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's $3.9 Billion Investment Was in LCD Displays?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What I don't get is since Apple has so much cash in bank. Why don't they just build their own plants to produce LCD's? It seems they have enough demand for their own products to build manufacturing plants. So why have some other company do it when they could build the displays themselves and not pay a markup?
Edit: Or better yet buy a plant currently building displays for Android devices. Suddenly cut them off and ship the screens to Cupertino for iPhones and iPads.
Besides all the other facts mentioned already, they would become competitors of existing manufacturers, who would then phase hem out or at least not let them share or look into technologies..
As such the initial investment is not enough and becomes endless.
They would need to find specialists that drive this field.
Also, when the LCD technology is outdated (hello LED) they'll have to revamp this plant and update.
Why get into all these headaches, when you can just buy what you need, without any worry what has to be done?
PS: I think the 65 million is possible for iphone and ipad etc.
Displays would probably make the most sense, I'd imagine Apple is looking into the (remote) possibility of bringing "Retina displays" to the Mac as well. Batteries may also be a good guess, Apple do have great battery life in their products and it's likely they feel this is a competitive advantage they want to expand on.
Last edited:
Dont think lcd will be outdated that quickly or full led on the market for that matter, full led screens are expensive to produce.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Except this:
" The Sharp rumor reported that Sharp would be spending 100 billion yen ($1.2 billion) to build production lines for "small to midsize LCDs, with Apple Inc slated to purchase bulk of the output for its iPhone". While the iPhone might be a target for the small LCDs, the reports description of "midsize" LCDs seems more appropriate for the iPad."
Apple is supposed to invest for small and midsize screens, not tv size screen, not even desktop size screen.
Also Apple has no business in TV as Jobs also said recently in an interview- I think D8 -the TV network is more complicated than GSM as this is about the standard anywhere in the world.
Plus Apple would make any profit selling TV because there isn't much software to play with and they don't produce screens which is about 90% of the profit in a TV- I guess.
Except this:
" The Sharp rumor reported that Sharp would be spending 100 billion yen ($1.2 billion) to build production lines for "small to midsize LCDs, with Apple Inc slated to purchase bulk of the output for its iPhone". While the iPhone might be a target for the small LCDs, the reports description of "midsize" LCDs seems more appropriate for the iPad."
Apple is supposed to invest for small and midsize screens, not tv size screen, not even desktop size screen.
Also Apple has no business in TV as Jobs also said recently in an interview- I think D8 -the TV network is more complicated than GSM as this is about the standard anywhere in the world.
Plus Apple would make any profit selling TV because there isn't much software to play with and they don't produce screens which is about 90% of the profit in a TV- I guess.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
You can't do retina on an OLED.
Dusky600 said:
You can't do retina on an OLED.
You know I never really liked the iPad because it doesn't do what a computer would and it costs too much for what it does (in my opinion), but looking at those numbers, somebody must like it. And I think to gain more consumer interest in the iPad, Apple should add mini USB ports and open up more to 3rd party accessories connecting to the iPad.
And this gets me thinking about how much we're using paper and killing trees, but pretty soon we'll be using a touch display like an iPad and use a pen tablet as a replacement for paper. Then we won't have to worry about running out of trees, but running out of displays!
And this gets me thinking about how much we're using paper and killing trees, but pretty soon we'll be using a touch display like an iPad and use a pen tablet as a replacement for paper. Then we won't have to worry about running out of trees, but running out of displays!
#3> Yes... They just might know a little something about what to do with their own money. On side note though really 65 million iPads
Bingo! +1
As the market for portable devices and touch screens explode, Apple needs to ensure it has a health supply of parts... this is the way to do it. That's why they say it's a competitive move and don't want to disclose.
Smart move. Very smart.
But paper is made out of tree pulp, while displays are made out of ... rare earth minerals, metals, glass... is it really an improvement, "green" wise?
iP4, iMacs, Cinema displays, iPad are all LG IPS displays. This is clearly the panel of choice for Apple.
Sharp doesn't product IPS panels and because of process differences, patent issues, it is extremely unlikely won't be changing over to supply Apple.
The only other IPS producer that I know of is IPS Alpha Tech Ltd. Which has been owned by some mix of Toshiba/Hitach/Panasonic. But AFAIK they only make TV screens.
IMO the bulk of Display money will be to secure even more capacity from LG. With advance notice, LG can meet demand by dedicating more lines to Apple.
But this isn't the kind of thing they can do on short notice(when iPads sell much better than expected), they have to plan ahead and cut production on other lines. But if Apple buys that production ahead of time, it is theirs.
Sharp doesn't product IPS panels and because of process differences, patent issues, it is extremely unlikely won't be changing over to supply Apple.
The only other IPS producer that I know of is IPS Alpha Tech Ltd. Which has been owned by some mix of Toshiba/Hitach/Panasonic. But AFAIK they only make TV screens.
IMO the bulk of Display money will be to secure even more capacity from LG. With advance notice, LG can meet demand by dedicating more lines to Apple.
But this isn't the kind of thing they can do on short notice(when iPads sell much better than expected), they have to plan ahead and cut production on other lines. But if Apple buys that production ahead of time, it is theirs.
What I don't get is since Apple has so much cash in bank. Why don't they just build their own plants to produce LCD's? It seems they have enough demand for their own products to build manufacturing plants. So why have some other company do it when they could build the displays themselves and not pay a markup?
Edit: Or better yet buy a plant currently building displays for Android devices. Suddenly cut them off and ship the screens to Cupertino for iPhones and iPads.
there is a huge capital cost to build a plant
you just can't make LCD's since the technology is patented by numerous companies
the tiny LCD's in iOS devices are not that profitable. the profits in LCD sales are the large displays for TV's
no one at apple knows how to build and run an LCD plant. they would have to steal employees to get high manufacturing yields
etc etc etc
Well that's a hell of a larger estimate. As predicted by others this could mean a price-cut on the cost of the next generation iPad/iPhone for Apple to stay competitive.
The capital investment is surprising, I don't know if Apple has analysts predicting that manufacturing of displays is going to get extremely tight in the next few years! Still very intriguing that Apple have dipped into the manufacturing process slightly by funding capital investment, assuming to secure all future orders and sell some on if needs be (or sell manufacturing capacity at their terms).
They did exactly the same with Flash Memory on the iPod 2nd generation, they bought all the worlds supply keeping the other manufacturers unable to match their storage capabilities, one of the reasons they have no interest in building plants is because of the cost of re-tooling every time there is an update to an existing product, and, as others have stated, management and operations are best left to those companies that have that experience..
again, oled and full led at ipad sizes would cable jump the prices right now
Technologies are always more expensive until mass produced.
So, expect LCD's to be replaced by whatever when they figure out to mass produce.
Look at what hard drives used to cost or chips (Not Frito Lay
. As for retina on LED or OLED , somebody will figure out something if it's important enough.
Contrary to popular belief (around these forums anyway), there are quite a few CDMA customers out there ready and willing to buy an iPhone.
You do realize that almost ALL of Apple's line-up (With the exception of the Nano) include LED back-lighting. Ranging from the iPod Classic, Touch and all Macs. That have a display of course.
I do however also see sales of 65 iOS devises VERY possible in 2011 million is possible.
My first thought was the 65 million is across the entire screened portfolio. But seeing as there'll probably be a semi-modest refresh and launches into new countries. I don't know if they have iPads in South America or India. But look at these guestimates: 10M for the US/North America, 10 for Europe, 3M for Africa, 3M for South America. 10M for India and another 10 Million for China. That's 46M devices and I haven't even thrown in Australia and the rest of Asia/Pacific.
yes it does. That's a really confident number.
I'm hoping that means the iPad 2 is going to be even cheaper, so that they will sell more. Or that there is going to be remarkable tech advancements.