OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 385 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Display Devices > OLED Technology and Flat Panels General > OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread

OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

stas3098's Avatar stas3098
10:13 AM Liked: 81
post #11521 of 11550
12-18-2014 | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
It's not even a part of the truth. Sure, a plasma 4K couldn't realistically be created as a viable product line, (physics and mother nature were in the way), but that's not what killed plasma. If 4K never ever existed, 2K plasma sales would have been dropping like the rock they were already dropping like. Not always for good reasons, people were just not buying them in large enough numbers.
There were no physics and mother nature in the way of 4K plasma TVs, continuously falling sales numbers and the emergence of OLED tech is what was in the way of 4K plasmas.


And like I said before you should think (even though it might prove to be mighty hard to think of OLED in such terms) of OLED as evolution of plasma. The catalyst in Emissive Displays has evolved from noble gases (plasma) to carbon-based electroluminescent matter (OLED), from gaseous to solid form, and other than that the idea behind them both has not changed much i.e. convert invisible light into visible light. The means are what have changed not the underlying principle... In fact, OLED TVs produced today are phosphor-based.
tgm1024's Avatar tgm1024
11:02 AM Liked: 971
post #11522 of 11550
12-18-2014 | Posts: 6,946
Joined: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
There were no physics and mother nature in the way of 4K plasma TVs,
Well, to be clear, technically yes there was if plasma were otherwise a healthy industry. There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale. Like many ideas in technology, it fits neatly in the category titled "you could do it, but you wouldn't want to". But yes, what killed off plasma was plasma, not the 4K.
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
01:24 PM Liked: 81
post #11523 of 11550
12-18-2014 | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Well, to be clear, technically yes there was if plasma were otherwise a healthy industry. There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale. Like many ideas in technology, it fits neatly in the category titled "you could do it, but you wouldn't want to". But yes, what killed off plasma was plasma, not the 4K.
4K Plasma was a stillborn idea in a sense that the production of 4K plasma TVs would be as economical as muon catalyzed fusion, however and howbeit it wouldn't be as unreal as cold fusion were...


Also there were problems with sourcing parts for plasmas.
NintendoManiac64's Avatar NintendoManiac64
10:52 PM Liked: 66
post #11524 of 11550
12-18-2014 | Posts: 388
Joined: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
There's a fundamental cell size limit below which power consumption does not sensibly scale.
In other words, the same reason Intel abandoned Netbust?
irkuck's Avatar irkuck
08:58 AM Liked: 73
post #11525 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 3,562
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Yes, fair. Of course, 800K is a huge leap from 2014's total. It's not a done deal by any means. The OLED revolution, at best, will be an evolution.
Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
10:47 AM Liked: 81
post #11526 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.
OLED (TV) may die in 2015, as well. By the looks of it OLED has gone through the terribly long and painful labor which came about on the heels of the rather natural death of its Emissive Display counterpart Plasma and it is still in a very precarious and unstable state.


The most important vital sign that should be closely monitored right now is the price new M2 OLEDs "street" at. I reckon that if the street price doesn't hit reasonable levels by H2 2015 then OLED might follow suit of its predecessors (CRT, Plasma and other stillborn techs, barring LCD of course).


P.S 2015 will make OLED or break it. The coming year is the year when all in the TV industry might change...
irkuck's Avatar irkuck
11:22 AM Liked: 73
post #11527 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 3,562
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
OLED (TV) may die in 2015, as well. By the looks of it OLED has gone through the terribly long and painful labor which came about on the heels of the rather natural death of its Emissive Display counterpart Plasma and it is still in a very precarious and unstable state. The most important vital sign that should be closely monitored right now is the price new M2 OLEDs "street" at. I reckon that if the street price doesn't hit reasonable levels by H2 2015 then OLED might follow suit of its predecessors (CRT, Plasma and other stillborn techs, barring LCD of course). P.S 2015 will make OLED or break it. The coming year is the year when all in the TV industry might change...
OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs.

Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13
12:03 PM Liked: 277
post #11528 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 4,217
Joined: Nov 2009
In this, two weeks old, article LG states that they have formed a new dedicated OLED division.

LG also state that they are working hard to minimize burn-in effects, researchers were working to permanently solve the issue. LG said that already commercialized products don't have the problem What does that mean? Only new products have the burn-in problem? Or only non-commercial products have the burn-in problem? Or does it means that because they are afraid of burn-in related lawsuits they say that already commercialized products do not have the problem ? What are they trying to say?? Looks like they admit that their OLED TVs have burn-in issues from were i stand
http://www.cnet.com/news/lg-forms-ne...oled-division/
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
12:12 PM Liked: 81
post #11529 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs.

Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.
Of course ,they won't shut down the fab in 2015 the production might even "seep" into 2017, but the thing is that OLED must be cheaper than (high-end) LCD (or equal to mid-range LCDs in price) to start gaining meaningful grounds needed to "justify" the continuation of (mass)production (the business LG is in) and if the projections don't look too good then you can expect the discontinuation of (mass)production as it happened with Plasma, CRT, GE kitchen appliances division etc.... as it will happen with Sony and Panasonic as soon as their contracts with their suppliers are up. For the moment they are trapped in the TV business, but as soon as the decision on whether or not to renew the supply contrasts comes about I'm pretty sure there's no chance in hell those contracts will ever get renewed. LG is also right now trapped in the OLED business until H1 2017 the time their last OLED supply contract is up and as far as I know most of their contracts are up for review in 2016 meaning 2015 will ultimately define whether or not any of these contracts will be renewed.


Like I said before no nobody is going to be making OLEDs if the game doesn't appear to be worth the candle.
wco81's Avatar wco81
12:29 PM Liked: 95
post #11530 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 4,585
Joined: May 2001
Read a blurb that LG will introduce a line of quantum dot TVs at CES.

So they're hedging their bets.
Ricoflashback's Avatar Ricoflashback
12:43 PM Liked: 87
post #11531 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 992
Joined: Jan 2012
All good points. If OLED cannot bring its price down relative to an LCD/LED display - - it will truly be a "niche" market. That doesn't sound very sustainable to me.

If I understand the Quantum Dot technology correctly, "the light emitting organic OLED molecules tend to degrade and are sensitive to humidity and oxidation. QD can support large, flexible displays but do not degrade."

QD/UHD/4K with OLED blacks and a 75" TV under $5K? We have a winner.....
sterlingjewel
01:17 PM Liked: 60
post #11532 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 238
Joined: Oct 2014
Quantum Dot (film) in its current incarnation does nothing for contrast ratio and will not get you "OLED blacks." All it will do is expand the color gamut capabilities (real useful with no content!). LCD is an insidious beast, as OLED is giving us the improvements in areas of PQ that are the most striking.
Ricoflashback's Avatar Ricoflashback
01:28 PM Liked: 87
post #11533 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 992
Joined: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingjewel View Post
Quantum Dot (film) in its current incarnation does nothing for contrast ratio and will not get you "OLED blacks." All it will do is expand the color gamut capabilities (real useful with no content!). LCD is an insidious beast, as OLED is giving us the improvements in areas of PQ that are the most striking.
O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?
sterlingjewel
01:49 PM Liked: 60
post #11534 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 238
Joined: Oct 2014
Save up and/or work on boosting that credit score. The only LCD I can envision owning is a FALD with as many or more zones than a Sharp Elite (Vizio R...if it ever comes, or maybe something from Samsung in 2015?). Ancillary to that, waiting patiently might be a tact to follow as well. LG had the 65" streeting for $6250 before they encountered a manufacturing snag.
barth2k's Avatar barth2k
01:53 PM Liked: 138
post #11535 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 3,303
Joined: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post
O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?
1/ (Q)LED 2/ front projection 3/ wait
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
02:12 PM Liked: 81
post #11536 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post
O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?
Then you are screwed.


By 2017-18 if all goes according to plan we might see first photo-alignment LCDs coming out. Those will have a slight contrast bump maybe up to 6000 to 8000 and they are also supposed to have CRT/5K Retina iMac good viewing angles and other than that I can't see any improvements in LCDs coming in the foreseeable future.
Ricoflashback's Avatar Ricoflashback
03:55 PM Liked: 87
post #11537 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 992
Joined: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback
O.K - so no improvement with QD in blacks and no real improvement until UHD/4K content.

If I can't afford an OLED TV in the size I want - 65" minimum, 75" preferred, what other alternatives do I have?


Then you are screwed.

Whoa, Cowboy...I wanna party with you! I thought my girlfriend only said that...

I was really looking forward to Plasma blacks without the buzz, heat & IR heartburn. And I have a credit score of 794 (LOL) but I do not want to mortgage the farm, so to speak, to get the OLED set I want. I'll keep the money, retire to Cozumel and buy a 55" OLED & spend the rest of the time studying the ga-zillion type of Tequilas out there.

I've been called a dreamer before. So here is my ideal setup - - 70" or 75" OLED for primary viewing and a 4K Projector for movies. I looked at my checking account and I'm gonna be a little light on making this happen. On the positive side, I do hold a Lotto ticket for this weekend.

Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa & Happy New Year to everyone! (No, I am NOT running for public office.)
rogo's Avatar rogo
06:06 PM Liked: 688
post #11538 of 11550
12-19-2014 | Posts: 30,466
Joined: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Reset, please. OLED starts only in 2015, period. What was before was experimental preproduction. Now the deal is done, OLED will carve itself market share. Challenging LCD? Only if the technology of printing OLED displays like newsprint arrives. At least such technology is not a fantasy anymore and optimists say it may come even in 2015.
Printable OLEDs may come in small quantities and small sizes in 2015. No one is going to even demonstrate a large-size printable OLED that is based on technology that will be usable for manufacturing.

The only printing tech close to mass production ready is from Kateeva of Silicon Valley. It is in the hands of one customer who is ostensibly gearing up to use it for flexible displays for some kind of mobile device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
OLED dying in 2015 is unlikely just because LG has not built the new plant to close it immediately. Pricing is of course absolutely critical and LG will do whatever it takes to sell all production. They must be prepared for long march to recuperate investment (profitability of TV business is low so there is nothing to talk about) and get a lead in this technology before Samsung potentially comes back with printed OLEDs.
Again, in TV the first pilot line for TV is no sooner than deep into 2016, quite possibly later.
Quote:
Now the question is: What is the possible premium which OLED can carry over (high-end) LCD price? It is evident that if OLED and LCD prices would be equal people will select OLED. The game is how much can be added to the price for getting enough people buying the initial 800 000 sets? I am convinced LG is ready to set for such a price.
Quick math: The TV market is ~240M. Of that, the 55+ category is <40M. (Let's just go generous). Of that the premium segment is not more than 10%.

If we add in another generosity / error factor, that leaves us with a global market size for 55+ premium sets of 6M maximum.

Now, we are talking the whole premium segment here, which starts below $2000 and includes much larger sizes. For every dollar you price above the competition, you lose some sales. To sell 15% of the total in this segment -- while failing to compete in huge swaths of it (70s, 80s, sub $2000 premiums) -- you cannot possibly price even 30% above the competition. The correct number is likely at most 10%.

Realistically, if LG had price parity tomorrow, it would not capture anywhere near 50% share of the segment next year. There are critical reasons why:

1) LG cannot make more than 2 million TVs next year. And it cannot make 2 million in one year until full production is attained. So the maximum production is a constraint.

2) LG does not have the shelf space, marketing, brand, distribution to just wipe out the competition.

3) LG does not have an offering in the 70-plus category (unless it also reached sub $4000 at that size) that would be competitive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
Of course ,they won't shut down the fab in 2015 the production might even "seep" into 2017, but the thing is that OLED must be cheaper than (high-end) LCD (or equal to mid-range LCDs in price) to start gaining meaningful grounds needed to "justify" the continuation of (mass)production (the business LG is in) and if the projections don't look too good then you can expect the discontinuation of (mass)production as it happened with Plasma, CRT, GE kitchen appliances division etc.... as it will happen with Sony and Panasonic as soon as their contracts with their suppliers are up. For the moment they are trapped in the TV business, but as soon as the decision on whether or not to renew the supply contrasts comes about I'm pretty sure there's no chance in hell those contracts will ever get renewed. LG is also right now trapped in the OLED business until H1 2017 the time their last OLED supply contract is up and as far as I know most of their contracts are up for review in 2016 meaning 2015 will ultimately define whether or not any of these contracts will be renewed.
This is a bleak assessment, but I agree with one part of it: To actually push volumes, the price needs to literally equal or eclipse the equivalent LCD it is trying to displace. Even "a little more" means relatively small share. Relatively small share means no long-term OLED business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoflashback View Post
All good points. If OLED cannot bring its price down relative to an LCD/LED display - - it will truly be a "niche" market. That doesn't sound very sustainable to me.
It isn't. Look back at those numbers above. You probably need OLED TV at 10% of the overall TV market for it feel comfortable. That's 25 million, perhaps within 5-7 years. That feels like an ecosystem that's sustainable. Maybe 15 million will do it. 1-2 million will certainly not.
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
06:36 AM Liked: 81
post #11539 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

This is a bleak assessment, but I agree with one part of it: To actually push volumes, the price needs to literally equal or eclipse the equivalent LCD it is trying to displace. Even "a little more" means relatively small share. Relatively small share means no long-term OLED business.



It isn't. Look back at those numbers above. You probably need OLED TV at 10% of the overall TV market for it feel comfortable. That's 25 million, perhaps within 5-7 years. That feels like an ecosystem that's sustainable. Maybe 15 million will do it. 1-2 million will certainly not.
Bleak but not unreasonable for I am fairly sure LG will exercise caution on this one and they won't get into 5 year long contracts until they are sure OLED is a winner...


P.S Samsung's OLED supply contracts extend until H1 2018 and this means they are in it for a long haul and for LCD some of their contracts go as far as 2020.
ALMA's Avatar ALMA
07:41 AM Liked: 31
post #11540 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 682
Joined: Sep 2006
Quote:
Recently, there has been a rumor that the performance and quality of Quantum Dot (QD) display and OLED display are not that different. To prove it wrong, LG Display Newsroom has prepared an explanation to why OLED, the best of all display technology today, is superior to QD, which is based on LCD technology.
Quote:
For LCD TV, 70% of the production cost is from the materials. On the other hand, the cost for LCD, the cost goes down because it does not need backlight unit, color filter, polarized film, etc. This is a potential advantage in terms of cost. Right now, the market for OLED is relatively small and the demand is low, so the consumer price is relatively high. Thus, QD is more competitive than OLED in terms of price. However, the market size for OLED is increasing very rapidly, and as LG Display has started operating a new production line (E4 line) in Korea, the production cost is reduced and the price is expected to be stabilized. Within one or two years, it is expected that the consumer price for OLED will be competitive.
http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
08:23 AM Liked: 81
post #11541 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
From what I've heard QD can ,in theory, cover the whole visible spectrum.


Here's a good comprehensive must-read review of QD and by now it is pretty much clear that QD LCDs will have much wider color gamut and more accurate color reproduction than OLEDs also with the introduction of photo-alignment in LCD production (Apple's 5K monitor is the first commercial LCD to ever use photo-alignment) we'll finally have much better viewing angles and if you add a 10,000 zone FALD backlight in the mix we will have a winner on our hands and let us now take a moment here to cherish a faint hope that OLED might usher such an LCD into existence even if it doesn't make it big...


http://spie.org/x106493.xml
irkuck's Avatar irkuck
08:30 AM Liked: 73
post #11542 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 3,562
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
Of course ,they won't shut down the fab in 2015 the production might even "seep" into 2017, but the thing is that OLED must be cheaper than (high-end) LCD (or equal to mid-range LCDs in price) to start gaining meaningful grounds needed to "justify" the continuation of (mass)production (the business LG is in)
Eh, no, parity or undercutting LCD prices would be needed to grab significant part of the LCD market. For which there are not manufacturing capabilities even. Selling ~1 mln OLEDs is possible with reasonable overhead over LCD prices - to the small segment of consumers who care about black levels and brilliance of colors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Printable OLEDs may come in small quantities and small sizes in 2015. No one is going to even demonstrate a large-size printable OLED that is based on technology that will be usable for manufacturing. The only printing tech close to mass production ready is from Kateeva of Silicon Valley. It is in the hands of one customer who is ostensibly gearing up to use it for flexible displays for some kind of mobile device.Again, in TV the first pilot line for TV is no sooner than deep into 2016, quite possibly later.
As far as I remember pitches from Kateeva were about printing on huge rolls of plastic???

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
This is a bleak assessment, but I agree with one part of it: To actually push volumes, the price needs to literally equal or eclipse the equivalent LCD it is trying to displace. Even "a little more" means relatively small share. Relatively small share means no long-term OLED business.
It isn't. Look back at those numbers above. You probably need OLED TV at 10% of the overall TV market for it feel comfortable. That's 25 million, perhaps within 5-7 years. That feels like an ecosystem that's sustainable. Maybe 15 million will do it. 1-2 million will certainly not.
You guys are trying to run ahead of reality. Reality now is that LG has manufacturing power for ~1 mln OLEDs in 2015 so talking about grabbing comfortable market shares is premature. The talk can be only about the prices LG may be able to sell them, prices which will minimize their loss (or treat them as initial investment to kickstart the market). How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
11:07 AM Liked: 81
post #11543 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?
Yes, it is the billion dollar question.
wco81's Avatar wco81
11:25 AM Liked: 95
post #11544 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 4,585
Joined: May 2001
I wonder what the ASP of all TVs sold is, for the US, globally.

US would probably have higher than global ASPs, since more larger displays are sold here.

We're probably not talking about percent over the ASPs of LCDs, more like multiples of.
ALMA's Avatar ALMA
12:53 PM Liked: 31
post #11545 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 682
Joined: Sep 2006
Quote:
we'll finally have much better viewing angles and if you add a 10,000 zone
A much more complicated backlight system never made LCD cheaper. OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials and with LG we are talking about the biggest panel maker in the world ( the iMac-Display is an LG display). LG's goal is to transform their LCD manufacturing plants to OLED. QDot's not changing this, not as backlight option for LCD.

Quote:
However, OLED is a display technology that is most suitable for creating flexible, transparent, and roll-able future displays. OLED?s processing temperature is relatively low, so it is possible to use a plastic substrate instead of a glass one, which is good for creating a flexible display. Furthermore, since it does not need a backlight, compared to other displays, it is most optimized to create a transparent display.

In fact, OLED technology is the technology that is so much advanced that it should not be compared to an LCD based QD. Hence, even though LG already has the technology to create QD, it is focusing on developing OLED.
http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

Make this with your QDot-LCD, lol:

http://www.oled-info.com/royole-show...oled-prototype
stas3098's Avatar stas3098
01:56 PM Liked: 81
post #11546 of 11550
Yesterday | Posts: 383
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMA View Post
A much more complicated backlight system never made LCD cheaper. OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials and with LG we are talking about the biggest panel maker in the world ( the iMac-Display is an LG display). LG's goal is to transform their LCD manufacturing plants to OLED. QDot's not changing this, not as backlight option for LCD.



http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

Make this with your QDot-LCD, lol:

http://www.oled-info.com/royole-show...oled-prototype
It was just one of those if-LCD-implemented-right-it-could-be-somethin' moments.
rogo's Avatar rogo
12:26 AM Liked: 688
post #11547 of 11550
Today | Posts: 30,466
Joined: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Eh, no, parity or undercutting LCD prices would be needed to grab significant part of the LCD market. For which there are not manufacturing capabilities even. Selling ~1 mln OLEDs is possible with reasonable overhead over LCD prices - to the small segment of consumers who care about black levels and brilliance of colors.
Yes. The keys here however are:

1) What's "reasonable"?

2) You can never sell 5 million at any premium.

3) To sell 10 million anytime soon, you will need a price advantage.

Quote:
As far as I remember pitches from Kateeva were about printing on huge rolls of plastic???
You've been pitched by Kateeva? Cool!

And no. Kateeva's current big deal is thin-film encapsulation to enable flexible displays. But they are certainly not giving up on the TV market down the road.
Quote:
You guys are trying to run ahead of reality. Reality now is that LG has manufacturing power for ~1 mln OLEDs in 2015 so talking about grabbing comfortable market shares is premature.
Grabbing 1 million of what I've shown is a not-very-big segment isn't just free. And every dollar of premium shrinks the possible segment in which LG's OLED operates.
Quote:
The talk can be only about the prices LG may be able to sell them, prices which will minimize their loss (or treat them as initial investment to kickstart the market). How much premium they can charge over the high-end LCDs? 10%, 25%.... 50% is the threshold of pain for selling 1 mln OLEDs?
50% over what? 1080p OLEDs at 50% over reasonably good 4K LCDs? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 65-inch flagship TVs that run $4500? Sales = close to zero.

50% over 1080p LCDs that are $1500? Sure, I can see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMA View Post
OLED is a much more simpler construction than every LC panel, so it's cheaper to produce with less raw materials
This is a canard. It's one of those claims that sounds intuitively correct -- it has fewer parts and less materials, therefore it's cheaper to make -- that has no basis in reality. It will only ever be true if it's also true that OLED is being produced in quantities resembling LCD quantities. It's never true when the world demands 225 million LCD TVs and 275 million LCD computer screens but demands 2 million OLED TVs and 0 OLED computer screens. And, no, smartphones don't change this because, again, Samsung's manufacturing technique doesn't scale outside of mobile and isn't being used by LG or any contemplated TV marker.
irkuck's Avatar irkuck
04:05 AM Liked: 73
post #11548 of 11550
Today | Posts: 3,562
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Yes. The keys here however are:
1) What's "reasonable"?
2) You can never sell 5 million at any premium.
3) To sell 10 million anytime soon, you will need a price advantage.

50% over what? 1080p OLEDs at 50% over reasonably good 4K LCDs? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 65-inch flagship TVs that run $4500? Sales = close to zero. 50% over 1080p LCDs that are $1500? Sure, I can see it.
I do not know what is reasonable overhead but I think with sales of 1 mln there is overhead possible. At this point the overhead has to be calculated over high-end LCD, as you indicate it might in the range of 10-25%. This is quite limited but reduces LG investment into sales.

I fully agree that for 5 mln sales price parity is needed and at 10 mln price advantage is a must. This however is a headache for LG when they are done with selling the first million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
You've been pitched by Kateeva? Cool! And no. Kateeva's current big deal is thin-film encapsulation to enable flexible displays. But they are certainly not giving up on the TV market down the road.
If there is no Samsung-Kateeva in 2015 then LG will establish itself as the OLED company. It will be even harder for competitors to get in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
This is a canard. It's one of those claims that sounds intuitively correct -- it has fewer parts and less materials, therefore it's cheaper to make -- that has no basis in reality. It will only ever be true if it's also true that OLED is being produced in quantities resembling LCD quantities. It's never true when the world demands 225 million LCD TVs and 275 million LCD computer screens but demands 2 million OLED TVs and 0 OLED computer screens. And, no, smartphones don't change this because, again, Samsung's manufacturing technique doesn't scale outside of mobile and isn't being used by LG or any contemplated TV marker.
Claims that OLED is simpler since it has less parts is unreal. In fact LCD is hugely simpler due to the ingenious dividing between the light control and generation by backlight. One can say OLED is much more complicated but this becomes evident on atomic/molecular level
NintendoManiac64's Avatar NintendoManiac64
12:42 PM Liked: 66
post #11549 of 11550
Today | Posts: 388
Joined: Feb 2012
Perhaps it is more complicated to design but simpler to manufacture?
rogo's Avatar rogo
01:36 PM Liked: 688
post #11550 of 11550
Today | Posts: 30,466
Joined: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
I do not know what is reasonable overhead but I think with sales of 1 mln there is overhead possible. At this point the overhead has to be calculated over high-end LCD, as you indicate it might in the range of 10-25%. This is quite limited but reduces LG investment into sales.
Good point. It does cost much less to sell a small number than a huge number, irkuck.
Quote:
I fully agree that for 5 mln sales price parity is needed and at 10 mln price advantage is a must. This however is a headache for LG when they are done with selling the first million.
Absolutely agree there. One problem at a time.

Quote:
If there is no Samsung-Kateeva in 2015 then LG will establish itself as the OLED company. It will be even harder for competitors to get in.
TV-sized printables are not coming in 2015. Period. The 2016 timeframe is the earliest. Whether the Kateeva tech will allow leapfrogging what LG has achieved by then I don't know.

Quote:
Claims that OLED is simpler since it has less parts is unreal. In fact LCD is hugely simpler due to the ingenious dividing between the light control and generation by backlight. One can say OLED is much more complicated but this becomes evident on atomic/molecular level
Yeah, I've never understood this. There is almost no real-life correlation between number of parts and / or raw materials cost and finished-goods price. There is so much more that goes into cost than those two factors, which is why I've called the "OLED is cheaper, because..." claim a canard for some time. You posit it in a different matter that isn't so much about cost, but does show that simplicity isn't so simple.
Tags: Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Plasma Hdtv , Oled Tv , Lg , Samsung

Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3