While I've been a pretty big skeptic of large-size OLED TVs and nothing that has come to market or been announced a product changes that, I am little more sanguine than "it's still 15 years away". That said, it has been "5 years away" for about a decade.
I've been especially skeptical of the endless claims from proponents that it will be "cheaper to produce than LCD". That claim was very questionable in 2005 and seems pretty ridiculous in 2011. LCD pricing has seen something like a 30% annual cost-reduction curve on the production -- and retail -- side. While LCD production costs are bottoming out (unfortunately), the notion that OLED is going to somehow be cheaper than something that is both mature (the first TFTs date to the 1980s, the first full-color ones to the early/mid 1990s) and manufactured in the billion+ unit-per-year range is quite honestly ridiculous.
There is no precedent I can think of where some replacement technology comes along and is by virtue of its immature production processes and smaller volumes cheaper to make. I'm sure there are examples of technologies that get a lot cheaper over time -- for example rotating magnetic storage, multiple kinds of memory -- but it'd be interesting to identify those that don't benefit from Moore's Law-type effects or the benefits of automation coming to non-automated processes. My guess is the examples list would be short.
By definition, OLED TVs of similar size are of similar size, so glass, backplanes, power, logistics are all going to approximate the cost of LCDs. What it comes down to is that somehow, producing pixels -- the physical manifestation of them -- would need to be cheaper than doing so for LCD. And it appears that despite the amazing complexity of LCD televisions, the cost of producing pixels is approaching zero. (I don't literally mean zero, but if you include the color filters, the backlight, the LCD material, and the transistor backplane, et. al, you are talking something that even on a 60-inch set is vanishingly small, and with the cost of producing LEDs falling rapidly and their power efficiency rising, it's getting that much smaller).
The hope around OLED being cheaper is based on it being, therefore, so much inherently less complex to manufacture that a generation's worth of learning-curve effects, process improvements, etc. can be superseded in some shorter period of time, say the 5 years from 2013-2018. During that time, something approximating 10 billion LCD screens will be produced for TVs, tablets, computers, etc. While the number of OLED screens is rising proportionally faster than LED, the number being produced is not changing by the same raw amount as LCD. (In other words, LCD is still outgrowing OLED in total units added year over year).
There has been much hype around OLED being "printed" like with an inkjet, but the reality is that making OLEDs appears to be at least as complex as making LCDs and is by no means clearly easier. Of the scores of companies that were pursuing low-cost manufacturing methods for OLED in the previous decade, many are no longer remotely involved in trying to bring it to market. In fact, early leading proponents like Sony appear to have virtually no interest in pursuing the technology and Matsushita has also shown little interest.
Basically, the future of this technology for television is in the hands of the world's two-largest LCD makers who also happen to be two of the largest plasma makers. It strains the imagination to believe OLED will be anything more than a premium-priced TV product for the foreseeable future. It's also hard to imagine a $5000 32-inch TV to attract more than single-digit 1000 sales globally.
While I am well aware of the growth of OLED in the smartphone market, I am not convinced most people are seeing it as dramatically outperforming LCD. And the world's driving force for thinness, power consumption, etc. in mobile (Apple) has yet to tip its market driving power toward OLED, while doing insanely cool things with LCD. (Pick up an iPad2, marvel at its thinness, boggle as the fact that most of the height is the enclosure and the battery, not the screen).
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.