Must Read: Google Glass 2 wish list: Allow us to turn it off

Topic: Tablets

iPad 5 features that are coming your way

Summary: When is the updated, 5th-generation version of Apple's flagship tablet coming? It could be next month, sometime in June or even as late as October. But the real question is not when the product is going to be released, it's what's going to be in it.

Jason Perlow

By for Tech Broiler |

 |  Image 3 of 8

Display: SHARP IGZO Retina

The iPad 5 is likely to have the exact (or nearly the same) display resolution as the iPad 4 and iPad 3 that preceded it, at around 2560x1536 pixels. However, the important changes in this display are going to occur in switching to a different display manufacturing process, referred to as Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide, or IGZO, for short.

IGZO technology was developed by Japanese electronics giant SHARP along with Semiconductor Energy Laboratories. The zinc oxide replaces the silicon used in the amorphous layer in existing TFT displays and has a number of advantages, including a vast increase in electron mobility (over 40 times that of amorphous silicon) resulting in a higher reaction speed over previous technologies.

Moving to IGZO also would mean a thinner sandwich for the LCD panel and also translating into less weight, as well as improved luminosity and increased power efficiency.

Why do we think Apple is going to IGZO? Because SHARP has announced that as of April of 2012, it would be producing 10" 2560x1600 and 7" 1280x800 IGZO panels in large quantities.

So it would seem iPad 5 and iPad mini 2nd-generation are both getting an IGZO boost.

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • Thumbnail 8

Topics: Tablets, Apple, iPad

About

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Technology Solution Professional with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Google+ Contact Disclosure

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories

Talkback

93 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Apple's improvement mantra - Lighter, Thinner and more Powerful; same cost.

    I can't argue with your crystal ball gazing but, IMO, it is a VERY safe prediction. Let's try to stretch your imagination just a tad.

    For the longest time, you have projected an OS X/iOS software and hardware merger based upon the ARM architecture.

    How's 2014, or 12 months from now, looking for the first 64 bit ARM SoC based MacBook Air with IGZO, Liquid Metal and improved battery and electronic's synergy resulting in a laptop design that is just a smidgeon thicker than the current iPad 4 and having a 12 hour battery life between charges sound?

    Or, do you want to play it safe and project this possibility becoming reality in 2015?

    Just curious.
    kenosha77a
    Reply 4 Votes

    • Some might argue that Apple failed to follow this mantra w/the iPad 3 or 4

      I said it was a mantra, not a hard and fast observation. However, few can argue that during the past 12 years, Apple has tried to apply these design goals to their next generation products.
      kenosha77a
      Reply 4 Votes

      • Nothing better than a Apple product

        Bar none.

        My Opinion
        Over and Out
        Reply 1 Vote

    • Lighter, thinner, CPU that's more powerful = lower battery life

      People love these things, whose CPUs couldn't outmatch a desktop made 15 years ago, because of portability.
      HypnoToad72
      Reply Vote

      • Fifteen years ago would make it about 1998. Memory lane time

        You should get a big kick out of this. I found this web site containing some interesting factoids.

        http://www.computerhope.com/history/1998.htm

        For example. Did you recall that in 1998:

        Intel released the Celeron processor and eMachines was founded. Sorry, but I wouldn't trade my iPad 3 with it's software for any 1998 eMachine Celeron based desktop with it's software.

        Apple releases iMac and Bill Gates is hit in the face with a cream pie. I doubt the two 1998 events were related. Grin.

        Sun releases JavaStation and Windows 98 is released by Microsoft. Actually, I used both software efforts but I really enjoyed my Amiga systems during 1998. IMO, AmigaDOS incorporating a version of IBM's script language REXX called ARexx was way more advanced than those other two software systems. But I'm partial and I'm biased in my objectivity regarding this issue.

        And, not last and not least of the 1998 hit parade, Valve Half-Life is released as a FPS game. That last one was for my old online friend, NonZealot. I hope he's doing well.
        kenosha77a
        Reply 2 Votes

        • Mac.Netbook

          The ARM architecture has no performance/power efficient over the 5 year old ATOM architecture. If Apple really want to convert their Macbook line to Mac.Netbook line, ATOM is really a better choice than ARM. At least they don't to rewrite all the software, or do the binary translation which will add a another level of hiccup on the weak ARM platform.
          wsw1982
          Reply 1 Vote

          • Re: The ARM architecture has no performance/power efficient over the 5 year

            It most certainly IS more power-efficient. That's why Calxeda can build a business offering ARM server clusters: the biggest expense in running a data centre has become the electricity bill.
            ldo17
            Reply Vote

          • It is?

            I'm pretty sure our biggest bill is the Hardware and administrators we pay to manage it. Energy savings are nice but it's only a small piece of the pie.
            Rob.sharp
            Reply Vote

          • Apple and Convergence

            Convergence devices is the last thing on Apple's agenda.
            They won't even let you make phone calls or run passbook on an ipad.
            You can be pretty certain Apple won't make an OSX tablet/touchscreen Mac.
            They aim to have every Apple user buy the iphone/ipad/macbook trio which is why they have the triple setup in Apple stores.
            Mac sales have dropped 25%. It is becoming less relevant for Apple just like Mac Pros. It is not a growth area for Apple, and facing insurmountable hurdles to make an OSX tablet or an ARM Mac line is expending a lot of resources and expense for no potential benefit to the bottom line.
            Apple is all about the bottom line at user's expense, never the other way round.
            warboat
            Reply 1 Vote

          • Grow up

            @warboat

            Apple already made an OSX tablet. They gave it a touch interface and gave the touch interfaced OSX the name iOS. They called the tablet iPad.

            Microsoft wasted years trying to pretend that you could just stuff WindosXP/VISTA/7 on a tablet and have a worthwhile device.

            Apple is not facing insurmountable hurdles to do the same, because it knows that it's a stupid thing to even try.

            Apple is all about giving the best possible user experience, because if you give the customers something that delights them, the bottom line will look after itself.

            Shame Microsoft never thought of that.
            Henry 3 Dogg
            Reply 2 Votes

          • err, mac sales dropping

            Poor stat, and a blatantly false conclusion.

            Last quarters Mac sales got hammered by introducing new models with nothing in the pipeline. It wasnt until end of January/beginning of February that they have been fulfilling orders at a reasonable rate. Also add in EU silliness about the MacPro case design that mandated no more EU sales of MacPros (until a new version is released).
            Non-Euclidean
            Reply Vote

          • You may be on to something.

            I would be all for this, especially if it was in the sub-$500 range. Also it is definitely possible because I've seen at least one person on the internet put OS X on a MSi Wind netbook. Does the Air use a SSD? Because that would probably reduce its overall cost, as well.
            Richard Estes
            Reply Vote

        • 1998 and iPad 5

          @kenosha77a
          good comments .. tempus does fugit. For those of us who bought the first "little Mac" in March 1984 (over $2,000) and then IBM 20286 in August (almost $3,000) it has been an exciting ride.

          Interesting to read and hear the complaints about HIGH prices for this terrific gear. 2012 over twice 1984 :-0

          As for non-zealot, missing him is like missing a bad tooth. Hopefully he is sucking his thumb somewhere >> else.
          n781lc
          Reply 1 Vote

          • Altair 8080 start

            I started with an Altair 8080, had several different little pad computers. Used, but never owned a TRS-80 in any flavor. Had a DEC Rainbow 100 – great hardware!
            JScottA44
            Reply Vote

    • ARM transformation of the Mac

      Will require a considerable amount of software engineering work on the OS X side to handle increased core parallelization (think 8 or more ARM Cortex A-15 cores) not to mention that we are still probably 2 years away from the silicon being able to handle most "normal" Mac workloads. So I am still thinking 2015 for the introduction of the first "Converged" product, 2016-2017 with complete convergence of both OSes and across all product lines.
      jperlow
      Reply 1 Vote

      • And...

        We need an A-series chip that not only has a lot of cores and a OS X that can handle that, but can handle 64-bit instructions and memory addressing. The alternative would be for Apple to host a Cloud desktop type of service for legacy x86 workloads.
        jperlow
        Reply Vote

        • Who says all those cores must reside on ONE ARM chip?

          I tend to recall, before Intel made dual and then quad cores commonplace on one silicon chip, that computers would use dual or quad CPUs bridged together on a single motherboard.

          As in interim compromised hardware solution, system engineers COULD incorporate multiple ARM chips on a single motherboard design to achieve the desired massive parallelization output.

          Another thought did occur while reading your excellent comments, Jason. That is, I remember that when Apple announced it's intent to switch to Intel processors, Steve Jobs revealed that from "Day One", OS X was running on the Intel chip platform. I also tend to recall published "rumors" around the time of the first iPad release that an ARM MBA prototype existed and was running core OS X apps.

          I suspect that OS X has been able to run on ARM processors from "Day One" as well and that the only reason Apple has not made the move yet not because of any software or hardware platform concerns but rather from business and political ramifications concerning their ongoing relationship with Intel.

          A hypothetical "switch to ARM from Intel" gambit could still be acting as a type of Sword of Damocles Apple option regarding their relationship with Intel.
          kenosha77a
          Reply 2 Votes

          • They don't "Have to" reside on one chip.

            But the aim nowadays is manufacturing simplicity and component reduction. Having two CPU's requires a crossbar and bus interface between the two, plus more complex controller chips. The point of a SoC is to integrate CPU, Cache, RAM and GPU all on one die. You could solder the RAM to the mainboard like Apple does now with x86, and have separate sockets for the CPU, but that is not the desired direction going forward, if you want to simplify manufacturing.

            As to the "Day One", sure, I bet they are actively porting peices in the labs. But there's a LOT of software to port and a lot of unit testing that needs to be done, and this is not just any port. Architectually a large number of things would need to be altered, not just going from CISC back to RISC.
            jperlow
            Reply 1 Vote

          • Just to add

            Parallel programming is still in the dark ages compared to chip design.
            Alan Smithie
            Reply Vote

          • Ummm...

            FYI, the Middle Ages were *not* dark. They were the foundation-building years that enabled the Renaissance. The real dark ages were before the Middle Ages...after the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbaric tribes roved Europe. During that time, it was religious groups that kept the knowledge of the ancients alive. Gradually, education and moral formation saw the vanquishing and/or conversion of the barbarian hordes, and civil order built in small and then increasing groups -- the feudal areas of increasing size that eventually became whole kingdoms, and then nations.

            So what *brought on* the actual dark ages...what *caused* the downfall of the Roman Empire?* Its moral malaise, primarily. Anyone not seeing that today?

            *The long-acknowledged authoritative historical resource on this: "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", by Edward Gibbon.
            techboy_z
            Reply 2 Votes
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close