More Confirmation of Sharp Supplying iPad 3 Displays

For those who missed my link earlier, this is a promo video for Sharp's Sakai plant, Sharp's newest factory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPzL2ujDldw

Pretty amazing site, also does solar cells. Started operations in 2010. I guess Apple would use this site.

Sharp is world class at this.

---

Edit: Ha! I got -3 votes on this. I've been to their factory. You?

Guh... screen res bump. chip bump. ram bump...

Waiting for the next big swing o the brush.

Can't wait to see the broad strokes again, Apple.

Quadrupling the screen resolution is one hell of a "bump". I've never been interested in an iPad but that will certainly change if they deliver resolution at that level.

I'll be there ready to buy whenever it's out. That's all :)

Do we really need retina display iPad's? I think it's fine for iPod Touch and iPhone since the screens are smaller, but hell that high res display on my iPad 2 looks fine. OK so there's a market for design pro's who want to show off their portfolios but otherwise I don't see it being much beyond marketing hype. There needs to be more then that.

I'm sure someone out there will be like "What about Farmville in HD??".

I think I'd rather see a retina display upgrade in the MacBook Air sooner then the iPad.

Or even better, just merge the iPad and MacBook Air. Allow me to remove the screen from an Air and have it be an iPad.

I have a feeling you don't use or like the iPad, as your main example is Farmville. Forget gaming. Have you looked at a webpage, or tried to read any text on the iPad? It's worse than a computer monitor. You see every pixel, every bit of anti-aliasing.

Think of magazines especially. The text and the photos will be amazing, to the point where using the iPad in place of a traditional periodical might be BETTER, not worse.

The iphone/ipod touch argument doesn't work because the size of the graphics are the same, it's the pixel density that changes, the clarity. Text is the same size, icons are the same size, it just all looks BETTER when you don't see pixels. It's easier to read and less strain. That applies to ALL screens, no matter the size.

God, this is like the same argument when people said the iPhone didn't need a retina display........ :mad:

Think Sharp is also the only panel producer that can provide a moth-eye coating.

Hope Apple will adopt that for the iPad3. Boosts contrast and black-levels by absorbing virtually all reflections...

Looking forward to what is produced!

A 'retina' TV set could help differentiate it.

TV sets are mostly already 'retina'. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to sit so close to the TV ?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this foreshadows Sharp moving out of the mobile market: let's look at it from Sharp's point of view. Their name in the consumer electronics space is fast fading.

It certainly is. Sharp suffered the misfortune of building the Danger Hiptop line only to have Danger be bought and killed by Microsoft. And if that wasn't bad enough, Sharp was also tapped by Microsoft to build KIN 1 and 2.

[...] Sharp has a far better shot at this market if it gets out of the consumer side directly and attacks those profits from the supply side.

Exactly. Apple gives Sharp big money up front, Sharp gets the security of an exclusive supplier contract with next-gen technology, and eventually Sharp might be able to use that technology in their own products. (Most likely in TVs and computer monitors.)

And if the rumors of Apple and Sharp working together on advanced OLED technology are true, Sharp is set for the foreseeable future. When their "OLED printing" technology is ready for mass production, Apple will benefit from lower component costs, and Sharp will benefit by being Apple's supplier.

I went to Sears not to long ago, and bought my first Sharp LED TV having usually had Sony or Samsung televisions. My decision was based on really three things. First, the Sharp panels with the added fourth pixel looked noticeably better then Samsung, Sony, LG, and Panasonic, all of which Sears also offered. Second, according to website reviews, Samsung is notorious for showing high end panels it makes on a particular model, but out sources the LCDs from a particular model from a variety of sources. You usually buy a panel made from some unknown third party company where the quality is inferior to the demo model. Sharp builds all its own panels so this isn't likely a problem. Third, the design of the sets with the glass bezel and chrome/glass looking stand is very Apple like.

After several months of owning this TV, it is undoubtedly the best TV I have owned. If you go on Amazon reviews, Sharp consistently gets five out of five stars. I bought a set going for $1100 at Paul's TV (and $999 on Amazon) for $699 at Sears. I have used it watching Sports, playing X-Box, as an external monitor for my Macbook, to watch DVDs, and Netflix. All looks great. I am very happy.

Are you kidding me?! I've always had great luck with Sharp TVs honestly. I have a 13" (or had, gave it away) that I had since 1994, still works (or did last year when I gave it away). My current one isn't that old (5 years or so?) but it's doing pretty well all things considering.

And best thing is Sharp is cheaper than Sony or Panasonic and from what I've seen as good quality (hell, my Panasonic tv in the living room is only 10 years old and it's on its way out :( ).