a curved edge display. That would be surprising since Samsung needs to sell as many Galaxy S8 phones as possible after the Galaxy Note 7 debacle. Only offering a curved edge model could be counterproductive to that goal, though offering an edge-to-edge display could be the spark Samsung needs. Park Won-sang, a principal engineer at Samsung Display noted the division would roll out a full-screen smartphone display with a "display area ratio [that] reaches more than 90 percent next year," during the iMiD 2016 display exhibition in Seoul last week. The engineer added that Samsung may even extend the display area ratio to 99 percent in the years ahead, which would mean virtually the entire front of the phone would be the screen. In case you're wondering, most of today's smartphones utilize a display area to bezel ratio of around 80 percent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Galaxy S8 Screen-To-Body Ratio Could Surpass 90%, Near Bezel-Less Design

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is it wrong that I read "screen to body count ration" ?

    • Re:Explosive news (Score:5, Informative)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:50AM (#53204501) Homepage Journal

      Not if it comes to Samsung.

      But to be honest - having the screen going close to the edge causes a different set of problems - that the fingers holding the phone are touching the display causing incorrect input. A problem for us with large hands.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Samsung solved the fingers-at-screen-edge problem years ago when they introduced phones with curved screens. In fact many manufacturers were using it before that anyway, because with thin bezels it happens. I think Apple started doing it a few generations back too.

    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      Not gonna lie, I found a certain amount of amusement in the fact a story about a new Samsung phone was coming from a site called Hot Hardware too.

      Oh Samsung, I know you want to move past this, but I think you have some work to do yet.

  • Tablet please? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:15AM (#53204433)

    Can we get a high end tablet please? 12 inch - 15 inch, Android, with a stylus, a super fast processor and as many pixels as you can shove in it??

    Really, now we officially have multi-windows, you can do it and make it work with all existing apps (none of that 'only for enabled apps' crap that Google are doing). Fix Google's shortcomings, particularly the idea that the person should rotate the screen to suit the app, instead of the app rotating to fit the user. With multi windows now you can make portrait windows sized to suit phone apps. So when you start phone apps, they don't force the tablet to be a 15 inch portrait fake phone, it can run multi phone apps side by side.

    Also Google Android team are making multi-windows that split up full screen, which is probably the correct thing. Whereas Chrome OS/Android team are making desktop windows more suited to a desktop PC with mouse, complete with movable bars, resize zones and so on, using unfriendly drag operations from WIMP days.

    Samsung can do it right, they don't have a CEO who keep trying to shove his Chrome crap into everything, so aren't stuck with the need to slap ChromeOS style windows around everything. They can official do a proper multi window Android on a tablet now.

    Likewise, Google won't put in flash cards, because they're Cloud dicks, you can.

    Likewise Google won't make it work with local network printers, only cloudy printers, again because they're cloud dicks, but you can fix that.

    Likewise, why close every app, and shut every background service (as if the tablet is a small battery phone), like Google do. It's f*ing annoying, why can't I pin an app to stay loaded!?

    Windows tablets are a meat market to run legacy apps, Android tablets are an untapped opportunity at the high end. Google are clueless, Samsung could get a clue.

    • by amorsen ( 7485 )

      Likewise, Google won't put in flash cards, because they're Cloud dicks, you can.

      Google just hates paying the Microsoft Tax on SDXC.

      • So why not ditch that antiquated format?
        • by amorsen ( 7485 )

          And replace it with what, exactly?

          • When I look at this comparison of file systems [wikipedia.org], btrfs [arstechnica.com] looks nice.
            • by amorsen ( 7485 )

              So you want Google to accept standard SDXC cards, while not being able to actually use the term "SDXC" due to trademark rules, and you want the Google tablet to reformat them to btrfs. Without even being able to check if they're full of photos.

              Good luck.

              • They could sell those cards preformatted and painted with their own logo (I'm imagining a road sign style evergreen with a capital "B" on it). And, the software could warn people when attempting to use a card with a different format that the card will have to be reformatted to be useful and that all data on the card will be erased during the reformatting process. That's exactly what happens if I plug a card or external drive with a Non-MS format into a Windows box. People have gotten on ok with external har
  • by itsme1234 ( 199680 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:17AM (#53204435)

    I do like the current trend of getting more and more display real-estate on the same phone, I really do. Plus getting the buttons outside the screen, Samsung is on the right track here.

    BUT the fact that there is so little give means you can break your 600$/EUR phone just with a drop from the nightstand. Plus it's harder to hold it properly without touching the screen. I haven't had a phone with a case since pre-iPhone era, when Windows Mobile PDAs with large displays would crack even without while looking at them. It was all fine with 2010-2015 phones, stairs or concrete drops would just leave some small marks but nothing special. Now I've seen with the new S6/S67s so many cracked displays AND/or backs (glass back, really?!) that I had to think better and go back to using a case. And that defeats the whole purpose.

    • These screens will make it impossible to put one in a case. I don't care how pretty the screen is if it's cracked.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:36AM (#53204635)

        I've got a very thin case with a glass screen protector, something that would work well even if it were 98% screen.

        I accidentally throw my phone on the ground once or twice a month, usually pretty hard. It's been six years and I have never had any problem worse than shattering a $5 screen protector.

        I have no idea how people manage to actually break their phones. At some point it has to cross over into complete negligence.

        • by IMightB ( 533307 )

          you obviously do not have children.

    • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @08:42AM (#53204843)

      Thinner bezels are nice. Thinner phones are nice. Lighter weight is nice. They're all relatively minor things though.

      I'd rather a slighter heavier larger phone with a bezel that has a better battery life.

      I'd put Performance, storage, battery life, and a headphone jack above bezel size, thickness or weight. In reality, in 2016, most phones are thin and light enough already with small enough bezels. Whereas improving those things are nice, they're chasing diminishing returns on improvement by improving them.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Too thin bezels are a pain because you can't effectively securely hold the phone without touching screen. So balance on your palm pretty much guaranteeing you will drop it repeatedly, so that's why they want thin bezels.

      • XiaoMi Redmi 3 Pro 32GB ROM 4G [gearbest.com] :: $154.59
        3GB RAM, microSD, and a 4100mAH battery: 2+ days of usage. Android 5. Android 6 is available on other models, though I haven't checked if they have a micro-SD slot like the Redmi 3 does.

        I flashed mine from AliExpress [aliexpress.com] with another ROM that has root, but I would recommend a different seller, it had a compromised file, "com.android.comp.download.mgrv11" which showed ads everytime the phone was unlocked. Even withhout flashing, it was easy enough to disable that .mgrv
    • It was all fine with 2010-2015 phones, stairs or concrete drops would just leave some small marks but nothing special. Now I've seen with the new S6/S67s so many cracked displays AND/or backs (glass back, really?!) that I had to think better and go back to using a case.

      I've seen a lot of cracked phones for years, both Apple and Android. The marketing pressure creates delicate little snowflake phones, and a bezel-less phone is about as delicate as you can get. It's the "er" problem. Thinner lighter, bigger screen for the form factor.

      And that defeats the whole purpose.

      I think your purpose and the phone manufacturer's purpose and the marketing department's purpose are not the same. This march to fragility is what gives us bendy iPhones, and exploding Samsungs.

      Unless a person is living a remarkably sedent

    • It wouldn't be any worse than the existing Edge designs.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Smartphones are getting better and better. Thin enough to cut through any pockets (at the price of awful battery life but something has got to give) and now we get great area for animated advertising (at the price of shattering whenever you drop it, but since you'll get a lithium fire anyway, who cares?). Who wanted to call people anyway? They are annoying.

    The history of watches shows that the main income for watchmakers at the turn of the 20th century was turning of broken balance shaft replacements for

  • About time! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by engun ( 1234934 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:40AM (#53204479)
    The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. Once a basic level of performance and functionality is met, the things that mattered the most to me is:
    1. 1. Is the thing pocketable? My limit for how large a phone can be without impeding one's movement is the original Galaxy Note - anything larger, and you have to adjust your lifestyle, clothing and gait to suit the phone.
    2. 2. Given that size limit, the next criteria is how large the screen-to-body ratio is, as bezels are mostly a waste of space as far as a user is concerned (barring a bit for gripping the phone)
    3. 3. Afterwards, the phone needs to offer a decent resolution, CPU and RAM, not have bloatware etc. Most flagships meet the latter criteria fairly well.

    Therefore, I boughthttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/11/02/2135240/samsung-galaxy-s8-screen-to-body-ratio-could-surpass-90-near-bezel-less-design# an LG G3 a few years ago precisely because it was perhaps the only phone that met the above criteria at the time. After the G4, LG has lost the plot and done everything except optimise the screen-to-body ratio. My next phone will likely be a Galaxy S8, provided it does not violate no. 1 above.

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      That's all fine "once a basic level of performance and functionality is met" but some definitions of "basic" are more basic than others.

      Usability between phones still varies far too greatly to ignore.

      • Usability between phones? Is that really a thing? Is it really that hard to understand the basic operation of a smartphone to someone who has learned how to effectively use at least one?

        • If a phone only has enough disk space to install 5 custom apps, it's not very usable. If the CPU isn't fast enough to run the app you want well, it's not very usable. If you plan to use it for VR but the phone doesn't have a gryo, it's not usable. If you plan to use it for driving directions and it doesn't have GPS, it's not usable. Etc.

          • what fucking planet are you living on where you can buy a 'smart phone' that has 3 megs of drive space, 12k of ram, no gyro and no gps? I think you are confusing a smartphone with a calculator.... from 1980.
            • My 16 GB of internal memory are almost always full and I don't have that many apps.
              Of course that includes that a fair amount is occupied by the system partition
              • Galaxy S4? Sounds like Galaxy S4. Even with a custom ROM those fucking things don't have shit for space.

                • Bingo. Although, I'm surprised you guessed right. There must be dozens of Android phones with 16 GB of internal memory and space problems :)
                  • I think the system image on them must be larger than normal, even with CyanogenMod. I have a love/hate relationship with that device... the space issue was a huge pain, and the camera complete shit but otherwise a decent device.

                    I'm stuck on an ancient S3 after my G3 took a shit (DAC fried for some reason, thing doesn't make any noise, period) and it's driving me insane.

            • I'm living on the planet of people who aren't wealthy. None of my smartphones have ever had GPS. Only one of the 3 had a gyro. None of them can fit as many apps as I'd like, the most internal storage they've had is 1 GB and the vast majority of that is filled with unremovable crap.

        • Usability between phones? Is that really a thing? Is it really that hard to understand the basic operation of a smartphone to someone who has learned how to effectively use at least one?

          Depends on who you are. My wife is pissed off about the new double tap home button in iOs.

          Another guy has a rotary dial app on his smartphone and swears it is how a phone should be accessed.

          I think that a person who just figures out how to use a device without getting all pissy about it, is somehow the freak in a sea of normal people.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I normally hold a phone when I'm using it, I never lay it down on a table and poke at it. When holding the phone, you need a bevel around it else you'll make a ton of accidental input events along the edges. I highly doubt these phones will have a pop-out holding stick attached to the back of them so edge-to-edge screens are going to be usability nightmares.

      And the article headline is complete bullshit. An edge-to-edge screen is only nearing 50% screen to body ratio not 90%. Why do we need the full back

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      "The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. ... bezels are mostly a waste of space as far as a user is concerned"

      It seems you don't know what a telephone is. The primary means of user interaction is a speaker and microphone. A bezel is the best place for at least one of those.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      The primary interaction surface of a phone is the screen. Once a basic level of performance and functionality is met, the things that mattered the most to me is:

      This is true; but it is fashion, not functionality that is driving the bezel-less thing. Sacrificing a few percent of the face area for structural reasons isn't going to make any measurable difference in objective HCI terms; the difference is how the way the thing looks makes you feel. I'm not saying this is stupid or anything like that; it's just the way people are. If something makes us feel good we overlook its faults and exaggerate its virtues.

  • Look, I think it's cool to see what can be done with modern technology but it feels to me like it has been possibly a decade since the last time they came out with something that actually made my life easier and was fun to use.

    I realise that what I'd love to have in a mobile comunication device is probably not something for mainstream but it does get on my nerves how many compromises I have to make in my daily usage for devices costing closer to 1000$ than 500$.

    • What would you like to have? What are those compromises?
      What I don't like on current phones is basically: battery size, amount of storage (16 GB get filled pretty fast with apps and Android doesn't let you install on external SD), lack of administrator permissions (manufacturer provided and approved, I don't want to keep looking for rooting methods for my different phones/firmware versiones).
      • Current versions of android do indeed let you install on SD card.

      • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        I would like to revisit the Nokia Communicator 9500 concept. I'd like it to be wider to accommodate a normal screen ratio. Instead of function buttons next to the screen, I want speakers. I want a Lenovo trackpoint on the full backlit keyboard.

        Touchscreen is optional.

        If we could have a full Linux or Windows OS on there, that would be great.

        Screen resolution FullHD maximum (I could live with 720p)! OLED.
        On the front the usual screen and phone keyboard we're used to from old phones (and the Communicator itsel

    • Waterproofing the thing was the first feature I've seen in awhile that made my life easier. That was what, 3 years ago?

      I've personally never cared about screen to body ratio or thickness, but that seems to be what manufacturers have been in love with improving for the past decade. I'd much rather have a thicker phone with higher performance than a thinner phone that performs about the same. And I'd much much rather have my speaker facing me on the front of the phone where it fucking belongs.

      Part of me wishe

  • Because it sounds like screen to side ratio. Shouldn't screen to body refer to how much of the phone is screen vs. non-screen components? Or at least what % of the phone is covered by screen?
  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:32AM (#53204621)

    It's not a fscking TV, it's a phone, and a bezel is a feature, not a drawback. You know, an area that allows a case, (and my fingers), to have enough overlap to actually grip the phone securely - important now that the phones are so god-damned thin they bend in a gust of wind and are already hard to hold on to. Besides, it's not like anyone is making a video wall out of phones. Enough already!

    • It's not a fscking TV, it's a phone, and a bezel is a feature, not a drawback.

      It's not a feature - it's a design compromise. The original purpose of a bezel [merriam-webster.com] has nothing to do with gripping a device. Bezels exist to hold the face of the device in place. The fact that it can help in some cases with gripping the phone securely without accidentally triggering the touch screen is a side benefit that has been actively exploited. Nobody actually wants the bezel but it turned out to have some utility due to other design decisions. It's perfectly possible to make a phone with basically z

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

        We could make a phone with zero bezel but it would require UI adaptations. It should be considered that taps at the edges of the screen could be accidental and shouldn't be registered. Interactive elements shouldn't be placed near the edge for this reason. The edge could be used for swipes if at least some of the path is within the active area. In the meantime, virtual bezels could be used for apps that don't respect these guidelines.

        And yes, bezels are a feature. Just look at tablets, compared to phones, t

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Xaomi already released a phone with 92% screen to bezel ratio. The main advantage is that you can have the same size screen as a 5.5" phone but in a 5" phone form factor, for example. The lack of bezels is accounted for by the same finger detection mechanism as other phones have - bezels have been thin enough to need it for years now.

      A lot of people on Slashdot have been crying out for smaller phones. Well, here is the best of both worlds, a large screen in a pocket size form factor.

    • by CODiNE ( 27417 )

      Besides, it's not like anyone is making a video wall out of phones.

      Now that you mention it....
      http://youtu.be/mcSd2xH_vS4 [youtu.be]

      Main problem is... yes, the bezels, and the chargers on the bottom.

    • A 10% bezel is more than enough to have a case and use the phone with fingers. They only need to remove the top and bottom bezels which serve no purpose other than having the front camera and light sensor.

    • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      It's not a fscking TV, it's a phone, and a bezel is a feature, not a drawback. You know, an area that allows a case, (and my fingers), to have enough overlap to actually grip the phone securely

      I don't get it. How do you hold your phone that you need a bezel?

      Here's how I hold my phone - http://imgur.com/a/FOuhx [imgur.com] - sort of how I hold a glass, with the bottom edge of the phone resting on my little finger, and the sides held in by my middle+ring fingers on one side and the pad of my thumb on the other. No need for a bezel.

      Actually, I can't even imagine how I'd hold a phone that would need a bezel. I had a look online. Here's a study of how 1300 people hold their phones - http://alistapart.com/article [alistapart.com]

      • I don't get it. How do you hold your phone...

        In the second link you provided, the grip closest to the one I use is the one that shows the optimal screen area for thumb access. Interestingly, that grip seems NOT to be among those in the diagrams above. Also, the areas labelled "easy and accurate" and "okay" are almost reversed for me.

        ... that you need a bezel?

        If my phone were more 'blockish', (as the older ones tended to be), I wouldn't feel the need to wrap my fingertips around to the front of the phone to get a good grip, so having all of the front viewable would probably wor

    • I'd trade more front-of-bezel real-estate for more bezel thickness. Hopefully one would offset the other in terms of fingers toggling the touchscreen, with the bonus of the phone not being too bendy and allowing a thicker battery etc.

    • Besides, it's not like anyone is making a video wall out of phones.

      good sir, you should search before making such bold claims! BEHOLD! The video wall of windows phones! [youtu.be]

    • by Falos ( 2905315 )
      >It's not a fscking TV
      My guess is that this is what normals use it for anyway. But it needs to facebook and check my email so I need 4GB RAM and a $800 price tag.
    • You have deviated from your assigned GroupThink parameters.
      Please report to your Facebook re-assimilation node immediately.
  • by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:53AM (#53204671)
    The best feature to come out of the trend for ever bigger screens will be the death of the selfie. With nowhere left to put a front facing camera, people will have to start taking photos of things other than themselves again.
    • People have been taking photos of themselves since the dawn of photography. The only thing the phone has done is made the self timer obsolete.

  • thank you
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Nearly bezel-less?

    From the same place that sold me a nice frame. The blank hemp-colored canvas indicated that it was a sketch of a knife that lost its grip/handle.

    So where's the knife?

    That's classified information

  • by green1 ( 322787 ) on Thursday November 03, 2016 @10:52AM (#53205647)

    I have a Note 4 at the moment, it is hard enough to hold that phone without accidentally touching the edges of the touchscreen. Between Samsung's insistence on their "edge" design, and this, there's simply no possible way to hold any of these devices anymore.

    Despite my last bunch of phones all being Samsung, I've already decided my next phone won't be a Samsung, the reasons are listed below in no particular order:
    - "edge" design (hard to hold on to, distorts images and videos)
    - lack of removable battery (sure I don't change it often, but had I not been able to replace my $30 battery a couple months ago I would have needed a $1000 phone instead)
    - lack of SD card support (though in fairness they seem to have backtracked on that one a bit)
    - difficulties rooting and customizing (they've started locking things down more, and even when they don't, many root tools don't work on samsung like they do on other devices)

    Not yet sure what I will get, my Note4 probably has a bunch of life left in it, but whatever I get won't likely be from Samsung.

    • Not yet sure what I will get, my Note4 probably has a bunch of life left in it, but whatever I get won't likely be from Samsung.

      Might I humbly suggest a Note 3? My Note 3 (Over 2 years old) has 28 days of standby time, is built very strong, has a good screen size with a properly sized bezel, has an SD slot, and a removable battery.

      Why does only *my* Note 3 have 28 days of standby time? Because I installed a custom ROM on it and did not install any Google stuff, like the Play Store. That takes standby time from 2 days to 28 days.

      The Note 3 was the last "perfect" phone. Buy one now while you still can.

  • My M8 shows the slings and arrows of dings, drops, and bangs. I can imagine how an edge-to-edge display would be chipped and dinged similarly, and like My Nexus 7 (2013) leave me with edges that nick me. And look horrible.

    And would every touch cause an action ? Can I have SOMETHING to hold without opening YouTube? Please?

  • ...I already can't say "check out this picture" on my phone without him wanting to hold the phone (so he can see it), which invariably means he grabs it with a thumb somewhere on the face, thus closing/changing/fsking up whatever I'm trying to show him.

    I think he thinks he's losing his mind, half the time I try to show him something the screen ends up blank.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...