Thanks for clarifying on the designations, slacker. The translations of the article are often incomplete.
I saw the same DisplaySearch data and I agree with you. If we use that number, 50"+ is a ~20 million category. If they can scale to, say, 3 million per year and Samsung is also in the market, OLED could capture 25% of that market -- of course, only if pricing is very, very close to LCD already. Since LCD is not evaporating, it's not as if they could capture 100% of the high-end 50+ market unless pricing was within 10-20% at the outside. Mathematically, there's a distribution of sales of TVs even within the category and high-end 50s are probably only 15-20% of that category. So even if we assume the market mix tilts to 50+ over that time, there's a math challenge here. Say the category is 25 million, and the high end of it is 6 million (this seems plausible, if a bit aggressive.)
Within that, you'd need 50% share to sell 3 million and to achieve that you'd need more or less price parity or else the bell curve gets you again. Now, what I mean there is price parity with top-end 55" TVs, which are probably a $2500 product at that point. So perhaps the OLED could run up to $3000, but not higher.
If it's still $6000, there is simply no chance of this scenario coming to pass.
There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.