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.
New iPad Pros Support Lower Refresh Rate, But Lack Always-On Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To ensure you get burn-in so you have to buy a new one.
Here are people trying to defy current tech limitations with unrealstic expectations.
I used to be a huge ipad fan till all apps that i need to frequently use, dont have a dedicated ipad app so you have to 2x blow them up and they look like ****.
Since then i just do everything on the iphone and dont bother because TOO many companies dont make a dedicated ipad app.
Since then i just do everything on the iphone and dont bother because TOO many companies dont make a dedicated ipad app.
It’s possible. I’d certainly use it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for the feature.
The majority of cases cover the iPad screens anyway so I can't see this being as useful as the phone. However, it would be nice to have it as an option in the settings anyway for those that might want it. I can see no real reason why this couldn't be done? Maybe with iPadOS 18?
I'd love my todo lists or some timer or reminder for productivity to be always on...
I only keep Always on on the watch - 50% or more the watch is in my pocket when it's out a quick tap will show the display. As far as the iPad goes my current (m2 pro 12.9) is in a case/ cover (Zugu) so it would be illogical to even have always on as a choice. The watch is on my wrist and makes sense to have an AOD. But to have a AOD on an iPad makes about as much sense as having AOD on a MacBook. After all, that is the direction Apple 'appears' to be going - that is; blurring the lines between MacBook and iPad.
The new 11-inch and 13-inch iPad Pro models are equipped with OLED displays that support a refresh rate as low as 10Hz, but the devices still lack an always-on display option like the iPhone and Apple Watch have, according to Apple's tech specs.
While the iPad Pro has supported ProMotion since 2017, the device only supported refresh rates between 24Hz and 120Hz until now. The new iPad Pro models use low-power LTPO technology, according to display industry expert Ross Young, allowing the display to ramp down to 10Hz for static content. This change will contribute to lower power consumption, but advertised battery life is unchanged overall compared to the previous iPad Pro generation.
The same situation happened a few years ago with the iPhone 13 Pro models, which also support ProMotion down to 10Hz, but lack an always-on display option. The feature finally arrived on the iPhone with the iPhone 14 Pro models, which can ramp down to 1Hz, and Apple Watch models with an always-on display also reach 1Hz.
All in all, the iPad Pro is unlikely to get an always-on display option until if and when it too supports a 1Hz refresh rate.
Apple says the iPad Pro now features "state-of-the-art tandem OLED technology that uses two OLED panels and combines the light from both to provide phenomenal full-screen brightness." The new iPad Pro models can achieve up to 1,000 nits of full-screen brightness for SDR content, compared to 600 nits for the previous-generation models.
The new iPad Pro models are available to order starting today and launch on Wednesday, May 15.
Article Link: New iPad Pros Support Lower Refresh Rate, But Lack Always-On Display
Apple may be holding back on the always on display for the ‘Ultra iPad. 😏
Very true! However, they doubled-down on it after the original HomePod, to the point where they are now telegraphing the upgrade paths. Just look at the “leaks,” that are often a year or two off….
There's a setting in one of the latest IOS updates that allows you to turn off the wallpaper during Always On, giving you exactly that, clock over a black background.
I’m sure this are fantastic displays. For me however the last few displays were by far good enough. These new OLED screens and the thinness are just driving the prices up without offering capabilities. I want the A4 chip, AI capabilities but not an expensive display. Unfortunately there isn’t an option to get a iPad Pro that has the processing power and other features but is thicker and with the old display for $300 less.
If advertised battery life is the same but with a more efficient display; I wonder if the M4 is just a higher TDP, higher clocked version of the M3.
It's still early days but the competitors are 'catching up' and this is the issue Apple had back in the PowerPC days. They got to a point where all they could really do was essentially overclock the chips. Hence the G5 never being in a laptop and Jobs wisely recognizing the shift to portable computing necessitating a shift to more efficient Intel chips.
Likewise the move to Apple Silicone was a no brainer but the gap is getting closer. Which is good! Competition keeping Apple on their toes makes for even better products for consumers. Just like Apple Silicone in some ways 'woke up' the chip industry whose duopoly had meant we went several years there, for a while, without meaningful improvements to what was on the market.
Historically, that's exactly how the iPad has worked. The new flagship model gets all the toys all at once; then eventually begins to trickle down to the lower prices models with only the most in-demand toys.
In a year or two you should be able to get an iPad Air (weird name if it ends up being heavier and thinner than the pro!) or similar model with the M4 but with the older display technology.
It's also a strategy for recuperating the cost of developing the chip. There's a bit more profit in the flagship models of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad; so by releasing cutting edge features on those models first; they can eek a bit more profit from those who probably would choose a lower cost option but are willing to pay more just to get that new chip. Then, in a year or so, it trickles down so the more patient and frugal buyers can access that technology without needing to buy the flagship model. For as long as I've owned Apple products (since the 90's), and certainly really any consumer products; the best value for money has never, ever been the latest flagship model of anything. The best value is always 'last years'.
It's still early days but the competitors are 'catching up' and this is the issue Apple had back in the PowerPC days. They got to a point where all they could really do was essentially overclock the chips. Hence the G5 never being in a laptop and Jobs wisely recognizing the shift to portable computing necessitating a shift to more efficient Intel chips.
Likewise the move to Apple Silicone was a no brainer but the gap is getting closer. Which is good! Competition keeping Apple on their toes makes for even better products for consumers. Just like Apple Silicone in some ways 'woke up' the chip industry whose duopoly had meant we went several years there, for a while, without meaningful improvements to what was on the market.
Historically, that's exactly how the iPad has worked. The new flagship model gets all the toys all at once; then eventually begins to trickle down to the lower prices models with only the most in-demand toys.
In a year or two you should be able to get an iPad Air (weird name if it ends up being heavier and thinner than the pro!) or similar model with the M4 but with the older display technology.
It's also a strategy for recuperating the cost of developing the chip. There's a bit more profit in the flagship models of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad; so by releasing cutting edge features on those models first; they can eek a bit more profit from those who probably would choose a lower cost option but are willing to pay more just to get that new chip. Then, in a year or so, it trickles down so the more patient and frugal buyers can access that technology without needing to buy the flagship model. For as long as I've owned Apple products (since the 90's), and certainly really any consumer products; the best value for money has never, ever been the latest flagship model of anything. The best value is always 'last years'.
I’m still confused how the OLED blacks are apparently blacker than the Mini-LED black. Considering both are black black, as in the complete absence of light.
I have 2x OLED TVs and an iPhone 15 Pro Max, and the Mini-LED blacks are, erm, black. And TBH the Mini-LED is still damn awesome.
I have 2x OLED TVs and an iPhone 15 Pro Max, and the Mini-LED blacks are, erm, black. And TBH the Mini-LED is still damn awesome.
Always-On for new iPad M4’s
iPad Settings > Display & Brightness > Auto-Lock. Set Auto-Lock to "Never".
(Incidentally, works with all older iPads, too)
iPad Settings > Display & Brightness > Auto-Lock. Set Auto-Lock to "Never".
(Incidentally, works with all older iPads, too)
The blacks will be black, it’s just that the Mini-LED’s aren’t “per-pixel”, there are local dimming zones.
If a pixel in a zone needs to turn on the entire background of these sub sections becomes lit, ever so slightly. In very specific instances, you can see the blocks against a background where some zones are actually turned completely off. OLED, from what we’re to understand should not exhibit this particular behavior that’s annoying to some.
Yes, I understand how each works. It will be interesting to see the actual difference as OLED also can suffer from some blooming. My LG OLED TV does, and I know others have mentioned it when “defending” blooming on Mini-LED vs OLED previously.
For me, Mini-LED on the iPad was the biggest leap in iPad since its launch. OLED really isn’t, even over the last generation.
I did that on my iPhone last year also - was a big change for the better
Folks don't seem to internalize how much those little micro distractions and diversions interfere with your day ... all day long
I'm betting that this post was reviewed at least a dozen times before being submitted
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't realize phone specs and tablet specs for the Dynamic AMOLED 2X were different.
As an LG OLED owner, it is your eyes not the screen. If you take a sheet of paper and cover the bright object you'll see there isn't any "light bleed" as the adjacent pixels are not lit [on a black background].
Ghosting is a bigger issue with OLED due to it's very fast response time.
Considering it’s my eyes I use to see the screen, does it matter what causes it ultimately?
I guess technically having a lower contrast ratio would fix the issue (which would basically mean never show black on OLED).
I biggest annoyance is when my TV (CX) determines that the subtitles are bright enough to trigger the brightness limiter making the whole picture darker.