Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ThatsMeRight

macrumors 68020
Sep 12, 2009
2,289
251
I guess they'd want consistent display resolutions, whether 'tis IGZO or not.


Display area of the iPad-mini = 29.6 square inches.
Current Resolution = 1024 x 768 = 786432 total number of pixels
Pixel Density = (Total Number of Pixels/Display Area)^0.5
Pixel Density = (1024*768/29.6)^0.5 = 162.99 ≈ 163 pixels per inch.

Doubling the Resolution (converting to Retina, while using IGZO panels, since it allows for higher density):

iPad-mini with Retina Display area = 29.6 square inches.
Resolution = 2048 x 1536 = 3145728 pixels
Pixel Density = (2048 x 1536/29.6)^0.5 = 325.99 ≈ 326 pixels per inch.

Same pixel density as iPhone. It'd seem likely to happen, but they'd want consistent resolutions, not pixel density.
They definitely want both consistent resolutions and pixel densities.

For iPad and iPad mini, they would definitely want a consistent 2048 x 1536 resolution.

One could, however, argue that for Apple, pixel densities are more important. Think about it: the iPad mini currently has a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch. That's exactly the same pixel density the iPhone 3GS had. They discontinued the iPhone 3GS this year, and they used the display production lines for the iPad mini.

Next year, when they might settle for a Retina iPad mini, at 326 pixels per inch, they could easily use the iPhone 4/4S/5 production lines. Why is this important? Setting up a new production line costs a lot of money. If they make sure products with displays have the same pixel densities as other products, than they will save A LOT of money.

Apple cares about the resolution to make it easy for developers. The App Store is important and it draws in a lot of customers.

Apple cares about the pixel density, because using the same pixel density as another iDevice has, could save a lot of money.
 

akatsuki

macrumors regular
Sep 3, 2010
193
25
I'd honestly like to see a Pixel Qi type screen, especially for the Mini where it could then replace an e-reader.
 

Thunderhawks

Suspended
Feb 17, 2009
4,057
2,118
"The fifth iPad will be slightly smaller and thinner." This is the rumour I've read on multiple websites. I think the word slightly should be used with caution. The iPad is a relatively big device, take off 1 mm from every side and the volume is reduced drastically. If the new iPad were to be 3 mm less wide and 2 mm less thick, that's not 'slightly' smaller, it's significantly smaller and it would make the current iPad feel like an ancient brick. I think it would be a huge milestone if Apple were to achieve this.

Yes, the weight is not ideal when you hold an iPad for a long period of time lying down.

I hope for the current iPad they will save weight and whatever experience they get from tinkering with this technology will lead to a lightweight 13 or 15 inch iPad.

Then we need the ios to progress to function like an MBP and that is some product.

Well, we can dream:)
 

dugbug

macrumors 68000
Aug 23, 2008
1,865
1,926
Somewhere in Florida
I agree mrsir, they will go thinner instead of working on battery life. My ipod touch 4g is a good example of that its thin but battery life is abysmal for a "gaming" device. My ipad 3 is much better, but they had to pork it up to get it.

Well for the phone and iPod I think they will go battery. You are starting to impinge on the volume buttons and camera optics at some point.
 

tdream

macrumors 65816
Jan 15, 2009
1,094
42
Err, it's more like the other way around.

IPS is superior to OLED and it's only recently that Android hardware is starting to switch from OLED to IPS. See the Nexus 4 compared to older Nexuses, HTC One X/DNA, the Nexus tablets and the Lumia 920 / HTC One 8 on the WP8 side.

The only major company still putting OLED in their flagships is Samsung (Galaxy SIII, Note 2, Galaxy Nexus) and those are the ones with displays that feel outdated now when you compare them to the competition. Reviews put down their (relatively) bad display and use of PenTile subpixel matrix and hopefully Samsung will switch to IPS like all others for the GS4.

Apple switching to OLED would be a huge step backwards considering that the iPhone 4 from 2.5 years ago still beat most OLED displays on so many levels.

IPS will never be superior to OLED because the black level cannot be reached due to the inherent backlight feature of IPS technology. OLED can fully switch off that pixel with no interference from backlight or surrounding pixels. How many times have you hear of backlight bleeding with IPS displays...? All the time because that's how they're designed.

OLED is the future, the only reason IPS is more prevalent now is because it costs less to produce. High resolution OLED displays still cost far too much to be succesful commercial but production costs are coming down all the time.

The Galaxy Note 2 has a 720p 5.5 in AMOLED panel that does not have a pentile configuration and produces stunning quality video and superb picture clarity. Much better than the GS3.

The AMOLED screen can be intensely bright I only ever use 30% indoors and can reach zero black level to provide huge contrast levels. I see the difference between the iPad 3 and GN2 easily. iPad 3 wins in sheer resolution.
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,835
7,396
These rumors of Apple trying to get the iPad weight down, case thinner, screen brighter & sharper are as boring and predictable as as sophomore porn star planning a boob job. It's inevitable & there is no suspense or mystery in either case.
 

lcmazza

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2012
213
0
Err, it's more like the other way around.

IPS is superior to OLED and it's only recently that Android hardware is starting to switch from OLED to IPS. See the Nexus 4 compared to older Nexuses, HTC One X/DNA, the Nexus tablets and the Lumia 920 / HTC One 8 on the WP8 side.

The only major company still putting OLED in their flagships is Samsung (Galaxy SIII, Note 2, Galaxy Nexus) and those are the ones with displays that feel outdated now when you compare them to the competition. Reviews put down their (relatively) bad display and use of PenTile subpixel matrix and hopefully Samsung will switch to IPS like all others for the GS4.

Apple switching to OLED would be a huge step backwards considering that the iPhone 4 from 2.5 years ago still beat most OLED displays on so many levels.

I really don't get all this nonsense about OLED being better than IPS... I have a Galaxy Note 2 (non-pentile) and the screen IS GORGEOUS. The blacks are like the screen is turned of! My iPad 4 has a little washed-out blacks and I don't understand why all these technical specifications are so important to people like you, because what really matters is what you SEE and perceive. And OLED looks much better than IPS.

Also, I don't don't see Galaxy Note 2 users, for instance, asking Samsung for better battery life, or this or that... But when I come here, all I see is "Apple, please do this... Apple, please, do that"... Asking for things we already have in the Android side for years!
 

blackcrayon

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2003
2,255
1,824
Also, I don't don't see Galaxy Note 2 users, for instance, asking Samsung for better battery life, or this or that... But when I come here, all I see is "Apple, please do this... Apple, please, do that"... Asking for things we already have in the Android side for years!

The "Android" side has had better battery life for years? Some of the absolute worst battery life has come from the "Android side" since it was introduced (of course it's a bit silly since "Android" encompasses an extremely large amount of hardware, but I think you know what I mean). In most reviews the equivalent iOS device has usually gotten better battery life, and they almost always get better battery life when adjusted for battery size.
 

lcmazza

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2012
213
0
The "Android" side has had better battery life for years? Some of the absolute worst battery life has come from the "Android side" since it was introduced (of course it's a bit silly since "Android" encompasses an extremely large amount of hardware, but I think you know what I mean). In most reviews the equivalent iOS device has usually gotten better battery life, and they almost always get better battery life when adjusted for battery size.

Yes, because of the amount of services that sync in the background of the OS.
If you turn off those services (as many are really not necessary), getting the equivalent to iOS services, then you recover the battery life.
The truth is that, with power and features comes more settings adjustment's needs. ;)
 

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Aug 8, 2008
4,519
2,821
Manhattan
"Investigating" is a little late to start releasing by March

For all we know the fifth generation iPad is already designed and prototypes built with samples of the new display. It may just be a matter of getting the new screens produced in quantity.
 

Defender2010

Cancelled
Jun 6, 2010
3,131
1,097
They definitely want both consistent resolutions and pixel densities.

For iPad and iPad mini, they would definitely want a consistent 2048 x 1536 resolution.

One could, however, argue that for Apple, pixel densities are more important. Think about it: the iPad mini currently has a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch. That's exactly the same pixel density the iPhone 3GS had. They discontinued the iPhone 3GS this year, and they used the display production lines for the iPad mini.

Next year, when they might settle for a Retina iPad mini, at 326 pixels per inch, they could easily use the iPhone 4/4S/5 production lines. Why is this important? Setting up a new production line costs a lot of money. If they make sure products with displays have the same pixel densities as other products, than they will save A LOT of money.

Apple cares about the resolution to make it easy for developers. The App Store is important and it draws in a lot of customers.

Apple cares about the pixel density, because using the same pixel density as another iDevice has, could save a lot of money.

Perfect reasoning! :)
 

blackcrayon

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2003
2,255
1,824
Yes, because of the amount of services that sync in the background of the OS.
If you turn off those services (as many are really not necessary), getting the equivalent to iOS services, then you recover the battery life.
The truth is that, with power and features comes more settings adjustment's needs. ;)

Do you have any proof of this? I know that Android could technically run more background processes, but by default, which processes are these? Do you have evidence that when all of these "unnecessary" processes are turned off, it makes a difference? (Keep in mind iOS also has many processes always running that do not "need" to be, for example, to test web browsing or media playing battery life).

I'd honestly like to see a comparison of the default background processes running. Either way, you didn't qualify your post originally. You simply said, in effect, that "Android" devices had better battery life than iOS devices. This is obviously not true in any general sense though there are exceptions.
 

lcmazza

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2012
213
0
Do you have any proof of this? I know that Android could technically run more background processes, but by default, which processes are these? Do you have evidence that when all of these "unnecessary" processes are turned off, it makes a difference? (Keep in mind iOS also has many processes always running that do not "need" to be, for example, to test web browsing or media playing battery life).

I'd honestly like to see a comparison of the default background processes running. Either way, you didn't qualify your post originally. You simply said, in effect, that "Android" devices had better battery life than iOS devices. This is obviously not true in any general sense though there are exceptions.

Proof? Well, I have other things to do than to collect proofs for small-talk at forums.

What I can tell you is that many applications do want to sync all the time, because Android let's you do so. It is the user that has to stop those apps from syncing. I'm telling you my experience, as I had all iPhone models until the iPhone 4 and since the last one I had the Galaxy S2, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 2. I can only compare those phones.
 

blackcrayon

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2003
2,255
1,824
Proof? Well, I have other things to do than to collect proofs for small-talk at forums.

What I can tell you is that many applications do want to sync all the time, because Android let's you do so. It is the user that has to stop those apps from syncing. I'm telling you my experience, as I had all iPhone models until the iPhone 4 and since the last one I had the Galaxy S2, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 2. I can only compare those phones.

Perhaps, but do you think, in all of the battery comparison tests done over the years comparing devices, the reviewers had all sorts of apps updating and syncing in the background? But yet they did not have apps updating and downloading in the background of their iOS devices (since that is also possible without user interaction, though it's just as unlikely for a tech reviewer to not notice).

I take issue because I hear this a lot "well, Safari might be smoother on an iPad than a Nexus 7 but the Nexus 7 is doing SO MUCH MORE at the same time!" - that's great, but not without proof. She me there are all of these background processes doing amazing things that are eating up so many resources that Chrome can't scroll smoothly, and I'll believe it. So far I haven't seen any proof (and running top on my Nexus 7 doesn't seem to provide any clues either).
 

lcmazza

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2012
213
0
Perhaps, but do you think, in all of the battery comparison tests done over the years comparing devices, the reviewers had all sorts of apps updating and syncing in the background? But yet they did not have apps updating and downloading in the background of their iOS devices (since that is also possible without user interaction, though it's just as unlikely for a tech reviewer to not notice).

I take issue because I hear this a lot "well, Safari might be smoother on an iPad than a Nexus 7 but the Nexus 7 is doing SO MUCH MORE at the same time!" - that's great, but not without proof. She me there are all of these background processes doing amazing things that are eating up so many resources that Chrome can't scroll smoothly, and I'll believe it. So far I haven't seen any proof (and running top on my Nexus 7 doesn't seem to provide any clues either).

Well, I know that Android scans for new media in real time, Google services also want to sync a ton of services in real-time, then you have Skype, Samsung Apps, Dropbox... I turn everything off. Only Chrome's bookmarks I let it sync in real-time and WhatsApp too.
My Note 2 can survive 2 full days with average use (pretty generic, I know) and 24 hours with heavy use for about 6 to 8 hours on 3G (browser and other services) with screen on.
So much that I got a second battery (25 bucks) and I didn't use it yet in 3 months.
If I only use the phone to talk and check e-mail, then it lasts more than 3 full days and there's still juice left.
I don't know about the Nexus 7, though...
 

Jimrod

macrumors 65816
Jun 24, 2010
1,199
659
This is exactly why the iPhone 5 screen sticks out from the frame - look at it side on, no way Jony Ive designed it that way. The thinner Izgo screen would sit flush and I bet anything it will on the first generation iPhone to use it. It just wasn't ready in time and Apple had to launch something.

Here's to hoping the Izgo screens won't also be yellow tinted like it seems most iPhone 5 screens are (anecdotally from those who notice such things and have tried to replace them numerous times), technically mine measures 106% green, 92% blue and 81% red... That isn't "warmer", it's pretty **** for a premium phone with it's amazing colour reproduction as a selling point.
 

rtr1985

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2012
502
177
For all we know the fifth generation iPad is already designed and prototypes built with samples of the new display. It may just be a matter of getting the new screens produced in quantity.


Yes. This is obviously what investigating means in this context.
 

pgiguere1

macrumors 68020
May 28, 2009
2,167
1,200
Montreal, Canada
I really don't get all this nonsense about OLED being better than IPS... I have a Galaxy Note 2 (non-pentile) and the screen IS GORGEOUS. The blacks are like the screen is turned of! My iPad 4 has a little washed-out blacks and I don't understand why all these technical specifications are so important to people like you, because what really matters is what you SEE and perceive. And OLED looks much better than IPS.

Also, I don't don't see Galaxy Note 2 users, for instance, asking Samsung for better battery life, or this or that... But when I come here, all I see is "Apple, please do this... Apple, please, do that"... Asking for things we already have in the Android side for years!

I'm not saying it's a bad screen, just that it isn't as good as the iPhone 5's IPS screen. Of course, this is all like the LCD vs Plasma debate again and it ultimately depends on the viewer's perception and what you value in a display.

It's generally accepted that most IPS panels will have:
-Better brightness
-Better contrast (with ambient light)
-Whiter whites
-More accurate colors (99%+ sRGB coverage)

While the OLED screen will have deeper blacks.

Of course, you could personally value deep blacks more than the 4 other things combined, it all depends on your perception and how you use your phone.

Some people may practically never use their phone in the dark and not really notice blacks aren't perfectly black on an IPS screen and somebody else could not value color accuracy at all because he never checks pictures/movies on his phone so OLED wouldn't be a problem for him.

Also, just like when shopping for audio, somebody could look for a perfectly balanced, accurate flat response while somebody else could be looking for a colored, unbalanced, bass-heavy sound because that's what he thinks sounds good. Likewise, some people like OLED screens because colors "pop" even though they are technically inaccurate.

Technical specifications alone are not important for me. I do notice differences in color accuracy and white level on IPS and OLED screens. I compared my iPhone 5 to my friend's GS3 in bright light and the difference was night and day. I use my phone almost exclusively in bright light.

The Note II was said to have slightly better colors and a RGB matrix. I have yet to see one to compare myself but reviews aren't too glorious. Turns out it still have the same overvibrant colors as the GS3, the same low brightness and it still uses some sort of weird PenTile-like matrix that isn't traditional PenTile:

GN2-1.jpg


The day they will offer OLED displays with a real RGB matrix, with excellent color accuracy (close to sRGB), bright whites that don't have a green/purple tint, and excellent contrast in bright light while still beating IPS in black level, we could call OLED the winner. As it is however, the tradeoff simply isn't worth it.
 
Last edited:

Internaut

macrumors 65816
Thinner and lighter is one place Apple can go and still charge an overall premium for the hardware so this is consistent with their design goals, and good news for the end users. Size/weight is the one thing that put me off getting an iPad 3 - I didn't really want something thicker and heavier than the iPad 2, even if the difference is fairly slight. An HD version of the Mini is something I'd happily pay the Apple premium for.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
The day they will offer OLED displays with a real RGB matrix, with excellent color accuracy (close to sRGB), bright whites that don't have a green/purple tint, and excellent contrast in bright light while still beating IPS in black level, we could call OLED the winner. As it is however, the tradeoff simply isn't worth it.

You seem to be mixing up some of your terminology here. IPS isn't some magical technology that produces superior colors simply for the sake of being. The only real thing it does is staggers every other row of pixels at a slant to produce better viewing angles. You could easily get a subpar IPS panel that produces worse colors than than your average TN screen. You could even get an IPS Pentile display.

OLED is the same way. There are regular OLED RGB (OLOL letters) screens out there that can conform to the standard and Adobe gamuts. OLED isn't Pentile, it's that Samsung is using Pentile for their OLED screens.
 

pgiguere1

macrumors 68020
May 28, 2009
2,167
1,200
Montreal, Canada
You seem to be mixing up some of your terminology here. IPS isn't some magical technology that produces superior colors simply for the sake of being. The only real thing it does is staggers every other row of pixels at a slant to produce better viewing angles. You could easily get a subpar IPS panel that produces worse colors than than your average TN screen. You could even get an IPS Pentile display.

OLED is the same way. There are regular OLED RGB (OLOL letters) screens out there that can conform to the standard and Adobe gamuts. OLED isn't Pentile, it's that Samsung is using Pentile for their OLED screens.

Sure, I wasn't saying those desired characteristics were mutually exclusive, just that there aren't any flagship smartphone with OLED screen on the market today that offers all of them. You have to make a bunch of compromises compared to the best smartphone LCD displays in order to have deeper blacks.

I'm calling "IPS" for short LCD screens like the ones in the iPhone 5, Nexus 4, One X and Lumia 920 but I know those screens aren't good strictly because they're IPS. I simply wasn't going to list all their specs so you know what I'm talking about. I could have called them "Super LCD3+ HD" or whatever what Android manufacturers call them these days.

It's not technically impossible for OLED displays to have a better color gamut and real RGB matrix, but somehow it doesn't happen, which leads me to believe it's pretty hard (or expensive) to do.

Theoretical optimal performance is meaningless if it never makes it to consumer products because companies aren't willing to manufacture displays with said optimal theoretical performance.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.