I was wrong about the iPhone 16

Since its announcement last month, I have been using my iPhone 16, which is a little over a month old, virtually constantly. After reviewing the phone for Digital Trends, I purchased my own personal phone with my own funds. I wrote an opinion piece shortly after the iPhone 16's release, criticizing the lack of a 120Hz display. I claimed that its 60Hz screen was "an absurd standard" and that it was the "one thing holding back the iPhone 16." Although I would still like to see the refresh rate fixed in the iPhone 17, I have discovered that it is not nearly as problematic as I had anticipated after using the iPhone 16 for more than a month.
A 60Hz screen matters, until it doesn’t

After utilizing the Google Pixel 9 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max, both of which have 120Hz screens, I moved to the iPhone 16. And I will be honest—the change was difficult. It felt awful to switch to a phone with a 60Hz refresh rate after months of my eyes being exposed to 120Hz ones daily. The iPhone 16 felt sluggish and choppy, whether I was navigating through my home screens or browsing around Reddit.

Then something occurred. I no longer noticed it.

After using the iPhone 16 for a little more than two weeks, I became aware that I had forgotten about the 60Hz refresh rate. Yes, I could still see it, but I did not feel like it was actively ruining my phone time.

Now, after using the iPhone 16 for more than a month, I have not even considered the 60Hz display. I use my iPhone 16 all day long to monitor my fantasy football league, finish my daily Duolingo lessons, send friends messages, and spend too much time on Reddit and X. All of those things are handled perfectly by the iPhone 16.

Does it show the same hyperfluidity across all of my apps and games?

Refresh rates don’t make or break a phone

The remainder of the iPhone 16 is another consideration. Just like a 120Hz screen does not ensure that a phone would be great, a 60Hz refresh rate does not immediately make a phone awful.

For instance, consider the Moto G Power 5G 2024. This $300 smartphone has a 120Hz screen. Although it has a higher specification than the iPhone 16's 60Hz refresh rate, the display is objectively poorer in every other way. It has awful outdoor visibility, less striking hues, and very poor viewing angles. Additionally, because of its weaker chipset, it is much slower and more lagging even with a refresh rate of 120 Hz.

This should not come as a surprise. The iPhone 16 costs $799, whereas the Motorola phone is just $300. Naturally, the

Don’t let it stop you from getting the iPhone 16
I want to clarify something. This does not imply that Apple should be given a pass for the iPhone 16's lack of a 90Hz or 120Hz display. The absence of a 120Hz panel is objectively a bad deal at $799 (or $899 if you get the iPhone 16 Plus), especially when compared to other Android phones.

But like I said a month ago, I also believe it is reasonable to bring up that critique while also admitting it is not nearly as serious a problem as some people make it out to be. Should the iPhone 16 have a refresh rate faster than 60 Hz given its high price? Most likely! It is by no means a deal-breaker, though.


If you're