Limited supply reportedly keeps AMOLED from Apple's next-gen iPad
Casting even more doubt on the prospect of an active-matrix organic LED display in Apple's anticipated second-generation iPad, a new report claims that limited component supplies have been a "major reason" for Apple to overlook the technology.
In an editorial posted Friday by Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes, Rebecca Kuo said that component makers in Taiwan and China are attempting to catch up with Korea, which is the leader in AMOLED displays. Though suppliers are increasing their production, she said it still isn't enough for Apple.
"With backlight unit (BLU) makers set to be suppliers for the second generation of iPad, AMOLED will still be unable to enter Apple's supply chain," she said. "Panel makers have noted that a major reason for Apple to overlook AMOLED for iPads is insufficient supplies."
Korea-based Samsung Mobile Display currently creates AMOLED panels between 2 inches and 4.2 inches, but its capacity is allegedly not enough to meet demand for the Samsung Galaxy S, Google Nexus S, or other phones from Nokia and HTC.
"Moreover, the current AMOLED technology is not suitable for volume production of 7- to 11-inch tablet PC panels, and the mass production cost will not be able to compete with TFT-LCD panels," Kuo wrote.
The details come just after the same publication claimed that an LCD backlight supplier has been selected for Apple's second-generation iPad expected to debut in the first quarter of 2011. DigiTimes has claimed that Apple experimented with an AMOLED display for the iPhone, but ultimately rejected the hardware because it was less suitable for displaying text, and because of display issues.
Rumors of an iPad with an AMOLED display, mostly perpetuated by DigiTimes itself, were repeated for months. The site also incorrectly reported in Nov. 2009 that Apple's not-yet-announced iPad would have an OLED display that would cost about $2,000 at retail.
In an editorial posted Friday by Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes, Rebecca Kuo said that component makers in Taiwan and China are attempting to catch up with Korea, which is the leader in AMOLED displays. Though suppliers are increasing their production, she said it still isn't enough for Apple.
"With backlight unit (BLU) makers set to be suppliers for the second generation of iPad, AMOLED will still be unable to enter Apple's supply chain," she said. "Panel makers have noted that a major reason for Apple to overlook AMOLED for iPads is insufficient supplies."
Korea-based Samsung Mobile Display currently creates AMOLED panels between 2 inches and 4.2 inches, but its capacity is allegedly not enough to meet demand for the Samsung Galaxy S, Google Nexus S, or other phones from Nokia and HTC.
"Moreover, the current AMOLED technology is not suitable for volume production of 7- to 11-inch tablet PC panels, and the mass production cost will not be able to compete with TFT-LCD panels," Kuo wrote.
The details come just after the same publication claimed that an LCD backlight supplier has been selected for Apple's second-generation iPad expected to debut in the first quarter of 2011. DigiTimes has claimed that Apple experimented with an AMOLED display for the iPhone, but ultimately rejected the hardware because it was less suitable for displaying text, and because of display issues.
Rumors of an iPad with an AMOLED display, mostly perpetuated by DigiTimes itself, were repeated for months. The site also incorrectly reported in Nov. 2009 that Apple's not-yet-announced iPad would have an OLED display that would cost about $2,000 at retail.
Comments
Hooray for a statement about a rumor that was never going to happen in the first place!
Indeed. What a waste of space this article is. The article it's based on is obviously just a puff-piece in itself.
Why would Apple even be considering using AMOLED displays, in what is arguably it's flagship product, when they've spent the last few years telling everyone what sh*t the technology is and when they are currently using top of the line IPS panels in *all* their products? The panels they are using now are demonstrably cheaper, brighter, more readable, and have more accurate colour than AMOLED.
Hooray for a statement about a rumor that was never going to happen in the first place!
In other news, Apple decides to pass on Android as the OS on the next-gen iPad!
Hooray for a statement about a rumor that was never going to happen in the first place!
Seriously! These rumours should all blame it on the Verizon iPhone just to round everything out.
Verizon iPhone is limiting supply of AMOLED for Apple's next-gen iPad
Makes just as much sense as this article’s rumour.
Anybody have a good, recent link re active-matrix organic LEDs? I've seen some, but years ago. I'd like to see what the state-of-the-art is, and why (or if?) it's actually desirable to put one in an iPad (someday).
I've seen and used some in some recent devices and all in all I really cannot understand why the product is so successful. They're improving is the kindest thing I can say. I would rather the money went to other cool toys inside the device for the time being, but then again, it is this sort of market interest in a product which allows it to evolve.
Anybody have a good, recent link re active-matrix organic LEDs? I've seen some, but years ago. I'd like to see what the state-of-the-art is, and why (or if?) it's actually desirable to put one in an iPad (someday).
As Xian Zhu Xuande states, they are improving. I think they are used to separate themselves from the iPhone and because it’s a more marketable term, despite it’s total capabilities. There is plenty of info if you do a search, but no single site is likely to address all your questions. Here is a very recent article from AnandTech that tests and compares the Nexus S and it’s Super AMOLED display against other smartphones.Outside of appearance, there are concerns about longevity, outside viewing, power usage when not showing blacks, supply constraints (which alone could make it a no go if the rumours are true), and cost for that size device.
I can’t imagine Apple choose a 10” IPS display without thinking about the longterm. On top of that, the one area where the iPad can be faulted is outside viewing when compared to eInk — as Amazon’s brilliant Kindle ads detail — so I can’t imagine Apple would take a step backwards with viewing in sunlight.
PS: I still hope Apple invests in AMOLED panels for their Mac trackpads.
Or is there?
Apple is known for making last minute manufacturing decisions to respond to changing market dynamics.
http://www.gsmarena.com/display_shootout-review-541.php
I have a Samsung Wave which has a Super AMOLED display. Those who have not lived with a screen of this calibre for some time are simply fooling themselves if they think anything else is as good.
The Wave screen is actually slightly better than the Galaxy S because it has the same resolution but since the screen is smaller - 84mm vs 100mm - the pixel pitch is smaller making it appear slightly sharper. I am surprised the article did not pick up on this.
What you said!
I do wish that ApoleIncider would add those "like/dislike" badges to their posts. OTOH they're probably afraid of what they might see. It's articles like the above that would generate lots of dislikes and very few likes. If they paid attention, perhaps there would be a shift in what actually gets posted.
Just tell me the next iPad will have a retina display and i'll be happy.
Sure: The next iPad will have a retina display. Happy?
So now that we have that out of the way, how do you define Retina Display? It could mean many things. The top definitions are:
- PPI that is ≥ the iPhone 4?s 326 PPI?
- PPI that that is ≥ what is needed for the 1 arcmin for the typical eyesight (i.e.: 20/20 vision) for a stated typical viewing distance?
- 4x the number the of pixels (aka doubling the resolution, like with the 3GS to the iPhone 4)? (Note: this would give the iPad 262 PPI).
The point is, this marketing term needs to be qualified.Regarding the colour my subjective view is that AMOLEDS are overly bright, like a TV with the colour turned too high, the reds especially seem to bleed into the surrounding background.
I prefer the iPhone 4 screen the colour seems more natural and text is definitely sharper.
There is no accounting for taste, flouro velvet Elvis pictures were once quite popular, I'd imagine that AMOLED screens would look good to the same type of people.
The point is, this marketing term needs to be qualified.
But people don't care, they just want a Retina display and they define it as both a ppi > 300 (or alternatively 326) and 4x doubling of the existing resolution (or rather they want perfect app compatibility) and no change in the physical size of the iPad. And if you tell them this is not possible, they will answer you that if Apple really wants it, they can do it.
(It is called 'irrationalism' or 'anti-intellectualism', to not let facts and logic get into the way of what feels right.)
Indeed. What a waste of space this article is. The article it's based on is obviously just a puff-piece in itself.
Why would Apple even be considering using AMOLED displays, in what is arguably it's flagship product, when they've spent the last few years telling everyone what sh*t the technology is and when they are currently using top of the line IPS panels in *all* their products? The panels they are using now are demonstrably cheaper, brighter, more readable, and have more accurate colour than AMOLED.
The iPod Touch does not have IPS,
...they are currently using top of the line IPS panels in *all* their products?
Not the MacBook family, that's for DARN sure.
Sure: The next iPad will have a retina display. Happy?
So now that we have that out of the way, how do you define Retina Display? It could mean many things. The top definitions are:
- PPI that is ≥ the iPhone 4?s 326 PPI?
- PPI that that is ≥ what is needed for the 1 arcmin for the typical eyesight (i.e.: 20/20 vision) for a stated typical viewing distance?
- 4x the number the of pixels (aka doubling the resolution, like with the 3GS to the iPhone 4)? (Note: this would give the iPad 262 PPI).
The point is, this marketing term needs to be qualified.Marketing it is. In any event doubling the linear resolution for 4x the number of pixels does it for me. That is still a huge problem on the hardware front though but hopefully that is what Apple is paying all thoose hardware engineers for.
Marketing it is. In any event doubling the linear resolution for 4x the number of pixels does it for me. That is still a huge problem on the hardware front though but hopefully that is what Apple is paying all thoose hardware engineers for.
Note that doubling the resolution (4x the pixels) would likely make it qualify for ?Retina Display? status for 1 arcmin if we assume the iPad is held farther away from the eyes as a phone for normal use. (I?m not going to do the math, but I encourage others to prove me right or wrong
I think 4x as many pixels would be pretty tough on the GPU, perhaps to the point of killing the framerates of games and killing the battery way too quickly. Maybe in a couple years, but nothing from Imagination ? which I assume Apple will keep using since they are vested in them ? seems to show a dramatic improvement to make this happen.
On top of that, if they can?t produce enough of the current 1024x768 IPS displays, it seems unlikely they could produce enough 2048x1536 IPS displays. Maybe in a couple years.
BTW, staying with the current resolution is not my wish. I do hope I?m wrong and we get a super high resolution without any perceived drawbacks, I just don?t think it?s likely. Apple could do a fractional resolution increase with minimal affect on devs with an SDK update, but they didn?t with the iPhone which still had the original resolution for three full years so precedence needs to be considered.
But people don't care, they just want a Retina display and they define it as both a ppi > 300 (or alternatively 326) and 4x doubling of the existing resolution (or rather they want perfect app compatibility) and no change in the physical size of the iPad.
Not everyone has the technical expertise to quantify exactly what they want. It is better to accept that they simplly want a better display and use the term "Retina" to express that.
And if you tell them this is not possible, they will answer you that if Apple really wants it, they can do it.
Let's be clear on one thing if you tell them it isn't possible the you are obviously out of touch with the technology going into current devices. For example hitting greater than 300 pixels per inch in mass production screens is now possible, iPhone 4 proves that. So it is now nothing more than a scaling up effort for a ten inch screen. Since that ten inch screen will most rationally only be scaled by 2X you don't even need 300 ppi. So the physical screen is not an issue.
Then you have the issue of the A4 and it's suitability to drive such a screen. Simply put it isn't suitable simply due to the performance hit. However again we have this craft called engineering which builds solutions to problems. Apple is known to be actively working on an A4 replacement directed at the tablet devices combine that reality with the fact that better IP is available from both ARM and Imagination and support from the SoC side is not impossible.
The problem I have with your position is that it seems to imply it is impossible to build on the past. This flies in the face of what the computer industry has done iver it's long history.
(It is called 'irrationalism' or 'anti-intellectualism', to not let facts and logic get into the way of what feels right.)
So what do they call what you have done here? Seriously you present a pseudo intellectual arguement that ignores history and fact. Little facts like the GPU in A4s SoC not being Imaginations bleeding edge or the fact that Apple purchased whole companies just to have the IP to produce the SoCs they will need to have for their mobile devices. On top of that you have no evidence at all that it is impossible to produce a ten inch LCD at around 260 ppi.
I really don't know what Apple is up to with iPad 2 but I do know that saying something is impossible when all of the components to do so are only a rev away doesn't fly.