Mirasol - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 10:40 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rolldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Mirasol

I doubt any of you have ever heard of this type of display technology, but it's been developed by Qualcomm, who also owns the patents for the digital ink technology like you see in the original Kindle. It's a full color reflective technology, meaning it appears like a piece of paper, reflecting ambient light rather than generating and emitting ìt's own light, like current LCD/LED technology. Mirasol has a refresh rate as high as LCD while consuming 90% less power so it's able to produce full motion color video with no issues at all. It even has less power than their E-ink technology. Now, the E-ink technology, which some companies are trying to produce color versions of it, but the refresh rate is so low that it can't produce full motion video without significant blurring. Mirasol has a reflectiveness that is higher than E‐Ink and closer to paper making it easy to read whether in direct sunlight  
or a dimly lit room. The cost to manufactu re Mirasol screens is expected to be lower thancomparable LCD screens once production i s ramped up to full scale.  Qualcomm built  a $1 billion fab plant in Taiwan to prod uce Mirasol  that opened in 2012.  Mirasol's largest pot ential competition comes from OLED which is similar in appearance to LCD but much thin ner and potentially cheaper.  But OLED face s several technological challenges that will be hard to overcome.  It degrades fairly  rapidly with a lifespan only 25%‐33% as l ong as an LCD screen.  More 
importantly, the blue degrades much faster t han the other two primary colors causing a significant discoloration fairly early in it s lifespan. Unfortunately, Qualcomm has put Mirasol on the back burner for the time being because the cost of production is too high to be competitive in the marketplace. But, this could be something we might see in the near future. Imagine having a laptop that will hold its charge for 2 weeks. This technology can be used on anything that has a screen, so just imagine the possibilities.
rolldog is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
UUronl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arlington, VA, USA
Posts: 1,034
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Check out Fipels too.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
UUronl is online now  
post #3 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 12:41 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Actually, WOLED (LG's OLED implementation) does not suffer from the blue degradation of traditional RGB OLED. With a lifespan of 30k hours so far and room for improvement, the lifetime complaint also rings a little hollow.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Qualcomm has put Mirasol on the back burner for the time being because the cost of production is too high to be competitive in the marketplace.
Which means this tech has a hell's chance of surfacing in consumer displays in 5 to 10 years.
vinnie_RIP is offline  
post #4 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 01:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,419
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Mirasol has been on life support for several years. I doubt it will get off of it until it's dead.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is online now  
post #5 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 04:37 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rolldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Unless they can figure out a way to make it cheaper, it'll never see the light of day.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
rolldog is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
barth2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 127
They could make it dirt cheap and we still won't see it in TVs. Poor color reproduction and abysmal off axis viewing. It's only good for mobile devices due to low power consumption.
barth2k is offline  
post #7 of 11 Old 07-13-2014, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
It sounds like a non-projector version of DLP. It seems like it would be faster than liquid crystal. *fingers crossed* It would also seem that it uses considerable power than expected. I have heard it can work at 60 hz easily by using this power. Then again, rumors of its frame rate suggest, it has a poor one. I don't know what to believe about it.

Last edited by Weboh; 07-13-2014 at 10:53 PM.
Weboh is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 07-14-2014, 06:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rolldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 13
After discussing this with some QCOM executives, the original focus was for items similar to the ones that use their digital E-ink technology, which would mostly be tablets, but it's able to produce full motion color video and have the battery life of the E-ink devices, which is approximately 2 weeks depending on the amount of usage, taking wireless features into consideration as well. To be able to produce full motion color video on a device that's as thin as a piece of paper, direct sunlight has no negative effect on the display, and the battery life of these devices extended out approx 2 weeks, it just makes you think of the possibilities if they were to get this right. Basically, anything with a screen could utilize it. Unfortunately, it's cost prohibitive because the current price to build Mirasol screens is much too high to be competitive. They need to get on the ball or else they won't be around in 5-10 years. Over a decade ago, as phones transitioned f rom cell technology to digital (known as G2 ) there were 
three competing technologies.  First develope d was TDMA, then GSM and finally CDMA from  
Qualcomm.  There are only so many ways to transmit a signal between a single source (cell tower) and multiple destinations (phones) simultaneou sly, and as it works out, CDMA is the opt imal method.  The others proved to consume more power or waste bandwidth.  As telecom  companies transitioned 
from G2 to faster G3 networks, TDMA was ab andoned and the GSM companies altered their
technology to be based off a modified CDMA standard.  All G4 technologies under consid eration are 
also based off CDMA. Today, almost every time anyone in the developed world buys a cell phone or a tower transmitter is installed, QCOM is p aid a royalty.  In the developing world, m any companies 
continue to use older technologies although  they are gradually transitioning(4G).  The r oyalties QCOMgenerates are almost pure profit  and comprise about 36% of revenues. QCOM is also a dominant maker of phone chipsets based on its own t echnology.  This comprises most of the rest  of QCOM's 
revenue and here they enjoy over 50% gross margins. In this segment they enjoy some obvious information advantages over competitors, parti cularly on newer chipsets and technology. Currently, most phones sold are dual band, meaning they can utilize the CDMA technology and the 4G technology, which QCOM doesn't own patents to and it's cheaper to operate. Once the nation is covered with towers that generate 4G wireless, there will be no need to include CDMA technology in phones which means a major blow to QCOM. So, a good way to avoid this catastrophe to their business is to focus on perfecting Mirasol to replace the lost revenue stream from their CDMA royalties. So maybe sometime soon, we'll see more refined versions of Mirasol that's cost effective to put it into the marketplace. That's the end of my teaching
rolldog is offline  
post #9 of 11 Old 07-14-2014, 07:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolldog View Post
which QCOM doesn't own patents to and it's cheaper to operate. Once the nation is covered with towers that generate 4G wireless, there will be no need to include CDMA technology in phones which means a major blow to QCOM. So, a good way to avoid this catastrophe to their business is to focus on perfecting Mirasol to replace the lost revenue stream from their CDMA royalties. So maybe sometime soon, we'll see more refined versions of Mirasol that's cost effective to put it into the marketplace. That's the end of my teaching
Just for the record, Qualcomm does own patents in LTE (4G) and collects a substantial royalty on LTE only devices as well.

With respect to Mirasol, the original version had an absolutely terrible color gamut and contrast ratio. It was never going to gain traction for any display where picture quality was an important metric. They showed a new version at SID that was capable of showing a much larger color gamut but didnt give a timeline on its commercialization.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...140605/356340/

It is likely safe to say that this version is a fairly long way from showing up in smartphones much less televisions.
slacker711 is offline  
post #10 of 11 Old 07-14-2014, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rolldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yes, QCOM does own a version of 4G LTE in their Snapdragon chipsets, but they don't own the entire spectrum like they did with CDMA. I agree with you regarding the Mirasol. They're trying hard to improve the quality without giving up the significant power saving of Mirasol. I was inferring that it would be nice if this technology was refined a bit so it's cheaper to manufacture and the quality is improved. They've been able to increase the refresh rate, but what it's going to come down to is if consumers are willing to make a trade off, lower picture quality with an average battery life of 2 weeks or high quality displays that must be charged throughout the day. Mirasol has a long way to go before it's widely adopted, but just the possibilities of what this technology can do is impressive. They still own patents on the E-ink technology, but as I mentioned earlier, 36% of their revenue is generated by royalties on CDMA, which is all pure profit. The rest of their revenue is derived from chipsets, where they have a 50% profit margin. So, approx. 64% of revenue at a 50% profit margin vs 36% of their revenue at a 100% profit margin clearly shows the royalty portion of the business is worth a lot more than the chip making division. I would just like them to work out the kinks with the Mirasol so I can stop carrying around external battery chargers.
rolldog is offline  
post #11 of 11 Old 07-14-2014, 08:05 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rolldog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Just to clarify, Qualcomm also holds many essential patents for 4G OFDMA technologies, which are used in both FD-LTE and TD-LTE networks. Because the firm doesn’t have the same monopoly-like IP position for 4G technologies as 3G, the firm will likely earn lower royalty rates on single-mode 4G phones than 3G phones over time. However, virtually all 4G phones today are multimode and backwards compatible with 3G, enabling the company to earn relatively higher 3G royalties over time. By Qualcomm’s estimates, in 2018, more than 95% of 4G handsets in the market will still be backwards compatible with 3G. Longer-term, as 4G networks mature and even become antiquated, the firm has hinted that the drop-off in royalty revenue on pure 4G devices versus multimode 3G/4G devices might only be about 5%. Finally, looking 10 years out and even further, when 4G is a mature network and 5G (whatever it may be) is the current industry standard, we would still anticipate backwards compatibility with 4G and even 3G networks, thus allowing Qualcomm to earn healthy royalty revenue at over 85% operating margins well into the future.
rolldog is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off