Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Use IGZO Displays to Achieve a Thinner Lower-Power iPad 3?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That was my initial question too. It seems superior in every aspect, why isn't it seeing more widespread usage?
A quick google turns this up.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/29/ipad.3.igzo.lcd.plans.reiterated.in.tip/
Seems the main issue is getting the contracted companies to produce them in the quantities Apple wants.
This is why Apple has $80B to play around with
Regardless of whether this particular rumor is true, it illustrates an advantage of Apple's bottomless cash pile. Instead of simply adopting the latest technology for their products, they can actually drive innovation. Because they trust their instincts about picking winning and losing tech, they can afford to partner with a huge mfr (like Sharp) to bring a promising technology to market. That will give Apple some level of exclusivity, at least for a period of time, instead of getting the tech at the same time as everyone else.
Same thing with the OS. Because Apple has its own OS, they can easily differentiate themselves from all other OEMs. The only way a Windows OEM can differentiate themselves is price -- the race to the bottom. Even if an OEM could afford to bankroll some new technology or a new OS, they wouldn't take the chance.
That's why Google is allowing OEMs to customize the Android OS -- they're hoping to escape the same fate as Microsoft. But in attempting to avoid one problem, they've created another -- fragmentation.
Regardless of whether this particular rumor is true, it illustrates an advantage of Apple's bottomless cash pile. Instead of simply adopting the latest technology for their products, they can actually drive innovation. Because they trust their instincts about picking winning and losing tech, they can afford to partner with a huge mfr (like Sharp) to bring a promising technology to market. That will give Apple some level of exclusivity, at least for a period of time, instead of getting the tech at the same time as everyone else.
Same thing with the OS. Because Apple has its own OS, they can easily differentiate themselves from all other OEMs. The only way a Windows OEM can differentiate themselves is price -- the race to the bottom. Even if an OEM could afford to bankroll some new technology or a new OS, they wouldn't take the chance.
That's why Google is allowing OEMs to customize the Android OS -- they're hoping to escape the same fate as Microsoft. But in attempting to avoid one problem, they've created another -- fragmentation.
Honestly, I'd rather less talk and more doin'
Guess I'm not that strange in that way
[iPad 1 owner, will upgrade when the 2012 queues allow]
Guess I'm not that strange in that way
[iPad 1 owner, will upgrade when the 2012 queues allow]
Yep. We might even see a display that can be used outside decently.
that said, those two things could come without a 330dpi screen
The point is the maximum resolution an Apple TV is going to have is 1920x1080 pixels, a resolution easily obtainable with existing TN and IPS LCD's. IGZO's higher resolution is of zero consequence in an Apple-made TV. Because an Apple TV would not have a "Retina" dpi screen, and would not require IGZO to meet it's resolution requirements in their given screen sizes.
It's amusing how you say one thing at the start of this paragraph and then make a contradictory statement after it, i.e. that panel thickness is immaterial to performance, and then say thinner TVs have better image quality. This new technology is important to the iPad because thickness counts in a portable device (although Apple seems to overestimate how important thickness is in usability, there's lots of people who would welcome a thicker iPhone if it meant more time between battery charges). This apeture ratio business will help a lot in the viewing of high resolution images on an iPad-sized screen, but once again this isn't going to be an issue on a full sized TV where the screen size is much less sharp to begin with (as measured by dividing screen size by resolution).
You can wall mount an existing LED LCD screen, which is not IGZO, and get a situation where your mounting bracket is thicker than the TV. IGZO will not be needed in TVs because the overall thickness will not be lowered to a level were such technology is necessary. There's a practical point where thickness exists for stiffness and durability in one dimension compared to another. A TV much thinner than existing designs would be a danger of snapping in half from it's own weight, so there wouldn't be a reason to make one even if it was technically possible.
I'm not decrying saving electricity, but we aren't talking about amounts of electricity that are critical to operation like they are in a portable device running off a battery. As the article said, the new display will allow Apple to avoid having to add a second lightbar to the iPad. So they will be using one lightbar as they have been the whole time. That's not an energy savings, that's avoiding having to use more energy.
Also, who said anything about CCFL? The iPad is LED lit, and there are lots of TVs on the market LED lit as well. IGZO isn't going to change the amount of lighting needed in an LED TV because at that point it's the screen size in square inches you're having to focus on.
My insider friends tell me the iPad 3 is going to have IGZO display tech. Or it might be IPS. Or possibly OLED.
Anyway, the new iPad 3 is definitely going to include some sort of display. And the unit will include at least one backlight, maybe more.
Anyway, the new iPad 3 is definitely going to include some sort of display. And the unit will include at least one backlight, maybe more.
Why do you say this? Is there an FCC regulation or something? Why can't we have a higher DPI large format screen?
I just hope the quality is near an IPS display. Just like at the iPhone(IPS) and iPod touch(regular crap display). There is a very clear difference.
Why does that have to be a maximum? LG have announced a super HD screen to be demo'd at CES. And the benefits of IGZO go beyond just 'higher resolution'.
Also, which definition of 'retina' are you using? Since TV viewing is done from a greater distance, 'retina' can be achieved with lower resolution. Although, in UI TV applications, I can routinely see the jagginess of text even at 3-4 metres away from my 46" TV. I'll be willing to invest in a high resolution screen because it can offer the benefits of sharper anti-aliasing, even in 1080p applications. But I digress.
I did say an apples to apples comparison. CCFLs vs CCFLs, and LED vs LED. Between CCFLs, their thickness doesn't make any contribution to the IQ (image quality), likewise with LEDs. However, between CCFL and LED, there's a noticeable IQ difference. But I can see where my wording may have led you astray.
Still, thin is in. Who knows how thin tablets will go, and if say 5mm is just far too thin. I'm sure Apple has certain design and usability guidelines that say that if they can make it thinner but maintain spec progression (ie A6, higher resolution screen and battery life) then they will make it thinner. These are personal comments, but I've never found either iPad 2 or iPhone to be 'too thin'. If there ever was an issue, you can always put a case on it, because that's optional.
Because thin sells.
Well I was referring to what you were saying regarding lounge room TVs, not the iPad itself. Power savings are power savings. But on your point about the iPad, if it allows for a higher resolution screen with the same brightness and power consumption was unchanged, I'd count that in the 'pro's column.
So if we're going along the lines of your 'maximum 1080p' resolution, then it would actually 'decrease' the amount of light needed, since the rumour suggests that more light is passed through in every pixel.
iPad 3 can't come soon enough, and my iPad 1 starts to look crap... It's going to be a tough few months waiting.
Assuming they utilise a quad core CPU and GPU to drive content on that very high res display, one assumes those components would require more power and by increasing battery capacity it would allow faster hardware without sacrificing battery life. I doubt we'll see an increase in battery life, but as long as they keep hitting the 10 hour mark it's all good.
There's a lot of new tech out Feb/March this year. With PS Vita 22nd Feb, iPad 3 rumored 24th Feb and Nintendo's Wii U for March, that's a lot of hardware vying for my geek purse.
----------
They are selling more units than the Kindle fire, the new hardware will be far superior (quad core cpu/gpu and retina display) that it has more than enough justification factor to warrant the price difference. Other Tegra3 tablets hitting market next year are set to hot around same price as iPad so again little incentive for Apple to drop its price.
The catch is that someone needs to have a few billion dollars to throw around to build the first high volume foundry and manufacturing plants for that technology, plus enough customers to buy the full resulting capacity. Guess who has that big a cash pile plus that many proven tablet custumers? Not HP, Dell or Sony.
That's how Apple's ridiculously high profits can benefit joe consumer (assuming joe consumer wants retina tablets sooner rather than later.)
Hey! Why Not?
This sounds like the perfect solution for apple! I didn't have a problem with making the iPad just a lil thicker but if this can make it thinner then of course go with this! All I want is the Retina display, better cameras, Siri, & that A6 Processor so if this can help with that then I'm all for it
This sounds like the perfect solution for apple! I didn't have a problem with making the iPad just a lil thicker but if this can make it thinner then of course go with this! All I want is the Retina display, better cameras, Siri, & that A6 Processor so if this can help with that then I'm all for it
This sounds like bad news to me. The IPS display in the iPad 1/2 is one of its best attributes. Other cheaper display technologies are usually inferior, especially at an angle.
Last edited:
Nobody is producing consumer media content for any higher DPI than 1080P. Plus 1080P across the living room is already retina in angular resolution... except to some species of owls and eagles. And they don't have enough money to make the business profitable.
I am a bit confused after reading this article on IGZO from the following link:
https://www.semiconportal.com/en/archive/news/main-news/sharp-to-introduce-new-igzo-te.html
It seems to Me that they might even use a higher quality technology than IGZO, or am I wrong?
https://www.semiconportal.com/en/archive/news/main-news/sharp-to-introduce-new-igzo-te.html
It seems to Me that they might even use a higher quality technology than IGZO, or am I wrong?
Last edited:
Is it going to have some sort of display? Let's hope they don't leave the display out...
Apple.com said:
Do you guys know anything about the environmental specs of such an IGZO display?
Is it going to have some sort of display? Let's hope they don't leave the display out...
Do you guys know anything about the environmental specs of such an IGZO display?
As long as Apple hasn't released these panels and there is no more information on Sharps site the answer is NO.
Edit: What about this so called Moth technology, Philips has a high end LCD with this and it has raving reviews?
Last edited: