I know that many are liking the AMOLED displays, but I just can't understand, why on a expensive phone like this (at least in Denmark), that Microsoft decided to use such a horrible display?
I mean, after so many years, AMOLED STILL does burn in. I want my 600 USD phone to last much longer than a year - and usually from 8-15 months, you can see horrendous burn in.
I really like my Lumia 640, and pre ordered Lumia 950 a while ago, KNOWING that it has AMOLED.
But now, that we are close to launch, I might cancel my pre order, for that reason alone, that I know the screen will be **** within 8-15 months.
Why on earth didn't they just go with a LCD screen so we could use this phone for years? I'm not the usual "pick up a flagship phone and then upgrade next year", so a AMOLED screen is a bad choice for me.
I also hear people saying "AMOLED has less burn in than before", yet I can google that 930 suffered from burn ins, and even the new Samsung Galaxy S6 has already pictures of burn ins.
I mean, after so many years, AMOLED STILL does burn in. I want my 600 USD phone to last much longer than a year - and usually from 8-15 months, you can see horrendous burn in.
I really like my Lumia 640, and pre ordered Lumia 950 a while ago, KNOWING that it has AMOLED.
But now, that we are close to launch, I might cancel my pre order, for that reason alone, that I know the screen will be **** within 8-15 months.
Why on earth didn't they just go with a LCD screen so we could use this phone for years? I'm not the usual "pick up a flagship phone and then upgrade next year", so a AMOLED screen is a bad choice for me.
I also hear people saying "AMOLED has less burn in than before", yet I can google that 930 suffered from burn ins, and even the new Samsung Galaxy S6 has already pictures of burn ins.