A new report claims Sharp will not be supplying display panels for Apple's third-generation iPad, suggesting its touted IGZO technology will not appear in this generation of devices.
Never say "never." It's quite possible that Sharp can't get high enough yields in their brand-new plant to supply iPad 3 starting in March. But yields might improve enough to supply IGZO screens later in the year. And maybe that's what triggered DigiTimes' "iPad 4 in October" rumors.
Apple has spent a lot of money on that plant. They're eager as ever to adopt high-quality low-cost technology, and IGZO has both those attributes. Also, Sharp is working on an advanced OLED manufacturing process that would produce high quality screens at a lower cost than current OLED processes. So another possibility is that Apple might skip IGZO screens in iPad 3 this year, put IGZO screens in the iPhone 5, and use the advanced OLED technology in the iPad 4 and iPhone 6 in 2013. Who knows?
I'd be funny if the retina display iPad was never, ever real, and created entirely by the rumor mill and the gullible.
Actually, I'm on that bandwagon. I don't see Apple using such a high density screen. For an iPhone, we've all seen how it can improve readability on such a small screen. On an iPad, there is no reason for such high res, there is enough real estate to make things legible with a good resolution. It really is overkill. And will again make the app world split itself with a standard version, a Retina version, an HD version, and now a FullHD version.
And people will be disappointed, will talk about how much better Android is and how they will be switching to the only platform whose developers are the only ones who understand the geeks' wetdreams...
I'd be more than happy to have one, but not at the expense of frame rate on games, nor battery life.
Actually, I'm on that bandwagon. I don't see Apple using such a high density screen. For an iPhone, we've all seen how it can improve readability on such a small screen. On an iPad, there is no reason for such high res, there is enough real estate to make things legible with a good resolution. It really is overkill. And will again make the app world split itself with a standard version, a Retina version, an HD version, and now a FullHD version.
And people will be disappointed, will talk about how much better Android is and how they will be switching to the only platform whose developers are the only ones who understand the geeks' wetdreams...
I'd be more than happy to have one, but not at the expense of frame rate on games, nor battery life.
iPad text is less clear than eInk or an printed text. Sure you can expand, but that simply isn't feasible for reading a book.
They don't have to go with 265ppi but they also didn't have to go with 326ppi for the iPhone 4. Was that overkill? The iPhone would still fit into the Retina Display for 20/20 vision at 12" away if they went with 280ppi but they waited until they could quadruple the pixels for a reason.
They will do it! The only question is whether the whole system is in place to make it reality this year.
Can I assume when Samsung releases a tablet with these screens in them the masses will cry that Samsung is stealing Apples IP? Even though they are Samsung's screens.
Can I assume when Samsung releases a tablet with these screens in them the masses will cry that Samsung is stealing Apples IP? Even though they are Samsung's screens.
No, "the masses" won't. And if anyone does, we'll be there to correct their misbelief that a resolution is somehow "intellectual property".
With four times the number of pixels the GPU needs to be a least four times as fast.
Not necessarily. Filling pixels on basic GUI graphics does not tax a current GPU much at all. So 4x pixels for iOS supplied graphics and custom vector graphics won't kill performance. 4x the number of pixels is a big deal for 3D, but only if you choose to render the full pixel density. If you render to the original density, again, filling pixels is trivial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
is it such a straightforward linear relationship between pixels and gpu? Just wondering.
The dimensions of the iPad would be different, it would seem, if Sharp's technology was used. It seems highly unlikely that Apple had two designs for the iPad ready to go, one with Sharp's technology and the other accommodating a high-resolution screen that requires a thicker case and more weight.
I'm sure Apple intends to up the resolution on the iPad but not at the expense of cost, battery life, and presumably causing the iPad to be heavier.
It doesn't add up and it seems to me absurd to imagine that with the new version set for a Match launch, we'd have Apple deciding which technology to employ, hence which design to employ, this late in the process. That's not how it works. The design would have to have been finalized a while ago and I doubt Apple would have been OK with taking the trouble of developing two basic designs while it made up its mind about which direction to take.
More likely, Apple needs to have a technology in place that can deliver higher resolution with no downside and in the absence of that technology, the iPad 3 will not feature a major change in display technology. Hence, the next iPad will be similar to the current model in regards to display technology. 2013 is another matter.
No, "the masses" won't. And if anyone does, we'll be there to correct their misbelief that a resolution is somehow "intellectual property".
We know that but I can only assume any tablet Samsung would put this screen in could potential be the same size and shape as the iPad 3, so Samsung can only have stolen the design from Apple.
I'm willing to throw down huge sums of money that says Jobs would have never compromised the iPad's thickness to make room for a higher-resolution display.
Can you see engineering winning a fight against him on this?
Might be apocryphal, but someone once told me that an engineering interviewee was asked to troubleshoot an issue in which the motherboard was impeding against the case. The engineer suggested that maybe he could ask the group that designed the case (i.e., ID) to modify it so that the board would fit.
I'm willing to throw down huge sums of money that says Jobs would have never compromised the iPad's thickness to make room for a higher-resolution display.
The iPhone 3G was thicker than the original. Your point is moot.
LOL!! I guess Apple's diversification strategy isn't quite working.. But but but.. there are hundreds of other Asian suppliers ..
Sorry, no.
For any given Apple part going in an iOS device, there are probably just a handful of qualified suppliers. Apple issues an RFP saying, "we need something at these specifications with this minimum yield and this maximum cost per unit."
Only the biggest players have a chance. It's not like Apple can realistically manage fifty vendors making 200,000 units of the same component for a total product run of 10 million. There may only be a couple of companies that can say, "we can make 10 million units" or perhaps one company that says they can make 8 million and another can make 5 million.
The first devices based on OMAP 5 aren't expected to ship until early 2013, with some aggressive customers potentially shipping at the very end of this year.
I'm willing to throw down huge sums of money that says Jobs would have never compromised the iPad's thickness to make room for a higher-resolution display.
Can you see engineering winning a fight against him on this?
The iPhone 3G was thicker than the original iPhone.
apple needs to get away from samsung as supplier, stop feeding the beast that steals your IP
Get over it. No serious court on Earth is entertaining far-reaching look and feel claims. The lawsuits were just an enormous waste of time and resources for both sides anyway.
Not necessarily. Filling pixels on basic GUI graphics does not tax a current GPU much at all. So 4x pixels for iOS supplied graphics and custom vector graphics won't kill performance. 4x the number of pixels is a big deal for 3D, but only if you choose to render the full pixel density. If you render to the original density, again, filling pixels is trivial.
Correct intuition, no it's not.
The point is of course that the most demanding 3D environments like Infinitiblade must run at equal or better speed on the new iPad. And this demands 4 times the calculation speed.
It isn't a good observation that some tasks require less GPU power, the device maker (Apple) needs to take peak performance into account because that's what counts.
And I assumed ofcourse that all pixels are used. Nobody will buy the device if the software isn't using the high resolution.
*hint* Apple gave Sharp over 500 million last year to build displays to them. Apple would not have given Sharp the money if they failed the approval process.
They would if they were building their Apple TV screens.
Comments
A new report claims Sharp will not be supplying display panels for Apple's third-generation iPad, suggesting its touted IGZO technology will not appear in this generation of devices.
Never say "never." It's quite possible that Sharp can't get high enough yields in their brand-new plant to supply iPad 3 starting in March. But yields might improve enough to supply IGZO screens later in the year. And maybe that's what triggered DigiTimes' "iPad 4 in October" rumors.
Apple has spent a lot of money on that plant. They're eager as ever to adopt high-quality low-cost technology, and IGZO has both those attributes. Also, Sharp is working on an advanced OLED manufacturing process that would produce high quality screens at a lower cost than current OLED processes. So another possibility is that Apple might skip IGZO screens in iPad 3 this year, put IGZO screens in the iPhone 5, and use the advanced OLED technology in the iPad 4 and iPhone 6 in 2013. Who knows?
I'd be funny if the retina display iPad was never, ever real, and created entirely by the rumor mill and the gullible.
Actually, I'm on that bandwagon. I don't see Apple using such a high density screen. For an iPhone, we've all seen how it can improve readability on such a small screen. On an iPad, there is no reason for such high res, there is enough real estate to make things legible with a good resolution. It really is overkill. And will again make the app world split itself with a standard version, a Retina version, an HD version, and now a FullHD version.
And people will be disappointed, will talk about how much better Android is and how they will be switching to the only platform whose developers are the only ones who understand the geeks' wetdreams...
I'd be more than happy to have one, but not at the expense of frame rate on games, nor battery life.
Actually, I'm on that bandwagon. I don't see Apple using such a high density screen. For an iPhone, we've all seen how it can improve readability on such a small screen. On an iPad, there is no reason for such high res, there is enough real estate to make things legible with a good resolution. It really is overkill. And will again make the app world split itself with a standard version, a Retina version, an HD version, and now a FullHD version.
And people will be disappointed, will talk about how much better Android is and how they will be switching to the only platform whose developers are the only ones who understand the geeks' wetdreams...
I'd be more than happy to have one, but not at the expense of frame rate on games, nor battery life.
iPad text is less clear than eInk or an printed text. Sure you can expand, but that simply isn't feasible for reading a book.
They don't have to go with 265ppi but they also didn't have to go with 326ppi for the iPhone 4. Was that overkill? The iPhone would still fit into the Retina Display for 20/20 vision at 12" away if they went with 280ppi but they waited until they could quadruple the pixels for a reason.
They will do it! The only question is whether the whole system is in place to make it reality this year.
Can I assume when Samsung releases a tablet with these screens in them the masses will cry that Samsung is stealing Apples IP? Even though they are Samsung's screens.
No, "the masses" won't. And if anyone does, we'll be there to correct their misbelief that a resolution is somehow "intellectual property".
With four times the number of pixels the GPU needs to be a least four times as fast.
Not necessarily. Filling pixels on basic GUI graphics does not tax a current GPU much at all. So 4x pixels for iOS supplied graphics and custom vector graphics won't kill performance. 4x the number of pixels is a big deal for 3D, but only if you choose to render the full pixel density. If you render to the original density, again, filling pixels is trivial.
is it such a straightforward linear relationship between pixels and gpu? Just wondering.
Correct intuition, no it's not.
I'm sure Apple intends to up the resolution on the iPad but not at the expense of cost, battery life, and presumably causing the iPad to be heavier.
It doesn't add up and it seems to me absurd to imagine that with the new version set for a Match launch, we'd have Apple deciding which technology to employ, hence which design to employ, this late in the process. That's not how it works. The design would have to have been finalized a while ago and I doubt Apple would have been OK with taking the trouble of developing two basic designs while it made up its mind about which direction to take.
More likely, Apple needs to have a technology in place that can deliver higher resolution with no downside and in the absence of that technology, the iPad 3 will not feature a major change in display technology. Hence, the next iPad will be similar to the current model in regards to display technology. 2013 is another matter.
No, "the masses" won't. And if anyone does, we'll be there to correct their misbelief that a resolution is somehow "intellectual property".
We know that but I can only assume any tablet Samsung would put this screen in could potential be the same size and shape as the iPad 3, so Samsung can only have stolen the design from Apple.
Can you see engineering winning a fight against him on this?
Might be apocryphal, but someone once told me that an engineering interviewee was asked to troubleshoot an issue in which the motherboard was impeding against the case. The engineer suggested that maybe he could ask the group that designed the case (i.e., ID) to modify it so that the board would fit.
Needless to say, he did not return.
I'm willing to throw down huge sums of money that says Jobs would have never compromised the iPad's thickness to make room for a higher-resolution display.
The iPhone 3G was thicker than the original. Your point is moot.
LOL!! I guess Apple's diversification strategy isn't quite working.. But but but.. there are hundreds of other Asian suppliers ..
Sorry, no.
For any given Apple part going in an iOS device, there are probably just a handful of qualified suppliers. Apple issues an RFP saying, "we need something at these specifications with this minimum yield and this maximum cost per unit."
Only the biggest players have a chance. It's not like Apple can realistically manage fifty vendors making 200,000 units of the same component for a total product run of 10 million. There may only be a couple of companies that can say, "we can make 10 million units" or perhaps one company that says they can make 8 million and another can make 5 million.
The first devices based on OMAP 5 aren't expected to ship until early 2013, with some aggressive customers potentially shipping at the very end of this year.
• http://www.anandtech.com/show/5406/t...tex-a15-at-ces
I'm willing to throw down huge sums of money that says Jobs would have never compromised the iPad's thickness to make room for a higher-resolution display.
Can you see engineering winning a fight against him on this?
The iPhone 3G was thicker than the original iPhone.
apple needs to get away from samsung as supplier, stop feeding the beast that steals your IP
Get over it. No serious court on Earth is entertaining far-reaching look and feel claims. The lawsuits were just an enormous waste of time and resources for both sides anyway.
is it such a straightforward linear relationship between pixels and gpu? Just wondering.
Yes, the GPU calculates per pixel.
J.
Not necessarily. Filling pixels on basic GUI graphics does not tax a current GPU much at all. So 4x pixels for iOS supplied graphics and custom vector graphics won't kill performance. 4x the number of pixels is a big deal for 3D, but only if you choose to render the full pixel density. If you render to the original density, again, filling pixels is trivial.
Correct intuition, no it's not.
The point is of course that the most demanding 3D environments like Infinitiblade must run at equal or better speed on the new iPad. And this demands 4 times the calculation speed.
It isn't a good observation that some tasks require less GPU power, the device maker (Apple) needs to take peak performance into account because that's what counts.
And I assumed ofcourse that all pixels are used. Nobody will buy the device if the software isn't using the high resolution.
J.
*hint* Apple gave Sharp over 500 million last year to build displays to them. Apple would not have given Sharp the money if they failed the approval process.
They would if they were building their Apple TV screens.