Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 27, 2012, 06:48 AM   #76
ThatsMeRight
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by waqas View Post
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.
ThatsMeRight is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:11 AM   #77
akatsuki
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
I'd honestly like to see a Pixel Qi type screen, especially for the Mini where it could then replace an e-reader.
akatsuki is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:13 AM   #78
Thunderhawks
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC03 View Post
"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:-)
__________________
It's ready, when it's ready !
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
Thunderhawks is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:20 AM   #79
vikpt
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Am I the only one here who wants a thinner bezel for the iPad? :/
vikpt is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:22 AM   #80
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
But, but, I thought there would never be a Retina Mini?
kas23 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:30 AM   #81
dugbug
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris7777 View Post
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.
dugbug is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:33 AM   #82
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
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.
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 Galaxy Note 12.2 Moto G iPad 3
tdream is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:39 AM   #83
Chupa Chupa
macrumors G3
 
Chupa Chupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
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.
__________________
Walled Garden ≠ Prison:
"People who use Apple products considered their options, and chose Apple. If they regret their decision, they can dump it at any time." -- Harry McCracken, Technologizer.com
Chupa Chupa is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 07:51 AM   #84
lcmazza
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Send a message via Skype™ to lcmazza
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
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!
lcmazza is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:07 AM   #85
blackcrayon
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcmazza View Post
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.
blackcrayon is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:17 AM   #86
lcmazza
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Send a message via Skype™ to lcmazza
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcrayon View Post
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.
lcmazza is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:23 AM   #87
barkomatic
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Manhattan
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtr1985 View Post
"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.
barkomatic is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:29 AM   #88
Defender2010
macrumors 68000
 
Defender2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatsMeRight View Post
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!
__________________
W2P KLD talking...what's your handle, WR2 GFO?
Defender2010 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:30 AM   #89
blackcrayon
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcmazza View Post
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.
blackcrayon is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:36 AM   #90
lcmazza
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Send a message via Skype™ to lcmazza
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcrayon View Post
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.
lcmazza is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:42 AM   #91
blackcrayon
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcmazza View Post
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).
blackcrayon is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 08:58 AM   #92
lcmazza
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Send a message via Skype™ to lcmazza
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcrayon View Post
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...
lcmazza is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 09:01 AM   #93
Jimrod
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
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.
Jimrod is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 09:40 AM   #94
KdParker
macrumors 68030
 
KdParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
believe it when I see it....
__________________
64g iPhone6+Space Grey; 16g iPhone6 Silver;16g iPhone5s Space Grey;
15" retina - MBP 2.6 GHZ 16 RAM;
iPad4 retina
KdParker is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:19 AM   #95
iChrist
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 3 countries for tax benefit
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS82712 View Post
well, good luck with that. Sharp couldnt even produce the iP5 screen properly at launch.

Very true.

And people, do we even know if the image quality will match the current screen? It is said to be more washed out and less accurate colors. So what if is thinner, who cares?

__________________
"We should think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."
iChrist is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 10:39 AM   #96
rtr1985
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by barkomatic View Post
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.
rtr1985 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 11:31 AM   #97
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcmazza View Post
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:



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 by pgiguere1; Dec 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM.
pgiguere1 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 12:25 PM   #98
Internaut
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: All over the place but mostly Somewhere in England
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.
Internaut is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 12:47 PM   #99
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post

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.
Renzatic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 01:14 PM   #100
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
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.
pgiguere1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple's iPad Air Adopts IGZO Technology for Thinner, Lower-Power Displays MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 189 Aug 4, 2014 08:55 AM
Apple to Release Thinner Fifth-Generation iPad and Retina iPad Mini in Last Three Months of 2013 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 190 Sep 25, 2013 06:00 PM
Apple to Adopt IGZO Displays for Future iPads and MacBooks? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 83 Aug 19, 2013 02:42 PM
Why might Apple not use Sharp's new IGZO displays in the next MBAs? Yixian MacBook Air 20 May 31, 2013 11:59 PM
Sketchy Claims of Revamped iPad with IGZO Display and Thinner Enclosure in Late 2012 MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 55 Jul 11, 2012 05:05 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC