Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:12 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Reportedly Talking to LG About 55-65 Inch Ultra HD TV Panels




While rumors of an Apple television set have quieted down in recent months, the company's living room ambitions remain at the forefront amid new Apple TV offerings and continued reports of talks with content providers.

In a brief report today, Digitimes claims that Apple has been talking to LG about the possibility of securing display panels in the range of 55-65 inches for a future television set. The panels are said to be of Ultra HD, or 2160p, resolution.
Quote:
Rumors are circulating in the market that Apple is interested in purchasing 55- and 65-inch Ultra HD TV panels from LG Display.

However, the rumors state that Apple is still testing the technology and has yet to finalize its orders with LG.
Apple is said to also be considering Sharp to provide panels for its needs.

Digitimes had reported back in March that Apple was looking to launch an Ultra HD television set late this year or early next year. That report had indicated that Apple and Foxconn were in discussions about mass production of the TVs but that Apple was sill considering where its display panels would come from given industry constraints.

Pricing remains a major issue for Ultra HD television sets, with LG's offerings currently priced at $7000 for a 55-inch model and $9000 for a 65-inch model. Still, prices are dropping fairly quickly as technology and production efficiency improves and more companies enter the market.

Excitement about an Apple television set ramped up in the wake of the publication of Steve Jobs' authorized biography in late 2011, in which he was quoted as saying he had "finally cracked it", but despite numerous rumors the product has yet to come to fruition.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly Talking to LG About 55-65 Inch Ultra HD TV Panels
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:20 AM   #2
decimortis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here
*sets up appointment for kidney removal

D.
__________________
rMBP 15: 2.4GHz/8GB RAM/256GB/Mac OS X 10.9.2
Google Nexus 5: White 32GB
decimortis is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:27 AM   #3
Moonjumper
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincoln, UK
55" is too big for a 4K computer monitor. That size would be for the mythical Apple TV set.

I'd love to see 4K resolution at monitor sizes. Hopefully Apple will be going all retina soon.
Moonjumper is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:33 AM   #4
kpmlabel.com
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Portland Oregon
 
integration

We hope Apple will decide to keep prices near industry standard on their TV sets. The benefit over other TV manufactures will be the Apple TV, Mac, ipad and iphone integration. We will be keeping an eye on the the Apple TV rumors for sure.
kpmlabel.com is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:43 AM   #5
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements on a computer/phone). In a movie, contrast is never as high and sharpness is often ultimately limited by the lens used to capture footage. You'll often notice several elements in a scene are slightly out of focus because of the depth of field.

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.

Last edited by pgiguere1; Jul 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM.
pgiguere1 is offline   14 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:44 AM   #6
animatedude
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
the most redundant Apple related rumor...i'm probably excited about the mythical Apple TV set more than anyone but these rumors are starting to make me sick....
animatedude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:55 AM   #7
x13gamer
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pure Michigan
"Ultra High Definition" don't you mean Retina? If its not a Retina display people are going to complain.
__________________
Apple II plus,Apple IIe, Apple LC, and that's just the old ones to name a few... Don't tell me you're an apple Fan.
x13gamer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 10:58 AM   #8
Nightarchaon
macrumors 65816
 
Nightarchaon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Having "just" this year upgraded from 1080i TV i bought when HDTVs where just out and expensive, to a 1080p Passive 3D screen , i will now NOT be upgrading my TV again until at the earliest 2020.. And that will only be if there is content out for it that i want..

The driving force behind me upgrading from my Rear Projection set to HD originally was the PS3s release, so maybe the PS5 will change my mind on 4K, but i doubt it.
__________________
iWatch in action http://media.joe.ie/wp-content/uploa...ael-Knight.jpg
MacBook Pro/iPad Mini/TV1/iMac/iPhone5
Nightarchaon is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:05 AM   #9
GenesisST
macrumors 65816
 
GenesisST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where I live
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements).

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.
I agree, but with time bandwidths will increase and the prices will drop.

That said, this time around, I'm waiting it out. I was an early adopter for HDTV in 2002. Not doing that this time around... And I'm currently content with my 1080p.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightarchaon View Post
Having "just" this year upgraded from 1080i TV i bought when HDTVs where just out and expensive, to a 1080p Passive 3D screen , i will now NOT be upgrading my TV again until at the earliest 2020.. And that will only be if there is content out for it that i want..

The driving force behind me upgrading from my Rear Projection set to HD originally was the PS3s release, so maybe the PS5 will change my mind on 4K, but i doubt it.
I got a Panasonic 47" 1080i TV in 2002... I loved the thing, but the projectors where badly misaligned and I decided to change for a 1080p instead of having them aligned. And I gained a lot of space from that furniture/tv...
__________________
Kenmore microwave, Frigidaire oven, Fisher & Paykel fridge, LG washer & Dryer and Crane toilet
GenesisST is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:07 AM   #10
itr81
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements).

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be neglected by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute it yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.
I think you're thinking about 4K thats just has been scaled up from 1080p. Content from Sony mastered blu ray or from their own media server in 4K is very noticeable. Home Theater mag just recently talked about that when they demoed the new 4K xbr model recently.

I think if you're moving into the tv market now you need to aim for 4K because 3D is passing fade and everyone seems to be moving towards 4K. Within two yrs everyone will have 4K tv on the market.

I can currently stream at 1080p and yes sometimes it does look a little compressed but so does cable and dtv.

As for who would buy it? Any of the first adopters that spend 3-5k now on large 1080p with 3D tech. Then every yr the prices will drop and the market share grows and grows. I still remember 1080p tv's around that price not long ago.
Also as anyone knows $5k is the asking price but it will always sell under that when you go to a store or buy one online. I figure probably $4,500-4,800 range. In a yr that price will be in 3-4k range..same as most big screens. Within 2 yrs prices will be in upper 2k range that most mainstream tv's live in now.
itr81 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:11 AM   #11
solipsism
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by x13gamer View Post
"Ultra High Definition" don't you mean Retina? If its not a Retina display people are going to complain.
UHD refers specifically to a 3,8402,160 resolution. Based on normal viewing habits a 4k/UHD monitor that is 55-65" will be Retina by Apple's definition. In fact, 1080p is Retina by Apple's definition under normal viewing distances to around 60".
solipsism is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:20 AM   #12
ValSalva
macrumors 68040
 
ValSalva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Burpelson AFB
If those panels are released as an Apple TV it will be breathtaking.

Still find it hard to see Apple getting into a market where people don't upgrade for sometimes more than a decade and only buy one premium television per household.
ValSalva is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:25 AM   #13
11thIndian
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements on a computer/phone). In a movie, contrast is never as high and sharpness is often ultimately limited by the lens used to capture footage. You'll often notice several elements in a scene are slightly out of focus because of the depth of field.

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.

Later this year and more into next year, h.265 will be deployed on the encoding and decoding side. It's twice as efficient as h.264 and is 10bit colour depth. So many of the low contrast banding issues you see with current streaming video will be largely eliminated.

At NAB I watched 4K material on a 72" display that was encoded at between 4 and 7Mbps. There we no obvious signs of compression or banding. Processors in streaming devices will need to improve to handle the decoding, but it will get there.

But undoubtably 4K is going to make the most difference for large, close computer displays used by media and graphic designers, and very large TV and projection installations. I know I'll definitely see the difference on my 92" projection screen.
11thIndian is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:27 AM   #14
GuitarDTO
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ValSalva View Post
If those panels are released as an Apple TV it will be breathtaking.

Still find it hard to see Apple getting into a market where people don't upgrade for sometimes more than a decade and only buy one premium television per household.
It's all about ecosystem though. If Apple comes out with a TV that has a cutting edge display that will last years, and ties in their existing ecosystem in a neat package, the TV will be a screaming success. I can't wait to see how iPad's and iPhones play together with the TV.
GuitarDTO is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:36 AM   #15
ValSalva
macrumors 68040
 
ValSalva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Burpelson AFB
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarDTO View Post
It's all about ecosystem though. If Apple comes out with a TV that has a cutting edge display that will last years, and ties in their existing ecosystem in a neat package, the TV will be a screaming success. I can't wait to see how iPad's and iPhones play together with the TV.
I agree and can't wait. Just skeptical that they will actually release it. It's one thing to talk to panel makers and investigate options. It's a whole other thing to release this huge expensive product.

I can't wait to see what it would look like if/when it is released though
ValSalva is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:36 AM   #16
Flood123
macrumors 6502a
 
Flood123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Living Stateside
If this is true it will be PERFECT timing for me. I will absolutely be in the market for a new television within the year.
Flood123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:40 AM   #17
RightMACatU
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 192.168.1.1
Who's broacasting in 4K? Can I even buy 4K movies?
RightMACatU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:40 AM   #18
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarDTO View Post
It's all about ecosystem though. If Apple comes out with a TV that has a cutting edge display that will last years, and ties in their existing ecosystem in a neat package, the TV will be a screaming success. I can't wait to see how iPad's and iPhones play together with the TV.
I agree that the ecosystem integration is the reason for Apple getting into this business. However, he other side of that is the compatibility issue. Apple is constantly pushing forward and usually does not maintain compatibility beyond a few verions. If they release a new hardware versions once per year (typical for Apple), what will happen in three years? Will the latest OS for work on three year old TVs? How they handle compatibility and legacy support will be interesting to see since it is very different with TVs compared to PCs and iDevices.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:56 AM   #19
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?
Two words: (1) H.265 and (2) apps.

H.265 cuts the bitrate by 50%, which may still be high for bandwidth starved households, but could help alleviate concerns for those with fatter pipes.

But mainly, 4K will benefit apps. People tend to sit closer to TV when playing games. While 1080p over close viewing distance isn't half bad, 4K does wonders for reducing pixellation while increasing details. And I strongly suspect some will utilize AirPlay video mirroring and use 4K TV as a secondary monitor.
nutmac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 12:35 PM   #20
ctdonath
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a [N Mbps media player] which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper [N/4 Mbps] set because there's no proper way no distribute [N Mbps] yet?
I've seen the same argument given for CDs, DVDs, BD, DTV, HDTV, and every network data rate over the then-current norm from 300 bps up (yeah, there's no M or K after that number). Every time that argument pops up it's about 2 years before the N Mbps becomes the norm.

Likewise, that $5k+ will be $2k next year, $1k the year after, and $500 on the following Black Friday. Seen that pipeline cycle year after year for a couple decades.

TV recommends 8 Mbps for 1080p content. 4x that is 32 Mbps. H.265 halves that need to 16 Mbps. My consistent (not peak) data rate is about half that now, and will quadruple to more than enough for $40/mo when I get around to dropping a couple grand on a 4K display.

And yes, I'd very much like a 42" 4K display. I'm staring at a 21" 2K display right now, and would appreciate & use the larger format.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RightMACatU View Post
Who's broacasting in 4K? Can I even buy 4K movies?
Sony and RED are pushing out their 4K streaming services right now (premium prices). Prices will come down and offerings will increase; Netflix will offer 4K content in about 2 years.

No different than the same question I saw a few years ago about "who's broadcasting in HD? Can I even buy HD movies?", and ditto digital SD some years before that.
ctdonath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 12:36 PM   #21
solipsism
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctdonath View Post
I've seen the same argument given for CDs, DVDs, BD, DTV, HDTV, and every network data rate over the then-current norm from 300 bps up (yeah, there's no M or K after that number). Every time that argument pops up it's about 2 years before the N Mbps becomes the norm.

Likewise, that $5k+ will be $2k next year, $1k the year after, and $500 on the following Black Friday. Seen that pipeline cycle year after year for a couple decades.

TV recommends 8 Mbps for 1080p content. 4x that is 32 Mbps. H.265 halves that need to 16 Mbps. My consistent (not peak) data rate is about half that now, and will quadruple to more than enough for $40/mo when I get around to dropping a couple grand on a 4K display.

And yes, I'd very much like a 42" 4K display. I'm staring at a 21" 2K display right now, and would appreciate & use the larger format.
1) There have already 4K TVs for $1200. I wouldn't recommend them, as I don't recommend any overly inexpensive product from a no-name vendor without at least some 3rd-party testing, but they are available.

2) You're being far too generous with your quadrupling. Remember that each frame has 4x the number of pixels so the compression has more to work with to reduce size. With HEVC I wouldn't be surprised to see the same relative quality on 4K content at as low as 1.5x over H.264 with 1080p content.
solipsism is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 12:42 PM   #22
carlgo
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
[QUOTE=pgiguere1;17597976]Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. ...

The terrible bandwidth problem gets in the way of everything Apple, and others, wants to do. We can certainly hope that Apple, or Google or somebody, has an answer to this.

I want a retina monitor for photography, but right now that is about all I could do with the thing.
carlgo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 01:07 PM   #23
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
Rumors are circulating in the market that Apple is interested in purchasing 55- and 65-inch Ultra HD TV panels from LG Display.

However, the rumors state that Apple is still testing the technology and has yet to finalize its orders with LG.
I suspect Apple has a two-pronged strategy for disrupting the television world. A next-gen Apple TV set-top box plus some future 4K television set. And I doubt Apple would want to ship any 4K television set until, you know, there's a market for 4K television sets. And that can't happen until 4K televisions sets drop below some magic price point. Not to mention that there won't be any market for 4K television sets until there is enough 4K content to make them worthwhile.

I can see it now. The 2018 CES show will be overshadowed by Apple's inaugural TV set announcement. Much like CES was overshadowed by the iPhone announcement in 2007. Apple will continue to roll out their yearly TV set models a week before CES, just in time for the annual Super Bowl TV buying spree. CES will devolve into an iPhone-and-iPad-case convention, but it won't go away like COMDEX did. Plenty of demand for iPhone and iPad cases.
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator
SockRolid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 01:12 PM   #24
ctdonath
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlgo View Post
The terrible bandwidth problem gets in the way of everything Apple, and others, wants to do. We can certainly hope that Apple, or Google or somebody, has an answer to this.
Google is rolling out their own WAN services with extremely high data rates (1Gbps). Starting small, gonna take a while, but they're in it for the long haul.

Apple has long-term plans that consider what will be available when, and how to comfortably ease consumers into it the moment it's available. Nobody is bitching about TV3's needs for 1080p content, because infrastructure providers have upgraded to the point where that works fine. Sure, it would be great for Apple if far faster networks were available now, but they're doing just fine with what's available.
ctdonath is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 01:26 PM   #25
peteullo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Scranton, PA
I don't see 4k being an option for at least another 2-3 years. IMO of course!
__________________
Macbook Pro w/ Retina Display 2012
iPhone 5S
iPad Air 128GB w/ LTE
peteullo is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple to Reportedly Release 4.7-Inch iPhone 6 This Fall, 5.5-Inch Version Delayed MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 257 Apr 23, 2014 01:49 AM
TPK to Reportedly Supply Flexible AMOLED Panels For Apple's iWatch MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 35 Feb 20, 2014 01:53 PM
Low Retina iPad Mini Production Reportedly Due to Burn-In Issue on Sharp's Display Panels MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 224 Nov 13, 2013 09:42 PM
Apple Reportedly Testing 1.5-Inch OLED Displays for Smart Watch MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 163 May 22, 2013 10:07 AM
Apple's 4.8-Inch iPhone 6 Reportedly Not Launching Until Mid-2014 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 170 Mar 1, 2013 04:07 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 AM.

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

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