Originally Posted by rogo
The current street price of the putative 65-inch is not completely clear to me. But let's say it's $10K at big box, which seems correct. I don't believe that's a very real price either. I suspect sales will be beneath measurement as you can purchase very good 65-inch TVs for 1/2 or less that and the idea that there's a pent-up demand for premium TVs has been proved false time and again. Once LG makes a price move on that to get it going somewhere, I think we can use that figure to start building a pricing curve.
I believe I represent both the lowest-common-denominator type of consumer and a sometimes-bleeding-edge-tech consumer. I bought into SACD/DVD-A in 1998-ish, HD DVD in 2006 (and BD in 2007), I bought one of the first consumer-priced 3D DLP projectors in 2010.
On the other hand, I just bought a 65" LED-LCD TV for the family room from a Black Friday sale for $650. I don't need great contrast and super-accurate colors for this TV. It is just a big TV to watch cable and the odd BD when we don't feel like firing up the Home Theater.
For me, OLED is going to have to be around the same price as a mid-tier-performing LCD to make it worth my while. It is just way too easy to spend a whole lot less for 90% performance. And I have to believe that I represent a higher-than-average tech-savviness compared to the average consumer.
Sure, some of my engineer/geek techie co-workers might pony up the extra dough for an OLED display, but most won't.
I think LG and any other players are going to plan to take a bath, bottom-line-wise, from OLED tech for the first few years, on the assumption/hope/prediction that eventually it will be no less costly to produce OLED than LED-LCD. OLED will be a loss-leader to draw consumer interest into the tech, and then two or three years from now will be when a sea-change in consumer purchases will cause OLED to flourish or to die off as "not worth the extra cost".
Originally Posted by rogo
A good way to understand this is to think about sales. When we say, "Sales doubled" that could be impressive or a meaningless boast. If it's impressive, it's because we started with a decent number and sold twice that. "LG sold 1 million OLEDs in 2016 and 2 million in 2017." That's impressive.
This, by contrast, is nothing short of idiotic:
I once heard of a large tech/telecom company that would kill off profitable programs/products simply because they weren't growing at the desired rate - heck, they might have even flat-lined, and it didn't matter if they were pulling in 20% or higher margin. Thus, all that would be left would be money-losing products/programs, but they were all "growing" at double-digit or more rates, which was supposed to look good to Wall Street investors.
As a result, I am very leery of any company that speaks of "growth" without discussion of margin/profit.