or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sharp hypes IGZO displays, Apple called a 'prime candidate' to use
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sharp hypes IGZO displays, Apple called a 'prime candidate' to use

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Sharp this week made its case to CES attendees that IGZO technology is the future of mobile displays, leading one market watcher to believe it's likely inevitable that Apple will adopt them.



During its media briefing at the Consumer Electronics Show, Sharp stressed the importance of IGZO technology for the company's future. Also participating in the IGZO demonstration was Corning, which took the wraps off of its third-generation Gorilla Glass at this week's show.

In attendance for Sharp's event was analyst Brian White of Topeka Capital Markets, who lauded the abilities of IGZO technology. Sharp's advanced displays were described as having twice the resolution of a conventional LCD screen with up to 90 percent power savings.

"Even after turning off the power of a device, IGZO allows the image to continue to be displayed on the screen," White explained. He said he believes Apple is a "prime candidate" to adopt IGZO in future devices.

Apple has been rumored for years to be interested in Sharp's IGZO display technology. One report from last year claimed that Apple investigated using IGZO panels in the third-generation iPad, but the technology was not yet ready for mass production.

IGZO


Rumors again cropped up in December, claiming that Apple is evaluating IGZO display technology for its next generation of iPhones and iPads. The technology's acronym stands for the materials that make up the advanced panels: indium, gallium, and zinc oxide.

White believes that Apple "increasingly requires new innovative display technologies to compete with Samsung." A deal with Sharp could also reduce Apple's reliance on LG Display, which initially struggled to meet required standards for the iPad's Retina display in early 2012.
post #2 of 54
Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...
post #3 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...

OLED  is the future since 1990.

post #4 of 54
It is interesting to see the practical applications of this technology beyond just Apple's interest in its upcoming devices. It makes you begin to realize how nascent our technology still is in 2013.
post #5 of 54
The video is quite amazing, but that technology that they show in there, i am pretty sure its destinated for rich people. I will never going to see it in regular house. Maybe in 100 years or more. When we all dead already.
post #6 of 54
Where would we be in a world with zinc...?
Zinc! Come back! Zinc!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...

kid....

it is not about lcd or oled but it is about igzo technology...

soon igzo based oled will be available....

post #8 of 54

That description sounds pretty incredible, I hope it meets expectations.

post #9 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

The video is quite amazing, but that technology that they show in there, i am pretty sure its destinated for rich people. I will never going to see it in regular house. Maybe in 100 years or more. When we all dead already.

 

Actually, most of what you see in the video is the standard futurist nonsense and has little to do with IGZO panels specifically.  

 

If the stuff shown did exist though, it wouldn't be expensive at all.  For the tech to be that ubiquitous and built-in to every article in the house, it pretty much has to be cheap.  That's why we see cameras embedded in everything now and why everything has wi-fi.  The components just got so cheap that they are bordering on commodity items now.  

 

So in the future as pictured here, even crappy toasters from WalMart would have this technology built in, everything would.  

 

If you pay attention closely to what's happening in the video and think about it for a moment, you can see how most of the stuff pictured is really BS though.  Like all futurism, it says more about us now and what we think is cool or worthwhile than it does about any real future.  

 

All that crap with the mirror for instance has been possible for many years now and there are a couple of companies selling products like that already but not many people are interested or buying them.  Most of the table top stuff is basically just Microsoft surface (The big ass table one), and NFC tech, both of which have been around for years with no one really caring about or buying into it.  

post #10 of 54

I'm really sceptical about the IGZO, so many meaningless technology crap in this video and useful comparison with existing IPS and OLED panel is not where to be found. 

 

If IGZO is like TN LCD panels, I much prefer keeps my IPS retina display.

post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...

 

While it doesn't require backlighting it fade after time. Organic Light Emitting Diode lifespan is very short (3 to 5 years), like any other organic based products it degrade after time.


Edited by BigMac2 - 1/8/13 at 7:54am
post #12 of 54
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.
post #13 of 54

The most interesting thing here to me is the claimed power savings.  The more I use my iPad mini the more I've realized I prefer it in size and weight to the regular iPad.  The one thing that would make it better - and the next logical upgrade - is a retina display.  I don't know if that's possible right now because current battery technology would require a larger/heavier battery; eliminating one of the most appealing aspects of the mini. Perhaps the IGZO displays would all the battery to stay the size it is currently while increasing the resolution?

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #14 of 54
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.

 

We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.

 

The problem isn't needing energy to power devices. The problem is when you have TOO MUCH energy to tap. We don't yet, and that's good. The bottleneck is our ability to provide it, not our ability to design uses for it. We're smart enough for the latter right now, not the former. If we were to remove the "bandwidth cap" on energy use right now, Earth would be Venus in 50 years.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.

 

More than 50% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuel and we currently don't have any better technology to replace this with better and clean energy.  I agree with you, we got enough energy on earth but beside fossil fuel, nuclear fission and hydro, we can't tap efficiently most of it.

post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.
...

So about that IGZO display and Apple...

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

 

More than 50% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuel and we currently don't have any better technology to replace this with better and clean energy.  I agree with you, we got enough energy on earth but beside fossil fuel, nuclear fission and hydro, we can't tap efficiently most of it.

What about solar energy? We have not explorer deeper enough to use this clean and useful energy in great scale beyond solar panels and calculators.

post #18 of 54
Yes it's the power savings, meaning lighter battery's, particularly in the lower end devices. That's the big one.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

What about solar energy? We have not explorer deeper enough to use this clean and useful energy in great scale beyond solar panels and calculators.

 

Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%.


Edited by BigMac2 - 1/8/13 at 10:18am
post #20 of 54
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
More than 50% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuel and we currently don't have any better technology to replace this with better and clean energy.  I agree with you, we got enough energy on earth but beside fossil fuel, nuclear fission and hydro, we can't tap efficiently most of it.

 

Sure we can. What is it, something like 200 square miles of solar panels (of current efficiency!) will power the entire planet. We absolutely have the technology. Couple that with geothermal and modern fossil fuels (because, yeah, we'll be using them until we literally don't have anything else to burn, and I wouldn't have it any other way) and it's more power than we need. 

 

And if the French ever decide to build a fusion plant that isn't just a proof of concept, we'll have hot fusion, too. What would be neat is devising a means of fusion that used spent fission fuel sources as its fuel source. Build a fission plant and a fusion plant across the street from one another… 


Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post
So about that IGZO display and Apple...

 

…I think we have that covered. 1wink.giflol.gif

 

Anyway, the less power per display, the better. Of course, that makes the people working on wireless power unnecessarily lazy. All they have to do is wait until all products that would use their technology drop in power requirements to meet their current capabilities. Boom, wireless power, because it only provides such and such amount of watts, and nothing needs more than that anymore.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

 

Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%, so replacing a 5 Mega Watts Nuclear central will needs a States wide area of solar panels. 

wow, that is a lot. Maybe in the future we will be able to find some way to get more solar power, 100watts per 1/4 of a millimeter. I know, I know... I am a dreamer ;)

post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

 

Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%, so replacing a 5 Mega Watts Nuclear central will needs a States wide area of solar panels. 

5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft

post #23 of 54
"Even after turning off the power of a device, IGZO allows the image to continue to be displayed on the screen,"

Interesting, an alternative to E-Paper too maybe? If Apple uses this tech, would I actually be able to read an E-Book on an iPad in broad day-light, without the screen being washed out? That would be very nice indeed..! Probably too good to be true though.
post #24 of 54

I doubt Apple/Foxxcon would have invested so heavily in sharp if this was not destined for a mobile device. It seems it's a matter of when, not if. 

 

An IGZO iPad mini to fit between the iPhone and MBA? So. Drool-worthy. 

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #25 of 54

When the iPad mini was rumored and then announced, I was hopeful that Sharp's IGZO would be a lock-for the first-gen mini-until I heard about the production difficulties. I suspect that it just was not ready, yields were unsatisfactory to meet demand/margins, etc. In typical fashion, Apple chose to launch the iPad mini anyway for the holiday season and to gain a foothold in the market. If my suspicions are correct, arguably, that was a smart move. 

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

wow, that is a lot. Maybe in the future we will be able to find some way to get more solar power, 100watts per 1/4 of a millimeter. I know, I know... I am a dreamer ;)

 

Yeah I got my math mixed up. 

post #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Sure we can. What is it, something like 200 square miles of solar panels (of current efficiency!) will power the entire planet. We absolutely have the technology. Couple that with geothermal and modern fossil fuels (because, yeah, we'll be using them until we literally don't have anything else to burn, and I wouldn't have it any other way) and it's more power than we need. 

 

And if the French ever decide to build a fusion plant that isn't just a proof of concept, we'll have hot fusion, too. What would be neat is devising a means of fusion that used spent fission fuel sources as its fuel source. Build a fission plant and a fusion plant across the street from one another… 

 

 

The 10sq miles Topaz Solar farm project in California will be able to produce a peak zenith about 500MW and solar power like wind power are not reliable and steady power sources, at best over a year they can only produce at 50% of the time. The other big issue is energy storing, we don't have any efficient way to store unused electrical energy. That is why we still depend so much of gas and coal central for peak period.

 

Beside I'm thrilled about the French fusion reactor project ITER, sure is a proof of concept, have you see the size of that thing it need for being the first fusion reactor to break even? The next phase DEMO due for mid 2020s will be the first commercial fusion reactor, but we still have a long way to go before mastering fusion reactor like we do for fission. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 1/8/13 at 10:43am
post #28 of 54
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...

 

From what I gather, IGZO could be the last technical improvement to LED before OLED technology can beat it in terms of image sharpness and color quality.   IGZO is simply a transparent conductor technology, like transparent wires.  LCD panels (and OLED panels too, for that matter) have used amorphous silicon conductors in those "transparent wires" for decades.  IGZO is more transparent than, and is a 40 times better conductor than, amorphous silicon.  So less energy will be needed to drive the transistors in the display panel, whether LCD or OLED.  And less energy will be needed to achieve the same brightness.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Where would we be in a world with zinc...?
Zinc! Come back! Zinc!

 

You said you wanted to live in a world with no zinc, Jimmy!

post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Like all futurism, it says more about us now and what we think is cool or worthwhile than it does about any real future.

That's a best summarization I've read.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

The video is quite amazing, but that technology that they show in there, i am pretty sure its destinated for rich people. I will never going to see it in regular house. Maybe in 100 years or more. When we all dead already.

 

I don't know about that...

 

In 1978 I bought an Apple ][ 8K RAM -- no display, no external or internal SDD/HDD -- had to buy an expensive cassette deck ($100) and Display ($250)...  Total about $2,200 -- $8-10,000 in today's dollars.  Later things like a 5 MB hard disk cost $4,000.  I purchased a 1978 Ford Grenada (middle of the line) -- AIR, it cost $15,000, loaded.

 

When things get popular and mass-produced, the costs come down quickly.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by kerryb View Post
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.

 

We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.

 

The problem isn't needing energy to power devices. The problem is when you have TOO MUCH energy to tap. We don't yet, and that's good. The bottleneck is our ability to provide it, not our ability to design uses for it. We're smart enough for the latter right now, not the former. If we were to remove the "bandwidth cap" on energy use right now, Earth would be Venus in 50 years.

 

LOL... with a quick look at your post I read:  "We're not even at a 1 on the Kardashian scale."

 

A pretty frightening thought, any way you look at it -- especially from behind!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Even after turning off the power of a device, IGZO allows the image to continue to be displayed on the screen,"

My PC monitor could do that back in the 80's lol.gif

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #34 of 54
Quote:
bigmac2
"While it doesn't require backlighting it fade after time.Organic Light Emitting Diode lifespan is very short (3 to 5 years), like any other organic based products it degrade after time."

Been there done that already and no more OLED for me.
What a waste of money!

IZGO does look interesting as long as it doesn't gradually die.
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
If it was a dead end we wouldn't be seeing significant advancements almost every year. Effectively LCD has gotten to the point that resolution is better than the eye can make use of. At this point other features are evolving to keep LCD technology around as the most viable.
Quote:
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...

Thinner and more flexible it may be but beyond that OLEDs suck badly. Let me count some of the ways:
  1. Each pixel is made up of multiple LEDs. This means each pixel has to turn on three LEDs to produce color.
  2. Due to item #1 above OLED screen are only power efficient when dark.
  3. When white light needs to be produced each OLED pixel is burning maximum energy. Thus you often see UI's built upon OLED screens as being very dark so that battery power may be conserved.
  4. The O in OLED stands for organic or carbon based chemistries none of which are stable, thus such screen age rapidly. Put simply OLED screens are not color stable.

Maybe one day they will bet there but right now OLED screens are not the sorts of things you would epwant to see on Apple products.
post #36 of 54
The problem isn't consumption but rather production. If we get over our fears associated with nuclear technologies we won't have any problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.
post #37 of 54
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
If we get over our fears associated with nuclear technologies we won't have any problems.

 

And I'm in favor of the "launch the spent material into the sun" idea, myself. First, it's launching crap into the sun, which is always cool. Second, it gives us a nice new high-volume cargo technical goal for future spaceflight, which we need. Third, it gets rid of the mess without lead-lined, miles-deep concrete bunkers.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #38 of 54
This is baloney. The problem right now is will and fear.
Nobody has the will to force acceptance of even modest solar approaches on homes. In fact in some locations there actually exists laws that prevent the use of solar technologies on homes. The answer is not big industry solar production farms that just waste land mass but rather a realization that production should be supplemented by the very houses we live in. It is really sad that standard for homes done require at least some ability to offset power usage by local production.

Then we have the issue of fear. The fear of current nuclear technology is irrational and has resulted in minimal investment in research and development for new techniques with respect to fission systems and fusion techniques. Basically we are throwing away the future of the planet due to irrational fears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

More than 50% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuel and we currently don't have any better technology to replace this with better and clean energy.  I agree with you, we got enough energy on earth but beside fossil fuel, nuclear fission and hydro, we can't tap efficiently most of it.
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%.

Yep which means the approach of build central solar power plants is simply asinine. So much land mass would be forever wasted that it would end up being more harmful than coal mining. Apples solar plant next to their latest data center is a perfect example. It is a huge amount of land mass that is forever wasted.

However this doesn't mean we should discount the value of solar offsetting some of our energy needs. Rather it should become policy to require that solar features be built into all new buildings and homes. Real incentives for retro fits to existing buildings need to be put in place. Sadly previous attempts resulted in some significant corrupt behavior where the incentives simply went to contractors through inflated prices and other schemes. The economics of solar systems aren't clear but if installed systematically it will impact future growth in centrally produced power.
post #40 of 54
Actually I was more or less in the same boat, I was really hoping that iPad Mini would introduce an IGZO display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

When the iPad mini was rumored and then announced, I was hopeful that Sharp's IGZO would be a lock-for the first-gen mini-until I heard about the production difficulties. I suspect that it just was not ready, yields were unsatisfactory to meet demand/margins, etc. In typical fashion, Apple chose to launch the iPad mini anyway for the holiday season and to gain a foothold in the market. If my suspicions are correct, arguably, that was a smart move. 

Yes a smart move as the market was primed for the Mini. Like all Apple devices Mini will evolve over time. As it is IGZO looks like a significant step forward if it lives up to its hype.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sharp hypes IGZO displays, Apple called a 'prime candidate' to use