OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 70 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 91Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2071 of 10553 Old 04-26-2011, 01:48 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Ok, this is the worst of the canards. LCD and plasma cost more 10-20 years ago than they do know, yes. But now they are dirt cheap. When they came into being, they faced no competition. Now, there is competition from them. This competition is why there is not OLED TV. And I'm sorry, but OLED just flat out does not have "low cost of construction/materials". If it did, it would be cheaper than LCD. It isn't

I don't see how you can say that. OLEDs can be (and will be) printed like newspaper, onto plastics or metal film (roll-to-roll printing). No backlighting or other extra supporting devices are needed. That fact alone shows they will be cheaper. They also use no hazardous metals or other materials like the mercury found in the backlighting of an LCD screen that uses fluorescent tubes.
pdoherty972 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2072 of 10553 Old 04-26-2011, 02:51 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #2073 of 10553 Old 04-26-2011, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
navychop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 2,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post

By that argument, Plasma should be winning out over LCD. It has similar advantages. Superior viewing angles, better blacks, better response time.

LCD being only a little cheaper pulled ahead massively....

There are other factors. For example, LCDs are generally easier to watch in brightly lit rooms. So there will be a list of factors to determine OLED success, of which price may be the most important or nearly so.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #2074 of 10553 Old 04-26-2011, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
IMHO lifetime of blue is the most important issue of OLED TV commercializing (niche) within next 12 months. The degradation is likely noticeable even within a 3 years timeframe. I've yet to see people complain about their year old OLED galaxy s phones though.

However taking ref from the past 30 years these kind of technical issues are likely not insurmountable in the longer run. (Maybe a blue color filter will help?) Problem is the trade off with time-to-market.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2075 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 04:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
From Display Search:

"All leading LCD and AMOLED producers have been working on oxide semiconductor TFTs (typically a-IGZO). IGZO offers the potential of low cost and electron mobilities of 10-30X those of a-Si. Higher electron mobility can be used to reduce device size and increase aperture ratio, enhance electronic device integration on to the glass, increase TFT speed, ultra high definition (UD) displays like 4K × 2K at 240 Hz, and is sufficient to drive AMOLED pixels. It is unclear exactly when Sharp started research on oxide semiconductors for TFT LCD, but in December 2009 Sharp presented a paper at IDW Japan suggesting that it had resolved all major issues inhibiting IGZO FPD mass production.

After months of silence, Sharp’s recent announcement stated that it will begin production on its Gen 8 Kameyama line by the end of 2011. The company implied production will target small and medium LCDs, presumably including tablet displays. This implies the potential for a huge amount of production volume: DisplaySearch calculates that if Sharp uses 25% of Kameyama G8 capacity to make tablet panels, it could produce about 33 million panels per year.

Mass production of oxide semiconductor based FPDs would be a major milestone for the industry. Sharp has made many manufacturing breakthroughs, including the first Gen 6, Gen 8 and Gen 10 fabs and UV²A optical alignment. Now it looks like Sharp may become the world’s first commercial producer of oxide semiconductor-based LCDs.

If Sharp is successful with IGZO, it will be another notch in its technology portfolio. But it is unclear if it offers enough benefit to small/medium displays to gain significant market share, and it is unclear how big the near term market for UD displays is. Oxide semiconductors in themselves may not be big enough to overcome high production costs in Japan, heavy reliance on the Japanese market, and increasing global competition. Unless Sharp can rapidly develop AMOLEDs, which gain the most from IGZO, it may find once again that the best way to capitalize on its technical prowess is to license it to another manufacturer."
specuvestor is offline  
post #2076 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others.

You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2077 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 01:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 387
@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.

@Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.

Sharp is rumored to be in line for a major, major chunk of iPad 3 screen production.

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.
rogo is offline  
post #2078 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.

It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.

LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2079 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 168
Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

Mourning the disappearance of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #2080 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.

good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.

Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.

Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2081 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 06:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
navychop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 2,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

Ain't it the truth.

-JVC D-ILA owner.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #2082 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 08:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 113
I dont think that lifetimes will be a huge concern by the time we get commercial TV's. The current lifetime of an Idemitsu fluorescent blue is supposed to be in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 hours and they are presenting a new version in few weeks at SID 2011.

I would also note that the LG 15" OLED televisions already on the market are listed with a 30,000 hours.

OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.

Slacker
slacker711 is online now  
post #2083 of 10553 Old 04-27-2011, 11:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.

LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.

OK, seriously, stop. Now.

OLEDs don't need backlight units. That's factually true. It in no way proves they are cheaper, will be cheaper, or have a cost-to-produce advantage of any kind. What? How do I know this?

Logic 101: The removal of an arbitrary component from the cost of manufacturing A is not related to the cost of manufacturing B. Example: Some laptops come without optical drives. They are "cheaper" if we look at them only with respect to the optical drive cost. Said laptops often contain SSDs however, which cost more. If we conclude, "laptops without optical drives are cheaper to produce than those with them because they lack optical drives" we would be wrong. This could even be cheap if optical-drive free laptops didn't have SSDs but tended to require more expensive materials to accommodate for their lightweight while maintaining rigidity. Or any of 10 billion other reasons.

When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely. But that's really a small factor. The billions and billions of LCDs that have been produced to date mean LCD production is fantastically mature and optimized and will continue to gain further optimization.

And therefore, LCDs will be less expensive to make than OLEDs for as far as the eye can see. And this will only change if one of two things happens (1) There is actually a discontinuous innovation in the production of OLEDs along the lines of the things you read about which don't see the light of day (2) OLEDs are eventually produced in similar volumes to LCDs.

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.
rogo is offline  
post #2084 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely.

AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.

Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.

And I wouldn't say indefinitely though But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013
specuvestor is offline  
post #2085 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:42 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.

The graph was the most telling...you said nothing of the blue LEDs in the post where you embedded the graph. And a "long lifetime" is rather relative. 20,000 hours? 50,000?
vinnie97 is offline  
post #2086 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 08:00 AM
Senior Member
 
guidryp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post
And I wouldn't say indefinitely though But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013
The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.

When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.
guidryp is offline  
post #2087 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MikeBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 1,022
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post
The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.

When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.
This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.
MikeBiker is offline  
post #2088 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:20 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones.

If you actually look at the chart you'd see that the iPhone 4 screen costs $29 to make while the same size OLED screen on the Nokia N8 costs $27. Which is LESS not more. And the even LARGER 3.7" OLED screens on the HTC Droid and Google Nexus cost even LESS at $24.

So where are you getting that OLED is more expensive from that chart?
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2089 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:21 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2090 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:23 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does

Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.

Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.


And Samsung is producing 3 million cellphone-sized AMOLEDs per month now and the already-paid-for and newly-built gen 5.5 factory is coming online in the next two months and will be ramping that production by a factor of 10 (with slight delays from the Japan earthquake/tsunami since some needed equipment shipments are delayed). So they'll be making 30 million/month. And that's just Samsung, not counting LG, AUO, etc who are also in the OLED game.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2091 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.

True, but even with that consumers are already willing to pay the premium to get an OLED screen because they're better. That's why they can't make the OLED screens fast enough. It's become a major differentiating factor in cellphones.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2092 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:31 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.

Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.

And I wouldn't say indefinitely though But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013

Most sources disagree with your pessimistic outlook on timeframe for cost-competitveness (and, as I've mentioned many consumers are willing to pay a premium for OLED (for obvious reasons)).

LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg...an-lcd-panels/

Samsung says by 2013-2014:

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...d-in-2013-2014
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2093 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:32 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post

The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

I find it slightly funny that you think sealing the screen from environmental contaminants (including water) is MORE relevant in a TV than in a mobile phone, which is much harsher environments in its lifetime.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2094 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 01:37 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post

This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.

Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2095 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 03:19 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7FP0E620110425

Quote:


S-LCD, a flat screen joint venture between Sony Corp and Samsung Electronics , said it would reduce capital by $555 million, as Sony struggles with perennial losses from its TV business and Samsung seeks to shift to a new type of display.

The global liquid crystal display (LCD) market is struggling with faltering demand, with some analysts forecasting the $100 billion LCD TV industry had already peaked last year and would shrink by 3-4 percent annually, as consumers in advanced countries have already traded their bulky tube TV sets to flat screens.

LCD is widely expected to give way to new displays such as energy-efficient active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED), which is increasingly used in high-end smartphones and tablets and touted as a future large-sized TV display.

In a statement on Monday, S-LCD, which supplies panels to Samsung and Sony, said the move was aimed at improving its capital structure.

The 50-50 LCD joint venture announced its first capital reduction of 600 billion won ($555 million) after more than tripling its capital to 3.9 trillion won since Sony and Samsung formed the venture in 2004 with 1.26 trillion won to ensure smooth supply of flat screens for Sony.

"The decision reflects shrinking demand from Sony after the devastating earthquake in Japan last month and the sector's overall shift in focus to OLED display," said Kim Sung-in, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities.

pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2096 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^^reducing capital is not the same as reducing capital expenditure. The JV has made enough profits which is why they can extract capital rather than dividends which usually does not attract tax. The JV doesn't need funds for expansion as it has been stagnant ever since relationship between Samsung and Sony soured. capital expenditure for the JV has been almost non existent, except for maintenance capex, for past 4 years or so.

Samsung had announced $4b capex each for both LCD and OLED, an increase YoY even for LCD. Samsung has also announced that they have also started their JV fab in China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/l...ld-lcd-hearts/

5 years ago OLED was PMOLED and that was a flop. OLED actually died and revived again with AMOLED about 2 years ago.

You are obviously an OLED fan, which I am one, but you also obviously have not been reading much of this thread, even the recent ones, to make such posts. I suggest you read up abit more on the issue to piece the puzzle rather than just focus on snippets here and there or what the companies said, especially LG. Engadget seems to agree with my pessimism with LG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg...an-lcd-panels/

Samsung says by 2013-2014:

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-...d-in-2013-2014

BTW Samsung did not say it will be PRICE competitive. OLED has a good chance of competing in TV with 200% premium in 2014, looking at the 2011 TV model pricing structure.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2097 of 10553 Old 04-28-2011, 05:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.

Quote:


Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.
Quote:


And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).

They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.

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.
rogo is offline  
post #2098 of 10553 Old 04-29-2011, 09:38 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.



No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.

Yeah, because lots of companies build and outfit 5 billion-dollar factories for producing OLED and then never make them. Why can't you simply admit that today's outlook for OLED isn't the same as it was 5 years ago? I suggest you read the Gabelli investment report on Universal Display with stock price targets of $75 this year, $95 for 2012, and $120 for 2013. All of those recommendations are based on the ramping predictions of OLED over that time, and affect Universal Display directly since they own almost all of the patents around OLED and the phosphoresent materials.


Quote:
They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.

So I guess the 2.2 Billion they spent last year to build the new gen 5.5 OLED plant that's coming online in the next two months (that will ramp monthly OLED screens of cellphone size by a factor of 10) doesn't count as "doing it"?
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2099 of 10553 Old 04-29-2011, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.

Now you're modifying your argument. You initially stated that OLEDs were more expensive than LCDs and now when shown to be incorrect, you suggest they're not comparable (even though they're the same size screens on cellphones). If I dig up pricing on the new Samsung Galaxy S2's screen (that Engadget just said is one of the best displays they've ever seen), and the pricing is comparable will you stop dissembling and backtracking on your positions?
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2100 of 10553 Old 04-29-2011, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
guidryp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post

This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.

It's funny because it's true.

OLED TV is one of those things perpetually 4 or 5 years in the future until it eventually shows up or doesn't, like SED.
guidryp is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Plasma Hdtv , Oled Tv , Lg , Samsung

User Tag List

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