Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 24

Thread: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    20,919
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    593 times in 294 posts

    News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Sharp out, Samsung and LG in, as mass production of LCD iPad 3 tablets begins.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    My nose is itchy stevie lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    At Home
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    327
    Thanked
    280 times in 210 posts
    • stevie lee's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar TA790GX3 A2+
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II 920 @ 2.8 GHZ
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair 6400C5DHX
      • Storage:
      • Hitachi 640GB + 1TB. WDblue 2TB, Crucial M500 240GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia Palit 750 Ti
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Pro 82+ 425 Watt
      • Case:
      • Xigmatech Asgard
      • Operating System:
      • Win7 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" Samsung SM2233BW
      • Internet:
      • 20mb plusnet unlimited!

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    with apple suing everyone under the sun, i would have though, out of spite, that these other companies wouldnt want to work with them.

    it would be pretty easy for samsung and LG to refuse to build screens for the ipad3, then when samsung release their updated pad devices. there wont be any apple devices for their patents to alledgedly infringe.

    samsung and co. could prevent apple releasing anything, just like apples doing to them.


    so apple must be having to pay a bit more than they would've liked to, for samsung to be willing to work with them, so i predict that the ipad3 will be about £50 more than the ipad2 because of this



    thats just my theory anyhow

  3. #3
    mush-mushroom b0redom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    2,529
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked
    210 times in 155 posts
    • b0redom's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • CPU:
      • 3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB
      • Storage:
      • 3TB Fusion Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nViidia GTX 680MX
      • PSU:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • Case:
      • Late 2012 pointlessly thin iMac enclosure
      • Operating System:
      • OSX 10.8 / Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2713H
      • Internet:
      • Be+

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Probably explains why you're not on the board of Samsung then.

    65 Million screens per year alone is a massive revenue stream.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    144
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked
    17 times in 7 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by b0redom View Post
    65 Million screens per year alone is a massive revenue stream.
    Quite, better you than another Android Tablet maker...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    286
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    65 million units is all well and good but it would depend on LG / Sammies profit margin per panel. Knowing apple they'll have squeezed the suppliers to less than $1 per panel.
    However between sammie and lg they make up the lions share of the bill of materials on the ipad/phone so far.

    Apple of course take the punt on that they'll sell 65mil units and thus keep nearly all the profit to themselves.
    I would laugh if an ipad3 is only £50 more than an ipad2, from what i've read before there is going to be a spec replacement for the ipad2 (which will probably cost a little more) and then a 'premium' model ipad3 which would cost easily £150 more i'd say just because they can and have the followers that will pay whatever they ask.

  6. #6
    The Big V vrykyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,033
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked
    51 times in 41 posts
    • vrykyl's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z (Z68)
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 2700k @ 5ghz 1.38v (Dark Rock Pro)
      • Memory:
      • 16gb Kingston HyperX Genesis
      • Storage:
      • 256gb Crucial M4 SSD, 2x 2tb Samsung F4
      • Graphics card(s):
      • SLI 2gb MSI gtx 670 PE-OC (x2)
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860w
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T White Limited Edition
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Dell U2410
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet 80mb fibre (80/20)

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Hang on, if they can make / put a 2048x1536 res screen in a 10" tablet, what the hell is up with the continuous stream of nasty 1366x768 etc screens that laptop makers keep stuffing in their new laptop models???

  7. Received thanks from:

    dave87 (20-02-2012),Funkstar (14-01-2012)

  8. #7
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    95
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • tribaljet's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Intel HM65
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7-2820QM
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Transcend DDR3-1600
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HGST Travelstar 7K1000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD 3000 + Nvidia Geforce GT 555M
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro 64bits

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Someone needs to boycott 1366x768 panels on laptops with enough physical screen real estate to warrant proper resolutions. And don't even get me started on manufacturers wanting to standardize 16:9 for computers when that's clearly a TV aspect ratio.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    528
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked
    42 times in 35 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    The current cost of > 1366x768 laptops is ridiculous due to lack of competition and choice. If Intel and others really wish to revive the laptop market, they should be looking to make ultrabooks do what they do well, and that's run desktop applications, many of which need a higher resolution to be at their best.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pershore
    Posts
    1,383
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    32 times in 29 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    simples, price...companies have to make a profit somewhere....and Apple are notorious for screwing suppliers over. Also most people aren't that bothered by hires laptop screens yet...

  11. #10
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,547
    Thanks
    2,259
    Thanked
    3,271 times in 2,531 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post
    Also most people aren't that bothered by hires laptop screens yet...
    Just as IGPs get to the level of being able to run games reasonably OK, a massive increase in screen resolution will push us back a few years again,and increase power usage for gaming too.

    Imagine how many pixels will need to be pushed in a 15.6" laptop display with the same PPI as a 10.1" 2048X1536 panel??

    The same goes with desktop users,going for E-PEEN level increases in screen resolution,will make gaming more expensive. Most video is barely 720P or 1080P. It means video and even games will have to be scaled which will make them look worse. The other side effect is that,it would take even longer for the visual fidelity of games to improve. If anything the slow progression of pixel densities for desktop screens is a good thing IMHO.

    In fact most people I know,seem to find adding a second monitor seems to increase productivity more as it means more screen area is available to work with. The increased resolution is only really useful if accompanied by a screen area increase IMHO.

    The only reason I can see for very high resolution desktop screens is for HD video and photographic editing purposes.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-02-2012 at 04:58 PM.

  12. #11
    radix lecti dave87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,717
    Thanks
    616
    Thanked
    894 times in 613 posts
    • dave87's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI P35-T2RS
      • CPU:
      • Q6600 @ 3.1ghz under Corsair H80 WC
      • Memory:
      • 6gb DDR2 - 6400
      • Storage:
      • 60gb SSD + 2x150gb Raptors RAID0 & 320gb WD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus HD4850
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12 500w
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-A05FNB + Acoustipack
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x Dell S2309W (1920x1080)
      • Internet:
      • 24mb BeThere (22mb actual)

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by vrykyl View Post
    Hang on, if they can make / put a 2048x1536 res screen in a 10" tablet, what the hell is up with the continuous stream of nasty 1366x768 etc screens that laptop makers keep stuffing in their new laptop models???
    1920x1200 on my Lenovo - 1680x1050 on the previous Dell. Could not go back now
    They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
    At the going down of the sun and in the morning, We will remember them.




  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by stevie lee View Post
    with apple suing everyone under the sun, i would have though, out of spite, that these other companies wouldnt want to work with them.

    it would be pretty easy for samsung and LG to refuse to build screens for the ipad3, then when samsung release their updated pad devices. there wont be any apple devices for their patents to alledgedly infringe.

    samsung and co. could prevent apple releasing anything, just like apples doing to them.


    so apple must be having to pay a bit more than they would've liked to, for samsung to be willing to work with them, so i predict that the ipad3 will be about £50 more than the ipad2 because of this



    thats just my theory anyhow

    good point, but wouldent apple have the money to find a way around it. E.g make their own screens

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked
    83 times in 63 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Just as IGPs get to the level of being able to run games reasonably OK, a massive increase in screen resolution will push us back a few years again,and increase power usage for gaming too.

    Imagine how many pixels will need to be pushed in a 15.6" laptop display with the same PPI as a 10.1" 2048X1536 panel??

    The same goes with desktop users,going for E-PEEN level increases in screen resolution,will make gaming more expensive. Most video is barely 720P or 1080P. It means video and even games will have to be scaled which will make them look worse. The other side effect is that,it would take even longer for the visual fidelity of games to improve. If anything the slow progression of pixel densities for desktop screens is a good thing IMHO.

    In fact most people I know,seem to find adding a second monitor seems to increase productivity more as it means more screen area is available to work with. The increased resolution is only really useful if accompanied by a screen area increase IMHO.

    The only reason I can see for very high resolution desktop screens is for HD video and photographic editing purposes.
    I have to disagree on all points here.

    Firstly, increases in resolution of the order that tablets have increased would not affect visual quality for the same hardware. Scaling is bad for quality with small adjustments, e.g. 720p scaled to 1080p. Higher res desktop monitors with the same level of improvement would be at least doubling the existing res, and doubling the res means scaling is perfect (no blurriness) as it just quadruples the number of pixels being used. Thus, visual quality in games will be unaffected for those with cheap hardware (who can keep running at lower resolutions without a quality penalty) and improved for those with expensive hardware (who can run at higher resolutions).

    I'm not going to accept any argument that says higher res screens demand greater power usage and are therefore bad. So do faster processors, should we all be using Atoms? They'll get the job done too, just slower, much like low-res screens. Horses for courses..

    Slow progression of visual fidelity in games? Increased pixel density is one of the key ways in which quality can be improved, for those with expensive hardware (and the only way that hardware can be used properly.. really, how many monitors do you have to shoehorn together to max out a pair of GTX 590s SLI'd or similar?) And that's entirely separate from the disastrous concept that it might be a good idea to delay advancement in monitor technologies because a small subset of the population (i.e. gamers) disapproves. If they actually would.

    Second monitors can be useful but aren't always practical. Besides, my 15.6" laptop with 1080p resolution offers an extremely useful increase in resolution over 1366x768 resolution (annoyingly, standard res on 15" laptop screens), with a DPI of 141 vs 102. Compare that to a 24" desktop monitor offering 1080p res (again, standard) - that has only 92 DPI, and a 30" monitor with 2560x1600 res has only 101 DPI.
    Desktop monitors are way behind the curve on useful pixel densities. By my back-of-an-envelope calculations, for a 24" to rival the (useful) PPI of my laptop, it needs to hit 2711x2033 res. For a 30"er, 3389x2541. These are massive increases that will make a big difference in general use, at least for 24" screens (I've not used 2560x1600 et al res so can't comment on whether it'll be a big step from that to c.3389x2541.

  15. #14
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,547
    Thanks
    2,259
    Thanked
    3,271 times in 2,531 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by miniyazz View Post
    I have to disagree on all points here.

    Firstly, increases in resolution of the order that tablets have increased would not affect visual quality for the same hardware. Scaling is bad for quality with small adjustments, e.g. 720p scaled to 1080p. Higher res desktop monitors with the same level of improvement would be at least doubling the existing res, and doubling the res means scaling is perfect (no blurriness) as it just quadruples the number of pixels being used. Thus, visual quality in games will be unaffected for those with cheap hardware (who can keep running at lower resolutions without a quality penalty) and improved for those with expensive hardware (who can run at higher resolutions).

    I'm not going to accept any argument that says higher res screens demand greater power usage and are therefore bad. So do faster processors, should we all be using Atoms? They'll get the job done too, just slower, much like low-res screens. Horses for courses..

    Slow progression of visual fidelity in games? Increased pixel density is one of the key ways in which quality can be improved, for those with expensive hardware (and the only way that hardware can be used properly.. really, how many monitors do you have to shoehorn together to max out a pair of GTX 590s SLI'd or similar?) And that's entirely separate from the disastrous concept that it might be a good idea to delay advancement in monitor technologies because a small subset of the population (i.e. gamers) disapproves. If they actually would.

    Second monitors can be useful but aren't always practical. Besides, my 15.6" laptop with 1080p resolution offers an extremely useful increase in resolution over 1366x768 resolution (annoyingly, standard res on 15" laptop screens), with a DPI of 141 vs 102. Compare that to a 24" desktop monitor offering 1080p res (again, standard) - that has only 92 DPI, and a 30" monitor with 2560x1600 res has only 101 DPI.
    Desktop monitors are way behind the curve on useful pixel densities. By my back-of-an-envelope calculations, for a 24" to rival the (useful) PPI of my laptop, it needs to hit 2711x2033 res. For a 30"er, 3389x2541. These are massive increases that will make a big difference in general use, at least for 24" screens (I've not used 2560x1600 et al res so can't comment on whether it'll be a big step from that to c.3389x2541.
    I have to disagree with almost all your points though especially after you wrote the following:

    "really, how many monitors do you have to shoehorn together to max out a pair of GTX 590s SLI'd or similar?"



    BTW,I have worked with high end monitors for scientific imaging and video work.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 22-02-2012 at 02:27 AM.

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked
    83 times in 63 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    I'm confused, you haven't addressed any of my points except to say you disagree

  17. #16
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,365
    Thanks
    1,312
    Thanked
    654 times in 572 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    A massive PPI increase on a desktop would be a daft idea, I had (or have, can't remember if I've sold it) a 19" 1680x1050 monitor and at native res with >20/20 vision, it wasn't terribly easy to read text while in a normal sitting position, especially with tired eyes. What is the point in buying a much more expensive monitor purely for PPI when you'll have to make everything the same size as on a standard monitor so you can actually see it? PCs monitors have a very different usage model to tablets/phones. There's only so small you can make PC monitor pixels while people can still read them without a microscope, beyond which you're really just wasting money on e-peen.

    TBH I don't think SLI 590s are exactly mainstream even amongst enthusiasts, so it's not really fair to say the because the tiny amount of people who wish to burn such a large amount of money can't fully max out their setup on a few older games, we should all have super-high PPI monitors we have to run at an 'old' resolution to play games with anything remotely cost-effective. It's not just 'cheap' hardware as you say, even high-end cards would struggle to run what is essentially a 2x2 multi-monitor setup in terms of resolution, only you can't see nearly as much of the added detail as you would with more actual monitors; you're really not going to see much, if any, of a difference by increasing the PPI for games, just make it one HECK of a lot harder to run and massively increase VRAM requirements.

  18. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (27-02-2012)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •