iPad Air Retina display has fewer backlights, costs more than Apple's previous models

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shadowxaf View Post





    From what I've read, LTPS is more expensive and more efficient than IGZO. The new Kindle is the first device to use LTPS with such a large display. The iPhones also use LTPS.



    Is there anything I stated incorrectly? If so, can you post a link to set me straight?

     

    http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/vision-breakthrough

     

    imo IGZO is better because of off position pixels. And IGZO could allow to play with refresh and only refresh part of the screen.

  • Reply 42 of 57
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    shadowxaf wrote: »
    From what I've read, LTPS is more expensive and more efficient than IGZO. The new Kindle is the first device to use LTPS with such a large display. The iPhones also use LTPS.

    Is there anything I stated incorrectly? If so, can you post a link to set me straight?

    Looks right to me, with the further info that herbapou's link provides.

    There are probably several reasons why IGZO is a better bet for Apple's larger-screen devices for the near future. One big one that doesn't affect Amazon's low-volume tablets is supply.

    Apple bet big on IGZO with a clear idea of what LTPS was, if it's true they've been using it for their phones.

    We need good reporting on this huge area of display technology in the worst way. No one at AI seems all that interested.
  • Reply 43 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

     

     

    http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/vision-breakthrough

     

    imo IGZO is better because of off position pixels. And IGZO could allow to play with refresh and only refresh part of the screen.


    What does this have to do with opinions? Either one uses lower power or it doesn't.  It's also possible that the Kindle uses a more efficient backlight, like they do on the 7" model.  The 7" Kindle has issues with a blue tint around the edges of the screen, though.

  • Reply 44 of 57
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    Exactly. ISupply supplies superficial and spurious summaries. No bueno from the gitgo, IGZO or no IGZO.

    Exactly wrong.  Anyone that sells a product calculates the "COGS" (cost of goods sold).  It is a line item on every pro forma.  The reason people track COGS is precisely because it removes the variable components (i.e., G&A). 

  • Reply 45 of 57
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    So far I don't see any reason to trust DisplayMate's confused self-promotion around its Kindle "findings."



    If Apple has switched to IGZO backplanes, why is Raymond Soliera the only one in the world to say so?

    I investigated.  Turns out I was wrong.  Apple didn't use LTPS in iPad 3&4.  The iPhone has LTPS displays, but the iPad doesn't because of cost.  LTPS displays are more efficient than IGZO, but cost more.  

  • Reply 46 of 57
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,891member
    Simple really, they have nothing to do with what is being referenced. As a manufacture you need to know exactly what it costs component wise to get each item out of the factory door. The costs you reference have nothing to do with that.

    Now that doesn't me and the cost of R&D and other business expenses don't get rolled into the final selling price. It just means that the quotes are about the cost to build and don't address your concerns at all.

    As a side note I suspect that the article is a bit on the bogus side. For example the cost of a SOC silicon from a foundry is directly related to die size. It was my understanding that the A7 die is rather large even after a process shrink. Due to this I don't think their silicon costs changed much. Further I'm suspecting that most of the quotes for these SOC have been on the low side. I'd suggest something a bit higher in the $20 to $30 range.
    akqies wrote: »
    Why do these claims of what it costs to build ever get any traction? There is absolutely no way they can know what research, development, investments, contacts and other aspects from start to finish that go into creating such a device. They can say the casing using less metal and therefore is cheaper but did they consider the way the casing is milled could be more complex? Did they mention the machinery used for chambering an edge properly over the previous generation iPad? What about the cost of IGZO which has been a long time coming? Did they mention any investments Apple may have done with display manufacturers to push this investment ahead? Why are these costs not rolled into the total cost for getting an iPad to market?
  • Reply 47 of 57
    Apple seems to WANT to loose their lead in tablets to Android. If they learned to make the iPad cheaper then why not drop the price to go with that. Hypothetically, if Apple had adopted market trends with the smartphone market like bigger screen, you think half the people would have bought a Galaxy? Android phones offered what iPhone could offer but Apple chose not to include it. And now they are doing the same with tablets. http://knowtifier.com/news/806/ipad-air-costs-274-to-build-making-it-cheaper-than-previous-ipads/
  • Reply 48 of 57
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    poddercast wrote: »
    Apple seems to WANT to loose their lead in tablets to Android. If they learned to make the iPad cheaper then why not drop the price to go with that. Hypothetically, if Apple had adopted market trends with the smartphone market like bigger screen, you think half the people would have bought a Galaxy? Android phones offered what iPhone could offer but Apple chose not to include it. And now they are doing the same with tablets. http://knowtifier.com/news/806/ipad-air-costs-274-to-build-making-it-cheaper-than-previous-ipads/

    You mean their lead in market share by units? Why is that more important than their profits and securing the high end market?
  • Reply 49 of 57
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,223member
    akqies wrote: »
    You mean their lead in market share by units? Why is that more important than their profits and securing the high end market?

    Well market share could become a problem if it drop so low it affect the ecosystem with less apps or less content. Still not the case but in the phone segment apple could do better to at least have different screen sizes. Have a lower cost option should be address with the 5c next year.
  • Reply 50 of 57
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,223member
    shadowxaf wrote: »
    What does this have to do with opinions? Either one uses lower power or it doesn't.  It's also possible that the Kindle uses a more efficient backlight, like they do on the 7" model.  The 7" Kindle has issues with a blue tint around the edges of the screen, though.

    Both have lower power consumption. But everthing is not always black and white, LTPS is better on active pixels, but IGZO is better with inactive ones. Lower leakage allows IGZO to have fewer refresh.

    Too bad Apple didnt laminated the ipad screen, then we would have a better looking screen, not just a lower power one. Next year probably. Next year update, laminated screen and touch id.
  • Reply 51 of 57
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    herbapou wrote: »
    Both have lower power consumption. But everthing is not always black and white, LTPS is better on active pixels, but IGZO is better with inactive ones. Lower leakage allows IGZO to have fewer refresh.

    Too bad Apple didnt laminated the ipad screen, then we would have a better looking screen, not just a lower power one. Next year probably. Next year update, laminated screen and touch id.

    Just suppose it was lamination of the DITO film that caused the shortage of iPad minis last year. Another such shortage would be a disaster with the new iPad.

    This is an example of the stuff we don't know because there's no reporting being done on display technology. It's a grave error to assume that Apple is slacking off on display quality when there are so many unknowns.
  • Reply 52 of 57
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,521member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Simple really, they have nothing to do with what is being referenced. As a manufacture you need to know exactly what it costs component wise to get each item out of the factory door. The costs you reference have nothing to do with that.

    Now that doesn't me and the cost of R&D and other business expenses don't get rolled into the final selling price. It just means that the quotes are about the cost to build and don't address your concerns at all.

    As a side note I suspect that the article is a bit on the bogus side. For example the cost of a SOC silicon from a foundry is directly related to die size. It was my understanding that the A7 die is rather large even after a process shrink. Due to this I don't think their silicon costs changed much. Further I'm suspecting that most of the quotes for these SOC have been on the low side. I'd suggest something a bit higher in the $20 to $30 range.

    The very next post from poddercast shows why these BOM exercises are so poisonous. Not even a shred of recognition is given to the cost of developing the technology behind the display, the processor, the battery. etc. Apple should just lower the price because the processor they spent millions developing and designing goes for 30 bucks from Samsung.
  • Reply 53 of 57
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,891member
    poddercast wrote: »
    Apple seems to WANT to loose their lead in tablets to Android. If they learned to make the iPad cheaper then why not drop the price to go with that.
    First; you make an assumption here that the article or report is honest or the result of credible research. Second; they are only reporting the cost to manufacture which people have repeatedly pointed out is only a small part of the equation.

    Hypothetically, if Apple had adopted market trends with the smartphone market like bigger screen, you think half the people would have bought a Galaxy?
    Actually the indications are that you are referencing a trend that has never really existed. Most people are highly resistant to excessively large phones because they have to go into a pocket sooner or later.
    Android phones offered what iPhone could offer but Apple chose not to include it. And now they are doing the same with tablets. http://knowtifier.com/news/806/ipad-air-costs-274-to-build-making-it-cheaper-than-previous-ipads/

    Baloney. The new iPads balance a few shortcomings with several technology leaps forward. On a whole Apple is still a year or more ahead of the competition.
  • Reply 54 of 57
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,891member
    flaneur wrote: »
    The very next post from poddercast shows why these BOM exercises are so poisonous. Not even a shred of recognition is given to the cost of developing the technology behind the display, the processor, the battery. etc. Apple should just lower the price because the processor they spent millions developing and designing goes for 30 bucks from Samsung.

    One thing I've learned, after decades in manufacturing, is that you can't fix stupid. It is pretty apparent that few people here have a grasp of what it takes to run a business. If you talk to a few business people you soon realize that the cost to produce the part is a very small factor in the selling price, in fact in many cases the cost to produce has almost zero impact on the final selling price. People seem to forget that businesses have a lot more expenses than just R&D.

    The big problem is you can't explain this to people with the mental capacity of a 10 year old. Or worst people with the attitude that all businesses are evil. Apples prices aren't perfect but the lack of solid competition should highlight what happens when a business doesn't invest in the product. Google is using Android for an advertising vehicle that other manufactures want to rid one while offering minimal investments in hardware and R&D, this is why so many Android devices suck so bad.
  • Reply 55 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post





    Both have lower power consumption. But everthing is not always black and white, LTPS is better on active pixels, but IGZO is better with inactive ones. Lower leakage allows IGZO to have fewer refresh.



    Too bad Apple didnt laminated the ipad screen, then we would have a better looking screen, not just a lower power one. Next year probably. Next year update, laminated screen and touch id.

    Yes, IGZO may use less power to align liquid crystals, but I would venture to guess that is fairly minor compared to the power needed for the backlight.

  • Reply 56 of 57

    so, the conclusion is we can buy ipad air?

Sign In or Register to comment.