It's already been addressed by the article, and in this thread. The rumour states the OLED panel Apple wants is a two-stack design. As I understand it, this would have much less risk of burn-in, but is considerably more expensive.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2024 OLED iPad Pros Set to Be a Lot Pricier Due to Costly Panel Production Process
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t see a use case for an ipad pro over a Macbook Air. I sold my ipad pro and will buy an MBA. Make the ipad run MacOS and I’d buy it. ipados is just too gimmicky for me.
Touch screen and Pencil - two things a Macbook Air can't do.
I mistyped, it’s 8040, not 8940 (now corrected).
It’s the numbers that come up when googling, for example https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/14-vs-16-mini-led-difference-a-question-for-experts.2320431/.
They probably started to experiment with both in parallel (there were rumors about both at roughly the same time), and at the time they got far enough with mini-LED for it to seem viable, prospects for OLED were still unclear. So they went with what they had, because why wait an indefinite amount of time for something they don’t know if and when it will be ready? Now, three-ish years later, OLED has apparently become viable, so they go for it because it’s arguably the better display technology. But if it fails in the market due to cost or other issues, they still have mini-LED around.
Already gone up massively in UK from 2021 to 2022. £1019 for the cellular model for only 128GB 11 inch. Hate imagine on the 12.9.
I purchased m1 iPad Pro 12.9-inch and today I understand what you mean by that comment. Never again.
I would. For me, that iPads run iOS instead of macOS is a feature, not a bug.
My 2018 pro is waiting for a good reason to start its retirement apple.
I use my iPad Pro 12.9" to digitize my notes using GoodNotes. It feels great to not have to carry around physical files. Now, if only ALL books would come in a Kindle edition, then I wouldn't need to carry those around too.
I use both. Neither replaces the other in this regard.
Wonder how much the increase will be. Hopefully Apple will not make the starting price of 11" WiFi model as $999.
It seems some people are wondering why Apple is going for a tandem stack OLED panel instead of a traditional OLED panel. One word: brightness. Apple eschewed OLED earlier because it simply wasn’t bright enough. Look at any other OLED table or laptop screen of comparable size and you’ll find max brightness of about 400 nits, give or take. Because OLED is made up of organic material, it degrades when subjected to heat, so OLED devices have limits to how bright they can get to avoid burn-in. Samsung’s own top-of-the-line tablet barely achieves 400 nits. I have one of those, and it is rather dim, though the picture is incredible otherwise.
Apple went mini-LED because OLED could not be made bright enough for a device that’s supposed to last 5-7 years, unlike phones which are generally replaced every 2-3 years and have much smaller panels. You’ll notice iPhones and other Androids can now reach 1750 nits to 2000 nits, but that’s because they are expected to last for less than half the time of a tablet. While HDR has specs that can work at 400 nits, Apple considers that fake HDR. Their Studio Display can display HDR at 600 nits, but notice Apple doesn’t advertise it as an HDR-capable monitor, even though it technically is. 1000 nits is typically considered the minimum brightness for real HDR.
The tandem stacked OLEDs reduce heat and double the brightness because there are two LED’s where there was one. That can extend the lifetime of a screen to that 5-7 years and still be able to attain the brightness of a mini-LED screen. But why OLED instead of mini-LED? OLED has true blacks and infinite contrast, while you can make backlighting only so small for mini-LED, which leads to blooming. OLED is the ultimate picture quality now, but is dim in its standard version. This version gives mini-LED brightness with the quality of OLED’s fantastic contrast. Yield for such a large panel along with its new technology is going to be lower than standard OLED panels, hence the higher cost. In the near future, it’ll be a lot more expensive, but with Samsung’s new production line and eventually higher yields, those prices will come down.
The panacea is micro-LED, otherwise known as inorganic LED. Inorganic material doesn’t degrade with heat with no possibility of burn-in, so the best quality possible in the near future is micro-LED with all the benefits of OLED and brightness of LCD without any of the drawbacks of either, likely getting rid of the PWM (pulse width modulation) problem some people have with OLED, which looks like flicker.
Apple went mini-LED because OLED could not be made bright enough for a device that’s supposed to last 5-7 years, unlike phones which are generally replaced every 2-3 years and have much smaller panels. You’ll notice iPhones and other Androids can now reach 1750 nits to 2000 nits, but that’s because they are expected to last for less than half the time of a tablet. While HDR has specs that can work at 400 nits, Apple considers that fake HDR. Their Studio Display can display HDR at 600 nits, but notice Apple doesn’t advertise it as an HDR-capable monitor, even though it technically is. 1000 nits is typically considered the minimum brightness for real HDR.
The tandem stacked OLEDs reduce heat and double the brightness because there are two LED’s where there was one. That can extend the lifetime of a screen to that 5-7 years and still be able to attain the brightness of a mini-LED screen. But why OLED instead of mini-LED? OLED has true blacks and infinite contrast, while you can make backlighting only so small for mini-LED, which leads to blooming. OLED is the ultimate picture quality now, but is dim in its standard version. This version gives mini-LED brightness with the quality of OLED’s fantastic contrast. Yield for such a large panel along with its new technology is going to be lower than standard OLED panels, hence the higher cost. In the near future, it’ll be a lot more expensive, but with Samsung’s new production line and eventually higher yields, those prices will come down.
The panacea is micro-LED, otherwise known as inorganic LED. Inorganic material doesn’t degrade with heat with no possibility of burn-in, so the best quality possible in the near future is micro-LED with all the benefits of OLED and brightness of LCD without any of the drawbacks of either, likely getting rid of the PWM (pulse width modulation) problem some people have with OLED, which looks like flicker.
Last edited:
So much fuss about nothing
If Apple believe they can charge so much more for an OLED iPad, vote with your wallet and get the previous gen. model (or a discounted refurbished version thereof). Current models are so powerful, they’ll perform extremely well for many years. As an owner of a 2021 M1 iPP I’m still impressed by its raw power- there are zero reasons to upgrade for many more years.
If Apple believe they can charge so much more for an OLED iPad, vote with your wallet and get the previous gen. model (or a discounted refurbished version thereof). Current models are so powerful, they’ll perform extremely well for many years. As an owner of a 2021 M1 iPP I’m still impressed by its raw power- there are zero reasons to upgrade for many more years.
I looked to get a new pro to replace my 2018 as my partner needs a replacement iPad and I was going to pass the old one onto her. Looked at the prices of the new pros and nope. Not a chance at the current prices. Let alone if they increase them.
iPads are fundamentally a limited device and they want similar money to a macbook pro. Not a chance.
iPads are fundamentally a limited device and they want similar money to a macbook pro. Not a chance.
What are you doing to your poor phone?
Using it on a ski slope at max brightness for six hours a day?
I’ve had my 11 pro max for over three years used daily and still not a sign of burn in anywhere in the screen.
Are the screens on the 13 pro poor quality or something?
About 2 hours of screen on time on the phone per day which is what's even more surprising! It's used a lot less than my previous Galaxy S10 because I got a Mac and iPad this time around. I do tend to use my phone outdoors since indoors I'm on the Mac, but the screen brightness is rarely over 60% with auto brightness on, except on the very sunny summer days where I avoid using it in general because it quickly turns into a choppy overheating mess like every other device. The time on the left of the notch, status icons on the right of the notch and the home pill are quite clearly burnt in. I have a regular 13, not the Pro. It's nothing I haven't experienced on other OLEDs (not to this degree on the Samsung but I had the home pill hidden on that and the status icons + time on it are way smaller), but it's worth noting that the tech (in my experience) isn't suitable for Macs especially with the dock sitting in one place, and usually with the same set of icons on it too.
I have both. The iPad (with 5G) is great on the go, especially on short trips where if you have to do some quick work, the Smart Keyboard is a great accessory to have, but then you could also use it for entertainment like streaming music and video, editing, and whatever else.
That many people don't see the value here is not new—it has been that way since the iPad Pro line came out. If you would rather have a touch screen Mac, the iPad is never going to do it for you regardless of price or feature.
Let's step back and look at what Apple is creating if this rumor is true. Will it be "better" than the current 12.9" screen? It certainly won't be a step back! Which means we can expect (at minimum) 1600nit peak brightness, 1000nit sustained (in HDR), 120hz refresh now with instant refresh, 10-bit color, true blacks, and infinite contrast. This "hybrid" structure of glass and flexible OLED also sounds like what Apple has been rumored to do their design labs with much smaller micro-LED displays which said to be incredibly vivid. These will be true state-of-the-art displays. Over kill for many users? Yes. For many others the idea of a reference-grade display that is portable AND usable as a tablet is an insane value.
I do think around the time these are released Apple will finally trickle down some of the "Pro" features to the iPad Air which has been hamstrung because it is already too close to the 11" Pro. Adding 120hz refresh and true quad-speakers to the Air will redirect many users to the Air. It will also make the Air an entry point to the Pro lineup instead of a competitor.
As pure speculation, if Apple were to increase the price of the 11" Pro by $200 and the 13" Pro by $100 but double the storage of the Pros and Air, it would keep the stair step pricing structure and make all the new models relatively appealing compared to the outgoing models. Yes, that would also increase the cost-to-manufacture but NAND prices have been falling for a while and Apple's prices, as always, are constant. So unlikely to significantly erode Apple's margins over the long term while preserving the perception of value.
Let's step back and look at what Apple is creating if this rumor is true. Will it be "better" than the current 12.9" screen? It certainly won't be a step back! Which means we can expect (at minimum) 1600nit peak brightness, 1000nit sustained (in HDR), 120hz refresh now with instant refresh, 10-bit color, true blacks, and infinite contrast. This "hybrid" structure of glass and flexible OLED also sounds like what Apple has been rumored to do their design labs with much smaller micro-LED displays which said to be incredibly vivid. These will be true state-of-the-art displays. Over kill for many users? Yes. For many others the idea of a reference-grade display that is portable AND usable as a tablet is an insane value.
I do think around the time these are released Apple will finally trickle down some of the "Pro" features to the iPad Air which has been hamstrung because it is already too close to the 11" Pro. Adding 120hz refresh and true quad-speakers to the Air will redirect many users to the Air. It will also make the Air an entry point to the Pro lineup instead of a competitor.
As pure speculation, if Apple were to increase the price of the 11" Pro by $200 and the 13" Pro by $100 but double the storage of the Pros and Air, it would keep the stair step pricing structure and make all the new models relatively appealing compared to the outgoing models. Yes, that would also increase the cost-to-manufacture but NAND prices have been falling for a while and Apple's prices, as always, are constant. So unlikely to significantly erode Apple's margins over the long term while preserving the perception of value.
Am I calling OLED on my iPhone 13 Pro garbage comparing to the Mini LED on my M1 iPad Pro when watching HDR contents? No.
And, with more than 10,000 of LED arranged as 2500+ zones, in a panel of just 12.9", can't you imagine how advanced this panel is? How could it be just a cheap stop gap?
Do you know Mini LED displays from other vendors (expensive computer display and TV) with about 1/5 backlight zones composed of undisclosed number of LEDs are all well received more than OLED due to its true to the life brightness and black level.
The cost increase is comparing the new stacked OLED to the mainstream OLED.
I believe the Mini LED on the iPad Pro costs not much less than the stacked OLED, so the final price is not going to increase a lot.
I believe the Mini LED on the iPad Pro costs not much less than the stacked OLED, so the final price is not going to increase a lot.