For whatever reason, "reviews" about screens referenced this way irritate me.
I suppose it's due to the fact that I am a hobbyist photographer, and so I have a calibrated monitor all the time, but reviewing a phone screen as "bluer" or "whiter" than another one does absolutely nothing to tell about the screen. The only thing this says is that the color temperature of one screen on one specific phone differs from another screen of another specific phone. Just because one is "bluer" does not mean the entire range is bluer, or brighter. Every screen has variance.
For those that might be thinking that variance should be tightly controlled during manufacturing, and that a difference should be a trend, here's something I had experienced when I was trying to pick up my first smartphone (A Droid Incredible that I am still using.. Still deciding what to upgrade to.)
View attachment 46436
This was back when I first got my phone.
I immediately noticed something was off. The phone was way too green. (One on the very right.)
I called for not one, but two replacements. They are all different.
(Shots were intentionally out of focus, as the point was not to shoot the phones, but to see the color difference with all 3 set to a blank, white browser window.)
Careful observers might note that one is also slightly brighter than the others. (I believe they were all set to 100% brightness, as I noticed that the colors ALSO shifted depending on the brightness level being set.)
That said, I would be interested in seeing how the DNA's screen actually looks in terms of overall sharpness, readability, and color reproduction.
As sad as it is, phones are getting better screens than laptops nowadays. It's near impossible to find an IPS panel in a laptop that goes anywhere near even 100% sRGB coverage. Those that do cost way too much.
Edit:
Green and Magenta/Red shift is more about the tint. Color temperature would be how Blue/Yellow a display is.