Sharp Out as iPad 3 Display Supplier?

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
46,731
8,949



Even as some sources are claiming that iPad 3 production is underway with Sharp providing the displays for the device, Korea's Electronic Times reports (via Patently Apple) that Sharp has failed to meet Apple's requirements and is out as a display supplier. According to the report, Samsung and LG will be providing the displays for the iPad 3.
An industry source said on January 9, "LCD manufacturers started mass production and supply of LCD panels for the iPad3 late last year. Samsung Electronics' LCD business unit was the first to start mass production, and LG Display has participated in mass production with full capacity, beginning this year." [...]

Sharp has competed with Samsung Electronics and LG Display over the development of display panels for the iPad3, but reportedly failed to pass Apple's approval process for mass production.
Apple is said to be requiring at least 65 million iPad 3 display panels for 2012, with an initial batch of 5 million being produced for launch.


A decision by Apple not to go with Sharp for the iPad 3 display could have consequences for the device's design, as the two companies have been reported by several sources to be working together on Sharp's indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) technology to achieve thinner, lower power displays.

If Apple does utilize more traditional low-temperature polycrystalline silicon (LTPS) displays from Toshiba and LG, that decision could require a dual light bar system to support the higher resolution of the iPad 3, thus necessitating the slightly thicker profile that has been rumored for the device.

Article Link: Sharp Out as iPad 3 Display Supplier?
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,151
3,410
Twin Cities Minnesota
I am not sure how much of an impact a slightly thicker iPad would have for the general consumer. The biggest problem with such a thing would be a slight detatchment from the norm for Apple, but I think they would be a bigger critic of the overall size, more than the general consumer. Especially if we are only talking a difference of 1 - 3 MM of overall thickness.

Though would this "thicker" design be in relation to the current model, or other proposed iPad 3 designs?

If they have indeed addressed the battery drain issue with adding more LED lights (as the linked article states), this may actually be a slightly better solution in the end.
 

thekeyring

macrumors 68040
Jan 5, 2012
3,441
2,054
London
I could live with the iPad 3 being slightly thicker, so long as they don't call it an "iPad 2S". Even if it's the same features, an S on the name suggests there's a more exciting update coming.
 

Darlo770

macrumors member
Aug 26, 2010
54
0
It's all starting to make sense now. Sharp's IGZO failed. So they resorted to familiar display tech, necessitating a dual light-bar, which in itself would demand more power, so a bigger battery too.

@thekeyring: I'd prepare yourself then, because it's looking highly likely that they are going to call it the iPad 2S. You just can't make something visually identical and call it the 3. Who knows though? They could, but it would be a bit strange.

I wouldn't be surprised if screen technology is refined enough in time for the iPad 3 (assuming 2S this time) next year. No dual light-bar, so lower power, longer battery life, etc. An overall more efficient iPad.
 
Last edited:

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,335
386
Boston, MA
i don't think the ipad needs to be thinner than the iPad1 to begin with. I saw no advantage in the iPad2 being thinner. I'd rather have them leave the iPad as thick as the iPad1 and use the extra space for a larger battery, the possibility to put in cheaper components, make manufacturing easier, reduce the bezel, be more flexible in adding fast GPU or CPU and overall lower the price. Of course not all of the above, but a few things should be possible.
This obsession of making the iPad thinner for the sake of making it thinner comes at a price without adding much value to the customers.
 

rmwebs

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2007
3,140
0
I could live with the iPad 3 being slightly thicker, so long as they don't call it an "iPad 2S". Even if it's the same features, an S on the name suggests there's a more exciting update coming.
Well it would be misleading to call it an iPad3 if the changes are minimal. I'd take a stab in the dark and say as long as the A6 is ready, it'll be the 3 as a A5 processor running a 2x resolution display would be crippled.
 

ironpony

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2011
129
29
md
With the resale value of apple products so strong I wil probably get one but my question is are there any iPad 4 rumors yet?
 

rmwebs

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2007
3,140
0
i don't think the ipad needs to be thinner than the iPad1 to begin with. I saw no advantage in the iPad2 being thinner. I'd rather have them leave the iPad as thick as the iPad1 and use the extra space for a larger battery, the possibility to put in cheaper components, make manufacturing easier, reduce the bezel, be more flexible in adding fast GPU or CPU and overall lower the price. Of course not all of the above, but a few things should be possible.
This obsession of making the iPad thinner for the sake of making it thinner comes at a price without adding much value to the customers.
I agree. The only downside the thicker models would have is weight. The lighter the better IMO. You need to be able to hold it up for long periods of time without killing your upper arm muscles.

----------

With the resale value of apple products so strong I wil probably get one but my question is are there any iPad 4 rumors yet?
No....just...no.
 

David085

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2009
811
3
Will probably end up getting the iPad 3 since the iPad 4 will be awhile like late 2012 probably before is released
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2007
5,322
154
CA
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

basesloaded190 said:
As long as we can get 10 hours battery with a full retina display, i don't care who makes the panel.
They would have tO make the battery bigger or the A6 more efficient. The display is guaranteed to suck more power.
 

leukotriene

macrumors regular
Aug 1, 2008
148
0
It's all starting to make sense now. Sharp's IGZO failed. So they resorted to familiar display tech, necessitating a dual light-bar, which in itself would demand more power, so a bigger battery too.

@thekeyring: I'd prepare yourself then, because it's looking highly likely that they are going to call it the iPad 2S. You just can't make something visually identical and call it the 3. Who knows though? They could, but it would be a bit strange.

I wouldn't be surprised if screen technology is refined enough in time for the iPad 3 (assuming 2S this time) next year. No dual light-bar, so lower power, longer battery life, etc. An overall more efficient iPad.
Yup, I think you've nailed it. Even though we heard about the IGZO rumors after the dual light bar rumors, Apple's interest in IGZO probably happened first. Which explains the slightly thicker model that contains the dual lightbars.
 

TrentS

macrumors 6502
Sep 24, 2011
485
222
Overland Park, Kansas
With the resale value of apple products so strong I wil probably get one but my question is are there any iPad 4 rumors yet?
I believe they are saying the iPad4 will only have an 1/8" border, thus making the screen larger at 10.75". The screen will double as a surface scanner, so you can scan images by laying them atop the screen face down. And the backside will be a rubberized-sillicate that will be both rugged and act as a solar panel, adding 25% more battery life. Oh, and the screen will be glasses free 3D, and Bose speakers built in with 40 watts of power. ; )
 

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
It's all starting to make sense now. Sharp's IGZO failed. So they resorted to familiar display tech, necessitating a dual light-bar, which in itself would demand more power, so a bigger battery too.

@thekeyring: I'd prepare yourself then, because it's looking highly likely that they are going to call it the iPad 2S. You just can't make something visually identical and call it the 3. Who knows though? They could, but it would be a bit strange.

I wouldn't be surprised if screen technology is refined enough in time for the iPad 3 (assuming 2S this time) next year. No dual light-bar, so lower power, longer battery life, etc. An overall more efficient iPad.
I don't think "failed" is the proper term. More like "not ready for volume production".

We may see an IGZO display in the next iteration.
 

basesloaded190

macrumors 68030
Oct 16, 2007
2,693
5
Wisconsin
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)



They would have tO make the battery bigger or the A6 more efficient. The display is guaranteed to suck more power.
I'm on the side of not really caring if it's 1mm thicker to accomodate a larger battery. Battery life is such a strong selling point, they would be failing if it dropped with this revision.
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2007
5,322
154
CA
I'm on the side of not really caring if it's 1mm thicker to accomodate a larger battery. Battery life is such a strong selling point, they would be failing if it dropped with this revision.
Yeah, I don't think they can go down, but then again they did slightly with the 4S. Fortunately, the A6 will likely be on a 32nm or 28nm process so they could die shrink the A5 to save juice. I think they will be a little more aggressive than a simple die shrink though.
 

swarmster

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2004
623
89
i don't think the ipad needs to be thinner than the iPad1 to begin with. I saw no advantage in the iPad2 being thinner. I'd rather have them leave the iPad as thick as the iPad1 and use the extra space for a larger battery, the possibility to put in cheaper components, make manufacturing easier, reduce the bezel, be more flexible in adding fast GPU or CPU and overall lower the price. Of course not all of the above, but a few things should be possible.
This obsession of making the iPad thinner for the sake of making it thinner comes at a price without adding much value to the customers.
People are always so short-sighted when it comes to criticizing Apple for their technical feats. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but every revision of every product there's someone saying 'well I think it's a waste of time being [thinner/faster/lighter/detailed] for what is clearly no reason'.

Seemingly every other tech company would agree with you, of course. Status quo all the way (at least until Apple shows us the way, right?). But ever wonder why Apple is able to make the moves that change industries? Many reasons, of course, but one has to wonder if we'd ever have seen an iPad had Apple not spent years trimming millimeter after unnecessary millimeter off their PowerBooks and iPods. If they're not buying new machines for and introducing new manufacturing processes to the manufacturers, who is?

It's called advancing the state of the art, and it's a cumulative process. I hope Apple never loses that drive.
 

kolax

macrumors G3
Mar 20, 2007
9,186
115
The biggest problem with such a thing would be a slight detatchment from the norm for Apple, but I think they would be a bigger critic of the overall size, more than the general consumer. Especially if we are only talking a difference of 1 - 3 MM of overall thickness.
The unibody MacBook Pro's had a slightly bigger footprint than the PowerBook style ones.

The iPad 3 will be slightly thicker. The iPad 2 is incredibly thin, and to pack the same performance and battery life given the rumoured internal upgrades, it has to gain a wee bit thickness.
 

zoetmb

macrumors regular
Oct 8, 2007
158
8
As long as we can get 10 hours battery with a full retina display, i don't care who makes the panel.
I have trouble understanding how two different suppliers can make screens that are totally consistent with each other in terms of color rendition, black levels, etc. If you look at LG and Samsung TVs, they have totally different image qualities. Once isn't necessarily better than the other - just different.
 

kolax

macrumors G3
Mar 20, 2007
9,186
115
I have trouble understanding how two different suppliers can make screens that are totally consistent with each other in terms of color rendition, black levels, etc. If you look at LG and Samsung TVs, they have totally different image qualities. Once isn't necessarily better than the other - just different.
Noticeable with the Macs, luck of the draw if you get an LG display or a Samsung, with one or the other usually being better (viewing angles, brightness and depth). But those aren't IPS displays, where as the iPad's screens do use IPS technology, so the difference in clarity would be far more minor.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,151
3,410
Twin Cities Minnesota
The unibody MacBook Pro's had a slightly bigger footprint than the PowerBook style ones.

The iPad 3 will be slightly thicker. The iPad 2 is incredibly thin, and to pack the same performance and battery life given the rumoured internal upgrades, it has to gain a wee bit thickness.
The Unibody footprint is bigger, but they were making the overall device thinner. And to clarify, I am not against the device getting thicker, I don't want something that is wafer thin, at the expense of usability, or battery life either. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my post.