The Retina Display of the new iPad 3 tablet is by far the most attractive feature of the tablet and I don't know if there is an owner of this device who is not satisfied with its quality. Although many people see it as a great achievement for Apple, it seems that he is it would not have been the first choice of the American company. Apple would have tested an iPad 3 tablet that would have been thinner than the iPad 2 and would have used the IGZO technology produced by Sharp, but unfortunately that technology could not be perfected to allow the production of a sufficient number of screens for the launch of the device .
The plan was to use this new technology called IGZO from Sharp — a lot higher electron mobility that allows them to make the transistors a lot smaller and the circuit elements a lot smaller... There's no question that the iPad 3 is Plan B. They pushed amorphous silicon to a higher [pixels per inch] than anybody else. But the light throughput is not good. So it has roughly twice as many LEDs, and they had to get a 70 percent larger battery.
In the months before the launch of the iPad 3, I kept reading rumors about the implementation of Sharp's IGZO screens, which would have been thinner and would have consumed much less energy. Unfortunately, Sharp could not produce them, so Apple used normal screens, which have a higher resolution, a double number of LEDs but which consume even more energy. The IGZO screens would have been brighter, the iPad tablet would have been thinner and would have had a smaller battery, but in the end Apple chose the compromise solution called the Retina Display that we use now.
Considering the compromise made now, there is a chance that we will only see these IGZO screens in iPad tablets next year, or maybe we will see them in the fall in iPhone terminals.
