or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3'

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Industry sources claim Apple will move away from in-plane switching display technology in favor of IGZO flat panels for its mobile products, starting with its third-generation iPad early next year.

Taiwan's DigiTimes reported on Friday that Sharp will provide the new IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) panels "in order to upgrade the display resolution of the new tablets to full HD level."

Sources also said that Sharp had switched some of its large-size panel capacity over to production of smaller smartphone and tablet panels. The tipsters alleged that the majority of Taiwan-based flat panel makers are able to produce IGZO panels, though yield rates are still an issue for many of them.

However, it should be noted the publication has a hit-and-miss track record as of late. The site further lost credibility this week when it claimed that the next-generation iPad would be unveiled at the Macworld|iWorld 2012 conference in January. The Loop's Jim Dalrymple quickly dismissed the rumor as being "completely false."

Still, Friday's report may serve to corroborate other recent claims that Apple will make the switch to the new technology. In November, Jeffries analyst Peter Misek first claimed that Apple would partner with Sharp on the new IGZO displays. The technology could offer resolution of up to 330 dots-per-inch without requiring dual-bar LED backlighting.

"In our view, this should lead to several design advantages, namely the device can be thinner, battery life should be longer, and the overall experience for users should be meaningfully improved," he told investors.

On the heels of Misek's report, The Wall Street Journal claimed Apple had invested a substantial amount in Sharp's manufacturing facilities for LCD panels bound for the next-generation iPad and iPhone.



Numerous reports have claimed Apple will release a high-resolution third-generation iPad with pixel density approaching that of the Retina Display found in the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. The device is also expected to feature Apple's next-generation processor, presumably called the A6. Predictions vary as to when exactly the next iPad will arrive, but the general consensus is that Apple will release the device in early 2012.
post #2 of 54
Apple Leads
Others Scramble
Year Later "Apple didn't lead, that was where the industry was going"
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
post #3 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post

Apple Leads
Others Scramble

Apple's business model is more focused around yearly iteration and occasional paradigm shifting innovation.

The alternative model seems to be fast iteration and rapid, incremental updates. Both have their place.
Newton MessagePad 120 8MB OS 2.0 ROM, Commodore 64 - 64k RAM, tape drive, cartridge slot
Reply
Newton MessagePad 120 8MB OS 2.0 ROM, Commodore 64 - 64k RAM, tape drive, cartridge slot
Reply
post #4 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapple View Post

Apple's business model is more focused around yearly iteration and occasional paradigm shifting innovation.

The alternative model seems to be fast iteration and rapid, incremental updates. Both have their place.

Actually, the rapid iteration to the consumer to work the kinks out is a race to the bottom.

Apple works the iterations internally and delivers showing the Consumer they need it.

The others clone and repeat the iterations resulting in high volumes but very low profit margins resulting an attrition of competition.

2012 will see more vendors leaving certain spaces and looking for new spaces to survive in.
post #5 of 54
Where can I see these IGZO displays now? I'm really eager to check out how much better they are compared to AMOLED, OLED, and Retina displays.
post #6 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Where can I see these IGZO displays now? I'm really eager to check out how much better they are compared to AMOLED, OLED, and Retina displays.

I can only find two articles on the Internet about it that are older than yesterday, and one of them is a press release from Sharp.
post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post

Apple Leads
Others Scramble
Year Later "Apple didn't lead, that was where the industry was going"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapple View Post

Apple's business model is more focused around yearly iteration and occasional paradigm shifting innovation.

The alternative model seems to be fast iteration and rapid, incremental updates. Both have their place.

Scramble/fast iteration. Tomayto/tomauto
post #8 of 54
JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 54
Yeah, there's too little information. From what I've read, IGZO is probably a new technology for TFT transistors, so comparing it to IPS or OLED doesn't make sense. You can make an IPS/OLED/TN display utilizing IGZO.
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #10 of 54
With the lack of any positive advance marketing by Sharp one must assume this is deemed an acceptable resolution/cost gain for Apple.
Thus there will be high resolution screens at low prices and an acceptable quality and more importantly something unique to sell.


That is assuming the truth of the matter. It is not beyond Apple to seed stories as a path diversion for news seekers.
With Apple obviously choosing to wind down other relationships there has to be some truth to this.
post #11 of 54
I hate DigiTimes..

This "report" is at lest possible. Apple payed Sharp almost a billion dollar earlier this year to manufacture retina displays. Lets hope for a IGZO display so that we don't have to have dual LED lights.
post #12 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapple View Post

Apple's business model is more focused around yearly iteration and occasional paradigm shifting innovation.

The alternative model seems to be fast iteration and rapid, incremental updates. Both have their place.

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.
post #13 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.

in many ways i agree - especially about tech specs, but i think the number is far greater than you may think. A cutting edge phone is a status symbol for a VERY large percentage of people - even if they have no idea what makes their phone cutting edge, and have no idea when it was released or when a newer model will be released. i believe that this is why HTC does so well - their incredibly rapid iterations are by no means garbage. The operating system[s] they carry is another story...
post #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

in many ways i agree - especially about tech specs, but i think the number is far greater than you may think. A cutting edge phone is a status symbol for a VERY large percentage of people - even if they have no idea what makes their phone cutting edge, and have no idea when it was released or when a newer model will be released. i believe that this is why HTC does so well - their incredibly rapid iterations are by no means garbage. The operating system[s] they carry is another story...

HTC sales fell off a cliff this quarter. They are taking a major spanking between Samsung and Apple

this is what happens when you sell the same phone under different names every other month. no brand is built and after a while people stop buying from you
post #15 of 54
Whatd it say after "digitimes"? I kind of tuned out after that.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I can only find two articles on the Internet about it that are older than yesterday, and one of them is a press release from Sharp.

You really need to work on your search skills. For example, google "igzo display -apple -ipad" and you get a few hundred thousand hits. One of the first is a pretty good (albeit very technical) review article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You really need to work on your search skills. For example, google "igzo display -apple -ipad" and you get a few hundred thousand hits. One of the first is a pretty good (albeit very technical) review article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf



Nearly every single one of your "hits" reference the same Apple iPad IGZO display rumor as AI does or a related one on the iPhone. Confirmed by a spot check of the first 37 pages of links, with very rare exception they're all parrots of the same rumor, and lacking any technical details.

I think JeffDM's search skills came to the right conclusion: There's very few sources with information and spec's on what IGZO displays might offer to Apple products other than potentially lower power consumption keeping redesign more agreeable. Certainly not a few hundred thousand.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



Nearly every single one of your "hits" reference the same Apple iPad IGZO display rumor as AI does or a related one on the iPhone. Confirmed by a spot check of the first 37 pages of links, with very rare exception they're all parrots of the same rumor, and lacking any technical details.

I think JeffDM's search skills came to the right conclusion: There's very few sources with information and spec's on what IGZO displays might offer to Apple products other than potentially lower power consumption keeping redesign more agreeable. Certainly not a few hundred thousand.

So you're incapable of using Google, too. Amazing, but not surprising. (or maybe you're just lying).

I just repeated it. Use the search terms that I provided (without the quotes, of course). 84,900 hits.

First page - not a single one discusses the iPad (although there is one which says IGZO will be used on the iPhone 5). The rest are technical articles and/or discussions of Jusung Engineering's progress with IGZO.

Next page - more technical articles along with a few articles about Sharp. Nothing about Apple or the iPad.

Third page - more of the same.

Yahoo! and Bing give essentially the same results.

Just for kicks, here are the first 5 hits on Google.
1. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf

2. http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf
(That's the one I already gave).

3. http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=23852

4. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203

5. http://www.jseng.com/EN/pr/news_view...str=01&bcode=1

None of those are about Apple or the iPad.

So which is it? Are you a blatant liar or are you too stupid to use Google?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #19 of 54
http://www.google.com/search?q=igzo+...ient=firefox-a

I'm sure we're all stupid and incapable of finding anything on the web compared to you.

EDIT: Ah, I see the difference. You eliminated all references to Apple from the results. So sorry, your ad-homs were obviously appropriate. You should use them more often.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.google.com/search?q=igzo+...ient=firefox-a

I'm sure we're all stupid and incapable of finding anything on the web compared to you.

EDIT: Ah, I see the difference. You eliminated all references to Apple from the results. So sorry, your ad-homs were obviously appropriate. You should use them more often.

'Stupid' is probably not the appropriate word. In reference to your original post I do wish Google could do something about so many links that only repeat the info from the same reference. I have often thought that the scenario that there are 84 bazillion articles claiming to confirm something, doesn't make it true, if they are all quoting the same source. I think they should be sorted and nested together like Google sometimes does with duplicated links.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.google.com/search?q=igzo+...ient=firefox-a

I'm sure we're all stupid and incapable of finding anything on the web compared to you.

EDIT: Ah, I see the difference. You eliminated all references to Apple from the results. So sorry, your ad-homs were obviously appropriate. You should use them more often.

Yep. You're obviously incapable of using Google. You're also obviously incapable of simply copying and pasting a search string. Of course, given the ridiculousness of 95% of what you post, that's not surprising.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

'Stupid' is probably not the appropriate word. In reference to your original post I do wish Google could do something about so many links that only repeat the info from the same reference. I have often thought that the scenario that there are 84 bazillion articles claiming to confirm something, doesn't make it true, if they are all quoting the same source. I think they should be sorted and nested together like Google sometimes does with duplicated links.

That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yep. You're obviously incapable of using Google. You're also obviously incapable of simply copying and pasting a search string. Of course, given the ridiculousness of 95% of what you post, that's not surprising.

I see you accepted my advice to make more liberal use of ad-homs. Well -done!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.

Are you using the advanced search form? There is a setting for "all of these words"

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Are you using the advanced search form? There is a setting for "all of these words"

Even using advanced search and 'all of these words', all of the search engines often give me hits that don't contain one or more of the search words.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #26 of 54
So no word on color quality or viewing angle?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGNR8 View Post

Apple Leads
Others Scramble
Year Later "Apple didn't lead, that was where the industry was going"

Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple will not add multitasking to the iPhone. Nobody cares about multitasking.
Year Later "Apple was already planning to do those things anyway."
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple will not add multitasking to the iPhone. Nobody cares about multitasking.

No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.

The last one never happened in any regard.
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.

The last one never happened in any regard.

His original comment before he decided to troll was "What about viewing angle, color uniformity, and color gamut?"

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.

The last one never happened in any regard.

Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Even using advanced search and 'all of these words', all of the search engines often give me hits that don't contain one or more of the search words.

I think it says "wordX" is only found in documents this page links to or some such verbiage. Otherwise it should highlight, in a unique color, the instances of the words found.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.

Better yet, how about if you stop lying?

While I'm sure that you can find something that you can take out of context and distort to say anything you wish, but my position in the 90's was clear:

1. OS X cooperative multitasking worked fine.
2. Even though PMT was, in theory, better than CMT in many circumstances, the available implementations were not. For example, Mac OS was actually more fluid and less likely to crash than Windows 95.
3. Even in the few cases where PMT was better, the advantages of Mac OS in terms of usability were far more important than slight differences in responsiveness.

Everyone one of those statements was completely true. Mac haters then were no different than Mac haters now. They'd come up with some arbitrary check list of things that a 'real computer' needed and choose their computer based on specs. It was easy to say "the pentium is available at a higher clock speed than the 68040". It required intelligence (which so many Mac haters lacked - both then and now) to try to determine which computer was actually better for a given user.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So you're incapable of using Google, too. Amazing, but not surprising. (or maybe you're just lying).

I just repeated it. Use the search terms that I provided (without the quotes, of course). 84,900 hits.

First page - not a single one discusses the iPad (although there is one which says IGZO will be used on the iPhone 5). The rest are technical articles and/or discussions of Jusung Engineering's progress with IGZO.

Next page - more technical articles along with a few articles about Sharp. Nothing about Apple or the iPad.

Third page - more of the same.

Yahoo! and Bing give essentially the same results.

Just for kicks, here are the first 5 hits on Google.
1. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf

2. http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf
(That's the one I already gave).

3. http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=23852

4. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203

5. http://www.jseng.com/EN/pr/news_view...str=01&bcode=1

None of those are about Apple or the iPad.

So which is it? Are you a blatant liar or are you too stupid to use Google?

Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.

Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.

Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.

Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.

Actually, it's not.

"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.

"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.

Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.

It's not so simply about ignorance vs. knowledge, there's a huge gulf between a press release and a news report (which is often a warmed-over press release) and a science paper. Without being trained in the field, a science paper is not that much value as an educational tool, and it's pretty dense.

Quote:
Actually, it's not.

"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.

"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.

I disagree, but nevertheless, your hostility is a bit much.
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, it's not.

"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.

"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.

ad hominem |ˈˌæd ˈhɑmənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person: [ as adv. ] : the office was created ad hominem for Fenton | [ as adj. ] : an ad hominem response.
You don't need to back up your reasoning for calling a person stupid to make it an ad hominen attack, you only need to call that person stupid. That is what you did. A way around this would have been to call what they wrote stupid but not the person who wrote it.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

ad hominem |ˈˌæd ˈhɑmənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person: [ as adv. ] : the office was created ad hominem for Fenton | [ as adj. ] : an ad hominem response.
You don't need to back up your reasoning for calling a person stupid to make it an ad hominen attack, you only need to call that person stupid. That is what you did. A way around this would have been to call what they wrote stupid but not the person who wrote it.

I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie

If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie

If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.

Jragosta, since you've decided for whatever reason to continue to push the issue, remember this thread, particularly posts #12, 17 and 19?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...25#post2000325

Even tho it took several explanations from at least two different members before you understand that you were confused and mistaken on what the article was about, no one questioned your intelligence or treated you with disrespect. I have no idea where your anger comes from, but there's never been any need for me to resort to name-calling or other personal attacks when a member makes a mistake or disagrees with me, and I see no need for others here to do so either, a position I've been consistent on.

You surely know about glass houses and all. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 54
I'm going along with this rumour.


It really fits in with Apple claiming that technology lead is not the most important aspect so if it cuts costs, increases profits and offers something unique 'I'll buy it'.
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Where can I see these IGZO displays now? I'm really eager to check out how much better they are compared to AMOLED, OLED, and Retina displays.

IGZO based displays can be LCD or OLED (AMOLED). First we'll see LCD models, then, a year or two later, OLED panels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3'