backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on May 29 at 7:52 PM

New display will pop up in tablet-cum-smartphones later this year

Even as Apple, Inc. (AAPL) is preparing to catch up to Android smartphones with a 4-inch display of its own, it may be left behind yet again as Android competition heats up in the 5-inch segment.

Ironically, a major pusher of this form factor is Apple's own primary "Retina" display provider LG Electronics Inc. (KSC:066570), which has handed Android phonemakers an even more powerful display -- a monstrous 5-inch Retina unit.

While many people mistakenly think Apple "invented" the Retina display, it really just bought it -- bought it from LG.

Now Android smartphone makers -- including LG itself -- are preparing to launch 5-inch smartphones powered by LG's new 1080p HD 5-inch Retina display, which packs an impressive 440 ppi.  While not quite as high a pixel density as rival Toshiba Corp.'s (TYO:6502) recently demoed 498 ppi 6-inch display, LG's display is a bit further ahead given that it's reportedly ready for immediate product integration.

Devices with the monstrous new display could be available by the holiday season.

LG 5-inch display
LG's new display is among the highest resolution 5-inch displays in the industry.
[Image Source: LG]

On the technical side, the new unit features a somewhat new technology called Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching (AH-IPS), an evolution of IPS which offers faster response times (your image updates faster), better brightness efficiency (the display uses less power), and better viewing angles (you can tilt your device and still read it).

LG is currently previewing the massive new smartphone-cum-mini-tablet display at SID 2012 Display Week in Boston.  Sang-Deok Yeo, CTO, brags, "With the world's highest resolution smartphone display, LG Display continues to remain a step ahead in developing the most innovative in display technology products."

RGB displays like this new model enjoy a slight advantage over Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) Pentile display format, in that they show less undesirable pixel visibility (aka "pixellation") at the same ppi (pixels per inch) measurement.

The 5-inch form factor is becoming increasingly popular among Android devices, after the modestly successful Galaxy Note (5.3-inch) hit the market, treading the line between a smartphone and a tablet.  LG has a 5-incher of its own -- the Optimus Vu.  

LG Optimus Vu
LG's optimus Vu will be among Android's rapidly expanding 5-inch lineup. [Image Source: LG]

The Optimus Vu features a much different 4:3 aspect ratio, though, which makes it appear very squat.  It reportedly was released in South Korea earlier in May, and will slowly roll out worldwide in coming months.

Source: Korean Herald [translated]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple
By EnzoFX on 5/28/2012 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 5
What does this news have to do with Apple. Everything doesn't have to be framed with Apple in the article, or how it's behind/lacking etc. 2 products can be just that ;-).




RE: Apple
By KPOM1 on 5/28/2012 5:03:44 PM , Rating: 4
Nothing. They mention Apple because it gets them more page clicks, and because some people just like to bash Apple just because it's Apple.

Let's face it. If Apple wanted to produce a phone with a 5" Retina Display, it could, and it would. They'll produce whatever phone they think will sell the best for them. I doubt the next iPhone will have a 5" screen, as I think that would be too big for a single product expected to serve the mass market. Samsung and LG make multiple devices with different screen sizes, so they are more likely to develop a phone with any particular screen size than Apple.


RE: Apple
By EnzoFX on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Apple
By StevoLincolnite on 5/28/2012 9:08:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let's face it. If Apple wanted to produce a phone with a 5" Retina Display, it could, and it would.


Not exactly. Apple doesn't produce displays... Or anything to do with hardware really, they instead buy it from 3rd parties like LG, Toshiba, Samsung etc'.
If those companies don't have the technology, then Apple can't and won't get anything.

Apple's main strength however is getting a hold of new technology and making agreements with the manufacturers for the sole exclusive use over it.


RE: Apple
By StormyKnight on 5/28/2012 10:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say anything about producing the display. Re-read his post. "If Apple wanted to produce a phone WITH A 5" Retina Display, it could and would."


RE: Apple
By BZDTemp on 5/29/2012 3:27:02 AM , Rating: 1
eh, maybe you should look up the word "produce" in a Dictionary. If the quote had said "...have produced..." rather "...produce..." then you'd have something to stand on. As it is now then not so much :-)


RE: Apple
By Tequilasunriser on 5/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Apple
By testerguy on 5/29/2012 8:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Whether you produce something using other parts, such as producing a cake for which you need flour and eggs, or produce everything from scratch, you still produced it.

His point that Apple could easily produce a 5 inch phone if they wanted stands. They have sufficient money that they would find it easy to buy the screens off any supplier they choose, or to buy them outright, and could therefore produce a phone with that screen if they wanted.

It remains to be seen what they do but I suspect they will increase the screen size without increasing the form factor.


RE: Apple
By web2dot0 on 5/29/2012 12:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hey you know that if Apple ASKED LG to produce a 5" Retina, they would .....

It's called supply and demand. LG doesn't turn down $$$$$$$.

Unless if you believe that making $$$$$ is not LG's objective ... like all other corporations in the world. You know ... how capitalism works ....


RE: Apple
By Omega215D on 5/29/2012 4:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Only if the technology was there to produce it was available. You have to remember there's a lot of R&D time to go into these things before going into an actual product. That's the only reason Apple was able to do what it did when the first iPhone was created (and it was lacking in those days as well).


RE: Apple
By testerguy on 5/29/2012 8:13:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Only if the technology was there to produce it was available.


The point being that it is, and has been for a long time. If Apple had moved their focus to a 5" screen, manufacturers would do so too. This article itself proves that the technology exists too, so if Apple wants a 5 inch phone, they will produce one.

Chances are they don't, because most consumers don't want a brick.


RE: Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chances are they don't, because most consumers don't want a brick.
Quite apparent you haven't touched a Note...


escape the rdf
By sprockkets on 5/28/2012 3:26:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
While many people mistakenly think Apple "invented" the Retina display, it really just bought it -- bought it from LG.


Actually if people did any form of research they'd find apple really invents almost nothing. Nope, not even pinch to zoom, even on a phone - FIC openmoku had it first.

And Tony, no strawman arguments please.




RE: escape the rdf
By kmmatney on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: escape the rdf
By sprockkets on 5/28/2012 10:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Only person who failed to do that was MS with WM, being stuck on IE4 mobile until 2008. Everyone else already had decent browsers.


RE: escape the rdf
By TakinYourPoints on 5/29/2012 12:03:59 AM , Rating: 1
Other mobile browsers were terrible, it's like people forgot what smartphones were like before 2007


RE: escape the rdf
By Omega215D on 5/29/2012 4:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
WinMo 6.5 wasn't bad to use and neither was Palm based OSes for the Treo lineup. HTC came along and added their TouchFlo to WinMo and made quite a large improvement without needing Apple to be there.

In those days it was only business users that could afford to use a smartphone as the device itself cost quite a bit along with the plans and the mobile netcode at the time didn't help.


RE: escape the rdf
By hduser on 5/29/2012 1:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would disagree. Most to all portable devices had terrible browsing experience especially the winmo phones of the time. The iphone got a lot of things right the first time around.


yawn
By Nortel on 5/28/2012 8:27:46 PM , Rating: 3
I'll wait for the 10 inch retina screen phone. I want a phone so big it cant fit into any pockets.




GPU...
By bennyg on 5/29/2012 11:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
And what GPU will acceptably drive this res?

I love boundary-pushing products, what I hate are awesome features (5" 1080p display) being incorrectly associated with the market failure of an imbalanced 'trial' product.

If this thing comes with a motoblur-esque laggy UI it will flop no matter how awesome the display




Hmm...
By dagamer34 on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
Yawn!
By BSMonitor on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
Joke's on them...
By siconik on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
Not telling the whole truth here
By Commodus on 5/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By BSMonitor on 5/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By retrospooty on 5/28/2012 8:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
"No no, if you ask Mick, Apple is simply a marketing company"

I don't think anyone thinks that. The point most are trying to make is that Apple doesn't "invent" any tech. They purchase tech and design products from the tech they purchase. They are a product design company. Then they market it with an extremely powerful marketing engine.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2012 8:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
What's funny is how people like Tim Cook view Apple, as if they were the worlds tech inventor.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-57422549-256/dea...


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By web2dot0 on 5/29/2012 2:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is a "Techology Sales Company".

They are good at what they do. They sell existing technologies that they package in a usable manner.

Because they are salesman, they conjure up sales pitch. Is there something wrong with that?
Any good salesman will never try to "convince you" to buy anything. They conjure up ideas and stir up your imagination to make you convince yourself that the product is what they made it out to be.

You don't like it, then go live in a hole like a hermit. No marketing campaigns there. Just you and nature.

Apple is not trying to sell you what it cannot deliver. The features works and people are happy with it. No smoke and mirrors there. Just good advertising to present themselves in the best light possible. Something every company should try to emulate ... unless you don't like profits.

Keeping it real.


By Solandri on 5/29/2012 4:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say they're a bit more than a salesman. They are very good at implementing simple and easy to use user interfaces. In fact I'd say the UI is solely what carried the iPod to success (which eventually led to the iPhone and iPad).

Feature-wise, the iPod was inferior to many of the other MP3 players out there. But the iPod's UI blew the others away. The other MP3 players' UIs reminded me of Linux - designed by geeks who love complexity with access to every feature you could think of - if you knew where to find it. The iPod's UI pared it down to just the essentials, and made it so simple that regular people were comfortable with learning to use it in a few minutes.

That's what makes them successful IMHO. We computer enthusiasts aren't normal, we're the minority. Apple doesn't design products with us in mind, they design products for the mostly-computer illiterate majority.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 8:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is Apple has bought into their own sales pitches. They truly see themselves as the worlds inventor and innovator, and anyone else making competing products is "stealing", so they need to be sued off the map.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By BSMonitor on 5/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By nolisi on 5/29/2012 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Let's contextualize here:

1) Apple did not create anything unique in the iPhone. At best, it was a new OS with design factors from a variety of already existing products on the market. iOS is the most unique part of the iPhone as cell phones, touch screens, mobile apps, and multitouch existed long before Apple got into the market.

2)Google contracted HTC, a company with a very long history of creating mobile devices with touch screens (mostly Windows devices, but they also created devices with their own OS, ie, the sidekick) to build the T-Mobile G1 with T-Mo as a partner.

So yes, perhaps Google changed direction on the necessity of a touch screen in the OS to compete with Apple. But the T-Mobile G1 is an HTC/T-Mobile product, and had features that Apple actively refuses to integrate into iOS, but are hallmarks of HTC's history with phones (physical keyboard, direction pads, expandable SD storage, etc).

But the dialogue is skewed on the subject of the OS. HTC has created touch screen devices capable of much more than Apple is willing to design into iPhone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Google redesigning their OS to allow HTC hardware to better compete in a market it already exists in.


By BSMonitor on 5/29/2012 9:39:22 AM , Rating: 1
We have touchscreen smart phones that don't suck because of Apple.

We have reliable phone OS because of the standard iOS set.

As the late Steve Jobs said many times, "we do software well".


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By testerguy on 5/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 8:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
I was using Google voice WAY before Siri even came out. You're information is typically wrong and biased.

Pentile screens? They HAD to use pentile screens because there was no such thing as a non-pentile 720p screen. The Galaxy SIII will be the first EVER non-pentile 720p screen. Once again, don't know what you are talking about. And where do you get that all Samsung flagship products have pentile screens? My Galaxy S2 doesn't, pretty sure that was a flagship phone.

SAMOLED+ is "derivative" technology? Honestly tester, you're too stupid and biased to even take seriously. You Apple fanbois here are a joke, why can't you see it?


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By nolisi on 5/29/2012 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Let's contextualize here:

1) Apple did not create anything unique in the iPhone. At best, it was a new OS with design factors from a variety of already existing products on the market. iOS is the most unique part of the iPhone as cell phones, touch screens, mobile apps, and multitouch existed long before Apple got into the market.

2)Google contracted HTC, a company with a very long history of creating mobile devices with touch screens (mostly Windows devices, but they also created devices with their own OS, ie, the sidekick) to build the T-Mobile G1 with T-Mo as a partner.

So yes, perhaps Google changed direction on the necessity of a touch screen in the OS to compete with Apple. But the T-Mobile G1 is an HTC/T-Mobile product, and had features that Apple actively refuses to integrate into iOS, but are hallmarks of HTC's history with phones (physical keyboard, direction pads, expandable SD storage, etc).

But the dialogue is skewed on the subject of the OS. HTC has created touch screen devices capable of much more than Apple is willing to design into iPhone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Google redesigning their OS to allow HTC hardware to better compete in a market it already exists in.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Commodus on 5/29/2012 9:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
Avoiding the way-too-much hyperbole of the initial responder:

His emphasis was on "useful," and probably a specific definition of it. Google Voice Actions have their uses, but they don't make for a very natural system at all. If you don't say "weather Ottawa," it has no clue what you were asking. On Siri, I can ask "what's it like in Ottawa?" "will I need an umbrella today?" or even "is it good outside?" There's a big difference between something that's just waiting for a specific command and one that's actually determining context as well as letting you ask the way you would a real person.

Remember: don't mistake having *any* form of a feature for being first with an implementation. Video chat existed before Skype; that didn't mean Skype wasn't the actual revolution.

The GS3 still uses a Pentile screen, it's just not as conspicuous as it was on the Galaxy Nexus. Super AMOLED definitely isn't derivative; you do have to give credit to Samsung as a display maker, since it can always set its own agenda. Apple was the first smartphone maker that I know of to push for a "pixel-free" display on a phone, but it doesn't have an HD resolution... at least, not yet.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 10:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
That line of thought seems pretty subjective. He's flat out said Google copied Apple's Siri. He didn't make any mention of "most useful". He even created a false timeline where Apple came out with voice commands first!

That's just more fodder for fanboi's anyway because most people don't talk to their phones and never will. Voice recognition is mostly a gimmick.

His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By retrospooty on 5/29/2012 11:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
"His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them."

Exactly... The funny thing is when you catch them in a complete falsity like that, and expose it as you just did above they always disappear and don't post back. Then they come back with it again weeks later as if it was never said. This sort of proves that they are not only full of crap, they are aware of it... thus they are purposelyy spreading dis-information to Apple benefit.

This indicates they (Testerguy, Macdevdude, Tony Squash etc) are either one of 2 things. They are either purposly trying to make Apple look good for professional benefit, or they are just complete no-life losers. The distinction means little, becasue neither is acceptable.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they are being paid somehow....especially Tony...


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By sviola on 5/29/2012 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they are the same person. Just playing slightly different roles. And, really, if he is being paid, he really is posting on the wrong website. He is not going to win any minds here...


By retrospooty on 5/29/2012 12:56:26 PM , Rating: 1
"he really is posting on the wrong website. He is not going to win any minds here..."

Well, if you aren't bright enough to see through Apple's RDF, and you aren't bright enough to figure out where to post Apple skewed info and you don't have the social awareness to realize everyone around you thinks your an idiot, then you probably aren't going to realize that your dis-infomation isn't sinking in to the target audience.


By momorere on 5/29/2012 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that you are 1000% correct. I have been watching their (Tony's) total BS for a long time now and just decided to finally create an account and will down rate every comment from any of his personae. No one in their right state of mind wants to read his pro Apple propaganda as we all know he is just one of Apple's pathetic paid cult followers.

I really enjoy how he always manages to throw in ALOT of legal jargon and hopes that everyone just believes him and will not question his "facts."


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By BSMonitor on 5/29/2012 2:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them.


"Everything we have"?? Surely no one really believes that... Just in your bubble world, where you somehow have the clairvoyance to read the mind of every person to ever comment positively on an Apple product.

Kudos to you, ... wait, you weren't born into a manger were you??


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surely no one really believes that..
Yes, there are people who believe that and to think otherwise is moronic. There are a few prime examples on this site alone.


RE: Not telling the whole truth here
By nolisi on 5/29/2012 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTC - Nothing to see here.


Quite the opposite, they came out with the first mass market designs of wireless devices featuring touch. I was using my T-Mobile MDA as a touch screen (without a stylus) long before the iPhone appeared.

Are you seriously suggesting that Apple came out with the idea of touch screens all by themselves, and just waited until after HTC released half a decade worth of phones to release the iPhone?

Thanks for playing.


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that Apple came out with the idea of touch screens all by themselves
I believe that's what he thinks...100 percent..


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 7:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets be honest, none of the current crop of Android or Windows phone manufacturers invented anything
And neither did Apple...go figure.


By TakinYourPoints on 5/29/2012 12:11:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple is big enough that it can invest in research and have LCDs cut to order


Component orders that nobody else would dare make aside, the other thing is that Apple invests hundreds of millions of dollars on custom equipment that their manufacturers use.

Machining equipment for their aluminum enclosures came out of their own pocket, their SoCs are in-house designs (the A5X is nearly as large as an x86 mobile CPU), and even Intel comes on board with things like the custom package for the 1st gen MBA. HP benefited from that six months later with the release of the Envy.

There's a reason why Apple is months or years ahead on products that have the characteristics that they focus on (display quality, material quality, thin/light chassis, long battery life). It is because they either order parts nobody else does, displays and the GPU to power them in this case, or they make the investment on production equipment themselves.


440ppi
By ritualm on 5/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: 440ppi
By FishTankX on 5/28/2012 5:39:46 PM , Rating: 5
Not with proper scaling. As long as the text remains at a proper size you should be fine.


RE: 440ppi
By inperfectdarkness on 5/29/2012 3:44:57 AM , Rating: 1
I hope you die in a fire. It's idiots like you that are the reason I can't get a laptop with a display above 1080p. I want to falcon punch you so bad right now.


RE: 440ppi
By bennyg on 5/29/2012 11:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
Higher res does not change focal length required to use it ???!??!? The days when you couldn't scale fonts and everything else are LONG GONE. There is NO reason why a lower res display is better.

And even if your eyes can't hack it - why on earth should I and every other person on the earth have to put up with it? I've been using 1080p/WUXGA 15" laptops for 5 years now regularly 5+ hours per day. I haven't changed my specs prescription for 11. My eyes are fine thank you and even IF I did want to kill them that's my choice - just like I can plug in a massive set of headphones and turn myself deaf if I want!


RE: 440ppi
By ritualm on 5/29/2012 6:00:45 PM , Rating: 1
rofl. The reason you can't get laptops with 1080p+ displays is cost e.g. it has nothing to do with eyesight. Why are mfrs still shipping notebooks with 768p? Because it's fucking cheap, that's why.

Save that DIAF for yourself.


RE: 440ppi
By testerguy on 5/29/2012 8:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you realise that real life has a PPI of many magnitudes higher than 440 or anything devices can replicate, right?

It makes the detail clearer - it doesn't hamper you viewing it in any way.

As the other guy said, the scaling means that the size of the text and images is the same - it's just made up of more, smaller pixels.

To give you an idea, the 'resolution' of light (which you use when looking at anything other than a screen), is 0.4-0.7 micrometers.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki