So is this a real concern for Samsung Securities or a weak attempt to get people's not to buy the 10" iPad in hopes of a 7" model coming soon?
More likely a leak designed to drum up free publicity for their display tech by claiming that Apple's interested in it (whether or not it is true). If it was leaked by an independent investment bank, that would be one thing, but this was leaked by Samsung Securities. The fact that we're talking about this means the purpose of the leak (gain in mindshare for Samsung's display business) has been achieved.
They were made for todays iPad resolution. The smaller one could use that same resolution.
You still need an adapted UI and SDK for this new size. Remember the area is 1/2 the 9.7" iPad every onscreen item will take up 1/2 the space.
For example, The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
edit: iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
edit2: Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
Apple and Samsung are strange bedfellows. Samsung is a supplier and a competitor simultaneously. This just has to weigh on Tim Cook's and the Apple Board's minds. The potential for industrial espionage could be too tempting for Samsung to ignore. I mean just look at what Samsung is offering. A little too close to be independent development in my opinion.
Very much agree on this valid post , why the heck would you come up with an idea and ask your most fierce competitor to make those parts for a device that they can copy off. Maybe apple buy samsung LCD and run it themselves ? or invest in setting up the tech from another source. These rumors are great for foaming at the mouth techies but are really bad from apples point of view when trying to keep ahead of the copy brigade.
I agree that Apple should expand its product range but I think they should do it because it will benefit their bottom line and help sustain growth rates. But I don't think that Apple is arrogant because they choose not to cater to every possible person with their product offerings. Clearly they are successful because of their strict focus. This is actually harder to do than throwing everything you can think of at the world and hoping for something to stick.
Now I can see a 5-8" iPod Touch. I can see Apple having component supply issues which could lead to lost sales and possibly diseconomy of scale with trying to obtain 80-120 million iPad 3 2048x1536 displays in 2012. To me this leaves a good opportunity to relieve pressure by offering an additional size device that will still be profitable and will better balance out supply and demand.
Along with pre-empting competition, your last paragraph is the best rational (I've heard) for offering a smaller iPad device -- i believe that the iPod is what it is and should not be expanded into a larger model.
Very much agree on this valid post , why the heck would you come up with an idea and ask your most fierce competitor to make those parts for a device that they can copy off. Maybe apple buy samsung LCD and run it themselves ? or invest in setting up the tech from another source. These rumors are great for foaming at the mouth techies but are really bad from apples point of view when trying to keep ahead of the copy brigade.
I don't see Apple using LCD's in their iPhone or iPad lines beyond this year. If that part turns out to be correct they don't appear to have any option other than dealing with Samsung in some way for the next few years IMO, even if indirectly.
I don't see Apple using LCD's in their iPhone or iPad lines beyond this year. If that part turns out to be correct they don't appear to have any option other than dealing with Samsung in some way for the next few years IMO, even if indirectly.
Why do you think LCD will be dropped? I see nothing that suggests this in any way. Better colour recreation. Longer lasting panels. Better battery life for pages that aren't significantly black in colour. Heavy investments into IPS tech.
The only way I see Apple using AMOLED is if they create a trackpad that has some visual output because it can show a deep, attractive, and power-free black more of the time. Examples: Calculator app on the primary display with virtual number pad on the trackpad because using the mouse pointer or the top rows is slow and cumbersome). Having Mission Control images at top of trackpad at all times so you can tap the fullscreen app/desktop once to switch apps is faster than doing a three-finger sweep up and then using the mouse+click to switch apps.
Maybe it's the screen for the next iPhone as that enormous Galaxy phone was so good and well received that Apple decided to copy and make it a bit bigger.
A leaked document from Samsung's investment bank has revealed that the firm believes Apple is planning to release a 7-inch "iPad mini" [...]
Or Apple could have suckered them into revealing a source of leaks. Some Apple employee and/or Samsung employee might be leaking component pipeline info to the press and blogs. Apple doesn't like leakers. They've fired leakers in the past, and probably will continue to do so. Seeding different false information to different untrustworthy employees is an easy way to find the leaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Chang added that Sharp is "trying to produce" IGZO LCD panels for the iPad at its 8G lab, but may not have been successful in mass producing the screens in time for the so-called "iPad 3," [...]
IGZO LCD panels could be used in any Apple product that has a screen. iPod nano to iPhone to iMac Retina displays to Apple television set. And don't forget that Sharp and Apple are also working together on an advanced OLED manufacturing process. Lower cost, higher yield, higher quality:
The analyst went on to note that Apple "may yet decide" to incorporate flexible panels into future iPad models [...]
Why, exactly, would we need a flexible screen in an iPad? Let me count the reasons why we don't:
1. iPad is mostly battery. Without flexible (or micro-sized) batteries, a flexible screen is useless.
2. A flexible screen would need to be plastic. Plastic scratches easily. Hence glass iPad screens.
3. A rigid screen is easier to tap on and to perform multi-touch gestures on. A non-moving target.
Looking a decade or more into the future, flexible screens might be more practical, as batteries become smaller. Batteries might nearly disappear if solar cells become more efficient and cheaper, and if electronics become more efficient. But ten years from now, Siri and possible imitators might eliminate the need for displaying data in many apps. Apps that give a quick answer like "what temperature it it at AppleInsider headquarters?" Or "How do I get to the nearest Apple store?" Many other apps on small-screen devices might be replaced by voice-output apps.
And big-screen devices won't really need flexible screens either. Will you need to be able to bend the 100" TV hanging on your wall? Nope. How about bending that 30" iMac screen on your desk? Why would you want to do that? Bend your 5mm-thin 13" MacBook Air's screen? Not necessary.
Flexibility would give a huge advantage over glass in shatter-resistance. But bending screens is only interesting in demos at trade shows.
I agree that Apple should expand its product range but I think they should do it because it will benefit their bottom line and help sustain growth rates. But I don't think that Apple is arrogant because they choose not to cater to every possible person with their product offerings. Clearly they are successful because of their strict focus. This is actually harder to do than throwing everything you can think of at the world and hoping for something to stick.
Now I can see a 5-8" iPod Touch. I can see Apple having component supply issues which could lead to lost sales and possibly diseconomy of scale with trying to obtain 80-120 million iPad 3 2048x1536 displays in 2012. To me this leaves a good opportunity to relieve pressure by offering an additional size device that will still be profitable and will better balance out supply and demand.
I totally agree. Limitation is essential. Apple's combination of limiting product range, obviously finding the few right products, and of course user experience is absolutely essential. But, arguably, it may be just as important that they are possibly the best company in the world on logistics, and I believe that now is the time to go for a choice in the 7 inch segment as there may be issues related to supply hi res 10 inch displays in the volumes demanded by the marked.
They may know how to make flexible screens but judging from the horrible yellow cast on the original photo, they certainly don't understand white balance on their camera. Mixed light sources is a bitch but it only takes a couple minutes to fix in Photoshop. Feel free to use this one if you like.
Why do you think LCD will be dropped? I see nothing that suggests this in any way. Better colour recreation. Longer lasting panels. Better battery life for pages that aren't significantly black in colour. Heavy investments into IPS tech.
The only way I see Apple using AMOLED is if they create a trackpad that has some visual output because it can show a deep, attractive, and power-free black more of the time. Examples: Calculator app on the primary display with virtual number pad on the trackpad because using the mouse pointer or the top rows is slow and cumbersome). Having Mission Control images at top of trackpad at all times so you can tap the fullscreen app/desktop once to switch apps is faster than doing a three-finger sweep up and then using the mouse+click to switch apps.
Lower power requirements (yes, IGZO displays can be OLED too), thinner profile for thinner devices, more vibrant color rendition and noticeably improved blacks, better contrast on high-def devices which means easier on the eyes, less prone to breakage than LCD, lower projected display costs than LCD going forward. . .
Lower power requirements (yes, IGZO displays can be OLED too), thinner profile for thinner devices, more vibrant color rendition and noticeably better blacks (nicer contrast on high-def devices), less prone to breakage than LCD, lower projected display costs than LCD going forward. . .
and flexibility
1) I don't care about "infinitely" better blacks when the LCDs Apple uses have great blacks. Could they be better, sure, but we're at a point when we're measuring a technical superiority to a real world difference. AMOLED blacks are the Monster Cables of the display world. This represents the difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for black. You can't beat AMOLED but it's more than good enough with all things considered.
2) Better contrast is great but not at the expense of better color reproduction and other image quality factors.
3) I'm not aware of LCD breakage but I am aware longevity issues with AMOLED. iPhones have a long life which helps their resale value which lowers TCO and allows many to get a new model every year. If they move to AMOLED and the blue is shot when they try to sell it that isn't a good thing.
4) Thinness is certainly an issue for Apple but I don't think this one pro is worth the other cons.
5) I don't see lower costs. You're talking about switching all their investments to a new display tech. Where are the tablets with AMOLED?
6) Another issue for Apple is power management. They would have to revamp the entire UI yet they are trying to make iDevices and now Macs as simple as possible for people to cross from one to the other. It's in their DNA.
7) There are plenty of non-Apple smartphones using LCDs. Typically in the larger devices unless it's a PenTile display which isn't a good thing except for power usage.
2. A flexible screen would need to be plastic. Plastic scratches easily. Hence glass iPad screens.
3. A rigid screen is easier to tap on and to perform multi-touch gestures on. A non-moving target.
It still might be glass. Corning started development of flexible glass awhile back, with one of the specified uses being flexible displays in mobile devices.
1) I don't care about "infinitely" better blacks when the LCDs Apple uses have great blacks. Could they be better, sure, but we're at a point when we're measuring a technical superiority to a real world difference. AMOLED blacks are the Monster Cables of the display world. This represents the difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for black. You can't beat AMOLED but it's more than good enough with all things considered.
2) Better contrast is great but not at the expense of better color reproduction and other image quality factors.
3) I'm not aware of LCD breakage but I am aware longevity issues with AMOLED. iPhones have a long life which helps their resale value which lowers TCO and allows many to get a new model every year. If they move to AMOLED and the blue is shot when they try to sell it that isn't a good thing.
4) Thinness is certainly an issue for Apple but I don't think this one pro is worth the other cons.
5) I don't see lower costs. You're talking about switching all their investments to a new display tech. Where are the tablets with AMOLED?
6) Another issue for Apple is power management. They would have to revamp the entire UI yet they are trying to make iDevices and now Macs as simple as possible for people to cross from one to the other. It's in their DNA.
7) There are plenty of non-Apple smartphones using LCDs. Typically in the larger devices unless it's a PenTile display which isn't a good thing except for power usage.
Then I suppose we'll just have to wait until 2013 to see who is right. Bookmark this one so we can be reminded.
BTW, there is a "real world difference" in the blacks. As for color accuracy, that's in the eyes of the (be)holder and more of a proper Monster Cable example. Working with color and customers every day, most don't care if the color they're seeing is technically accurate". If it doesn't look like it to them, then it isn't no matter what the profile says.
They may know how to make flexible screens but judging from the horrible yellow cast on the original photo, they certainly don't understand white balance on their camera. Mixed light sources is a bitch but it only takes a couple minutes to fix in Photoshop. Feel free to use this one if you like.
It's not quite properly fixed like that, but I like it better than if it had actually been taken well. It's reminiscent of photos from the 70s, and that's sort of neat.
It sort of makes me want to purposely take pictures of modern tech that look like they're from the 70s. Even get people to dress appropriately and just be causally using said anachronistic tech…
As for color accuracy, that's in the eyes of the (be)holder and more of a proper Monster Cable example. Working with color and customers every day, most don't care if the color they're seeing is technically accurate". If it doesn't look like it to them, then it isn't no matter what the profile says.
High contrast AMOLED displays on Android phones are the new Pepsi Challenge. Just as people preferred the sweetness of Pepsi in taste tests when only drinking a small amount people will say they prefer high contrast images when only given a small amount.
Full disclosure: I just made all that up but it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
There is a market for a smaller tablet, that much is obvious.
Is that actually true, though? There appears to be at least somewhat of a market for cheap tablets, and for that 7" is simply a means to an end to keep production costs down. As far as there being any real enthusiasm for 7" specifically regardless of cost, I don't see that. Even at cut rate prices the 7" tablets haven't sold very well compared to the iPad.
Quote:
Competitors would have stopped producing 7" variants by now...
Well, that certainly isn't true. Samsung et al make all kinds of modestly selling stuff that remains on the market for a while before being supplanted by the next gimmick. It's a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy that's completely different from what Apple does.
Quote:
if that wasn't the case, I also hear a lot of people asking for smaller tablets and now there's a trend for bigger phones and hybrids too
I hear a lot of people asking for iPads. Numbers bear me out. And the "trend" is more of that throwing stuff at the wall thing, with something like the Galaxy Note approaching absurdity. I doubt Samsung will sell many of those and there's no reason on earth for Apple to waste its time with this kind of nonsense.
Quote:
People have different needs. Apple doesn't and will not cater to all of those needs but they will cater to some of them (the largest market they possibly can with a very small portfolio of products).
Apple will make the products that deliver the best user experience as they see it. They've never been about chasing after market share via product proliferation. If Apple thinks there's a good user experience to be had at 7", they'll do something about it. But they won't be remotely swayed by bogus claims of "what they must do", any more than they felt they needed to make a netbook or an xMac-- despite the many and fervent claims that Apple would be obliged to respond to competition in those markets or risk being left behind. Seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
I hear a lot of people asking for iPads. Numbers bear me out. And the "trend" is more of that throwing stuff at the wall thing, with something like the Galaxy Note approaching absurdity. I doubt Samsung will sell many of those and there's no reason on earth for Apple to waste its time with this kind of nonsense.
The word is the Note is actually selling quite well for all its absurdity.
Comments
So is this a real concern for Samsung Securities or a weak attempt to get people's not to buy the 10" iPad in hopes of a 7" model coming soon?
More likely a leak designed to drum up free publicity for their display tech by claiming that Apple's interested in it (whether or not it is true). If it was leaked by an independent investment bank, that would be one thing, but this was leaked by Samsung Securities. The fact that we're talking about this means the purpose of the leak (gain in mindshare for Samsung's display business) has been achieved.
They were made for todays iPad resolution. The smaller one could use that same resolution.
You still need an adapted UI and SDK for this new size. Remember the area is 1/2 the 9.7" iPad every onscreen item will take up 1/2 the space.
For example, The iPad icons are larger in both size and pixels and have more space between them. I'd say the icons would be too small if everything was simply adjusted down without concern for usability as we've seen with vendors using Android. They might even be smaller than on the iPhone but with more space between them (I'll have to run the numbers). This means that they would need to adjust the spacing to idealize the contents for the primary I/O and form factor.
edit: iPhone app icons are 57x57 px and 114x114 px. iPad apps icons are 72x72 px. That means iPhone icons are 0.34"x0.34" and iPad icons are 0.55"x0.55" in size. To shrink the iPad down to 7" with the 1024x768 display you get 0.39"x0.39" icons. That's actually doable being that close to the iPhone icon sizes yet being 4x the display area and having all that extra space between icons is not how Apple would release a UI. It will be idealized or I'll short the company.
edit2: Taking the 960x640 resolution of the iPod Touch and making that 7" reduces the PPI back to what it was on the original iPod at 480x320 which really isn't a bad thing in a tablet because you do hold it farther from your face, especially when you consider that such a move would be to capture the lower-end of the market. It would be 165 PPI which would make the icons 0.44"x0.44" which is right between what they are on the iPod Touch and iPad. That actually make this sounds reasonable as many aspects of the UI would fall in-line unlike doing a shrink of the iPad UI making it easier for Apple and devs. BTW, the Kindle Fire and Nook Color displays are 169 PPI.
Here's the problem: Steve Jobs is dead. He's no longer with us. Tim Cook is the CEO and he makes decisions which may not be what Steve Jobs wanted.
In my opinion, Tim would be best off if he never asks himself "What would Steve have done?"
Apple and Samsung are strange bedfellows. Samsung is a supplier and a competitor simultaneously. This just has to weigh on Tim Cook's and the Apple Board's minds. The potential for industrial espionage could be too tempting for Samsung to ignore. I mean just look at what Samsung is offering. A little too close to be independent development in my opinion.
Very much agree on this valid post , why the heck would you come up with an idea and ask your most fierce competitor to make those parts for a device that they can copy off. Maybe apple buy samsung LCD and run it themselves ? or invest in setting up the tech from another source. These rumors are great for foaming at the mouth techies but are really bad from apples point of view when trying to keep ahead of the copy brigade.
I agree that Apple should expand its product range but I think they should do it because it will benefit their bottom line and help sustain growth rates. But I don't think that Apple is arrogant because they choose not to cater to every possible person with their product offerings. Clearly they are successful because of their strict focus. This is actually harder to do than throwing everything you can think of at the world and hoping for something to stick.
Now I can see a 5-8" iPod Touch. I can see Apple having component supply issues which could lead to lost sales and possibly diseconomy of scale with trying to obtain 80-120 million iPad 3 2048x1536 displays in 2012. To me this leaves a good opportunity to relieve pressure by offering an additional size device that will still be profitable and will better balance out supply and demand.
Along with pre-empting competition, your last paragraph is the best rational (I've heard) for offering a smaller iPad device -- i believe that the iPod is what it is and should not be expanded into a larger model.
Very much agree on this valid post , why the heck would you come up with an idea and ask your most fierce competitor to make those parts for a device that they can copy off. Maybe apple buy samsung LCD and run it themselves ? or invest in setting up the tech from another source. These rumors are great for foaming at the mouth techies but are really bad from apples point of view when trying to keep ahead of the copy brigade.
I don't see Apple using LCD's in their iPhone or iPad lines beyond this year. If that part turns out to be correct they don't appear to have any option other than dealing with Samsung in some way for the next few years IMO, even if indirectly.
I don't see Apple using LCD's in their iPhone or iPad lines beyond this year. If that part turns out to be correct they don't appear to have any option other than dealing with Samsung in some way for the next few years IMO, even if indirectly.
Why do you think LCD will be dropped? I see nothing that suggests this in any way. Better colour recreation. Longer lasting panels. Better battery life for pages that aren't significantly black in colour. Heavy investments into IPS tech.
The only way I see Apple using AMOLED is if they create a trackpad that has some visual output because it can show a deep, attractive, and power-free black more of the time. Examples: Calculator app on the primary display with virtual number pad on the trackpad because using the mouse pointer or the top rows is slow and cumbersome). Having Mission Control images at top of trackpad at all times so you can tap the fullscreen app/desktop once to switch apps is faster than doing a three-finger sweep up and then using the mouse+click to switch apps.
A leaked document from Samsung's investment bank has revealed that the firm believes Apple is planning to release a 7-inch "iPad mini" [...]
Or Apple could have suckered them into revealing a source of leaks. Some Apple employee and/or Samsung employee might be leaking component pipeline info to the press and blogs. Apple doesn't like leakers. They've fired leakers in the past, and probably will continue to do so. Seeding different false information to different untrustworthy employees is an easy way to find the leaker.
Chang added that Sharp is "trying to produce" IGZO LCD panels for the iPad at its 8G lab, but may not have been successful in mass producing the screens in time for the so-called "iPad 3," [...]
IGZO LCD panels could be used in any Apple product that has a screen. iPod nano to iPhone to iMac Retina displays to Apple television set. And don't forget that Sharp and Apple are also working together on an advanced OLED manufacturing process. Lower cost, higher yield, higher quality:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...hone_ipad.html
The analyst went on to note that Apple "may yet decide" to incorporate flexible panels into future iPad models [...]
Why, exactly, would we need a flexible screen in an iPad? Let me count the reasons why we don't:
1. iPad is mostly battery. Without flexible (or micro-sized) batteries, a flexible screen is useless.
2. A flexible screen would need to be plastic. Plastic scratches easily. Hence glass iPad screens.
3. A rigid screen is easier to tap on and to perform multi-touch gestures on. A non-moving target.
Looking a decade or more into the future, flexible screens might be more practical, as batteries become smaller. Batteries might nearly disappear if solar cells become more efficient and cheaper, and if electronics become more efficient. But ten years from now, Siri and possible imitators might eliminate the need for displaying data in many apps. Apps that give a quick answer like "what temperature it it at AppleInsider headquarters?" Or "How do I get to the nearest Apple store?" Many other apps on small-screen devices might be replaced by voice-output apps.
And big-screen devices won't really need flexible screens either. Will you need to be able to bend the 100" TV hanging on your wall? Nope. How about bending that 30" iMac screen on your desk? Why would you want to do that? Bend your 5mm-thin 13" MacBook Air's screen? Not necessary.
Flexibility would give a huge advantage over glass in shatter-resistance. But bending screens is only interesting in demos at trade shows.
I agree that Apple should expand its product range but I think they should do it because it will benefit their bottom line and help sustain growth rates. But I don't think that Apple is arrogant because they choose not to cater to every possible person with their product offerings. Clearly they are successful because of their strict focus. This is actually harder to do than throwing everything you can think of at the world and hoping for something to stick.
Now I can see a 5-8" iPod Touch. I can see Apple having component supply issues which could lead to lost sales and possibly diseconomy of scale with trying to obtain 80-120 million iPad 3 2048x1536 displays in 2012. To me this leaves a good opportunity to relieve pressure by offering an additional size device that will still be profitable and will better balance out supply and demand.
I totally agree. Limitation is essential. Apple's combination of limiting product range, obviously finding the few right products, and of course user experience is absolutely essential. But, arguably, it may be just as important that they are possibly the best company in the world on logistics, and I believe that now is the time to go for a choice in the 7 inch segment as there may be issues related to supply hi res 10 inch displays in the volumes demanded by the marked.
Why do you think LCD will be dropped? I see nothing that suggests this in any way. Better colour recreation. Longer lasting panels. Better battery life for pages that aren't significantly black in colour. Heavy investments into IPS tech.
The only way I see Apple using AMOLED is if they create a trackpad that has some visual output because it can show a deep, attractive, and power-free black more of the time. Examples: Calculator app on the primary display with virtual number pad on the trackpad because using the mouse pointer or the top rows is slow and cumbersome). Having Mission Control images at top of trackpad at all times so you can tap the fullscreen app/desktop once to switch apps is faster than doing a three-finger sweep up and then using the mouse+click to switch apps.
Lower power requirements (yes, IGZO displays can be OLED too), thinner profile for thinner devices, more vibrant color rendition and noticeably improved blacks, better contrast on high-def devices which means easier on the eyes, less prone to breakage than LCD, lower projected display costs than LCD going forward. . .
and flexibility
Lower power requirements (yes, IGZO displays can be OLED too), thinner profile for thinner devices, more vibrant color rendition and noticeably better blacks (nicer contrast on high-def devices), less prone to breakage than LCD, lower projected display costs than LCD going forward. . .
and flexibility
1) I don't care about "infinitely" better blacks when the LCDs Apple uses have great blacks. Could they be better, sure, but we're at a point when we're measuring a technical superiority to a real world difference. AMOLED blacks are the Monster Cables of the display world.
3) I'm not aware of LCD breakage but I am aware longevity issues with AMOLED. iPhones have a long life which helps their resale value which lowers TCO and allows many to get a new model every year. If they move to AMOLED and the blue is shot when they try to sell it that isn't a good thing.
4) Thinness is certainly an issue for Apple but I don't think this one pro is worth the other cons.
5) I don't see lower costs. You're talking about switching all their investments to a new display tech. Where are the tablets with AMOLED?
6) Another issue for Apple is power management. They would have to revamp the entire UI yet they are trying to make iDevices and now Macs as simple as possible for people to cross from one to the other. It's in their DNA.
7) There are plenty of non-Apple smartphones using LCDs. Typically in the larger devices unless it's a PenTile display which isn't a good thing except for power usage.
2. A flexible screen would need to be plastic. Plastic scratches easily. Hence glass iPad screens.
3. A rigid screen is easier to tap on and to perform multi-touch gestures on. A non-moving target.
It still might be glass. Corning started development of flexible glass awhile back, with one of the specified uses being flexible displays in mobile devices.
http://www.corning.com/displaytechno.../flexible.aspx
1) I don't care about "infinitely" better blacks when the LCDs Apple uses have great blacks. Could they be better, sure, but we're at a point when we're measuring a technical superiority to a real world difference. AMOLED blacks are the Monster Cables of the display world.
3) I'm not aware of LCD breakage but I am aware longevity issues with AMOLED. iPhones have a long life which helps their resale value which lowers TCO and allows many to get a new model every year. If they move to AMOLED and the blue is shot when they try to sell it that isn't a good thing.
4) Thinness is certainly an issue for Apple but I don't think this one pro is worth the other cons.
5) I don't see lower costs. You're talking about switching all their investments to a new display tech. Where are the tablets with AMOLED?
6) Another issue for Apple is power management. They would have to revamp the entire UI yet they are trying to make iDevices and now Macs as simple as possible for people to cross from one to the other. It's in their DNA.
7) There are plenty of non-Apple smartphones using LCDs. Typically in the larger devices unless it's a PenTile display which isn't a good thing except for power usage.
Then I suppose we'll just have to wait until 2013 to see who is right. Bookmark this one so we can be reminded.
BTW, there is a "real world difference" in the blacks. As for color accuracy, that's in the eyes of the (be)holder and more of a proper Monster Cable example. Working with color and customers every day, most don't care if the color they're seeing is technically accurate". If it doesn't look like it to them, then it isn't no matter what the profile says.
They may know how to make flexible screens but judging from the horrible yellow cast on the original photo, they certainly don't understand white balance on their camera. Mixed light sources is a bitch but it only takes a couple minutes to fix in Photoshop. Feel free to use this one if you like.
It's not quite properly fixed like that, but I like it better than if it had actually been taken well. It's reminiscent of photos from the 70s, and that's sort of neat.
It sort of makes me want to purposely take pictures of modern tech that look like they're from the 70s. Even get people to dress appropriately and just be causally using said anachronistic tech…
As for color accuracy, that's in the eyes of the (be)holder and more of a proper Monster Cable example. Working with color and customers every day, most don't care if the color they're seeing is technically accurate". If it doesn't look like it to them, then it isn't no matter what the profile says.
High contrast AMOLED displays on Android phones are the new Pepsi Challenge. Just as people preferred the sweetness of Pepsi in taste tests when only drinking a small amount people will say they prefer high contrast images when only given a small amount.Full disclosure: I just made all that up but it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
There is a market for a smaller tablet, that much is obvious.
Is that actually true, though? There appears to be at least somewhat of a market for cheap tablets, and for that 7" is simply a means to an end to keep production costs down. As far as there being any real enthusiasm for 7" specifically regardless of cost, I don't see that. Even at cut rate prices the 7" tablets haven't sold very well compared to the iPad.
Competitors would have stopped producing 7" variants by now...
Well, that certainly isn't true. Samsung et al make all kinds of modestly selling stuff that remains on the market for a while before being supplanted by the next gimmick. It's a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy that's completely different from what Apple does.
if that wasn't the case, I also hear a lot of people asking for smaller tablets and now there's a trend for bigger phones and hybrids too
I hear a lot of people asking for iPads. Numbers bear me out. And the "trend" is more of that throwing stuff at the wall thing, with something like the Galaxy Note approaching absurdity. I doubt Samsung will sell many of those and there's no reason on earth for Apple to waste its time with this kind of nonsense.
People have different needs. Apple doesn't and will not cater to all of those needs but they will cater to some of them (the largest market they possibly can with a very small portfolio of products).
Apple will make the products that deliver the best user experience as they see it. They've never been about chasing after market share via product proliferation. If Apple thinks there's a good user experience to be had at 7", they'll do something about it. But they won't be remotely swayed by bogus claims of "what they must do", any more than they felt they needed to make a netbook or an xMac-- despite the many and fervent claims that Apple would be obliged to respond to competition in those markets or risk being left behind. Seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
I hear a lot of people asking for iPads. Numbers bear me out. And the "trend" is more of that throwing stuff at the wall thing, with something like the Galaxy Note approaching absurdity. I doubt Samsung will sell many of those and there's no reason on earth for Apple to waste its time with this kind of nonsense.
The word is the Note is actually selling quite well for all its absurdity.
PS: Did you see the behind the scene video of The Hobbit I posted on the thread in which were discussing film production?