Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You gotta think Sharp will be tied down fulfilling Apple's orders.

Brilliant way to suck the bone marrow from Sharp without buying a single share.

Let's see....Apple keeps Sharp running at full capacity by being the biggest customer they've ever had, insuring that Sharp has a stable high volume of business for years to come... and somehow you see that as a bad thing??

On another note, I suspect that this display is likely not for the iPad 3, but for a future iPad. We've already heard that manufacturers other then Sharp are shipping the new iPad 3 displays. Apple has a vision of their future iDevices laid out for several years into the future.
 
I'm definitely more interested in lower power consumption than I am in higher resolution; to me the resolution of the iPad 2 is perfectly adequate, more may be nice, but I wouldn't consider it necessary.

If "more would be nice," then you know Apple is gonna give you a double scoop of "niceness." However, Apple is also giving battery life a high priority. That's why iDevices don't run "Flash," the biggest power-draining hog ever developed.

Battery life however is important to me, as I feel that performance-wise the iPad 2 is at an excellent level of usability (with sufficient developer care at least) so while performance improvements at the same power consumption would be good, again I'd much rather see power consumption reduced as much as possible.

If power consumption were "reduced as much as possible" the iPad would come with a back/white slow-persistence e-ink display. Everything comes at the expense of something else. Apple seems to know better then any other company where the sweet spot is for maximum user delight.

I don't know about the majority, but to me the portability of a portable device is crucial, and battery life is the most important factor in this, as there's no use running Unreal Engine 3 games if you run out of juice away from a suitable charging point.

See above: Battery life cannot be the most important factor... or something else will suffer. It must be balanced into the design like everything else. I doubt Apple will make any changes that would impact battery life by more then a few percents, if at all.
 
assuming they don't change screen sizes, 2048x1536 will only get them 264 dpi.

it would have to be 2560 x 1920 to be 330 dpi

2048 x 1536 makes more sense. Scaled-up apps at 2.5x would need to blur on the edges (not that it'd be that distinguishable though!). 2x is a precise quadrupling of pixels.

They'll be aiming at density of 330 dpi to cover the 326 dpi of the iPhone. If the technology can make it thinner, and Apple use it for the next iPad, they'd surely use it for the next iPhone as well. Why do R&D once for 264 dpi and later for 330 dpi when you could do it once for both?
 
The Sharp rumour does sound sort of believable. Like they did with the aluminium unibody cases, Apple like to invest huge sums of money on cutting-edge technology in return for exclusivity.

This really makes things difficult for Samsung, though. I doubt Sharp is the sole supplier, but Apple could possibly have gone with LG or some other non-Samsung company. That means Samsung needs to put some serious capital in to matching that and at volume. AMOLED doesn't seem ready to compete at these sizes.
 
2048 x 1536 makes more sense. Scaled-up apps at 2.5x would need to blur on the edges (not that it'd be that distinguishable though!). 2x is a precise quadrupling of pixels.

They'll be aiming at density of 330 dpi to cover the 326 dpi of the iPhone. If the technology can make it thinner, and Apple use it for the next iPad, they'd surely use it for the next iPhone as well. Why do R&D once for 264 dpi and later for 330 dpi when you could do it once for both?


PIXELS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!!!

original.jpg
 
That’s what the article is refuting, earlier claims of a thicker iPad3

what's your point? that's exactly what he was saying; THIS article sounds more Apples style, and he didnt' think Apple would go for "thicker" (i.e. - the earlier reports).

I don't get it. You take a tone like you're correcting him, then you say exactly what he said :confused:
 
2048 x 1536 makes more sense. Scaled-up apps at 2.5x would need to blur on the edges (not that it'd be that distinguishable though!). 2x is a precise quadrupling of pixels.

They'll be aiming at density of 330 dpi to cover the 326 dpi of the iPhone. If the technology can make it thinner, and Apple use it for the next iPad, they'd surely use it for the next iPhone as well. Why do R&D once for 264 dpi and later for 330 dpi when you could do it once for both?

330 DPI is required for "Retina" resolution at the typical 12" viewing distance that Apple mentions.

33 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 10 feet.
3300 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 1.2 inches.

264 DPI for "Retina" resolution at 15" viewing distance. Do the math.

I'm not saying whether it makes sense or not or which is the better thing to do, if it fits with Apple's marketing or anything else.

All I'm saying is that mathematically a resolution of 2048 x 1536 with the current 9.7 inch display will only result in 264 dpi.

You would have to do some fuzzy math in order to get 330dpi from that resolution and screen size.
 
Last edited:
It is not clear from the articles or from anything I can find out about Sharp what the structure of the LCD will be. IGZO refers to the technology for making the thin film transistors that produce the electric fields that drive the liquid crystal material. ips and its variants refers to the structure of the electrodes relative to the liquid crystal material, a different topic.

Compared to previous ways of making thin film transistors IGZO seems to allow faster operation, lower temperature processing, more flexibility in choosing a substrate and maybe some others. Overall it means a brighter, lower power display that is cheaper to make. My guess is that Sharp will provide a display with at least as good a quality as ips even if the name is different. Note that ips itself is a moving target with a number of variants having been developed over the years.
I saw mention in the article about it possibly not being IPS so I thought it must be a different type of display but I didn't think that'll happen. Thanks for the info, it sounds pretty good.
 
I'm not saying whether it makes sense or not or which is the better thing to do, if it fits with Apple's marketing or anything else.

All I'm saying is that mathematically a resolution of 2048 x 1536 with the current 9.7 inch display will only result in 264 dpi.

You would have to do some fuzzy math in order to get 330dpi from that resolution and screen size.
Wow, I just realised how ambiguous my last post was. What I meant was the R&D will be working to achieve an upper limit of 330 dpi, that way ensuring they have the technology to produce displays for both the iPhone's existing 326 dpi, and the 264 dpi of the iPad 3.
 
I'd rather they didn't make it thinner, rather kept it the same size and (if possible) increased the battery size to improve battery life.

I agree. Yet obsessed with anorexic objects was Steves focus. Performance be damned it's all about being "cool". Function was always easily explained away. Only Jobs could get away with that kind of... well you get the idea I'm sure.

Fact, (as imagined by SJ)
The world would have been an even happier, better place if the iPhone 4 was only 6mm thick.
 
Kind of funny to read that many consider "Retina Display" as a standard of about 330DPI. Retina display is just a word used by Apple that from a viewing distance used by iPhone users the human eye can not spot the pixels. If they double the resolution of the iPad I can bet $100 that they will definitely call it a retina display as the viewing distance on an iPad is further away than how you normally look at the iPhone.
 
I don't really have the use for an iPad, but I can't wait for these retina-displays in the computers. Just imagine editing pictures in Photoshop on a 27'' iMac with Retina display. Drooling just thinking about it.
 
As pointed out earlier, this will not reach the 'magical' 300ppi so I'm wondering how Apple will spin this one. The iPad looks impressive as it is though and at the normal tablet viewing distance, this will probably look even more impressive than the iphone 4(s). Quite incredible that this device is higher res than a TV 10x the size.
 
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)

And that my friends is what $80Billion in cash on hand buys you. More buying power than any other tech company.
 
This rumor is spot on. This is the breakthrough one, it simply makes the most sense. The iPad 3 is going to be incredible and the display technology will expand to the macbook line. Possibly the iMac/Thunderbolt displays too. Can you imagine? I honestly can't.

And to speak to other people's concerns recently about GPU's not being able to drive that size display - people would live with it. The (even mobile) GPUs of today will be able to drive the displays at high res with normal UIKit or Cocoa type workload. And games can still run at half resolution if people want. Apple would hit the target of good performance on a huge screen with 'light' GUI elements, and let users play games or whatever at full res slowly or lower res quickly. It's almost the identical stance that's been taken thus far up until iPhone 4S / iPad 2 / most recent high-end iMac.. now that the GPUs are finally catching up, I can see them 'raising the bar' again without a single thought

At the end of the day, what matters is you have a retina display.

This screen technology is going to blow everything out of the water


*if* games can easily run in half resolution with the ipad 3 scaling them up, I'd be happy to have the retina display, and then some games that are less taxing on the system can run in full retina mode. I'd just like to see more games like infinity blade and in that case the insane resolution would be a negative
 
Just like there are no second tier components today. :rolleyes: What would you rather have on your MBA, the Toshiba ssd or the Samsung? How about the backlight bleeding on the iPad 2?

or no faulty devices...

(currently, we end up having to do repairs/replacements with a substantial amount of our apple devices. non-responding trackpads, computers that won't go out of sleep, kernel task issues, etc. sure, its not every other computer that has to go back, but its far too many, and far too noticeable that something isn't right.)

----------

Well that is a good question. Try this on. In Countries like China, the government subsidizes the cost of the labor force, sometimes raw materials, and often the building of a factory. The result is a product being produced in a Country like China costs less because of government subsidies. American manufacturing can't compete because we have to unfairly compete with a Country that artificially deflates the actual manufacturing cost. Add to the mix that the US government actually gave companies tax incentives to relocate over seas. On top of that, companies overseas do not have to worry about a whole bunch of employee related lawsuits. Add to that, all the people who know how to build factories left our Country.

Moreover, Apple used to own all its own factories, including ones in the United States. On top of the other factors I mentioned, owning your own factories often times hurt a publicly traded company. The reason is Apple would have to account for inventory on hand. Inventory sitting in a factory you own negatively effects your earnings. If Apple orders products from third parties the inventory doesn't count against Apple's earnings until Apple takes delivery. Further, Apple can pit different manufacturers against one another to reduce its manufacturing cost.

The United States has an abundance of Engineers. Many of the Engineers might not be from America, as we love to give foreigners preferential treatment when seeking an education in the United States. This isn't because there aren't plenty of qualified potential american engineering students it is because the Universities charge foreign students a lot more money to attend the Universities in the Us then Americans. If could make triple the money selling an education to a foreigner, wouldn't you? Once again, Americans are at a disadvantage here because these foreigner's education is usually paid for by foreign government resources.

Once graduated, the foreigners often stay in the United States and take jobs where American educated Engineers could have taken had they been let into the Universities.

If you want manufacturing to come back to the US along with the associate wealth, you instead get rid of the BS Free trade Agreements, which are not free. It used to be the case when a Country had an unfair trade advantage or engaged in policies we didn't like, we would hit their products with a tariff when it was shipped into the Country. It worked this way since the birth of our Country until about twenty years ago. This gave American companies the ability to compete with companies in foreign countries that had an unfair advantage. This in turn produced americans jobs, which generated profit spend in other businesses, and taxes used to pay for government services. IN the height of the greatest economic boom every (the eighties), greedy american companies decided they wanted even more profit. So they used their new found wealth to buy off Congress. Congress passed NAFTA, with allowed manufactured goods from Countries like China to freely enter our Country through Canada and Mexico. With NAFTA all the jobs along with the local wages, taxes, and pride said good bye.

Which foreign governments are we talking of here? Other then for perhaps China - seeing it as a strategic investment - it seems like an alien concept to me.

----------

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)

And that my friends is what $80Billion in cash on hand buys you. More buying power than any other tech company.

1) They don't have 80bn CASH on hand.
2) They have less CASH on hand than MSFT.
3) Buying power != CASH on hand. Apples power stems from its order sizes, not money in the bank.

----------

Wow, I just realised how ambiguous my last post was. What I meant was the R&D will be working to achieve an upper limit of 330 dpi, that way ensuring they have the technology to produce displays for both the iPhone's existing 326 dpi, and the 264 dpi of the iPad 3.

Apple does their own R&D in screen tech? Then how come they always end up buying someone else's technology in the end? Seems like a waste of money to me :confused:

/s.

----------

I don't really have the use for an iPad, but I can't wait for these retina-displays in the computers. Just imagine editing pictures in Photoshop on a 27'' iMac with Retina display. Drooling just thinking about it.

1) Move your monitor 1 foot further from your face
2) Grab spitbucket
3) Drool
4) Profit!

----------

As pointed out earlier, this will not reach the 'magical' 300ppi so I'm wondering how Apple will spin this one. The iPad looks impressive as it is though and at the normal tablet viewing distance, this will probably look even more impressive than the iphone 4(s). Quite incredible that this device is higher res than a TV 10x the size.

Why is that incredible? My CRT from the days of "back to the future" had a higher resolution than a "TV 10x the size". You see, there is no, zero, zilch, point in having higher resolution on the device than on the content said device is set out to play. With content being standardized at 1080p (actually, we're not even there yet, and won't be for years to come), why go further?

Hey... buy my 2k/4k/whatever screen. it won't make your TV or your movies look any better, but it has a lot more pixels... looooots! oh, the price? only 4 times as much... but i promise you, all those pixels make it worth every cent!
 
As pointed out earlier, this will not reach the 'magical' 300ppi so I'm wondering how Apple will spin this one. The iPad looks impressive as it is though and at the normal tablet viewing distance, this will probably look even more impressive than the iphone 4(s). Quite incredible that this device is higher res than a TV 10x the size.

300ppi at 12" (iphone viewing distance) = 250ppi at 24" (ipad viewing distance)
 
As pointed out earlier, this will not reach the 'magical' 300ppi so I'm wondering how Apple will spin this one. The iPad looks impressive as it is though and at the normal tablet viewing distance, this will probably look even more impressive than the iphone 4(s). Quite incredible that this device is higher res than a TV 10x the size.

It's not about 300 pixels per inch, it depends on the viewing distance. My TV has a Retina display - I cannot see pixels from normal viewing distance. That's what Retina display means.

And with the current iPad, text looks definitely less sharp when you rotate it by 90 degrees. At double resolution that problem goes away.
 
or no faulty devices...

[/COLOR]

Apple does their own R&D in screen tech? Then how come they always end up buying someone else's technology in the end? Seems like a waste of money to me :confused:

/s.

----------



1) Move your monitor 1 foot further from your face
2) Grab spitbucket
3) Drool
4) Profit!

----------


What are you thinking? PPI on the iPhone made the screen incredibly much better. And I miss it extremely much at my 30" when I'm sitting in my chair and not in my bed watching movies. It's not about the movies! It's about text, artwork(icons, OS-artwork, apps etc) and pictures. I have been taking pictures with resolution of more than 1920x1080 for lots of years already and I have no screen to benefit from it. Do you really think everything we use more pixels for are movies? The reason for more PPI is not having to move away from the screen to not see the pixels but to actually use the screen from the distance you normally use and not being able to see the pixels.

I am so tempted to say something stupid about you, but I'll keep it to myself.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.