Digitimes reports that the adoption of new touch-sensor systems in both the iPhone 5 and iPad has caused a notable shift in the supply chain of the touch panel market, according to research carried out by the firm DisplaySearch.
Displays with in-cell touch are expected to rise from 7.3% of mobile phone shipments in 2012 to 13.7% in 2013, while shipments of GG DITO (double-sided ITO glass) structure are expected to decline from 10.3% to 0.6%. For tablets, shipments of GF2 sensor structure are expected to rise from 4.7% in 2012 to 28.4% in 2013, while shipments of GG DITO structure decline from 37.2% to 8.1%.
Calvin Hseih, research director at DisplaySearch, notes that Apple has been primarily responsible for this shift, despite the massive number of touchscreen devices already on the market. Apple's shift from a GG type touch-sensor system (glass on glass) to in-cell touch technology and GF2 (whereby the second layer of glass is replaced by an optical film) has rapidly influenced the entire supply chain
Apple switched from GG to in-cell touch technology with the iPhone 5 release back in September 2012 and the iPad mini and fourth-generation iPad also feature GF2 technology. Another report by Digitimes reiterates previous rumors that the upcoming fifth-generation iPad, which is slated to be released sometime in Q4 2013, will feature GF2 touch technology.
That technology will allow the new iPad to be thinner and lighter than previous models, with the technology being supplied by TPK and GIS. The fifth-generation iPad has been rumored and shown in leaked parts to be significantly smaller and thinner than the current iPad, taking design cues from the iPad mini.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)If the iPad 5 has an A7X, is thinner, lighter, has smaller side bezels and an in-cell touch display it would definitely be a worthwhile upgrade.
Try looking up ALON
Yes, but would thinner ALON break easier than thicker ALON?(i.e. transparent aluminium... far stronger than bullet proof glass and a LOT thinner)
When will Apple things be "thin" enough? Does everything have to get to the thickness (and fragility) of a piece of paper before they are thin enough? Do we want iDevices as thin as a piece of paper (knowing intuitively, how easily they will bend under even modest pressure)? Do we really want to try to hold an iPhone thinner than a movie ticket up to our ear?
I'm with you "santy". I'd rather quit with the race to "thinner" and focus on growing benefits like battery life (which is not accomplished by shrinking the battery so that we can spin "even thinner than last year's model" in the marketing). What some of us are doing now is paying full price for a thinner iDevice and then paying up for a battery case to give it the battery life we need. In other words, we're such spin suckers, we're craving thinner and then paying for a second device to make it thicker in daily use. Think about that.
Nevertheless, look through this very thread and you see it over and over: how most think making the phone or mini even thinner will somehow deliver some tangible benefit. At this point the biggest benefit it delivers is helping Apple justify removing functional parts so that the margin can remain "thick" or grow "thicker."
It's never going to fit in your pocket, if it's too heavy for you get a mini.
I'd just like longer battery life for those days when I'm out of reach of a charge point would accept the back covered in solar panels ;-)
Nice - I guess the main thing is the resulting weight loss as opposed to the reduction in thickness.
I hope not. I would hope the main thing is better visuals like color, less glare, better use in the sun etc with better touch sensitivity including some degree of pressure and less battery needs. If that comes in a package that is lighter and thinner, awesome. But weight had better not be THE reason for thisI would even take cheaper to use so we can bump the base storage without raising the retail price or lowering quality to less than the current as acceptable