This article is incorrect. IGZO is more power efficient than LTPS, not less. Apple is not stupid. The power efficiency was paramount in enabling the reduction in size and power consumption of the ipad air.
Is that really true? In that case either...
1 - The iPad Air doesn't have an IGZO screen
2 - Apple did a bad job of implementing IGZO in the Air
or 3 - DisplayMate messed up their power consumption tests
... because, adjusting for the same luminance and screen area, DisplayMate actually measured the LTPS screen in the Amazon tablet as being 30% more power efficient than the alleged IGZO screen in the iPad Air.
I'd be interested in more info on the relative power efficiency of LTPS vs IGZO because I'd really like what you say to be correct (and I'm not saying it isn't - all I know about displays is what I read and what other people tell me).
from what I've read, LTPS has a higher leakage current than IGZO - which means it has to be refreshed more frequently to prevent flickering (...the opposite, with IGZO it's possible to skip drive cycles). Maybe it doesn't make a difference (I don't know), but there are some advantages in IGZO as well as it's less expensive at this time.
I'd certainly heard that benefit of IGZO vs a-Si but I hadn't read about it against LTPS as well. If rkuo is correct then that would bring an added benefit if an LTPS to IGZO switch was made for the iPhone 6 because, at least for my use, I spend a lot of time looking at static screens (reading ebooks, looking at a map, looking something up in Wikipedia or my Evernote database or just consulting my calendar). The hardware being able to skip refresh cycles when I'm reading ebooks could give a very worthwhile boost to my battery life.