Somebody correct me if I am mistaken, but I do not think the amount of LED lights have anything to do with resolution. Resolution is dependent on how many pixels are squeezed into the display. This has not changed. All that is changed is the number of LEDs that are used from behind the display to illuminate the pixels (the backlighting). It seems here that Apple has been able to lower the amount of LEDs needed by using optical film to spread the light from fewer LEDs thereby accomplishing the task previously done by more LEDs.
I also do not think the optical film layer mentioned is IGZO (that is not to say, Apple isn't using that technology). Again unless I am mistaken, IGZO has to do with the transistors used to carry information to the pixels, and nothing to do with backlighting which seems to be the focus of this article (the reduced number of LED backlights).
Actually resolution does affect the number of LEDs. If you have more pixels, the surface area of each pixel goes down and you need more light to get the same brightness out of each pixel. This is the reason the iPad three had to be thicker and heavier than iPad2.
But yes you are correct from the standpoint that this isn't the issue in iPad air since the resolution didn't change.
I seriously doubt that a film light diffuser layer is responsible for all the improvement. My guess is the film layer has a lot to do with IGZO. IGZO has translucent transistors. I suspect that the IGZO transistor layer is the reason the film diffuser works.
Another AI article cites a different third party analysis that says the iPad Air's panel is indeed IGZO.
I took delivery of a new iPad Air for an office user yesterday. Without another retina display to compare it's hard to be sure whether there are are visible differences with the IGZO display, but I'm inclined to think not. The screen improvements seem to be under the hood.
What is immediately noticeable is the reduced case size and weight compared to my own iPad 2. For me the iPad Mini suddenly looks a lot less alluring; for the modest extra weight and bulk I'd rather have the Air's full size screen. That choice will of course play out differently for people depending on their usage and priorities; it's nice to have both options.
There is massive visible distinction between iPad 3 and iPad Air side by side, and even without them side by side. The Air's display is mind-blowing.
The emphasis for the iPad Air is in reduced size, thickness, and weight. The most important under the hood display improvement is the switch from a-Si amorphous Silicon LCDs up to a much higher performance IGZO LCD backplane, which was discussed in our iPad 3 Display Shoot-Out article last year. The switch to IGZO produces an impressive 57 percent improvement in display power efficiency from previous Retina Display iPads – so the iPad Air doesn’t get uncomfortably warm like the earlier iPads. More on these issues below.
It does seem that way, however looking at the Amazon Kindle Fire article is looks like LTPS would be the technology to go for.
LTPS is what Apple has been using in iPad 3 and 4. Claims that Amazon's display is better because of LTPS don't make sense to me. Why would Apple adopt an inferior technology?
**Edit** I was wrong... iPad 3 and 4 didn't use LTPS
The All Things D headline says the iPad Air costs less to build that the previous generation iPad.
Their conclusion was that Apple will benefit from the lower overall build cost even though the new display is costlier. The overall cost to build is less.
Yet AI chose to use a headline suggesting negatives for Apple.
Now AI's article will be cited by others and spread misinformation about Apple.
The real story is good for Apple. Big sales. Higher margins on iPads.
Why use a misleading headline that harms Apple, AI?
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?
Half as many backlights in one year? I'd image it runs much cooler, so. This display tech is evolving on a yearly basis. That's crazy when you think about it. And chips, too. I only wish batteries had a similar evolution rate. When are we going to get graphene batteries: capable or rehanging from 0-100% in 2 minutes. Sounds like science fiction? Get ready, should be common place within 20 years, but hopefully sooner.
That's not the direction mobile device batteries are going. You'll see solar-charging long before you see that.
Where Apple needs to innovate in battery is getting ultra-sentitive, high-powered solar recharging built into the displays of their iOS devices. So that real-world use would be something like: Devices that still charge over a cable, but also constantly re-charge from any and all light.
Imagine if this technology could be harnessed so that in a normal day under normal conditions, your battery could last indefinitely as long as it is getting sufficient light to re-charge.
Even if it wasn't that good....if you could get 24 hours of use from an iPhone after a full cable-charge thanks to solar supplementation...that would be revolutionary by itself.
LTPS is what Apple has been using in iPad 3 and 4. Claims that Amazon's display is better because of LTPS don't make sense to me. Why would Apple adopt an inferior technology?
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?
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?
Exactly. ISupply supplies superficial and spurious summaries. No bueno from the gitgo, IGZO or no IGZO.
So the display is very expensive, the batteries are expensive and the external case is expensive compared to the iPhone yet Apple are able to sell the iPad, and make good margin, cheaper than the iPhone - and people claim the iPhone isn't overpriced.
The majority of iPads are sold direct to customers by Apple whereas the majority of iPhones are sold to customers by wireless carriers. With wireless carriers involved there is more opportunity for gross margin because the price is not borne by the customer alone. Both the customer and the wireless carrier are paying for the phone so Apple can charge a higher margin for it.
If the primary channel for iPhones was direct from Apple to customers then we would definitely see more downward pressure of the price of the iPhone.
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?
Because they are absolutely amateur and don't deserve the time of day. Yes, thanks, we can add up component costs now. But as soon as they start making assumptions and conclusions based on that data...they are out to lunch.
They did the same for the 5s, and of course made no mention of the half a billion dollars Apple spent just to acquire Authentech, before putting 2 years of their own R&D into the project for Touch ID.
Expecting iPhone margins and iPad margins to be the same is like expecting Diamond and Ruby margins to be the same. The market determines the price. If people refused to buy iPhones for $650 the price would drop. This already happened with iPhone1 which was $299 with contract.
No it didn't. The iPhone was $499 & $599, because no carrier would touch it a subsidy, as they were scared stiff.
Once everyone's jaw dropped at the momentum the iPhone gained immediately, and the insane popularity it carried...the greedy money hungry carrier(s) jumped on board and said, "Ok, we'll subsidize now...since we know it will sell" And that's exactly what happened. The price did not CHANGE at all. New contract terms were offered. That's it.
I can't believe people still try to twist this into something else. I've actually seen some trolls try to suggest the iPhone was failing and Apple "lowered the price out of desperation". Amazing how stupid people are.
Like the elusive fusion reactor that is always on the horizon to solve all our energy needs.
Fusion reactors have not being demonstrated as working experiments in university labs like wireless power and graphene super-capacitors. These are not just theories like fusion reactors.
That's not the direction mobile device batteries are going. You'll see solar-charging long before you see that.
Where Apple needs to innovate in battery is getting ultra-sentitive, high-powered solar recharging built into the displays of their iOS devices. So that real-world use would be something like: Devices that still charge over a cable, but also constantly re-charge from any and all light.
Imagine if this technology could be harnessed so that in a normal day under normal conditions, your battery could last indefinitely as long as it is getting sufficient light to re-charge.
Even if it wasn't that good....if you could get 24 hours of use from an iPhone after a full cable-charge thanks to solar supplementation...that would be revolutionary by itself.
So the display is very expensive, the batteries are expensive and the external case is expensive compared to the iPhone yet Apple are able to sell the iPad, and make good margin, cheaper than the iPhone - and people claim the iPhone isn't overpriced.
Exactly. That means Apple is in a more competitive market for ipad/tablet, but enjoys an easy lead in iphone.
And like sog35 says above, the costs aren't all in the glass and metal that you see in the device. We've heard that Apple is spending billions in display development over recent years. We can't even find out if this display is IGZO or not.
Neil Hughes, do you not want to address that question? You have Raymond Soliera saying that it is IGZO in the Kindle display story yesterday. And also implying that LTPS is the better technology, which Apple has been using for years.
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?
The emphasis for the iPad Air is in reduced size, thickness, and weight. The most important under the hood display improvement is the switch from a-Si amorphous Silicon LCDs up to a much higher performance IGZO LCD backplane, which was discussed in our iPad 3 Display Shoot-Out article last year. The switch to IGZO produces an impressive 57 percent improvement in display power efficiency from previous Retina Display iPads – so the iPad Air doesn’t get uncomfortably warm like the earlier iPads. More on these issues below.
I tried the unreal engine game "dungeon defenders, second wave" on my ipad air yesterday. That game would heat up my old ipad3 a lot, the ipad air stayed cool the whole time and it didnt drain battery life like it did on the ipad3. Major improvement
Comments
But yes you are correct from the standpoint that this isn't the issue in iPad air since the resolution didn't change.
I seriously doubt that a film light diffuser layer is responsible for all the improvement. My guess is the film layer has a lot to do with IGZO. IGZO has translucent transistors. I suspect that the IGZO transistor layer is the reason the film diffuser works.
Another AI article cites a different third party analysis that says the iPad Air's panel is indeed IGZO.
I took delivery of a new iPad Air for an office user yesterday. Without another retina display to compare it's hard to be sure whether there are are visible differences with the IGZO display, but I'm inclined to think not. The screen improvements seem to be under the hood.
What is immediately noticeable is the reduced case size and weight compared to my own iPad 2. For me the iPad Mini suddenly looks a lot less alluring; for the modest extra weight and bulk I'd rather have the Air's full size screen. That choice will of course play out differently for people depending on their usage and priorities; it's nice to have both options.
There is massive visible distinction between iPad 3 and iPad Air side by side, and even without them side by side. The Air's display is mind-blowing.
Displaymate says it has IGZO
http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_3.htm
The emphasis for the iPad Air is in reduced size, thickness, and weight. The most important under the hood display improvement is the switch from a-Si amorphous Silicon LCDs up to a much higher performance IGZO LCD backplane, which was discussed in our iPad 3 Display Shoot-Out article last year. The switch to IGZO produces an impressive 57 percent improvement in display power efficiency from previous Retina Display iPads – so the iPad Air doesn’t get uncomfortably warm like the earlier iPads. More on these issues below.
**Edit** I was wrong... iPad 3 and 4 didn't use LTPS
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?
Half as many backlights in one year? I'd image it runs much cooler, so. This display tech is evolving on a yearly basis. That's crazy when you think about it. And chips, too. I only wish batteries had a similar evolution rate. When are we going to get graphene batteries: capable or rehanging from 0-100% in 2 minutes. Sounds like science fiction? Get ready, should be common place within 20 years, but hopefully sooner.
That's not the direction mobile device batteries are going. You'll see solar-charging long before you see that.
Where Apple needs to innovate in battery is getting ultra-sentitive, high-powered solar recharging built into the displays of their iOS devices. So that real-world use would be something like: Devices that still charge over a cable, but also constantly re-charge from any and all light.
Imagine if this technology could be harnessed so that in a normal day under normal conditions, your battery could last indefinitely as long as it is getting sufficient light to re-charge.
Even if it wasn't that good....if you could get 24 hours of use from an iPhone after a full cable-charge thanks to solar supplementation...that would be revolutionary by itself.
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?
Exactly. ISupply supplies superficial and spurious summaries. No bueno from the gitgo, IGZO or no IGZO.
So the display is very expensive, the batteries are expensive and the external case is expensive compared to the iPhone yet Apple are able to sell the iPad, and make good margin, cheaper than the iPhone - and people claim the iPhone isn't overpriced.
The majority of iPads are sold direct to customers by Apple whereas the majority of iPhones are sold to customers by wireless carriers. With wireless carriers involved there is more opportunity for gross margin because the price is not borne by the customer alone. Both the customer and the wireless carrier are paying for the phone so Apple can charge a higher margin for it.
If the primary channel for iPhones was direct from Apple to customers then we would definitely see more downward pressure of the price of the iPhone.
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?
Because they are absolutely amateur and don't deserve the time of day. Yes, thanks, we can add up component costs now. But as soon as they start making assumptions and conclusions based on that data...they are out to lunch.
They did the same for the 5s, and of course made no mention of the half a billion dollars Apple spent just to acquire Authentech, before putting 2 years of their own R&D into the project for Touch ID.
Expecting iPhone margins and iPad margins to be the same is like expecting Diamond and Ruby margins to be the same. The market determines the price. If people refused to buy iPhones for $650 the price would drop. This already happened with iPhone1 which was $299 with contract.
No it didn't. The iPhone was $499 & $599, because no carrier would touch it a subsidy, as they were scared stiff.
Once everyone's jaw dropped at the momentum the iPhone gained immediately, and the insane popularity it carried...the greedy money hungry carrier(s) jumped on board and said, "Ok, we'll subsidize now...since we know it will sell" And that's exactly what happened. The price did not CHANGE at all. New contract terms were offered. That's it.
I can't believe people still try to twist this into something else. I've actually seen some trolls try to suggest the iPhone was failing and Apple "lowered the price out of desperation". Amazing how stupid people are.
Fusion reactors have not being demonstrated as working experiments in university labs like wireless power and graphene super-capacitors. These are not just theories like fusion reactors.
That's not the direction mobile device batteries are going. You'll see solar-charging long before you see that.
Where Apple needs to innovate in battery is getting ultra-sentitive, high-powered solar recharging built into the displays of their iOS devices. So that real-world use would be something like: Devices that still charge over a cable, but also constantly re-charge from any and all light.
Imagine if this technology could be harnessed so that in a normal day under normal conditions, your battery could last indefinitely as long as it is getting sufficient light to re-charge.
Even if it wasn't that good....if you could get 24 hours of use from an iPhone after a full cable-charge thanks to solar supplementation...that would be revolutionary by itself.
Those aren't competing ideas. At all.
Exactly.
OK, dudes.
Says who?
So the display is very expensive, the batteries are expensive and the external case is expensive compared to the iPhone yet Apple are able to sell the iPad, and make good margin, cheaper than the iPhone - and people claim the iPhone isn't overpriced.
Exactly. That means Apple is in a more competitive market for ipad/tablet, but enjoys an easy lead in iphone.
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?
Displaymate says it has IGZO
http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_3.htm
The emphasis for the iPad Air is in reduced size, thickness, and weight. The most important under the hood display improvement is the switch from a-Si amorphous Silicon LCDs up to a much higher performance IGZO LCD backplane, which was discussed in our iPad 3 Display Shoot-Out article last year. The switch to IGZO produces an impressive 57 percent improvement in display power efficiency from previous Retina Display iPads – so the iPad Air doesn’t get uncomfortably warm like the earlier iPads. More on these issues below.
I tried the unreal engine game "dungeon defenders, second wave" on my ipad air yesterday. That game would heat up my old ipad3 a lot, the ipad air stayed cool the whole time and it didnt drain battery life like it did on the ipad3. Major improvement