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

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
    jason98jason98 Posts: 761member
    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...
  • Reply 2 of 53

    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.

  • Reply 3 of 53
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 53
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 53
    Where would we be in a world with zinc...?
    Zinc! Come back! Zinc!
  • Reply 6 of 53

    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....

  • Reply 7 of 53
    ifij775ifij775 Posts: 470member


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

  • Reply 8 of 53
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    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.  

  • Reply 9 of 53
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member


    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.

  • Reply 10 of 53
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member

    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.

  • Reply 11 of 53
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 53


    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?

  • Reply 13 of 53


    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.

  • Reply 14 of 53
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member

    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.

  • Reply 15 of 53
    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...
  • Reply 16 of 53

    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.

  • Reply 17 of 53
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,233member
    Yes it's the power savings, meaning lighter battery's, particularly in the lower end devices. That's the big one.
  • Reply 18 of 53
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member

    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%.

  • Reply 19 of 53


    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. imageimage


     


    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.

  • Reply 20 of 53

    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 ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.