Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max in for review
Briefly

Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max in for review
"The company introduced its first stainless steel phone, the iPhone 4, way back in 2010, but switched to aluminum with the iPhone 5. These past couple of years, Cupertino experimented with titanium to try and fight the steadily increasing weight of the Pro and especially Pro Max models. The experiments are over and this year Apple is using aluminum for all models but the Air."
"Of course, those used stainless steel, which is a lot heavier than aluminum. However, they also had smaller 6.7" displays compared to the 6.9" panel on the latest models. This display now uses tougher Ceramic Shield (3x harder to scratch and 4x harder to crack, says Apple). Additionally, it has an anti-reflective coating, which combines with the higher peak brightness (3,000 nits, up from 2,000 nits) for noticeably improved legibility, if the sun happens to be blazing down."
"Part of the weight is attributed to the bigger battery too. This year there are two versions - models with a physical nano-SIM slot have a 4,832mAh battery, while eSIM-only models have the biggest battery on an iPhone ever at 5,088mAh. Compared to the 16 Pro Max, this is an increase of 147mAh and 403mAh, respectively. That's a significant difference, but unfortunately, you don't get a choice - different regions get one model or the other."
Apple returned to aluminum for most iPhone 17 models after experimenting with stainless steel and titanium, retaining titanium only for the Air. The iPhone 17 Pro Max weighs 233g, making it the third‑heaviest Pro Max; the 13 and 14 Pro Max remain heaviest at 240g. The phone uses a larger 6.9-inch LTPO 120Hz display with tougher Ceramic Shield (claimed 3x harder to scratch and 4x harder to crack), an anti-reflective coating, and a higher peak brightness of 3,000 nits. Two battery versions exist: 4,832mAh for nano‑SIM models and a 5,088mAh eSIM‑only variant. Wired charging speeds increased and a new AVS protocol charger launched.
Read at GSMArena.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]