Manufacturing challenges, cost and power consumption - given all these considerations, it would be a remarkable feat for such a screen to be released in the next year. The question will then be - what eye-catching enhancement will iPad 3 have?
McDonalds was using touch screen tech well before the iPhone on its cash registers.
There are different kinds of touch screens. You are referring to resistive touch screens that have been around for a long time. These measure the resistance or pressure applied at a specific spot and need to be made from a somewhat flexible plastic to work. They are also on usually pressure sensitive and not multi touch.
These screens became smaller, but would require a stylus for accuracy. These were used in Palm Pilots, Windows CE devices, etc.
Microsoft Tablet PCs in the early 2000's used a capacitive screen that required a special stylus. This allowed you to hover the stylus above the screen to move the mouse pointer and then tap the screen to click.
The iPhone was a leap forward because this was a capacitive screen that could be controlled with fingers and have a high accuracy. So yes, touch screens have existed, but not at the level that would allow seamless integration with the human and the user interface.
There seems something uncomfortable about outsourcing your screen production to a competitor. Yes, Samsung get paid for the screens, but if they deliberately delayed supply by inventing false production issues, causing iPad 3 to be late, might it not be tempting to launch the Galaxy Tab 3 to take advantage -or at the very least use Apple's work as R&D for your own tablet screens?
This is a dysfunctional relationship. The sooner Apple spend some of their cash pile on their own screen factory the better.
I can't see Samsung doing that. Remember that LG is also a competitor. It's difficult to find a part manufacturer that is not a competitor. But they sell much, if not most of their parts to competitors. If that dried up, Samsung and LG would find half of their businesses gone along with most of their profits.
I don't think so... These are different divisions within Samsung and different people have to answer for their own division's profits. Samsung's display and fabrication divisions are not going to sacrifice revenue because the very low margin consumer electronic division is having a hissy fit. We are talking about billions of dollars in revenue for Samsung.
I think that's true. There have been articles and quotes that would lead one to think that some of the Samsung contacts are becoming more aware of the patent issue. Quotes like 'patents are so smooth' whatever that means to Koreans, make me think that they are starting to understand 'inventing'. I don't think their CEO gets it though. Still the same bombast out of him. It's a very different culture there, a little more macho. Then there's the 'shame' society vs our 'guilt' society. They have a hard time admitting to a mistake unless they can save face symbolically somehow, because in that society the shame is cast unto the whole 'family'. Our 'guilt' is mostly an individual feeling. (Note: this info straight out of anthropology class)
Asia will eventually come to understand intellectual property and patents as things of actual worth. Right now though, the view is more like 'we build what is regarded as the best, we do the work, turn the screws and put together. What does it matter who first drew the picture of it? We are doing the work to assemble, that is not stealing'.
I think you are right, it's a big company not all in sync yet on these matters, but progress is being made. Apple is also wisely bringing other suppliers up to speed just in case this problem of patent infringement continues.
OK - the large majority of the article is speculation by an anonymous source about perceived difficulties around producing these screens in quantity. Lest we forget, Apple works with specific vendors, partnering with them to create higher level components under a specific contract agreement which gives Apple exclusive access to the upgraded component design for a specified length of time, after which Apple retains priority rights for a dfurther amount of time, but the vendor can release a version for other supply lines/customers. This has been covered a couple of times in these threads, so we don't need to flog it further than this.
And while some of the commenters here seem to delight in pointing out that touchscreens were around well before the iPhone and iPod touch, it should be obvious by now that reference in these fora refers to the capacitive multi-touch screen that Apple specifically designed and built for its devices. Palm Pilots were resistive stylus driven screens not capacitive touch. Pointing out something with an example of touch that is another older technology without the capacity of the real multi-touch screen is simply incorrect.
Just to speak to these continuing assertions and hopefully put them to rest, the history of touch screen technology runs like this:
Touch screen technology has been in the works since the 1960's, where it was being studied in several different academic settings for commercial use. The generally accepted "first inventor" if you will was E.A. Johnson working for Royal Radar Establishment in the UK and was a capacitive touch screen slated for use in air traffic control - he published his findings in 1968. Similar work was being done for capacitive touch pads for controlling electronic music instruments in the 60's (Fairlight, for example), and at CERN for machine controls technology.
In the US, Control Data pushed their first broader deployment to support interaction on the PLATO computer based education system, based on technology developed at the University of Illinois, and deployed in 1972. Prof. Sam Hurst at the U of Kentucky developed first an opaque simple touch sensor in '71, followed by a transparent touch screen in 1974, which became the standard for resistive touch screens. In 1983, HP produced a touch screen computer called the HP 150, which had a matrix of infrared sensors, but it was discontinued as the sensors got dirty quickly and failed to detect touch on the screen. In the 1990's of course Apple released the Newton with a resistive touch screen, which was followed by the IBM Simon, and in 1996 by the Palm Pilot - again all using resistive touch technologies limited to a single point of contact on the screen. This same technology is deployed widely at various points of sales, in machine control systems and access kiosks for public use, and increasingly in applicances, automobiles and other consumer devices.
There are a number of other technologies which allow touch interfacing, but none have attained the popularity of resistive and capacitive touch controls.
Multitouch was explored in 1982 by the U of Toronto, using a frosted glass screen and a camera which detected a finger touch on the surface using contrast and size to determine where the touch occurred and the amount of pressure applied. In 1983 Bell Labs performed a comprehensive review of current multitouch technologies, and Bill Buxton working at U of Toronto sucessfully refined the grid capacitance device. In 1991 Pierre Wellner while at Xerox published his paper of the multi-touch "Digital Desk". As early as 1991 both Jeff Han and Microsoft Research were researching using stationary forms of multitouch implemented using infrared sensitive rear camera systems for the TouchWall and Surface respectively.
While a number of developments built out on these concepts Wellner published, it was FingerWorks in 1997 and onwards that successfully modified Apple laptops with capacitive multitouch screens, bringing a very successful implementation of capacitive multitouch to these mobile computers. With the acquisition of FingerWorks by Apple in 2005, it drove commercial and consumer mobile device use as an implementation of capacitance touch control in it's early and subsequent iPhones and iPod Touches, and later in the iPad series. Apple successfully pursued patenting the unique implementation of multitouch on a handheld device from 2005 on.
I can't see Apple going with a 1600x1200 screen. Many older apps simply wouldn't work at such a resolution.
Better to stick with the current screen resolution and put more engineering effort into other areas.
I can see them using a 1600x1200 over the larger version
Frankly I think this rumor is BS. the iPhone needs the retina display to have a crisp image to offset the screen size. The iPad doesn't.
I think that someone found out they were wrong about the rumors and this claim of issues is a cya. Lg etc can't refute it because Apple would be livid that hey confirmed a detail about the next iPad. So they have to suck it up while doing why they were always going to do.
I hate to split hairs here but based on the text of the article, it seems to me that the title should read "Rumor: Apple manufacturers might face difficulties with high-res screens for iPad 3".
The article itself seems to clearly state the "rumors" are talking about problems that might happen because mass production hasn't started up yet and the manufacturers aren't sure how it will go.
Of course, that title wouldn't get the same number of clicks/links would it?
I can't see Samsung doing that. Remember that LG is also a competitor. It's difficult to find a part manufacturer that is not a competitor. But they sell much, if not most of their parts to competitors. If that dried up, Samsung and LG would find half of their businesses gone along with most of their profits.
I agree. LG (or any other manufacturer) would jump at the chance to produce a bigger portion of screens if Samsung was found to be intentionally delaying delivery.
On a separate note, while a screen of this caliber would be amazing, I think it will be at the expense of other components. As a consumer I'm torn between having something pretty and entertaining and something that could potentially be a laptop replacement (for other than email/web), which I'm expecting out of this next generation or the one after based on the rapid development of these ARM processors.
Agreed. I know the arguement is that by sourcing components rather than developing them yourself you can pick and choose the best available but it also leads to problems. Apple gains a competitive advantage by developing its own ARM chips. They can build better chips than anyone else and are not tied to Intel's chip release cycle. Why not extend that into other components like screens.
Apple develops the chips, they don't build them. Key difference.
The display is one thing. The GPU that can power 4x the pixels and yet be faster than an iPad 2, plus the battery-sucking memory to store those pixels, are another thing!
I wish it would happen soon, because a retina iPad would be awesome. But I can?t help fearing it's just not possible any time soon?not even next year maybe.
Performance, battery life, quality AND price for these components all have to come together for it to happen. I?m not sure ANY of those are nearing being ready! (Quality sounds like the simplest one to solve?the one this article is about! And supposedly there are production problems even there.)
I don't think so... These are different divisions within Samsung and different people have to answer for their own division's profits. Samsung's display and fabrication divisions are not going to sacrifice revenue because the very low margin consumer electronic division is having a hissy fit. We are talking about billions of dollars in revenue for Samsung.
No. Samsung Electronics is a division of Samsung conglomerate. Apple is in a legal battle with Samsung Electronics, not with mobile / semiconductor sub-divisions. Furthermore, there aren't that many component suppliers big, reliable enough to meet Apple's demand other than LG and Samsung.
There seems something uncomfortable about outsourcing your screen production to a competitor. Yes, Samsung get paid for the screens, but if they deliberately delayed supply by inventing false production issues, causing iPad 3 to be late, might it not be tempting to launch the Galaxy Tab 3 to take advantage -or at the very least use Apple's work as R&D for your own tablet screens?
This is a dysfunctional relationship. The sooner Apple spend some of their cash pile on their own screen factory the better.
Apple doesn't have much choice. LG/Samsung dominate technology/manufacturing in nand flash/cpus/display not only for Apple, but also for Sony (#1 Samsung's customer), Dell (#3), HP (#4), Verizon (#5) and many others. While I don't think Samsung is going to *deliberately* sabotage Apple, Apple has little to gain from this relationship - especially when they are competing for the top spot in mobile market.
"Less money? SU~RE! We'll take less money from you!"
eh? Samsung already makes more money selling their own mobile devices (#1 in SmartPhone sales last quarter and #1 in all mobile devices worldwide last year), so why bother improving someone else's technology & securing their supplies?
Comments
McDonalds was using touch screen tech well before the iPhone on its cash registers.
There are different kinds of touch screens. You are referring to resistive touch screens that have been around for a long time. These measure the resistance or pressure applied at a specific spot and need to be made from a somewhat flexible plastic to work. They are also on usually pressure sensitive and not multi touch.
These screens became smaller, but would require a stylus for accuracy. These were used in Palm Pilots, Windows CE devices, etc.
Microsoft Tablet PCs in the early 2000's used a capacitive screen that required a special stylus. This allowed you to hover the stylus above the screen to move the mouse pointer and then tap the screen to click.
The iPhone was a leap forward because this was a capacitive screen that could be controlled with fingers and have a high accuracy. So yes, touch screens have existed, but not at the level that would allow seamless integration with the human and the user interface.
There seems something uncomfortable about outsourcing your screen production to a competitor. Yes, Samsung get paid for the screens, but if they deliberately delayed supply by inventing false production issues, causing iPad 3 to be late, might it not be tempting to launch the Galaxy Tab 3 to take advantage -or at the very least use Apple's work as R&D for your own tablet screens?
This is a dysfunctional relationship. The sooner Apple spend some of their cash pile on their own screen factory the better.
I can't see Samsung doing that. Remember that LG is also a competitor. It's difficult to find a part manufacturer that is not a competitor. But they sell much, if not most of their parts to competitors. If that dried up, Samsung and LG would find half of their businesses gone along with most of their profits.
I don't think so... These are different divisions within Samsung and different people have to answer for their own division's profits. Samsung's display and fabrication divisions are not going to sacrifice revenue because the very low margin consumer electronic division is having a hissy fit. We are talking about billions of dollars in revenue for Samsung.
I think that's true. There have been articles and quotes that would lead one to think that some of the Samsung contacts are becoming more aware of the patent issue. Quotes like 'patents are so smooth' whatever that means to Koreans, make me think that they are starting to understand 'inventing'. I don't think their CEO gets it though. Still the same bombast out of him. It's a very different culture there, a little more macho. Then there's the 'shame' society vs our 'guilt' society. They have a hard time admitting to a mistake unless they can save face symbolically somehow, because in that society the shame is cast unto the whole 'family'. Our 'guilt' is mostly an individual feeling. (Note: this info straight out of anthropology class)
Asia will eventually come to understand intellectual property and patents as things of actual worth. Right now though, the view is more like 'we build what is regarded as the best, we do the work, turn the screws and put together. What does it matter who first drew the picture of it? We are doing the work to assemble, that is not stealing'.
I think you are right, it's a big company not all in sync yet on these matters, but progress is being made. Apple is also wisely bringing other suppliers up to speed just in case this problem of patent infringement continues.
And while some of the commenters here seem to delight in pointing out that touchscreens were around well before the iPhone and iPod touch, it should be obvious by now that reference in these fora refers to the capacitive multi-touch screen that Apple specifically designed and built for its devices. Palm Pilots were resistive stylus driven screens not capacitive touch. Pointing out something with an example of touch that is another older technology without the capacity of the real multi-touch screen is simply incorrect.
Just to speak to these continuing assertions and hopefully put them to rest, the history of touch screen technology runs like this:
Touch screen technology has been in the works since the 1960's, where it was being studied in several different academic settings for commercial use. The generally accepted "first inventor" if you will was E.A. Johnson working for Royal Radar Establishment in the UK and was a capacitive touch screen slated for use in air traffic control - he published his findings in 1968. Similar work was being done for capacitive touch pads for controlling electronic music instruments in the 60's (Fairlight, for example), and at CERN for machine controls technology.
In the US, Control Data pushed their first broader deployment to support interaction on the PLATO computer based education system, based on technology developed at the University of Illinois, and deployed in 1972. Prof. Sam Hurst at the U of Kentucky developed first an opaque simple touch sensor in '71, followed by a transparent touch screen in 1974, which became the standard for resistive touch screens. In 1983, HP produced a touch screen computer called the HP 150, which had a matrix of infrared sensors, but it was discontinued as the sensors got dirty quickly and failed to detect touch on the screen. In the 1990's of course Apple released the Newton with a resistive touch screen, which was followed by the IBM Simon, and in 1996 by the Palm Pilot - again all using resistive touch technologies limited to a single point of contact on the screen. This same technology is deployed widely at various points of sales, in machine control systems and access kiosks for public use, and increasingly in applicances, automobiles and other consumer devices.
There are a number of other technologies which allow touch interfacing, but none have attained the popularity of resistive and capacitive touch controls.
Multitouch was explored in 1982 by the U of Toronto, using a frosted glass screen and a camera which detected a finger touch on the surface using contrast and size to determine where the touch occurred and the amount of pressure applied. In 1983 Bell Labs performed a comprehensive review of current multitouch technologies, and Bill Buxton working at U of Toronto sucessfully refined the grid capacitance device. In 1991 Pierre Wellner while at Xerox published his paper of the multi-touch "Digital Desk". As early as 1991 both Jeff Han and Microsoft Research were researching using stationary forms of multitouch implemented using infrared sensitive rear camera systems for the TouchWall and Surface respectively.
While a number of developments built out on these concepts Wellner published, it was FingerWorks in 1997 and onwards that successfully modified Apple laptops with capacitive multitouch screens, bringing a very successful implementation of capacitive multitouch to these mobile computers. With the acquisition of FingerWorks by Apple in 2005, it drove commercial and consumer mobile device use as an implementation of capacitance touch control in it's early and subsequent iPhones and iPod Touches, and later in the iPad series. Apple successfully pursued patenting the unique implementation of multitouch on a handheld device from 2005 on.
McDonalds was using touch screen tech well before the iPhone on its cash registers.
Ok Debbie Downer, what else do ya not understand that you can post here? what kind of person gets paid to do a job like that?
I can't see Apple going with a 1600x1200 screen. Many older apps simply wouldn't work at such a resolution.
Better to stick with the current screen resolution and put more engineering effort into other areas.
I can see them using a 1600x1200 over the larger version
Frankly I think this rumor is BS. the iPhone needs the retina display to have a crisp image to offset the screen size. The iPad doesn't.
I think that someone found out they were wrong about the rumors and this claim of issues is a cya. Lg etc can't refute it because Apple would be livid that hey confirmed a detail about the next iPad. So they have to suck it up while doing why they were always going to do.
The article itself seems to clearly state the "rumors" are talking about problems that might happen because mass production hasn't started up yet and the manufacturers aren't sure how it will go.
Of course, that title wouldn't get the same number of clicks/links would it?
-kpluck
I can't see Samsung doing that. Remember that LG is also a competitor. It's difficult to find a part manufacturer that is not a competitor. But they sell much, if not most of their parts to competitors. If that dried up, Samsung and LG would find half of their businesses gone along with most of their profits.
I agree. LG (or any other manufacturer) would jump at the chance to produce a bigger portion of screens if Samsung was found to be intentionally delaying delivery.
On a separate note, while a screen of this caliber would be amazing, I think it will be at the expense of other components. As a consumer I'm torn between having something pretty and entertaining and something that could potentially be a laptop replacement (for other than email/web), which I'm expecting out of this next generation or the one after based on the rapid development of these ARM processors.
Interesting whether it's true or not!
Agreed. I know the arguement is that by sourcing components rather than developing them yourself you can pick and choose the best available but it also leads to problems. Apple gains a competitive advantage by developing its own ARM chips. They can build better chips than anyone else and are not tied to Intel's chip release cycle. Why not extend that into other components like screens.
Apple develops the chips, they don't build them. Key difference.
I wish it would happen soon, because a retina iPad would be awesome. But I can?t help fearing it's just not possible any time soon?not even next year maybe.
Performance, battery life, quality AND price for these components all have to come together for it to happen. I?m not sure ANY of those are nearing being ready! (Quality sounds like the simplest one to solve?the one this article is about! And supposedly there are production problems even there.)
I don't think so... These are different divisions within Samsung and different people have to answer for their own division's profits. Samsung's display and fabrication divisions are not going to sacrifice revenue because the very low margin consumer electronic division is having a hissy fit. We are talking about billions of dollars in revenue for Samsung.
No. Samsung Electronics is a division of Samsung conglomerate. Apple is in a legal battle with Samsung Electronics, not with mobile / semiconductor sub-divisions. Furthermore, there aren't that many component suppliers big, reliable enough to meet Apple's demand other than LG and Samsung.
Cook's production line really fudged up this year on that- I hope a retina display doesn't have this problem.
samsung is just figuring out a way to supply enough retina displays for the ipad and for its own galaxy tablets...
Perhaps Samsung isn't all that interested in making displays for Apple?
Perhaps Samsung isn't all that interested in making displays for Apple?
"Less money? SU~RE! We'll take less money from you!"
There seems something uncomfortable about outsourcing your screen production to a competitor. Yes, Samsung get paid for the screens, but if they deliberately delayed supply by inventing false production issues, causing iPad 3 to be late, might it not be tempting to launch the Galaxy Tab 3 to take advantage -or at the very least use Apple's work as R&D for your own tablet screens?
This is a dysfunctional relationship. The sooner Apple spend some of their cash pile on their own screen factory the better.
Apple doesn't have much choice. LG/Samsung dominate technology/manufacturing in nand flash/cpus/display not only for Apple, but also for Sony (#1 Samsung's customer), Dell (#3), HP (#4), Verizon (#5) and many others. While I don't think Samsung is going to *deliberately* sabotage Apple, Apple has little to gain from this relationship - especially when they are competing for the top spot in mobile market.
"Less money? SU~RE! We'll take less money from you!"
eh? Samsung already makes more money selling their own mobile devices (#1 in SmartPhone sales last quarter and #1 in all mobile devices worldwide last year), so why bother improving someone else's technology & securing their supplies?